Very informative. Thanks for the work! Edit: after using this kit two different times I have to insist that nobody buy it. It will ruin your film. Slides come out super dense and dark with a weird color cast. I can't believe this isn't a huge scandal.
This concerns use of the Lab-Box for the E-6 or other color process. Temperature control and maintenance for tank processing of E-6 requires high temperature, 100 F, more or less. A hot water bath is the usual means to do that, submerging the chemical bottles and processing tank during use. Here, he is doing that with a Lab-Box. Since the LB does not seal on top, he is taking care to avoid any water bath spillage over the top edge of the tank, as that would flood into the chemicals inside the tank. This may do the job of temperature control, but it creates a separate issue with the Lab-Box itself. Note that I was a Kickstarter of Lab-Box and have the whole package. Many errors seem to have been made designing the details of the LB, then corrected during the run-up to manufacture. Example: The entire reel system was scraped and replaced so close to the start of manufacture that the original manuals still describe and picture assembly of the abandoned reels. This seems to have led to much cost scrimping toward the end, even though they took in 6 times the money they sought, but ran out of funds and were unable to completely fulfill their Kickstarter commitments. The problem comes from submerging the LB in 35mm configuration. That 35mm module has a metal knife to cut the film from the cartridge when loaded. The dumbest cluck could have said, "Use stainless steel." But they did not. Therefore, the knife rusts when it gets wet, as when you put the tank in a water bath. The knife is internal to the 35mm module, so you cannot keep it from getting wet or dry it promptly to avoid rust. This does not apply to the 120 configuration, which could be fully disassembled and dried after each use. Solution: Do not use the LB for color film processing.
I agree a stainless-steel blade would have been better, but you can in fact access the knife blade by removing four cross-point screws on the inside face of the 35mm module. (Reassembly is a bit fiddly... but EVERYTHING on the Lab-Box is a bit fiddly, innit?) I like to dry off the blade and give it a wipe with light oil after every immersion processing session -- which I admit I don't do frequently. Most of my use of the Lab-Box is for b&w, which doesn't require immersion, and I remove the module before washing the film to keep water out of it.
I use a mirrorless camera, a macro lens, and a slightly hacked version of the Lomography Digitaliza Max film-holding thingie. I'm not sure it's the most cost-effective solution, but I'm doing okay with it. Details of the hacking are in this video: ua-cam.com/video/O0kQ2NLtl-Y/v-deo.htmlsi=MfBuakOsIBeHEvLM
I've got a build sheet here: jlwilliams.us/robo-box.pdf. There's also a how-to video on my channel, but all the info you really need is on the sheet. Remember that this is very much a “maker” project: feel free to adapt the build to your own skills and interests (for example, I'll bet someone with a 3D printer could print some of the parts I had to buy) and be prepared to experiment and make adjustments to get it to work the way you want. It took some fiddling to get mine to behave, but now it's 100% reliable and I use it every time I process film in the Lab-Box. Also, another commenter warned me that he wasn't able to order the small pulley because it's out of stock, but I'm hoping that was only temporary; if not, you might need to adapt a different pulley.
Cinestill doesn't recommend re-using the first developer at all; they say: "1st Developers are weakened after a single-use and should be used only once, whereas the other 2 baths may be reused multiple times before any loss of quality." But they also say you can develop as many as 50% more rolls as long as you do it within 2-3 days of mixing the chemicals AND you're willing to decide how much quality loss you can tolerate. You can read the instruction sheet here and see what you think: cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0339/5113/files/CS6_instructions_25dfbef0-f1e1-4fe7-841b-dc4ece42c184.pdf?v=1590215645
The latest revision to the instruction sheet calls those steps "rinses." I think six changes of water would be enough for that, since the only purpose is to get the previous solution residue off the film. For the final wash, they call for more than 6 minutes or more than 10 changes of water.
I tried it once, but on a super-outdated roll of film, so I couldn't really judge it by the results (which were awful.) Has anybody else tried it? Comment up if you know more!
Great video. Haven't seen anyone using E-6 with Lab-box on UA-cam. I'm curious, would you consider making another one of those robo-agitators? If not too expensive, I'd consider purchasing one. BTW, have you seen Are-imago finally released their Pro lid?
