Colour Negative film

[BMbikerider]

With the shortage of the 'normal' C41 colour negative film I have found a source of 35mm film pre cut to 36 exp. This film made by Kodak is used to record cinema films. The advert states that it can be processed in normal C41 film, but will need an additional chemical bath to be used before the developing stage to remove the 'Remjet backing. What exactly is this 'extra' chemical bath. and how is it used - is it in the normal developing drum then emptied away, then rinsed out before the addition of the developer.

 

[AgX]

Basically it is an alkaline solution to soften gelatin, so that a respective layer disintegrates.

If such solution is applied to just a specific layer (in this case the backing layer), or that layer is hardened lesser then the other layers, selective layer-desintegration can take place.

 

[AgX]

With the shortage of the 'normal' C41 colour negative film I have found a source of 35mm film pre cut to 36 exp. This film made by Kodak is used to record cinema films.

Keep in mind that all intermediate films and print films are spectrally sensitized for the camera negative resp. the succeeding stages, not for "life".*
The same comes true for subject brightness range.

In your case in addition, there is a mis-match in film/print contrast and in processing chemistry.

Not even to speak of the "speed" or the longevity of that film...


Thus you should not expect a true solution to your issue.




*Agfa lectured that the spectral sensitivity with such films is completely off, though you might check for this in the very case.

 

[MattKing]

That is ECN-2 compatible film, like the Kodak Vision films, which can be processed in C41, but will result in unusual colour balance that may or may not be to your taste.
It will give you negatives that probably need scanning and digital post-processing in order to achieve anything close to "natural" colours. Even then, there will be some colour crossover issues, due to using non-standard development.

 

[MattKing]

By "record cinema films", do you mean the film used in motion picture cameras, or the very slow films used as part of the image handling and editing process.

 

[AgX]

This film made by Kodak is used to record cinema films.

Maybe though with this you mean a camera film, then three of the issues I listed above do not apply (spectral sensitivity, "speed", longevity).

 

[BMbikerider]

Perhaps this is not the solution. 120 Med Format seems to have so far avoided the shortage and the excessive cost. It is readily available perhaps it is time to get an additional film back for my Bronica SQa and start using that instead. Thanks for your replies.

 

[pentaxuser]

That is ECN-2 compatible film, like the Kodak Vision films, which can be processed in C41, but will result in unusual colour balance that may or may not be to your taste.
It will give you negatives that probably need scanning and digital post-processing in order to achieve anything close to "natural" colours. Even then, there will be some colour crossover issues, due to using non-standard development.

Matt, so these ECN-2 films although much cheaper than Kodak C41 films for still cameras come at a hidden price, namely what you list above?

Is there a developing kit for these films that avoids the need for scanning and post-processing and possibly colour crossover and allows enlarging and printing in a normal darkroom?

I must admit that I have given up any hope of buying "standard C41 film due to cost but as each new ECN-2 compatible film is lauded on Photrio, there seems to be little mention of these difficulties. Some of the resulting pics look OK to me but maybe all the buyers are all hybrid users who avoid the problems by scanning and post processing

pentaxuser

 

[cmacd123]

All the Kodak Movie stocks have a 4 digit number. like 5219. the second digit if "2" indicates a film to make Negatives....

the coating on the back of Movie film is loosened with a pre-bath, and in a movie processing machine the residue is whisked away by a water jet and sometimes a buffer roller.
the formula for PB2 is here.

 

[cmacd123]

some places do sell a HOME VERSION of ECN-2 chemicals. ECN-2 is the current process for all colour Movie Camera negative films.

 

[AgX]

For the OP that likely would be the kit by Bellini.

 

[MattKing]

An ECN-2 film developed in ECN-2 chemicals will give you a lower contrast negative designed for contact printing on to projection print stock. Most aren't dealt with that way now of course, because the movie makers scan from that negative and work with the digital file, even if they elect to eventually print the edited digital file back on to projection print stock (a rare occasion now).
You could probably print it onto RA-4 paper as well, if lower contrast is okay.
It won't display the same colour response as C-41 film developed in C-41 chemicals, but may avoid colour crossover problems.

 

[brbo]

Since you are from UK, just buy remjet pre-bath here. It's cheap and good for many rolls. Then develop as usual. For non-critical use C-41 developer will do. Or you can buy ECN-2 developer, cheapest solution seem to be Cinestill Cn2 developer (if you have the bleach and fix already).

 

[koraks]

Is there a developing kit (...etc)

No.
There's also no development kit that will make E6 film into C41 film, or that will turn HP5+ into E6 film. It's just an entirely different kind of product.

 

[koraks]

You could probably print it onto RA-4 paper as well, if lower contrast is okay

Color balance will still be off by a mile with significant crossover. RA4 curves don't match those of ECN2.
I know because I spent a couple of months working on it. In the end I just gave up.

 

[quiver]

Color balance will still be off by a mile with significant crossover. RA4 curves don't match those of ECN2.
I know because I spent a couple of months working on it. In the end I just gave up.

