Another Kodak Vision3 remjet film thread

[Cholentpot]

Yes, mind telling us what brand of driveway cleaner?

 

[Joel_L]

What is the pH of your driveway cleaner solution? I am reading Kodak ECN-2 instructions, says to adjust pH of pre-bath to 10.2. I wonder if a solution of sodium bicarbonate with a tiny amount of NaOH added to bring up pH?

When I mix it 10ml to 500ml of water it's around 11.8

I tried sodium carbonate ( soda ash, probably near what your mix would be ) which dissolved the remjet binder fine, just didn't wash it away well.

Yes, mind telling us what brand of driveway cleaner?

I'm using something called super clean which I can get at my local auto parts store. I would expect others would also work well.

 

[Cholentpot]

When I mix it 10ml to 500ml of water it's around 11.8

I tried sodium carbonate ( soda ash, probably near what your mix would be ) which dissolved the remjet binder fine, just didn't wash it away well.



I'm using something called super clean which I can get at my local auto parts store. I would expect others would also work well.

Thanks

 

[mshchem]

I wonder how much carbon black is leftover after shooting and processing a major motion picture? I don't need another project.

 

[xtol121]

In search of a fresh bulk roll color negative film I've been thinking about trying Vision3 film but I was always scared of the remjet. This thread inspired me to give it a go!

I picked up a few rolls of Kodak Vision 250D and some driveway cleaner from Home Depot (Zep brand?) and got to work. I shot a test roll then developed it as usual in C-41 at 100ºF (3:15 dev, 6:30 bleach, 6:30 fix, wash for 5:00) and then dunked the reel in 1000ml of driveway cleaner remjet remover solution mixed 1:50 (20ml->1000ml water). Let it sit for 30s, then violently agitated, dumped it out, repeated, and then did a running water wash for another 5 minutes. I was really surprised at how well the cleaner worked! The film was spotless aside from some hard water drying marks because I didn't bother to mix up a final rinse.

Even though I scan everything the RA-4 darkroom print is always my end goal, and it's also a good check on process (bad film dev=bad prints). I printed the contact sheet and balanced it as well as I could for the color checker shots (in studio, daylight windows bracketed at ISO 125, 250, 500, box speed 250 seemed correct). The film definitely has some crossover, magenta/red shadows and green/cyan highlights. Appears to me the film was under temp. I went ahead and printed a portrait to confirm, and though the results aren't horrible I am not satisfied. I did some googling and there's a Flickr thread from a few years ago regarding Vision3/C-41 and the OP suggested developing at 106ºF (following their kit instructions at 102ºF lead to underdevelopment). I'm going to run through a few more rolls and try to develop at 103ºF, 104ºF, and 105ºF. Hopefully from there I'll be able to narrow down a proper temperature.

One thing to note, though the driveway cleaner cleared the remjet from the film there was still a bit of debris left on my reels and in my tanks. Almost like a very fine dust. Not much, and I highly doubt it will mess anything up in the future but I'll probably end up dedicating one tank and one set of reels to remjet films if I continue this long term.

 

[koraks]

Vision3/C-41 and the OP suggested developing at 106ºF (following their kit instructions at 102ºF lead to underdevelopment)

That's going to lead you further astray. If you look at your own contact sheet, you can already tell that gamma is very much on the high side. Raising temperature would increase this unless you shorten development, which will likely make matters only worse.

There's a couple of things you could play with:
* Reduce temperature
* Shorten development
* Adjust pH downward
* Dilute developer
There's the off-chance that you may hit upon a set of variables that works OK for one particular kind of scene with this film. It would make for an interesting experiment for sure.
I played around with pH of ECN2 developer (C41 didn't work very well for me) and interestingly I found it didn't alter the nature of the crossover much if I adjusted the development time for the difference in gamma. I had expected a stronger influence of pH on crossover, but it mainly affected color balance. This doesn't make me particularly optimistic about adjusting temperature either, but who knows, I may be way off the mark.

The number of variables that you'd have to juggle to get a good RA4 print and then the realization that all bets would be off if lighting conditions would be different kind of put me off of the whole thing. It was just way too much work trying to get something to look right that is relatively easy to get right by using a C41 film. As they say, YMMV. I do get the appeal of this kind of film, I really do. If it works for you or anyone else, more power to them!

 

[Cholentpot]

In search of a fresh bulk roll color negative film I've been thinking about trying Vision3 film but I was always scared of the remjet. This thread inspired me to give it a go!