Thanks for the interest, but I really think it's better if people make it themselves -- that way you know what to do if you need to do some custom fitting or adjusting to get it to work. Also, if you happen to be good at, say, woodworking or 3D printing, you can use your own skills to improve the design. I deliberately kept it super-simple to allow scope for improvements. There's another video on the site about how to make it (ua-cam.com/video/Q7-vOVZeiio/v-deo.html). The "hard parts" (gear motor, hub, pulley wheel) are about $30 from a hobby robotics supplier, and the rest is just random stuff like a brass strip and zip-ties. I did see that Ars Imago released the Pro Lid, and I'm not in a hurry to buy one, but it did make sense after I thought about it. I think the main appeal of the Lab-Box is that it's a very tidy process, and the Pro Lid makes it even tidier because it's a one-piece solution. You no longer need to buy and store a separate thermometer and timer -- just pull the Lab-Box out of a drawer and you've got everything you need for developing except a sink, a measuring cup, and your chemistry. What I'd really like to see from Ars Imago is a factory version of my robo-agitator! They could do a really nice job of it by making a knob that would take a cogged belt drive and molding the motor into the lid. Combine that with the thermometer and timers in the existing Pro-Lid and you'd just about have a desktop auto film processor! Thanks again for your interest.
@@jlwilliams YES! together with a sous vide it would be a perfect replacement for the jobo developer. compact, inexpensive. if they build it and sell it at a fair price i would buy it for sure. for the moment i get by with your project ;-)
@@kottize The Pro Lid has been available for some time, although that may be limited to vendors which represent Lab Box in the US. Freestyle in LA sells it at this time (2/22). As with all things L-B, it is over-priced at around $90. I got one because I was in the Kickstater group. It really is quite a trick, replacing both thermometer and adding a programmable sequence timer.
I haven't tried it with those. I assume the kit will develop any film designed for the E-6 process, but how you like the results will depend on personal taste. If you try it, post back and let us know what you think!
A stabilizer is still specified both by Kodak and Fuji. There were some dye changes in years past, but those changes did nothing to effect the need for a stabilizer. So why do some kit makers, mainly Tetenol, omit stabilizer in some of their kits? Ask 'em. The truth is that any time you make a kit like this seem easier to use, it is more marketable. By combining solutions/functions or eliminating stabilizer, the kit is easier to use and sell. Omission of a stabilizer as the final bath for E-6 (or C-41) will not have an immediate effect on dye preservation, but you will get fade or color shifts over an extended period of time. The makers seem to think that most all of their customers will not revisit their film/slides or are just not critical enough to notice the difference. No idea where this stuff about stabilizer being formed early in the process comes from, but its chemical nonsense. The whole point of stabilizer is that it is the last step in the process. If formed in the middle of the process, it would just be later washed out of the film and have no permanent effect.
I'm quoting what CineStill says in their product instruction sheet. They don't claim stabilizer is "formed early in the process" -- they say "Modern color films have “Stabilizers” in the emulsion, released by the conditioner in the Bleaches&Fixer Bath" (i.e. the final bath)..."Film more than 20 years old may require a formalin or formaldehyde based Stabilizer preservative." You can download the instruction sheet, safety data sheet, and a comparison between 3-bath home user kits and 6-bath processing lab kits at the product info page: cinestill.film/collections/cs6-crea/products/cs6-creative-slide-3-bath-process-for-color-timing-chrome-reversal-and-e-6-compatible-film Then you can decide what to believe or disbelieve based on specific claims and data.
@@jlwilliams While something like that applies to C-41 films and process, this does not apply to E-6. Interestingly, it also does not apply to ECN-2 films, which is what Cinestill sells as their color negative film. Cinestill appears to favor marketing hypo over the technology, probably for the reason I first noted. If this really concerns you, I invite you to look up Kodak's ECN-2 formulas, which are readily available on line.
@@b6983832 Quite so. While there are quality risks using the three bath E-6 kits right out of the box, those risk greatly increase as you reuse the chemicals, because with each use, more of the active agents are consumed, and more of the waste products of the process are added to the mix. Probably the main risk of error is in reuse of the first developer, because its action on the several emulsions sets up the color balance for the final outcome. The other steps are much less sensitive to temperature, pH of the solutions, and other factors, so long as the film is in the solutions long enough for the chemical process to complete.
I don’t understand why this channel has only 1.24k subscribers. It should be at least 12.4k and for me 124k is reasonable and uncomfortable. Way Under-Rated.
Very informative. Thanks for the work!
Edit: after using this kit two different times I have to insist that nobody buy it. It will ruin your film. Slides come out super dense and dark with a weird color cast. I can't believe this isn't a huge scandal.
Maybe you just messed up?
Great effort, thank you very much!!
