Exactly what I wanted to ask, too. I have nothing to offer on the chemical side of thing, except that I try thing to see how they work, but I don't have explanation for why they do/don't work.
But, I can share some of my images (processed in ECN-2, C-41, RA-4 prints...) that I've went to the trouble of scanning while we wait for someone to answer your question about what is the correct stop bath when processing ECN-2 or C-41 film...
Vision3 500T, ECN-2 processed, drum scan of the negative:
Scan of RA-4 print from the same negative:
Vision3 500T, push2 C-41 process, CCD scan of the negative:
Scan of RA-4 print from the same negative (disregard the edges - I didn't notice I used the lens with not enough coverage until it was too late):
Fuji Eterna Vivid 500T, C-41 process, CCD scan of the negative:
Vision3 500T, ECN-2 process, drum scan of the negative:
Vision3 50D, ECN-2 process, drum scan of the negative:
Vision3 50D, C-41 process, drum scan of the negative:
To me the C41 results also look good on negative scans. Did you try any RA4 prints from the C-41 developed negatives? The first scan of an RA4 print you posted looks far inferior to the negative scan (of course, I assume that was the point of including it) while the second one looks acceptable, or would if not seen beside the negative scan which still looks noticeably better than the RA4 print scan. I'm wondering which would work better for negatives when RA4 printing is planned from these films, C-41 or ECN-2, or if one should just give up and RA4 print only from native C41 films.
The second pair of negative/print scan is Vision3 500T shot at about 1250 ISO and push 2 developed in C-41. As you can guess my point for including this example was to show that if you build up the contrast in the ECN-2 negative it will be much easier to print. C-41 gives you more contrast, push processing as well.
The second pair of negative/print scan is Vision3 500T shot at about 1250 ISO and push 2 developed in C-41. As you can guess my point for including this example was to show that if you build up the contrast in the ECN-2 negative it will be much easier to print. C-41 gives you more contrast, push processing as well.
In the first pair of negative/print scan the scene had very high contrast, but standard processing in ECN-2 just didn't produce the negative that would print well (even on the most saturated/contrasty paper available). It's acceptable, but when you compare it to a scan that tries to match my recollection of the scene... it's not quite there.
Wow. I didn't notice the push+2 part of the C41 & print. I know I'm looking at a scan/screen jpg of it, but I'd say it looks pretty nice. I'm planning to try some color printing again (did some back in the 80s on the previous process) now that I'm older, stupider and own a Jobo. My wallet is bad, and it must be punished. I will shoot and print film.
So far I have just been washing in the tank by rotating. I do have a Jobo washer that might do a better job.
Joel_LThings I will still try,
Add some surfactant to the soda ash mix to help wash things away
Try RA4 chemistry - only because I have seen some references to RA4 developer being closer to ECN2 and working well with Vision film. I need to research this more
So far I have just been washing in the tank by rotating. I do have a Jobo washer that might do a better job.
I have some ECN2 chemistry on the way, I will also try it and see what I think.
there may some secret sauce to get more normal colors on film
I majored in business
I've done a side-by-side ECN-2, C-41 and RA-4 test a while ago. These are inverted scans and edited to get them close, but didn't go into fixing individual hues. If I still have the negatives (and I can find them!) I'll post the uninverted scans. I remember RA-4 being denser than even C-41 one and with higher base fog. I never pursued the matter further but I guess my next step would be to use more diluted RA-4 developer...
ECN-2, C-41, RA-4:
I've used Rodinal as remjet removal and it works. It also gives a speed boost.
So far I have been following the standard ECN-2 process (remjet first), and the negatives seem to have the right tint and scan well.
@Joel_L : would it be possible that your BLIX is a bit weak, so the DWC after developing acts as additional bleach? Just a thought.
Would love to hear other people's experience regarding remjet removal first or developing first.
I had the same result with freshly mixed chemicals. It could be that the DWC weakens the developer and the bleach. I just see other negative things going on, the grain is night and day different.
When you remove the remjet, what are you using and do you need to mechanically clean the film afterwards? I was looking for a no touch solution and I am quite happy with my latest process. The only thing I would not do using my method is reuse the chemicals. there have been a lot of ways to remove remjet, but all needed some kind of manual wiping afterwards.
I am still waiting for my ECN kit, I do plan to give it a shot.
I've used Rodinal as remjet removal and it works. It also gives a speed boost.
This sounds interesting. Can you elaborate?
Jim B.
I'd also like to hear more about this. I'm especially interested in getting the most speed out of Vision3 500T. I've heard of it being used even at 3200. I'm curious if using it at high speeds and using Rodinal could help with shadow detail.
250D final process
I had the same result with freshly mixed chemicals. It could be that the DWC weakens the developer and the bleach. I just see other negative things going on, the grain is night and day different.
When you remove the remjet, what are you using and do you need to mechanically clean the film afterwards? I was looking for a no touch solution and I am quite happy with my latest process. The only thing I would not do using my method is reuse the chemicals. there have been a lot of ways to remove remjet, but all needed some kind of manual wiping afterwards.
I am still waiting for my ECN kit, I do plan to give it a shot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?