Re: Chrome processing

[P3D John Fairstein <jfairstein@xxxxxxx>]

I ran several commercial E-6 processes back in the 80s, 2 sink lines
with manual replenishment and 1 roller transport with automatic
replenishment. In all cases I used control strips and a densitometer to
monitor the process -- usually on a twice daily basis. After 2 or 3
months, each processer seemed to arrive at a state of equilibrium 

Although you can force a process to Kodak's or Fuji's exact specs, it
seems to me that it is better to let it stabilize and find the best
pattern of replenishment. This gives you predictable results which
commercial photographers favor. I don't think many labs serving
commercial photographers could survive scrimping on chemistry. Plus, if
a processor gets too far out of control, you must "dump" which is very
costly.

If I shot E-6 chromes today, I would look for a lab with a dip and dunk
machine, dial-in auto replenishment, and Kodak Q-lab certification (or
Fuji equivalent). Certification implies a periodic audit by Kodak people
with more sophisticated lab equipment.

But I never shoot E-6 films in my stereo camera because the distinct
non-stereo grain pattern which shows up in the sky or other broad
uniform surfaces really annoys me. I use Kodachrome because the grain is
not so distinct. In my youth I favored the K25, but now I buy K64 at
K-Mart (look for a 6 month expire date) and take it to Walgreens for
processing. They send it to the Dallas Kodak lab.

A few years ago I remember Kodachrome "green" problems. Could the intro
of Kodachrome in 120 size have something to do with these problems?
There were also some problems with mounting. I have one K-slide where
the L is upside down with respect to the R. But lately my film comes
back OK.

John
http://user.icx.net/~jfairstein/3d.html


------------------------------