I picked up a few rolls of Kodak Vision 250D and some driveway cleaner from Home Depot (Zep brand?) and got to work. I shot a test roll then developed it as usual in C-41 at 100ºF (3:15 dev, 6:30 bleach, 6:30 fix, wash for 5:00) and then dunked the reel in 1000ml of driveway cleaner remjet remover solution mixed 1:50 (20ml->1000ml water). Let it sit for 30s, then violently agitated, dumped it out, repeated, and then did a running water wash for another 5 minutes. I was really surprised at how well the cleaner worked! The film was spotless aside from some hard water drying marks because I didn't bother to mix up a final rinse.

Even though I scan everything the RA-4 darkroom print is always my end goal, and it's also a good check on process (bad film dev=bad prints). I printed the contact sheet and balanced it as well as I could for the color checker shots (in studio, daylight windows bracketed at ISO 125, 250, 500, box speed 250 seemed correct). The film definitely has some crossover, magenta/red shadows and green/cyan highlights. Appears to me the film was under temp. I went ahead and printed a portrait to confirm, and though the results aren't horrible I am not satisfied. I did some googling and there's a Flickr thread from a few years ago regarding Vision3/C-41 and the OP suggested developing at 106ºF (following their kit instructions at 102ºF lead to underdevelopment). I'm going to run through a few more rolls and try to develop at 103ºF, 104ºF, and 105ºF. Hopefully from there I'll be able to narrow down a proper temperature.

One thing to note, though the driveway cleaner cleared the remjet from the film there was still a bit of debris left on my reels and in my tanks. Almost like a very fine dust. Not much, and I highly doubt it will mess anything up in the future but I'll probably end up dedicating one tank and one set of reels to remjet films if I continue this long term.

Toothbrush and dawn soap will take care of it. Or use steel reels.

The driveway cleaner AFTER the bleach/fix blix looks like a great idea. I think I'm going to incorporate that into my lineup.

 

[Joel_L]

One thing to note, though the driveway cleaner cleared the remjet from the film there was still a bit of debris left on my reels and in my tanks. Almost like a very fine dust. Not much, and I highly doubt it will mess anything up in the future but I'll probably end up dedicating one tank and one set of reels to remjet films if I continue this long term.

A few messages back I mention getting the same residue on the inside of the tank. Seems to wash off completely with soap and water. I use a toothbrush on the reel. I'm also think of doing what you suggest and just dedicate a setup for this process.

Your 5 minute wash after fixing seems redundant. I do one water dump, then into the dwc. The main wash is after that.

I'm glad to hear the process is working for you.

 

[Joel_L]

There's a couple of things you could play with:
* Reduce temperature
* Shorten development
* Adjust pH downward
* Dilute developer

Because I do things one shot, I normally run diluted chemistry to stretch how many rolls I get. During this exercise I was running proper dilutions. The last roll I shot ( not posted ) I did dilute the chemistry ( normally 25ml to make 140ml to 15ml to make 140ml ). I did not notice any reduction in grain, density, or anything else that might concern me. I dont have an eye for gamma that you have mention a couple times now. I do know I am happy with the results and the finished scans look good to me color wise. Now if I can ever get my darkroom set up I want to try some wet prints. Last time I looked, seemed that RA4 supllies were short in demand.

 

[mshchem]

In search of a fresh bulk roll color negative film I've been thinking about trying Vision3 film but I was always scared of the remjet. This thread inspired me to give it a go!

I picked up a few rolls of Kodak Vision 250D and some driveway cleaner from Home Depot (Zep brand?) and got to work. I shot a test roll then developed it as usual in C-41 at 100ºF (3:15 dev, 6:30 bleach, 6:30 fix, wash for 5:00) and then dunked the reel in 1000ml of driveway cleaner remjet remover solution mixed 1:50 (20ml->1000ml water). Let it sit for 30s, then violently agitated, dumped it out, repeated, and then did a running water wash for another 5 minutes. I was really surprised at how well the cleaner worked! The film was spotless aside from some hard water drying marks because I didn't bother to mix up a final rinse.