Have you tried half rating the speed of the film? I've found that the contrast is greatly improved when shot at half the rated speed and developed in ECN-2 chemistry. My workflow is hybrid despite a desire to print chemically, but I have not noticed any unusual settings when scanning.

An example of one of these photos, and this is with the old Vision 2 stock. I can't imangine what the Vision 3 stocks look like.

 

[koraks]

Have you tried half rating the speed of the film?

Yes, to get the scales to sort of match up with RA4 paper. Doesn't help for color reproduction.

I've found that the contrast is greatly improved

Contrast is not the primary problem. It's the color crossover. You can't fix that with up- or downrating the film, and developing longer or shorter (effectively pushing or pulling) doesn't help either. Again, I tried all this.

 

[pentaxuser]

Color balance will still be off by a mile with significant crossover. RA4 curves don't match those of ECN2.
I know because I spent a couple of months working on it. In the end I just gave up.

So there is no way to produce RA4 prints from an ECN-2 film that doesn't create colour crossover in those prints? Correct or authentic RA4 darkroom printing requires film that was made for C41 only?

Is this an accurate summary of what you are saying? If it is then for others to judge how bad the crossover is and from that decide if ECN -2 film is sensible, are you able to show us any examples from your couple of months work of working on it?

I am not disbelieving you but the problem with significant crossover is as a phrase is trying to decide if it is significant for me. I refer to myself but in fact the word significant may represent something different for all of us

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[quiver]

Yes, to get the scales to sort of match up with RA4 paper. Doesn't help for color reproduction.



Contrast is not the primary problem. It's the color crossover. You can't fix that with up- or downrating the film, and developing longer or shorter (effectively pushing or pulling) doesn't help either. Again, I tried all this.

Crossover? Why would I have crossover? I'm using the ECN-2 developer formula published by Kodak.

 

[AgX]

Koraks refers to crossover at the RA-4 print made from a ECN-2 processed ECN-2 negative.

 

[quiver]

Koraks refers to crossover at the RA-4 print made from a ECN-2 processed ECN-2 negative.

That's odd. When I first started to experiment with ECN-2 films I had the prints made at the local Walmart on their Fuji Frontier minilabs. Naturally I had already processed the film myself since I didn't want to earn their eternal hatred. But in any case the prints never showed this issue. Perhaps the Fuji software automaticly corrected this? Or Koraks is hitting some kind of edge case with the subject that they're shooting?

 

[M-88]

That's odd. When I first started to experiment with ECN-2 films I had the prints made at the local Walmart on their Fuji Frontier minilabs. Naturally I had already processed the film myself since I didn't want to earn their eternal hatred. But in any case the prints never showed this issue. Perhaps the Fuji software automaticly corrected this? Or Koraks is hitting some kind of edge case with the subject that they're shooting?

IIRC Frontier minilaba scan the negatives and peint the scanned file. It wouldn't be RA4.

Of course I might be wrong on this one.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think the crucial point here is what I asked in #18. I had thought what was being said was that a C41 processed cine film will have crossover or at least is likely to have crossover in the negs

This problem has now been compounded if koraks is saying that even if cine film correctly processed in ECN-2 and by this means will not have crossover in the negs will unfortunately have crossover in an RA4 print under an enlarger as an ECN-2 processed film is not compatible with correctly printed RA4 paper

So it seems that based on what koraks' 2 months of work there is no way of taking still pictures with cine film and then printing with authentic colours on RA4 i.e. it doesn't matter what you do with colour filtration under the enlarger you will always get sub-standards prints.

Hence my request for any examples he has from his 2 month's of work. That way we can see how sub standards the prints are so we can judge how substandard they are in our eyes.

Significantly sub standard to one person may be absolutely atrocious to another and just about acceptable to a third

pentaxuser

 

[flavio81]

That's odd. When I first started to experiment with ECN-2 films I had the prints made at the local Walmart on their Fuji Frontier minilabs. Naturally I had already processed the film myself since I didn't want to earn their eternal hatred. But in any case the prints never showed this issue. Perhaps the Fuji software automaticly corrected this? Or Koraks is hitting some kind of edge case with the subject that they're shooting?

This means it was digital printing. The printer (laser, if i recall correcly) knows how to output any digital file to RA4 paper correctly. If on the scan everything looks good (and it should, since it's ECN2 film developed on the ECN2 process), then the output should look good.

However if you print optically from ECN2 negative to RA4 paper,it's a different story. RA4 is engineered to work perfectly with C41's dyes, curves. etc.

 

[MattKing]

Color balance will still be off by a mile with significant crossover. RA4 curves don't match those of ECN2.
I know because I spent a couple of months working on it. In the end I just gave up.

Thanks for confirming that - I wasn't sure but thought it might be okay, except for the contrast.
The curve mis-match makes sense though.
And of course there would be another curve mis-match if the film was processed in C-41.