ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
And one more photo...
The strength and direction of the light is very important.
I find the best photos when the sun is low in the sky and bright.
The strength and direction of the light is very important.
I find the best photos when the sun is low in the sky and bright.
Gaspar
Established
I don't get it, why undergo all the problems of slide film (low exposure latitude, price) to then waste all the benefits (grain free, colours) by cross processing. Cross processing can be interesting but certainly not for a whole roll of film. Am I missing the point?
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Anton Corbijn has built a successful career out of this look but anyone else doing it just seems gimmicky.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
It's a different way of looking at things.
Not everybody wants sharp focus and authentic colors every time.
dmr
Registered Abuser
It's my impression, both from what others have told me and from experience, that cross-processed slide film has a latitude more like negative film than slide film.
My first attempt at doing this was when the battery in the camera died and I had only my eyes to meter the exposure for the remainder of a roll of Sensia 200. Here's one from that night:
I haven't done any controlled studies, but cross-processed Sensia appears to behave more like negative film.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I do it purely for the unpredictability. If I want perfect colour and sharpness, I shoot digital. It definately is about seeing things a whole new way. For instance, there's one shot in my gallery (link in the first post) of the road in front of the Rideau Center in Ottawa. The actual scene was fairly boring, low contrast unimpressive blown out sunset. I actually took the shot just to see how the film handles blown highlights when xpro'd. It turned out to be one of the best city street shots I've ever taken. It's hard to put into words, but for me Xpro shots seem to give a almost SUPER-real view of the world, it strips away all the boringness I see because I EXPECT boringness and shows the subject litterally in a new light, as if I'd never seen it before. I even find myself looking at things differently when I'm shooting digital because of it.
Silva Lining
CanoHasseLeica
Hmm, I suppose these days, when you can, to some degree, replicate the look of Cross processing in photoshop, the question might be raised as to why bother with film.... From my POV a whole roll of film = 8 6x9 shots
so no major outlay. I guess it is like anything else, if you want to do it then it makes sense, if you don't then it doesn't.My wife doesn't understand why I use a 1920's Voigtlander when the pictures from my 40D are 'much better' in here eyes. Technically she is correct, but.........
rtphotos
Established
Fujichrome Provia 100 film, expired, and cross-processed.
Leica IIf, with 5cm Summitar.
My cross-processing Flickr set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/36exposures/sets/72157604734778423/
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]does anyone know if the C41 chemicals in the lab that does the processing have varying results on the colours of the final images? I was searching flickr for other examples of cross processed Astia and RMS (which these where shot with) and some images show the greenish colour shift like mine, while others show a magenta shift. I thought it might be subject matter and lighting that was the difference but there was definitely some shots that seemed to be in the same type of light as mine and they had a radically different colour cast. [/FONT]
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I think there are two factors:
1 The quality of the light.
2 Whether the scans and/or prints are done straight or whether they are corrected.
1 The quality of the light.
2 Whether the scans and/or prints are done straight or whether they are corrected.
dmr
Registered Abuser
I've wondered about this too, and I sure don't know for sure. The green shift, for me anyway, seems to be in the mid-tones. This image here has strong green-yellow midtones, but some magenta shift toward the bottom of the frame. This one was, of course, daylight.
The Chicago Theater image above shows greenish hues in the areas lit by the street lights, but warmer hues directly behind the sign, which I've always thought was the result of the mixed light.
I would think that the chemistry would be one of the more consistent factors. I just had a conversation with a friend who knows a Wally World photo manager and I actually got a sample of one of their control test negatives. I'll post that in a separate item. They regularly run these through the machines and examine them on a densitometer to be sure of consistent results.
Now I do know that some Fuji minilabs are actually using Kodak chemistry, so there maybe a difference between cross-processed results which aren't obvious on regular C41.
I really don't have any answers, just more questions, sorry.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
yeah.. I guess the only real way to figure this out is to shoot a couple rolls of the same film from the same date and of the same subjects and get them processed by different labs around town. I figure the chemicals may play a role because for instance, we all use the same HP5, and there's a standardized "method" for developing B&W, but we all use different chemicals and get slightly different results even though the film itself is created to a single standard. I'm wondering if the chemical formula for C41 developer is identical whether its made by Kodak or Fuji etc, or if people actually prefer one over the other just like their black and white chemical of choice, one giving better sharpness or maybe one gives better colors and grain. I don't shoot C41 with any regularity so I'm not aware if there's the same subtle differences in its processing as B&W. If there IS a difference in different brands of chemicals it would stand to reason they might give radically different results with a film that isnt meant to be souped in them.