Clancycoop
Established
I have a question about cross processing. I have done some searching, but can't find any that mention the film I used.
Details:
Leica M6 TTL
Lomography X-pro 200 Slide Film
Developed by lab @C-41
Scanned by lab (They have been reliable in the past)
So here's the problem. All my images look horrible. They seem to all look overexposed, they are super green. Not green like I have seen cross processed photos before, but green like I misused 3 photoshop filters in the 90s. The main problem is the blown highlights. (Just some background, I am fairly certain I exposed the roll correctly, because I actually did another roll with another camera and they look the same).
I can't find much on the web about this film, which surprises me. Apparently the film is based off an afga film. I have seen desirable x processed photos before, but mine are unusable. I plan on trying Kodak E100G next, but am curious if I did something wrong. Am I supposed to underexpose film I plan on x processing?
I appreciate any guidance. I am quite disappointed at ruining two rolls.
Here are a couple images.
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo126/Clancycoop/96200001.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo126/Clancycoop/96200031.jpg
Details:
Leica M6 TTL
Lomography X-pro 200 Slide Film
Developed by lab @C-41
Scanned by lab (They have been reliable in the past)
So here's the problem. All my images look horrible. They seem to all look overexposed, they are super green. Not green like I have seen cross processed photos before, but green like I misused 3 photoshop filters in the 90s. The main problem is the blown highlights. (Just some background, I am fairly certain I exposed the roll correctly, because I actually did another roll with another camera and they look the same).
I can't find much on the web about this film, which surprises me. Apparently the film is based off an afga film. I have seen desirable x processed photos before, but mine are unusable. I plan on trying Kodak E100G next, but am curious if I did something wrong. Am I supposed to underexpose film I plan on x processing?
I appreciate any guidance. I am quite disappointed at ruining two rolls.
Here are a couple images.
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo126/Clancycoop/96200001.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo126/Clancycoop/96200031.jpg
BTMarcais
Well-known
The lomo films are generally repackaged and out of date films from brands such as agfa. Because the storage conditions and expiration dates are generally unknown, it's pretty nigh impossible to get consistent results from something as finicky as cross processing (which is usually part of the "charm"(?) of lomography-and why it's hard to find definitive information on the films)
Slide film inherently has less of a contrast range than negative film, even when processed in C41 color negative chemistry.
A couple things to consider- are you viewing prints, or scans, and did you make them (the prints or the scans) yourself, or did the lab? Color printing can be extremely subjective- one lab we use at work is consistently higher contrast in it's scans and prints than the other we send to. AND- scanning doesn't always handle blocky highlights well, you might be surprised how much detail IS in the negative, that you may be able to pull out w/ some work.
Also, try bracketing your exposures until you get a handle on how that particular film reacts to cross processing- you're right, the exposure is usually NOT quite the same as box speed, since you're not developing it the way it was designed for.
Hope that helps,
-Brian
Slide film inherently has less of a contrast range than negative film, even when processed in C41 color negative chemistry.
A couple things to consider- are you viewing prints, or scans, and did you make them (the prints or the scans) yourself, or did the lab? Color printing can be extremely subjective- one lab we use at work is consistently higher contrast in it's scans and prints than the other we send to. AND- scanning doesn't always handle blocky highlights well, you might be surprised how much detail IS in the negative, that you may be able to pull out w/ some work.
Also, try bracketing your exposures until you get a handle on how that particular film reacts to cross processing- you're right, the exposure is usually NOT quite the same as box speed, since you're not developing it the way it was designed for.
Hope that helps,
-Brian
Clancycoop
Established
Wow, great reply. Thank you.
The lab did the scans--slide to jpeg file (no prints). I will have to take a look at the negative and see if perhaps there is more detail than I've got. Perhaps they scanned them poorly.
I should do a couple of test rolls before I devote another whole roll of shooting real scenes and subjects.
The lab did the scans--slide to jpeg file (no prints). I will have to take a look at the negative and see if perhaps there is more detail than I've got. Perhaps they scanned them poorly.
I should do a couple of test rolls before I devote another whole roll of shooting real scenes and subjects.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I've been playing a LOT with x-pro in the past year. What you've found isn't too unusual; my scans from the Lomography X-pro 200 are roughly the same colour cast, and blocked-out highlights are quite common, too.
My general approach for all x-pro now is to underexpose by a stop (i.e. rate a 200ISO film at 400), get the lab to process it in C-41 like any normal film, scan at home, and then colour-balance myself if I think it needs it (which the vast majority of films do). That way I can get consistently decent results, whereas shooting at box speed and letting the lab scan my film was consistently awful.
My general approach for all x-pro now is to underexpose by a stop (i.e. rate a 200ISO film at 400), get the lab to process it in C-41 like any normal film, scan at home, and then colour-balance myself if I think it needs it (which the vast majority of films do). That way I can get consistently decent results, whereas shooting at box speed and letting the lab scan my film was consistently awful.
segedi
RFicianado
I experimented with cross-process (slide in c-41) a few years back and had some good results, but mostly bad. The advice to under expose is good as mine also came out with chunky shadows and blown highlights. My color shift wasn't as extreme as yours though and you will benefit using fresh film.
But, why do it the real way at all? You can always shoot great negs and then use a simple PS action that you have more control over to get the effect. I only mention as you are having a lab scan in anyway.