Even though I scan everything the RA-4 darkroom print is always my end goal, and it's also a good check on process (bad film dev=bad prints). I printed the contact sheet and balanced it as well as I could for the color checker shots (in studio, daylight windows bracketed at ISO 125, 250, 500, box speed 250 seemed correct). The film definitely has some crossover, magenta/red shadows and green/cyan highlights. Appears to me the film was under temp. I went ahead and printed a portrait to confirm, and though the results aren't horrible I am not satisfied. I did some googling and there's a Flickr thread from a few years ago regarding Vision3/C-41 and the OP suggested developing at 106ºF (following their kit instructions at 102ºF lead to underdevelopment). I'm going to run through a few more rolls and try to develop at 103ºF, 104ºF, and 105ºF. Hopefully from there I'll be able to narrow down a proper temperature.

One thing to note, though the driveway cleaner cleared the remjet from the film there was still a bit of debris left on my reels and in my tanks. Almost like a very fine dust. Not much, and I highly doubt it will mess anything up in the future but I'll probably end up dedicating one tank and one set of reels to remjet films if I continue this long term.

What sort of enlarger/light source are you using to make your prints??

 

[xtol121]

@mshchem I'm using an LPL 4500 with the Heiland LED unit

 

[Stephen Furley]

If there is, I can't recall; it's been a while since I delved into the chemistry for this. I do recall there was a possible problem with dichroic fog with certain combinations, but I really don't recall, sorry.

@brbo those look great, nice job!

I remember from the days many years ago when I printed colour negatives on Ektacolor 37 RC and Ektacolor 74 RC paper that touching a print, wet or dry, with even the slightest trace of acetic acid on the fingers would cause pink fingerprints on the print. I don't know if it would affect colour negative materials.

 

[mshchem]

@mshchem I'm using an LPL 4500 with the Heiland LED unit

Slightly off topic, but it’s relevant so bear with me. How's the Heiland head work for RA-4 printing? I don't recall hearing from anyone who is using these nice heads for color. I know folks love these for VC black and white.

 

[xtol121]

Slightly off topic, but it’s relevant so bear with me. How's the Heiland head work for RA-4 printing? I don't recall hearing from anyone who is using these nice heads for color. I know folks love these for VC black and white.

This will probably end up making it's way to a new thread once I have a chance to test more, but here's where I'm at with it as of today.

The only enlargers I've ever had/used have been with Heiland cold head (only started printing late 2019). My V35 came without a bulb and I couldn't find a suitable replacement so I bit the bullet and bought the Heiland, 2 years later bought an LPL 4500 and immediately upgraded it to the Heiland since I had the controllers already. I was mostly printing BW which it was amazing for, and only recently have gotten into color. It's really convenient to use and I had been mostly happy, but always wanting a little "more" in my shadow tones. I was blaming it on the Fuji Crystal Archive II paper which reportedly has muddy shadows. Unable to get anything else I've trotted along assuming it was just how RA-4 looks since I don't have experience in other darkrooms or really seeing other photographers prints in person. Since I started darkroom work everything has really been online viewing/scans where everything is kind of up in the air as far as quality and nuance goes.

Fast forward to this thread and my Vision3 250D test and @koraks great articles on crossover and RGB LED heads and it got me thinking I should compare the Heiland to the original CMY dichroic head that came with my LPL. It was the first time I had printed without an LED head and I was stunned. The left print is the same Heiland LED print on post #55. The right print is with the traditional dichroic head. I was unable to filter out the red shadows in the LED print without introducing a cyan cast into highlights. The dichroic print balanced easily and I'm actually really happy with the way Vision3 250D printed today. More testing is still required to see how it handles the scope of general photography but I'm pleased at the moment.

 

[koraks]

This is a remarkable result so far, @xtol121
I had seen the head shot before and actually found it pretty good given what film it was shot on; you know my qualms with Vision3. But that's not the issue at this point; the direct comparison between the Heiland LED and the dichroic head makes you think. I'm still not entirely sure if this is more of a cast than crossover. I'll have to look at it some more and really think about it. BTW, have you noticed that the overall contrast of the Heiland print is significantly lower than that of the dichroic head? Or perhaps there's just something very odd going on with the cyan/red axis given that big cyan patch top left in the sky on the Heiland print. It does make me wonder about the red LEDs in particular they use on the Heiland unit...but I don't want to jump to conclusions.

 

[Stephen Furley]

The Vision3 stocks are a phenomenal line of films once one can effectively deal with the remjet during processing. I've gone through several iterations of remjet handling as I've honed my ECN-2 processing:

1. No remjet-prebath (16mm only) with mechanical removal in trays at the end of the process. Messy -- dense remjet can be easily embedded into the emulsion at this stage. Do not attempt with full loads of 35mm!
2. Sodium Bicarbonate pre-bath. Better, but still some residual emulsion contamination is possible.
3. Kodak's remjet pre-bath formula. Extremely effective AND re-usable, but does still require a post-process wipe to remove the last 1% of residue.