This concerns use of the Lab-Box for the E-6 or other color process. Temperature control and maintenance for tank processing of E-6 requires high temperature, 100 F, more or less. A hot water bath is the usual means to do that, submerging the chemical bottles and processing tank during use. Here, he is doing that with a Lab-Box. Since the LB does not seal on top, he is taking care to avoid any water bath spillage over the top edge of the tank, as that would flood into the chemicals inside the tank. This may do the job of temperature control, but it creates a separate issue with the Lab-Box itself. Note that I was a Kickstarter of Lab-Box and have the whole package. Many errors seem to have been made designing the details of the LB, then corrected during the run-up to manufacture. Example: The entire reel system was scraped and replaced so close to the start of manufacture that the original manuals still describe and picture assembly of the abandoned reels. This seems to have led to much cost scrimping toward the end, even though they took in 6 times the money they sought, but ran out of funds and were unable to completely fulfill their Kickstarter commitments. The problem comes from submerging the LB in 35mm configuration. That 35mm module has a metal knife to cut the film from the cartridge when loaded. The dumbest cluck could have said, "Use stainless steel." But they did not. Therefore, the knife rusts when it gets wet, as when you put the tank in a water bath. The knife is internal to the 35mm module, so you cannot keep it from getting wet or dry it promptly to avoid rust. This does not apply to the 120 configuration, which could be fully disassembled and dried after each use. Solution: Do not use the LB for color film processing.
I agree a stainless-steel blade would have been better, but you can in fact access the knife blade by removing four cross-point screws on the inside face of the 35mm module. (Reassembly is a bit fiddly... but EVERYTHING on the Lab-Box is a bit fiddly, innit?) I like to dry off the blade and give it a wipe with light oil after every immersion processing session -- which I admit I don't do frequently. Most of my use of the Lab-Box is for b&w, which doesn't require immersion, and I remove the module before washing the film to keep water out of it.
this is an awesome video, I'm curious as to what set up you use for scanning? I have a rinky dink scanner that is awful and need an alternative
I use a mirrorless camera, a macro lens, and a slightly hacked version of the Lomography Digitaliza Max film-holding thingie. I'm not sure it's the most cost-effective solution, but I'm doing okay with it. Details of the hacking are in this video: ua-cam.com/video/O0kQ2NLtl-Y/v-deo.htmlsi=MfBuakOsIBeHEvLM
Hi, mhmmm interesting solution that of the robot...could you provide some information on how you did it? Thanks
I've got a build sheet here: jlwilliams.us/robo-box.pdf. There's also a how-to video on my channel, but all the info you really need is on the sheet. Remember that this is very much a “maker” project: feel free to adapt the build to your own skills and interests (for example, I'll bet someone with a 3D printer could print some of the parts I had to buy) and be prepared to experiment and make adjustments to get it to work the way you want. It took some fiddling to get mine to behave, but now it's 100% reliable and I use it every time I process film in the Lab-Box.
Also, another commenter warned me that he wasn't able to order the small pulley because it's out of stock, but I'm hoping that was only temporary; if not, you might need to adapt a different pulley.
@@jlwilliams WOOW answer in real time :-) thanks! i'm going to read right now
By chance would you know what the development times would be after the first roll is developed? C41 chems has an equation t = (140/40-n).
Cinestill doesn't recommend re-using the first developer at all; they say: "1st Developers are weakened after a single-use and should be used only once, whereas the other 2 baths may be reused multiple times before any loss of quality." But they also say you can develop as many as 50% more rolls as long as you do it within 2-3 days of mixing the chemicals AND you're willing to decide how much quality loss you can tolerate. You can read the instruction sheet here and see what you think: cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0339/5113/files/CS6_instructions_25dfbef0-f1e1-4fe7-841b-dc4ece42c184.pdf?v=1590215645
6 changes of water instead of 60 seconds running water is that they call wash ? Some kits say 60 seconds wash
The latest revision to the instruction sheet calls those steps "rinses." I think six changes of water would be enough for that, since the only purpose is to get the previous solution residue off the film. For the final wash, they call for more than 6 minutes or more than 10 changes of water.
Thanks for the video! Have you tried 1:2 dilution as well?
I tried it once, but on a super-outdated roll of film, so I couldn't really judge it by the results (which were awful.) Has anybody else tried it? Comment up if you know more!
Great video. Haven't seen anyone using E-6 with Lab-box on UA-cam. I'm curious, would you consider making another one of those robo-agitators? If not too expensive, I'd consider purchasing one. BTW, have you seen Are-imago finally released their Pro lid?
