ANYONE WANT 500T re-spooled for 35mm shooting? Support these guys!

[DanielStone]

Just thought I'd give a shout-out to my new buddies, Brandon and Brendon(twins dontya know!).

They're the eyes behind http://www.thebrotherswright.com/bwrightphoto/ and http://www.twinlenslife.com/

They've been using Kodak's 500T 35mm motion picture film to shoot with in their Nikon F3's, equipped with the 33ft(250shot) backs, primarily for wedding photography(they tag team!!!)

Anyhow, they've been working day and night to perfect their process of the remjet-removal process so that they(and eventually YOU) can use the film in standard c-41 processing chems. Even though the film wasn't originally "designed" for C-41(its an ECN-2 process), but they've found it works very well, and have had much sucess with their technique after much trial and error(on THEIR dime too!)

so, if you want to support their effort, feel free to contact them on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswright?fref=ts

they've started a group "Film Shooters" on Facebook too, a great place to congregate and coordinate!

http://www.facebook.com/groups/187350187969045/

here's their Etsy page, they're still in "gearing up mode" acquiring orders, but their goal is to make this wonderfully capable film available regularly at reasonable costs.

http://www.etsy.com/shop/cinestill



cheers,

Dan

 

[pdjr1991]

careful so you don't wind up like these guys...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_FilmWorks

 

[lensman_nh]

ECN-2 in C-41 will lack long term stability. PE has talked about this many times here as the ECN-2 discussion comes around every couple of months or so.

Just cos it "works" doesn't mean it works well.

J.

 

[Athiril]

ECN-2 chem is inexpensive for the bulk you get, given the prices those guys are charging for their service, and the impression people who've gone through them have, I would recommend to learn to DIY.

For what it's worth, Portra 400 is a whole lot better than 5219 500T imho.

 

[DanielStone]

Hey guys,

I dont know about your dealings with these guys(if it was the Wright brothers here in LA you're referring too) personally, but all of my interactions both through the net, and IN PERSON(yes I've talked with them in person multiple times) have been very positive, and they've been very excited about this project they're working on. They're currently designing a machine to remove the remjet backing from the film prior to re-spooling, so ECN-2 processing isn't 'required' per se, but the film can be processed in any standard c-41 machine/lab, apparently w/o any affect on the chemistry(or so they've stated to me, I'm not a chemist, so don't take my word as absolute truth).

So basically,DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER(aka ME!!!)

With anything, I recommend you do your own research before laying down your own cash if you choose to do so.

I dont shoot 35mm film much anymore, since most of my photography is LF based.

I posted this so all of you who b*tch about rising film costs might have some film to feed your cameras, Kodak film that is...

Im not connected with the Wright brothers in any way, other than getting to know them over the past few interactions I've had with them as already stated.

Pax,

Dan

 

[DanielStone]

Athiril,

I'm posting this too as an individual. The Wright brothers(they're not connected with InsideAnalogPhoto or anyone else that I know of, just by themselves) are basically going to be doing the removal of the Remjet backing prior to re-spooling(or outsourcing the re-spooling to someone like Ilford, from 2000ft master rolls of 500T), and after re-spooling, would be selling the film to consumers.

If you read through their blog, they've done numerous postings about their various testing procedures.

I'm not trying to push any service here, just passing along some information. Sounds like YOU have an axe to grind, I have no part of that.

Just trying to help get Kodak film into people's hands so they can continue to shoot quality color stock. I have no benefit from this at all, other than hopefully that warm fuzzy feeling knowing some can choose Kodak(as I do for my 8x10 shooting, despite the cost). I don't see many people who show the dedication these guys seem to have shown, with regard to their photography.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Felinik]

Is there nobody here on APUG with a connection to Kodak that could throw some facts on c41 processing of this film, and how the pre-exposure remjet removal possibly affects the emulsion positive/negative etc. ?

I love the colors of this film, and have been thinking about purchasing a cheap big roll on ebay and roll myself, but couldn't find anyone in europe that does small scale development, so if there's actually someone removing the remjet, making dev possible in a more standard fashion, if the price is right I'd be totally up for this!

 

[Dave R.]

These aren't the ecn-2.com people. Unfortunately those people got scammed.

Hi,

Have you considered paying for advertising on APUG instead? Because this sounds like a shill/plug/free advertising scheme by going through someone else to me.

Just FEI; These are the guys that privately asked me over the course of several months back about the ECN-2 process, I pointed out the misinformation on their website about the ECN-2 process, and was silenced on the facebook group, I've also been insulted and abused, and have been threatened with defamation law suits from those guys for reposting the rubbish they have said to me.


In regards to the business;
"We really should have taken him to court. We had a solid case. I think 3 people got scans back, 2 got negs. But so many bought film that will never be processed . Worthless. Scam. Money down the drain." - http://instagram.com/p/NhtL6mPTUb/

Also here - https://twitter.com/jonathancanlas/status/128696537525137409
https://www.facebook.com/insideanalogphoto/posts/296860700328268?comment_id=5404312

In regards to the photo, notice how they didn't even line up the bulk lid tab to the film exit area.



ECN-2 chem is inexpensive for the bulk you get, given the prices those guys are charging for their service, and the impression people who've gone through them have, I would recommend to learn to DIY.

For what it's worth, Portra 400 is a whole lot better than 5219 500T imho.


Regardless, before jumping on board with a product and business, do your homework about them.


Google is also reporting to me that ecn-2.com (their main site, apparently) is a reported attack site - "Malicious software includes 3 scripting exploit(s)." don't know what that's about. As well all the link's (except contact) are 404'ing. I would not call this reliable.

 

[madgardener]

Is there nobody here on APUG with a connection to Kodak that could throw some facts on c41 processing of this film, and how the pre-exposure remjet removal possibly affects the emulsion positive/negative etc. ?

I love the colors of this film, and have been thinking about purchasing a cheap big roll on ebay and roll myself, but couldn't find anyone in europe that does small scale development, so if there's actually someone removing the remjet, making dev possible in a more standard fashion, if the price is right I'd be totally up for this!

PE has gone into great detail about ECN-2 film vs C-41. I'm not sure if he is a current chemist at Kodak or retired, but he is very knowledgeable about the processes and he has stated many times that ECN-2 film processed in C-41 is not stable. If you do a quick search you will find that he has a lot to say about this topic.

 

[lensman_nh]

PE has gone into great detail about ECN-2 film vs C-41. I'm not sure if he is a current chemist at Kodak or retired, but he is very knowledgeable about the processes and he has stated many times that ECN-2 film processed in C-41 is not stable. If you do a quick search you will find that he has a lot to say about this topic.

PE is retired.

J.

 

[Athiril]

The preferred method of removing remjet is with an air knife. As it has less risk of damaging the film.

The point of removing remjet before spooling is so people can process it in transport C-41 machines, such as the frontier.

Regardless of stability, Portra 400 has been an all rounder better performer in C-41 than 5219 500T. 5230 500T should be than 5219 im general but Portra will be the best.

Then there is the colour rendition and skin tones of Portra to boot.

I would rather people buy more Portra, as I think this would be the biggest shame of any product to lose, period.

I also think Eterna Vivid 500T would be the better ECN-2 film for high speed and scanning. Then there is also Reala 500D. These are available from Taobao pre spooled for those interested. Labs in China have been doing the ECN-2 for stills thing for a while.

These films also suffer from high intensity reciprocity failure iirc, which may pose problems in colour rendition for shooters who mixed available light with flash.

Im also unaware if 5219 has an antihalation layer in addition to the remjet layer (as itd be rendundancy in normal usage).

Which would be an issue for having it removed by alkali treatment prior to exposure. The other thing is introducing more impurities to the emulsion prior to exposure. It is preferential to do it post exposure.

 

[newcan1]

If I am correct, these are the guys who have somehow achieved outstanding results shooting Vision3 500T at ISO 3200. I have not been able to replicate their success. I have shot at 1600 and got useable negatives, but thin and very grainy. My results shooting Portra 400 at 1600 were far superior in terms both of color and grain. My guess is that I would not in future push 500T beyond ISO 800 or 1000, making me somewhat skeptical of their claims - perhaps they used modified chemistry or longer than published developing times. At ISO 1000, I had better results with Eterna Vivid 500T than with the Vision3 stock, but Portra was clearly the winner - in a league of its own. While I can roll my own movie stock (and process myself) for a lot less cost than the Portra (by buying short end re-cans), Portra is I think a bit cheaper than what these guys are asking for their adapted Vision3 500T stock. And while I'm at it, in my ISO 1600 tests, even Kodak Ultramax 800 out-performed the Vision3 500T.

 

[Athiril]

IIRC 'The Wright Brothers' were affiliated and involved with the ecn-2.com project, I still have the screenshots of our discussions because of what happened. I don't know if they had a falling out or whatever (with the IAP guy), but if they are not leaving people stranded essentially, then that's only a good thing.

My results typically mirrored newcan1's. Meant to say above 5230 -should- be a little better than 5219 imo. Was sending from phone.

 

[DanielStone]

Hey all,

on the FB group "Film shooters" headed up by the Wright Brothers(yes, they mention the unfortunate ECN-2 debacle there), they posted(and have allowed me to re-post) some screenshots of 100% crops of some recent tests of their 500T "C-41 X-Pro" tests.

These are all PROCESSED "NORMAL". Even the ISO 1600 one has been processed "normal"(as if it was rated for iso 500). Scans have just been adjusted to bring levels up to the same as the other speeds.

Enjoy,

Dan

***PLEASE REMEMBER, THESE PHOTOS ARE THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE WRIGHT BROTHERS/CINEFILMSTILL/BWRIGHT PHOTO, etc. and are NOT to be used without direct permission FROM THEM.***

I have been granted permission from them to re-post here and elsewhere I discuss this topic(currently only here):

 

[Bwright]

First off I want to thank Daniel and others for trying to support us in our effort to make this alternative film available without rem-jet for all those who have encouraged us to do so. Daniel made us aware of this thread. We were not planning on running from forum to forum to promote this, because our goal is not to market it. We are doing this primarily for ourselves, but hopefully many others can find it to be a useful tool in their belt as well. We are excited to hear others experience and critique, so long as it is constructive concerns rather than destructive or pedantic phobia.

I think we need to clarify a few things....

First off, lets talk about the elephant in the room. There seems to be some misconceptions being asserted. Athiril, we again apologize for any conflict we have had with you and honestly would prefer not to relive any of it. You have always seemed a self-informed and honestly determined fellow, exerting your effort of experimentation to contribute towards the film community. Even though, in the past we have seriously rubbed each other the wrong way, we commend you for your desire for discovery. Life is far too short for enemies. Especially on the internet. We do not wish to deliberate each other's private conduct.

In regards to our relationship towards ECN-2.com... We have no connection whatsoever with their business practices, Facebook group "Film is Fun" (which apparently we have been accused of running), or the business' web page. The host of IAPR, S.S., interviewed us on his show and we become friends. We spoke with him in length about our studies and experience woking with ECN-2 films, though our disinterest in ever starting a lab. Eventually he approached us about his goal, so we offered advise and allowed him to use our tests on his site, because what he was attempting to accomplish seemed valuable to the film community. Regretfully, his business practices did his company in, but through the process we interceded on behalf of several colleagues to get their ecn-2 processed film and scans, with the help of a great lab. (Richard Photo Lab provided free scans for abandoned customers.) It was extremely disappointing and made us realize that having only one lab capable of providing processing for this film was a terrible thing in the end for film shooters. Sad story. :-(

This led us to begin our research and testing which resulted in our Patent-Pending process we call "premoval". That is the Cinestill film which we have developed and is now in final Beta testing before release. We do not claim to be Photo Engineers or masters or saviors or alchemists... Just guys that can't help themselves in seeing what could be done. Cinestill film is no replacement for Portra 400 or Vision 3 film for motion picture use. It is a viable alternative process film for those who wish to explore it.