Switching to a 'real' pre-bath was a revelation as the remjet is only softened, not removed in the pre-bath. The still clean pre-bath solution returned to it's container after a 15-20 second soak and a subsequent water wash or two does the actual removal. The high concentration of neutral sulfate in the pre-bath prevents the remjet layer from immediately disintegrating into the solution.

I have extremely limited experience cross-processing ECN-2 stocks in C-41, but you can expect a slight speed boost, higher contrast, and slightly funkier colors. I'd recommend giving ECN-2 processing a try to see which you prefer.

Vision3 500T w/ 85B filter in daylight, ECN-2
View attachment 314134

That's a pretty good result you've got there. ECN-2 is designed to be run on continuous automatic processors with continuous monitoring and replenishment of the chemicals, so any method of home processing, even with exactly the same chemicals, may produce slightly different results, and require minor changes to development time etc.

It's probably about 30 years since I saw my 16 mm 50D EXR film, that's three generations before Vision 3 and I think it was 7245, running through the machine. I did get to see the processor with the covers off and just machine leader running through it before my film went through. From memory there was no pre-soaking of the film, in its dry state it went straight into the pre-bath. This was a small section, so the film went through it pretty quickly, probably less than a minute. There were then a series of water jets and sort of pluh covered rollers acting on the base side of the film, so those who report having to report having to wipe down their film to complete the removal are doing something similar. The difference is that in the processor the rem-jet is totally removed before the film enters the developer, whereas in the hand processing method some rem-jet remains on the film while it is in the developer; whether this has any affect on the developer I have no idea.

As I understand it the ren-jet has three main functions, it acts as a lubricant and helps to prevent scratching of the film base, it is electrically conductive and prevents static build-up from friction which could cause sparks which would fog the film; this is obviously important when you're draging the film through the camera at 90 feet per minute. Finally of cause it's there for anti-halation reasons. I don't really understand why this is necessary, it clearly is since the Cine-Still films which have it removed show halation on things like neon signs. However, it is not used on the Double-x 5222 black and white motion picture stock, nor is it generally used on films intended for still photography. There was one exception to this, Kodachrome slide films had the rem-jet backing, and the K14 process had the pre-bath step to remove it. Kodachrome started out as a 16 mm motion picture stock and was later also used as a slide film; I don't know if that has anything to do with it.

 

[koraks]

I don't really understand why this is necessary, it clearly is since the Cine-Still films which have it removed show halation on things like neon signs.

I think that color films have anti-halation measures built into them as well. Black & white films also do, but generally not in 35mm format; on 120 and sheet film some kind of anti-halation dye is virtually always present.

Btw, the description you gave of the remjet processor matches the publicly available Kodak document that describes ECN-2 processing.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that a continuous process would produce different results from a batch process as you'd run at home. Given good parameter control and fresh, one-shot or otherwise properly replenished developer, the results really should be identical. With C41 as well as E6, this is within range of an amateur working at home; I don't see how this would be different for ECN-2.

 

[Stephen Furley]

So I decided to give my own try at Vision film. As a test I ordered a couple rolls of 50D ( I would prefer 250D for my uses but 50D was what I could get at the moment ). My first test was to remove the remjet. For this I clipped the leader off and recut the film so I could load it later.

I first tried the standard baking soda and water - this worked OK but left patches that needed to be rubbed off.

I thought about this a bit and decided to try good old driveway cleaner/degreaser. My only rational was something alkaline and I have used this on photo resist when I used to make my own PC boards.

I mixed 10ml of super clean in 500ml of water. This completely cleared the remjet without having to rub any residue off. I had no idea what it might do to the emulsion.

I put a roll through my camera loaded the film into my Jobo 1510 tank. I filled it with 250ml of the solution, let it soak for a minute, shook it hard for a minute, let it rotate for a minute and drained it. At this point I left it rotating on the processor and did two more fills ( @125ml ) for a minute each. This was followed by 4 water fills and dumps about a minute each. water was pretty clear after the second dump. I then processed normally per C41 process.

I looked at the film before dumping it in the stabilizer and saw no signs of remjet. After stabilizing, hung to dry.

Attached are some samples of the results, I am pleased, pleased enough I ordered a 400ft roll of 250D from Kodak ( along with 400ft of Ektachrome 100D ), both in stock.

For me, the remjet did not prove to be much of a problem. The 10ml in 500ml seemed pretty strong, I might reduce this to 5 in 500 and play with how much time film spends in it.

View attachment 314117 View attachment 314118 View attachment 314119

I think that color films have anti-halation measures built into them as well. Black & white films also do, but generally not in 35mm format; on 120 and sheet film some kind of anti-halation dye is virtually always present.

Thank you for your reply.

Still photography films do have anti-halation dyes, but, other than Kodachrome, they don't have rem-jet. If the reason that rem-jet is used rather than dyes on motion picture stocks is for its lubrication and anti-static properties then why is it not also used on 5222 stock?

I have noticed that roll films tend to release dyes when processed more than 35 mm; do you know the reason for this?

Btw, the description you gave of the remjet processor matches the publicly available Kodak document that describes ECN-2 processing.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that a continuous process would produce different results from a batch process as you'd run at home. Given good parameter control and fresh, one-shot or otherwise properly replenished developer, the results really should be identical. With C41 as well as E6, this is within range of an amateur working at home; I don't see how this would be different for ECN-2.

My memory from 30 odd years ago does seem to be holding up then; on the other hand I often have difficulty remembering recent events. That is said to be one of the symptems of dementia so I think I may be seeing early signs of it; I am getting old now.

As for the difference between home and machine processing, I'm not suggesting that home processing would be poorly controlled, but it is different. For example, again from memory, agitation of the developer bath in the processor was by nitrogen burst, but in a home tank it would be by inverting the tank, or by rotation of the spiral. how much agitation would you give? I doubt that Kodak have published any guidance since they would not intend the film to be processed in this way. Some black and white still film developers have given slightly different times for different processing equipment and techniques.

Some people are suggesting significations to the ECN-2 process for home use, such as using an alternative to the Kodak formula for the pre-bath or physically removing the remaining rem-jet after processing rather than before development; these changes to the process may, or may not, affect the results.

 

[koraks]

If the reason that rem-jet is used rather than dyes on motion picture stocks is for its lubrication and anti-static properties then why is it not also used on 5222 stock?

Sorry, I totally missed the point there. I don't know; it's a good question actually.

I have noticed that roll films tend to release dyes when processed more than 35 mm; do you know the reason for this?

Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I missed your point. 120 and sheet film tend to have antihalation dyes but 35mm not, AFAIK. It's the anti-halation dyes you see coming off your 120 upon processing. The typical magenta dye with Kodak TMAX for instance.

 

[Stephen Furley]

So I decided to give my own try at Vision film. As a test I ordered a couple rolls of 50D ( I would prefer 250D for my uses but 50D was what I could get at the moment ). My first test was to remove the remjet. For this I clipped the leader off and recut the film so I could load it later.

I first tried the standard baking soda and water - this worked OK but left patches that needed to be rubbed off.

I thought about this a bit and decided to try good old driveway cleaner/degreaser. My only rational was something alkaline and I have used this on photo resist when I used to make my own PC boards.

I mixed 10ml of super clean in 500ml of water. This completely cleared the remjet without having to rub any residue off. I had no idea what it might do to the emulsion.

I put a roll through my camera loaded the film into my Jobo 1510 tank. I filled it with 250ml of the solution, let it soak for a minute, shook it hard for a minute, let it rotate for a minute and drained it. At this point I left it rotating on the processor and did two more fills ( @125ml ) for a minute each. This was followed by 4 water fills and dumps about a minute each. water was pretty clear after the second dump. I then processed normally per C41 process.

I looked at the film before dumping it in the stabilizer and saw no signs of remjet. After stabilizing, hung to dry.

Attached are some samples of the results, I am pleased, pleased enough I ordered a 400ft roll of 250D from Kodak ( along with 400ft of Ektachrome 100D ), both in stock.

For me, the remjet did not prove to be much of a problem. The 10ml in 500ml seemed pretty strong, I might reduce this to 5 in 500 and play with how much time film spends in it.

View attachment 314117 View attachment 314118 View attachment 314119

I remember that back in the '70s there was a company in East London selling short ends of Eastmancolor for still photography. I thought of trying it but decided against it due to difficulty of processing at that time.

Recently I have bought a feww rolls of Vision 3 to try and have used two of them. I bought them from Nik & Trick, and also used them for processing and scanning; I have not tried to process the film myself, making up chemicals for just one roll every few months is not very practical.

The first roll was 50D, and I made a stupid mistake with it. I shot it in a Russian rangefinder, a Zorki 4, and this was the first time I had used this cmera. I forgot to take my exposure meter with me, and had to install an app on my 'phone. An unknown film in an old unknown camera with an unknown meter is not a good combination!

The second roll was 200D, shot in daylight with a 85B filter in a Nikon FG.

I sent the films for processing separately, several weeks apart. I took about a month to receive the scans, and about another week to get the negatives back. I don't know if this is normal, or if things were delayed by Covid. I had the fill scanned to high quality TIFF files which were about 38 Mb each. I had to do quite a lot of editing on these files to get reasonable looking results. Last night I dragged the original unedited TIFF files from my NAS and converted them to jpEGs using Nikon Capture NX-D software t the highest quality the software could offer. These files were about 5\MB, so this morning I went back to the original TIFF files and converted them again, this time at half the vertical and horizontal resolution. I have not edited the images in any other way, so they still look like the originals.

The first three pictures are on the 50 D, the bicycle on 200T. The Rotherhithe Tunnel ventilation shaft is overexposed, I have a better picture of it, but it won't upload for some reason. The ground under the bascule bridge is distinctly green and the bicycle was stromgly yellow, though this seems to have been altered somewhat in uploading; the metal wall and door behind should be a neutral grey, and probably not far off 18%. The pictures look rather flat, but it is possible to correct this; I wonder if they scanned using a profile for a C41 film?

Great place to park the bike, blocking a fire exit, and right next to a fire hydrant.

 

[MattKing]

If the reason that rem-jet is used rather than dyes on motion picture stocks is for its lubrication and anti-static properties then why is it not also used on 5222 stock?

I have noticed that roll films tend to release dyes when processed more than 35 mm; do you know the reason for this?

Rem-jet is probably the most efficient anti-halation tool, but the complexity it adds to the processing stage means that it has a real downside. And while it is a very effective tool for dealing with lubrication and anti-static issues, it isn't the only such tool.
I expect that you don't see rem-jet on 5222 because the black and white motion picture developing infra-structure existed long before rem-jet was used on colour films, and adding rem-jet to black and white motion picture film would have forced the black and white processing world to make changes that they were unwilling to make - particularly those that also processed still film.
And as for the amount of anti-halation dyes you see - roll film vs. 35mm - it depends on which films you are developing. The colour and intensity of the visible dyes varies from film type to film type.
The role of the backing paper on 120 and 620 (and many other) roll films is also important. If backing paper is there, the anti-halation dyes are different.
I'm not sure how anti-halation was dealt with in 220, given that, to the best of my understanding, exactly the same film stock was used for that as with 120. Perhaps 120 has more anti-halation materials added to it than would be strictly necessary, due to that shared use. Or perhaps that changed after 220 production ceased.

 

[Dunga]

I've processed a few 50D and 500T bulk loaded rolls in C41 and removed remjet with bicarbonate. I think i also pre-soaked before bicarb.
Scanned with Epson V800 and most probably VueScan.

There definitely is a color shift, but it kind of appeals to me.
Probably not great if you need color accuracy.

See attached.
Day shots are 50D and night shots in the rain are 500T.

@Joel_L interesting how you got a color shift in a different direction. The fun of film photography, i guess

@brbo your ECN-2 processed frames look awesome too. Nice to see what can be obtained from the correctly processed film.

 

[koraks]

Those last two shots are quite nice, regardless of how they came about!

 

[Joel_L]

I have done about 10 rolls now and have been happy with the developing process. Now I went I made a film profile for Vision 3 C41 in Silverfast. I like the results for scans, it removed some of the color cast that my original scans have.

Here are some samples, pic1 is using the film profile I made, pic1a is the same negative using the default "other" profile. The other two are with the Vision3 C41 profile I make.

Some things I notice from what scans I have tested this profile on, dirt looks more like dirt rather than having a bluish cast. Greens look more true to the actual scene. Shadow areas now look more natural. Colors in general look better.

I will need to see if this profile works well across subject matter other than flowers and foliage.

At some point I will rescan some of the original scans I posted for more comparison.

 

[koraks]

These look like they have a pretty strong cyan cast to me. Are you seeing this as well?