But, why do it the real way at all? You can always shoot great negs and then use a simple PS action that you have more control over to get the effect. I only mention as you are having a lab scan in anyway.
thegman
Veteran
My first cross processed roll was Agfa Precisa, I was advised to underexpose by 1 stop, and then ask the lab to push 1 stop. It came out pretty much precisely what you expect cross processed shots to look like, and I was happy with it. After that, I tried a few others, but never quite got what I wanted.
I actually quite like the first shot of the plane, but the other shot is indeed way over exposed. I guess just experiment a bit with under exposure, maybe over exposure too, but I think generally you want to go a little under.
Cross processing is always going to be more hit and miss than regular processing, but I think it can look pretty good when it works out.
Also, if you like the X Pro look, but have trouble with getting the results, maybe try a Yellow/Green filter on regular C41 film, and process normally. You can get nice results like this:
http://www.lomography.com/homes/reneg88/albums/1647295-horizon-perfekt-with-yg-filter
Cheers
Garry
I actually quite like the first shot of the plane, but the other shot is indeed way over exposed. I guess just experiment a bit with under exposure, maybe over exposure too, but I think generally you want to go a little under.
Cross processing is always going to be more hit and miss than regular processing, but I think it can look pretty good when it works out.
Also, if you like the X Pro look, but have trouble with getting the results, maybe try a Yellow/Green filter on regular C41 film, and process normally. You can get nice results like this:
http://www.lomography.com/homes/reneg88/albums/1647295-horizon-perfekt-with-yg-filter
Cheers
Garry
f16sunshine
Moderator
I've had decent luck with slight underexposure as well. Shoot it like you will develop e6. My 2 films are expired velvia for a red/magenta shift. Cheap Kodak elitechrome for z green shift. My understanding of tge lomo films is you won't know what has been repackaged. Think of it like consolidated wine label. Everyone's surplus grapes goes in the crush. Whatever grape it taste most like is how it is labeled.
kzphoto
Well-known
I have always advised people to over expose their x-process by at least one stop or half box speed.
Oranges? -- Santa Cruz, CA by kzamani, on Flickr
Flowers & Road -- Santa Cruz, CA by kzamani, on Flickr
Provia 400x works wonders.
Oranges? -- Santa Cruz, CA by kzamani, on Flickr
Flowers & Road -- Santa Cruz, CA by kzamani, on Flickr
Provia 400x works wonders.
John Lawrence
Well-known
I've only ever tried it with Sensia II 100, but the best results I ever got were with over exposing.
John
John
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I think it depends on what you're looking for. I've had quite a lot of results like kzphoto's above in the past, and to me, they look too over-exposed, too bright.
This, for example, is E100VS shot at box speed:
And this was shot on E100VS rated at 200ISO in similarly bright conditions:
While box speed CAN get decent results, it's about a 50/50 rate between correct/acceptable exposure and over-exposure for me. Most films shot a step under gets me a 98/2 rate instead. The 2%, incidentally, is often those where the light isn't very good at all; these tend to come out technically still well exposed, but a little muddy. They don't pop like the rest - but then, colours never do on heavily overcast days, so I'm not surprised.
I also find it quite strange that those photos came from x-pro'd Provia 400X, kzphoto; when I shoot it at box speed, there's little to no colour cast. It's actually one of the more "neutral" x-pro films, in my opinion...
...but then, a lot depends on whether you're scanning yourself or getting lab scans, and how exactly you're scanning it.
Anyway, to rein this all in (!) and return to the original subject (Lomography's X-pro 200), I found the first roll I shot of the stuff. And, like I normally do whenever I'm x-pro'ing a new film, I shot it at box speed, to check to see whether I think it needs the stop of underexposure.
The one above was one of the few nice shots I got from it. A lot of them were a bit sickly-green, and some were unsalvageable, leading me to think I'll probably underexpose the next roll - whenever I bother trying to use it again. I wasn't particularly struck with it, to say the least.
This, for example, is E100VS shot at box speed:
And this was shot on E100VS rated at 200ISO in similarly bright conditions:
While box speed CAN get decent results, it's about a 50/50 rate between correct/acceptable exposure and over-exposure for me. Most films shot a step under gets me a 98/2 rate instead. The 2%, incidentally, is often those where the light isn't very good at all; these tend to come out technically still well exposed, but a little muddy. They don't pop like the rest - but then, colours never do on heavily overcast days, so I'm not surprised.
I also find it quite strange that those photos came from x-pro'd Provia 400X, kzphoto; when I shoot it at box speed, there's little to no colour cast. It's actually one of the more "neutral" x-pro films, in my opinion...
...but then, a lot depends on whether you're scanning yourself or getting lab scans, and how exactly you're scanning it.
Anyway, to rein this all in (!) and return to the original subject (Lomography's X-pro 200), I found the first roll I shot of the stuff. And, like I normally do whenever I'm x-pro'ing a new film, I shot it at box speed, to check to see whether I think it needs the stop of underexposure.
The one above was one of the few nice shots I got from it. A lot of them were a bit sickly-green, and some were unsalvageable, leading me to think I'll probably underexpose the next roll - whenever I bother trying to use it again. I wasn't particularly struck with it, to say the least.
Clancycoop
Established
I think I want to try some of that Provia 400X. That link Coldkennels posted is what I was looking for.
Anybody have some examples of X-Pro 200 that were NOT x-processed? I'm curious what my shots would have looked like had I not.
Anybody have some examples of X-Pro 200 that were NOT x-processed? I'm curious what my shots would have looked like had I not.