Thanks for the interest, but I really think it's better if people make it themselves -- that way you know what to do if you need to do some custom fitting or adjusting to get it to work. Also, if you happen to be good at, say, woodworking or 3D printing, you can use your own skills to improve the design. I deliberately kept it super-simple to allow scope for improvements. There's another video on the site about how to make it (ua-cam.com/video/Q7-vOVZeiio/v-deo.html). The "hard parts" (gear motor, hub, pulley wheel) are about $30 from a hobby robotics supplier, and the rest is just random stuff like a brass strip and zip-ties.
I did see that Ars Imago released the Pro Lid, and I'm not in a hurry to buy one, but it did make sense after I thought about it. I think the main appeal of the Lab-Box is that it's a very tidy process, and the Pro Lid makes it even tidier because it's a one-piece solution. You no longer need to buy and store a separate thermometer and timer -- just pull the Lab-Box out of a drawer and you've got everything you need for developing except a sink, a measuring cup, and your chemistry.
What I'd really like to see from Ars Imago is a factory version of my robo-agitator! They could do a really nice job of it by making a knob that would take a cogged belt drive and molding the motor into the lid. Combine that with the thermometer and timers in the existing Pro-Lid and you'd just about have a desktop auto film processor!
Thanks again for your interest.
@@jlwilliams YES! together with a sous vide it would be a perfect replacement for the jobo developer. compact, inexpensive. if they build it and sell it at a fair price i would buy it for sure. for the moment i get by with your project ;-)
@@kottize The Pro Lid has been available for some time, although that may be limited to vendors which represent Lab Box in the US. Freestyle in LA sells it at this time (2/22). As with all things L-B, it is over-priced at around $90. I got one because I was in the Kickstater group. It really is quite a trick, replacing both thermometer and adding a programmable sequence timer.
Do you know if this works well with provia and velvia?
I haven't tried it with those. I assume the kit will develop any film designed for the E-6 process, but how you like the results will depend on personal taste. If you try it, post back and let us know what you think!
A stabilizer is still specified both by Kodak and Fuji. There were some dye changes in years past, but those changes did nothing to effect the need for a stabilizer. So why do some kit makers, mainly Tetenol, omit stabilizer in some of their kits? Ask 'em. The truth is that any time you make a kit like this seem easier to use, it is more marketable. By combining solutions/functions or eliminating stabilizer, the kit is easier to use and sell. Omission of a stabilizer as the final bath for E-6 (or C-41) will not have an immediate effect on dye preservation, but you will get fade or color shifts over an extended period of time. The makers seem to think that most all of their customers will not revisit their film/slides or are just not critical enough to notice the difference. No idea where this stuff about stabilizer being formed early in the process comes from, but its chemical nonsense. The whole point of stabilizer is that it is the last step in the process. If formed in the middle of the process, it would just be later washed out of the film and have no permanent effect.
I'm quoting what CineStill says in their product instruction sheet. They don't claim stabilizer is "formed early in the process" -- they say "Modern color films have “Stabilizers” in the emulsion, released by the conditioner in the Bleaches&Fixer Bath" (i.e. the final bath)..."Film more than 20 years old may require a formalin or formaldehyde based Stabilizer preservative."
You can download the instruction sheet, safety data sheet, and a comparison between 3-bath home user kits and 6-bath processing lab kits at the product info page: cinestill.film/collections/cs6-crea/products/cs6-creative-slide-3-bath-process-for-color-timing-chrome-reversal-and-e-6-compatible-film Then you can decide what to believe or disbelieve based on specific claims and data.
I have developed both Tetenal C-41 and E-6 and both kits had the stabilizer included...
@@jlwilliams
While something like that applies to C-41 films and process, this does not apply to E-6. Interestingly, it also does not apply to ECN-2 films, which is what Cinestill sells as their color negative film. Cinestill appears to favor marketing hypo over the technology, probably for the reason I first noted. If this really concerns you, I invite you to look up Kodak's ECN-2 formulas, which are readily available on line.
@@b6983832 Quite so. While there are quality risks using the three bath E-6 kits right out of the box, those risk greatly increase as you reuse the chemicals, because with each use, more of the active agents are consumed, and more of the waste products of the process are added to the mix. Probably the main risk of error is in reuse of the first developer, because its action on the several emulsions sets up the color balance for the final outcome. The other steps are much less sensitive to temperature, pH of the solutions, and other factors, so long as the film is in the solutions long enough for the chemical process to complete.
I don’t understand why this channel has only 1.24k subscribers.
It should be at least 12.4k and for me 124k is reasonable and uncomfortable.
Way Under-Rated.
Thanks! I know I need to work at adding content more regularly, but I appreciate the support!