Jump to content


Photo

3 step E6 Vs 6 Step E6


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Jack Honeycutt

Jack Honeycutt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 August 2005 - 10:42 PM

Folks...

I have heard of 3 step E6 processing and 6 step E6 processing. As it relates to movie film, is one process better than another? That is to say, all other things being equal, will the final results looks about the same?

I need a "E6 Processing For Dummies" book. Can anyone recomend a web site or book to me?

Thanks.

jack
  • 0

#2 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 08 August 2005 - 07:55 AM

It should make no difference, results should be identical unless there are some problems with either.

The difference is that you can adjust PH in the color developer in the 6-step process, which kind of gives you more control, if you care for it.

Also, 3-step process is sometimes known to have trouble when you mix different films, for example put Fuji in the machine, then put Kodak, the problem is a color cast, usually magenta. But this has nothing to do with you since you are going to be processing motion picture film, and there is only one brand at the moment.

So again, yes, both processes were designed to make identical results.
  • 0

#3 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 08 August 2005 - 10:55 AM

Folks...

I have heard of 3 step E6 processing and 6 step E6 processing.  As it relates to movie film, is one process better than another? That is to say, all other things being equal, will the final results looks about the same?

I need a "E6 Processing For Dummies" book.  Can anyone recomend a web site or book to me?

Thanks.

jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Here is the "official" Kodak information for E-6 processing:

http://www.kodak.com...ilmE6main.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com...uals/z119.shtml

http://www.kodak.com...2.14.3.28&lc=en

"Simplified" processing sequences may not yield consistent results, and are usually more prone to undesireable interactions and cross-solution contamination issues.
  • 0

#4 Jack Honeycutt

Jack Honeycutt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 August 2005 - 12:55 PM

"Simplified" processing sequences may not yield consistent results, and are usually more prone to undesireable interactions and cross-solution contamination issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the links John. By Simplified, do you mean 3 step E6 processing?

jack
  • 0

#5 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 08 August 2005 - 03:10 PM

Thanks for the links John.  By Simplified, do you mean 3 step E6 processing?

jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yes. AFAIK, Kodak does not offer 3-solution E-6 process, for good reason.
  • 0


Ritter Battery

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Opal

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

CineLab

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider