Another Kodak Vision3 remjet film thread

[Joel_L]

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

The only real issue with RAM JET is when it is put though a auto film process without removing the RAM JET before hand. In the days of Seattle Film works repurposed movie film would wind up in big bin of film waiting to to be process at a large finishing plant, in those days film was spliced together and run though a versamate which would cause havoc. I was told that some of the ram jet came off and stuck to film, others told me that it did not damage C41 film just made of mess of the movie film. Looks like got a really good result.

 

[Roger Cole]

The only real issue with RAM JET is when it is put though a auto film process without removing the RAM JET before hand. In the days of Seattle Film works repurposed movie film would wind up in big bin of film waiting to to be process at a large finishing plant, in those days film was spliced together and run though a versamate which would cause havoc. I was told that some of the ram jet came off and stuck to film, others told me that it did not damage C41 film just made of mess of the movie film. Looks like got a really good result.

Note: It's "remjet" sometimes also written "rem-jet" not "ram."

https://help.cinestillfilm.com/hc/en-us/articles/360028874012-What-is-Remjet-

 

[dabsond]

I am still using the baking soda technique. I find it takes most of it off. When I take it out of the tank, after soaking in photo flo, I hang it and use a micro fiber cloth dipped in the photo flo solution and wipe down the film. No issues so far on the emulsion side. I do prefer using ecn2 chems though.

 

[Joel_L]

I am still using the baking soda technique. I find it takes most of it off. When I take it out of the tank, after soaking in photo flo, I hang it and use a micro fiber cloth dipped in the photo flo solution and wipe down the film. No issues so far on the emulsion side. I do prefer using ecn2 chems though.

I will likely try processing in ECN2 at some point. From what few comparisons I have seen, it seems like a toss up as to which I like best. I will have to try ECN2 myself and see.

Nothing wrong with the baking soda and wiping technique, seems to be the most common I have found. I do like the no touch aspect of what I'm going to do for now. Hopefully no long term effects on the film. I like the experimentation that goes along with doing film. Once I get my darkroom set up I will see how this film prints along with playing with RA4 reversal.

 

[Paul Howell]

The advantage of using ECN 2 (yes) Rem Jet is that the anti-halation backing in the bright light of the desert helps control glare, as I understand it also give a boost in film speed. I shot a roll of T film with the Rem Jet removed, might need to try a roll of ENC if I can find a lab that will process.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

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

 

[Joel_L]

Looks like I can find OWD 4 step and Cinestill 2 step for ECN2 processing. Anyone use both, what were your results?

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I've never used a commercial kit, but I can point you to this evaluation of a Flic Film offering:



I personally use separate stop-bleach-fix steps to allow for possible bleach bypass & improved bleach/fix longevity, but that may not matter to your workflow.

 

[brbo]

This is a very good article on ECN-2. It's by Brothers Wright - Cinestill, so they do have their horse in the race, but it basically touches on all the aspects of ECN-2 film (processing in C-41, ECN-2, printing in RA-4...).

(also worth reading is the comments section)

 

[koraks]

This is a very good article on ECN-2. It's by Brothers Wright - Cinestill, so they do have their horse in the race

Clearly so.

Motion picture processing machines use caustic chemicals that you don’t want in your home, such as sodium hydroxide (lye) and sulfuric acid (battery acid)

Sheesh, give me a break. People buy drain cleaner all the time, but when it comes to photography, it's unacceptable all of a sudden.

Heat and any acid added to the ferricyanide bleach can liberate highly toxic cyanide gas

Yeah, so rinse after stop. How hard can it be? Btw, did these people do any maths on how much cyanide you'd actually be able to release from remnants of 1% sulfuric acid clinging to a roll of 35mm film when it comes into contact with a ferricyanide bleach?
They then go on about spreading more FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) which is completely eliminated by a simple rinse after stop and before bleach.

As proof of concept, they show pictures including some RA4 scans, which come with the odd caption "with zero color correction" - what's that supposed to mean, 0 Yellow and 0 Magenta? Something else? Note also the lighting conditions of that first side by side example of Cs41 and Cs2...unspecified, but evidently mixed and possibly filtered in various random ways.

Let's just not touch their remarks on whether running ECN2 film through C41 is cross processing...they think it's the same as using one or another B&W developer on B&W film. In reality, you're running a film with dye couplers designed for CD3 through a CD4 process (which they attest to themselves!) That's cross processing in exactly the same way as running E6 film through C41.

And it goes on and on...just have a look at how 'well' their 800T curves (either Cs2 or Cs41) track against a proper C41 film like Ektar. It's a complete mess! And of course it is, because it's a cross-processed material! And yet, their interpretation is that their process "compliments [sic]" chromogenic printing. No, it doesn't!

I'm not saying everything in that article is total crap, but there's so much misinformation, FUD and wishful thinking laced through the text with the evident purpose of pushing their products that it's very, very hard to make sense out of all the bull****.

Sorry for being so blunt about it, but it's kind of annoying if a sales pitch is passed as a technical review.

PS: @Joel_L your remjet removal procedure sounds very nice! Do you know what the constituent chemistry is of your driveway cleaner product? There's probably an MSDS to it that gives some clues.
As to your example scans, they show the typical color cast and crossover I've seen many times of C41-developed ECN2 film. I never got it to work really right even with ECN2 chemistry, but you'll find that if you scan and not print optically, it's probably a lot easier to get natural colors if you develop in ECN-2. The lower gamma of ECN-2 is not really a problem for scanners.

 

[brbo]

I understand all your points, @koraks.

I've used hundreds of meters of ECN-2 in C-41/ECN-2/Cn2.. checked results with scanners, densitometers and RA-4 printing. It's less rosy than Cinestill make it up to be, but the article is a good start to get a feel of what you can expect (in best scenario) from ECN-2 film processed in ECN-2 or C-41.

From experience, with scanning it's passable even with C-41 processing. RA-4 printing - don't bother.

 

[koraks]

Yes, that's a good summary @brbo. And you're right, as articles on using ECN2 film for stills go, it's not such a bad one. I guess my post mostly shows a frustration about better articles that are more objective, but equally broad in scope, are apparently not available. They sure weren't when I did my testing.

 

[Joel_L]

PS: @Joel_L your remjet removal procedure sounds very nice! Do you know what the constituent chemistry is of your driveway cleaner product? There's probably an MSDS to it that gives some clues.
As to your example scans, they show the typical color cast and crossover I've seen many times of C41-developed ECN2 film. I never got it to work really right even with ECN2 chemistry, but you'll find that if you scan and not print optically, it's probably a lot easier to get natural colors if you develop in ECN-2. The lower gamma of ECN-2 is not really a problem for scanners.

When I scanned this, there was no base profile for the film, so I just picked one that looked best. I will need to photograph a color card of sorts so I can see where I can get with color accuracy by making my own profile when scanning.

I have read that the vision film does not work well in the darkroom, of course I will have to play with this as well, part of the fun for me. In the end it comes down to, am "I" happy with the results.

As far as what's in it,
Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate
Sodium Hydroxide
Tetrasodium EDTA
Sodium Xylene Solfonate

Some of these are in an ingredients list and not in the MSDS. There are also some "trade secret" surfactants and solvents.

I'm thinking the Lye is dissolving the remjet, the others help wash it away without have to wipe it.

 

[koraks]

Yes, it's probably the lye that's doin the heavy lifting. You could give it a try with just lye (drain cleaner pellets), although one word of caution: this will soften the emulsion severely and it may or may not withstand this kind of treatment for long. This also goes for the driveway cleaner product. I'd prefer to use something that's better buffered.
(Oh, and of course according to the Cinestill guys your gambling with your life by doing this...)

Do report back when you've got more results to share; I'm curious to see how it pans out. Indeed, it didn't work for me in the darkroom, but depending on the look you're after, it may be perfectly fine for your purposes.

 

[Sonynolta User]

I mixed up a batch of Kodak's offical Remjet remover as spec'd on page 27 of their Process ECN-2 Specs PDF.
I was very happy with it. I used store bought BORAX instead of labspec Borax Decahydrated. I didn't do enough of my mostly forgotten chemistry class research to know if that's the same. But it worked.
30 sec still bath in this, followed by 4 ~30 sec water angry martini shake baths.
I did a post-process wipe with a pecpad, and really collected nothing noticeable.

 

[Sonynolta User]

Yeah, so rinse after stop. How hard can it be? Btw, did these people do any maths on how much cyanide you'd actually be able to release from remnants of 1% sulfuric acid clinging to a roll of 35mm film when it comes into contact with a ferricyanide bleach?
They then go on about spreading more FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) which is completely eliminated by a simple rinse after stop and before bleach.

Koraks-
Is there a reason we MUST use a sulfuric acid stop bath for ECN2? I know Kodak spec'd it, but would acetic indicator SB work "good enough"? I can get H2SO4... but do, I, as a member of the Jr. Film Butcher Club, really need to?

 

[AgX]

For those in Europe wanting a readymade ECN prebath, Bellini is offering a 10L working solution.

 

[brbo]

Koraks-
Is there a reason we MUST use a sulfuric acid stop bath for ECN2? I know Kodak spec'd it, but would acetic indicator SB work "good enough"? I can get H2SO4... but do, I, as a member of the Jr. Film Butcher Club, really need to?

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:

 

[Cholentpot]

Exactly what I wanted to ask, too. I have nothing to offer on the chemical side of thing, except that I try thing to 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:

This look incredible. Excellent job all around!

 

[koraks]

Is there a reason we MUST use a sulfuric acid stop bath for ECN2?

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!

 

[Sonynolta User]

@brbo- nice pics! Drums scans really make them pop....

 

[Joel_L]

Sulfuric acid was part of the Ilfochrome ( Cibachrome ) process, never had a concern or issue.

I did another experiment with some film clippings.

I revisited the baking soda, I kept adding baking soda until it just would dissolve any more. It did not clear the remjet any better. I measured the PH to be around 8.8

I tried 5ml of the driveway cleaner in 500ml of water and it did not work as well, ended up wiping some remjet off.

I redid the 10ml per 500ml and the result was as the first try, cleared the remjet with just agitation. From a previous experiment I found the temperature needs to be at or slightly above processing temperature. I measured the Ph and as mixed is around 11.8.

I'm about to go shoot my last roll of 50D and try to process all in the jobo, no inversion fill and shake, just rotary process.

Looks like my rolls from kodak will be here Saturday so I will continue my experiments with that film and see how it goes.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

A sulfuric stop is 'odorless' so there's that, but I've used both sulfuric & acetic stops with no apparent ill-effects. There could conceivably be some sort of dye chemistry happening at that step, but it'd be beyond me to speculate.

I just dipped a pH strip into my bottle of remjet solution and got a reading of ~9 which is what you'd expect from borax as the alkaline element. That is very close to the value of your saturated bicarbonate solution so there's more at play in determining effectiveness than just the solution pH.

With the Presoaking film and development time thread in mind, you could speculate how a highly alkaline remjet 'pre-soak' might impact the subsequent development step.

 

[Joel_L]

I processed my 2nd roll of 50D, it's currently drying. The remjet was still removed ( 3 x 2 minutes rotary ) but I did notice a milky residue as I hung it to dry. A quick wipe with photo-flo removed it. I remember reading someone else having the residue left over also. Other than that, the film looks fine.

When I get the roll of 250D I will go back to the shake method and see if I still have the residue. The first roll did not.

I did not do anything to compensate for the pre soak on either roll, the density seems OK. I will compare the two rolls when this one dries.