Now concerning the questions about the stability and quality of this film processed in C-41 we can speak to the latter exhaustively. We love it! I could post some samples of our results from our workflow as well. It is true that we have no way of knowing the archival qualities of this film in C-41 compared to ECN-2 chemistry, but we have film that had been processed 3 years ago in C-41 and it still looks perfect today (rescanned a couple weeks ago). All I can say is that it is the only high speed capable tungsten balanced film on the market today and scans wonderfully. And if you'd prefer, you can always process it in ECN-2 chemistry as mentioned, without having to remove rem-jet (with a mechanical water jet or scrubber rack as recommended in the industry).

So please do not buy our film if you have any reservations at all. If you love Portra please keep shooting it! We don't want to argue or mislead anyone here. It is what it is and is entirely up to you. We like it. We have been shooting 500T in 33' lengths and processing it in ECN-2 at the major labs in Hollywood for quite some time, but cannot wait to shoot this stuff in our rangefinder! Peace to all and we wish you a pleasant Holliday season.

 

[Bwright]

Thanks Dan for sharing our recent test.

Here are some samples of 5219 in ECN-2 standard macine process vs New Portra 400:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwrightphoto/5261101971/

 

[Athiril]

Sorry I thought you were involved with that website/business.

Vision3 ECN-2 films still need stabiliser iirc (esp for CD-4 xpro), best stability in C-41 would be had with Stabiliser III in the final rinse, which is still compatible with frontier processor and regular C-41 films

Flextight 949 scan of 5219 500T through C-41 that I was mucking around with the other week.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?6dzq64augqxpoh4 (warning 49mb jpeg)

 

[Bwright]

Thanks DanielStone for sharing our recent test results.

And thank you Athiril for the suggestion. Current ECN-2 processing may not require ferricyanide bleach (SR-29) but perhaps for it's archival qualities when cross-procceing many labs still use it. I'm sure stabilizer wouldn't hurt. Kodak recommends Ammonium “UL” Bleach (SR-33). (Module 7, PAGE 30) Then again in Module 8 on page 3 ferricyanide bleach (SR-29) appears to be the recommended bleach. Perhaps they are just interchangeable. Hmmm... Either way, it sounds like a good idea to have formaldehyde there to stabilize for cross processing when ferricyanide is not present in the bleach process but "UL" bleach is also recommended by Kodak.

Here is an old test we did comparing over/under exposure capabilities of Portra 400 and 500T: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwrightphoto/5261101971/

We have also been doing controls with most of our testing to be sure of the purity of the film and it's behavior in C-41 chemistry vs ECN-2. Here two shots taken on two different rolls that went through premoval:

The one on the left is standard C-41 process and the one on the right is ECN-2 process. Both exposed at EI 640 and scanned the same. The densitometery is virtually identical, but the c41 has a slight bump in the blacks (better shadow separation)

 

[newcan1]

This is all very interesting. As I have indicated, I have had no luck with 5219 shot above 1600 ISO, and the only with push processing in ECN-2. Maybe I'll try chemical remjet removal followed by C-41 just for the heck of it, and see what happens. It would be nice to be able to replicate the results shown here.

 

[newcan1]

Meant to say above 5230 -should- be a little better than 5219 imo. Was sending from phone.

Athiril (or anybody), is 5230 a more recent product introduction than 5219? I didn't even know it existed.

I also did my tests on Vision2 (5218), at 1600 the negatives were a bit thinner than the 5219 but the results were very similar. So I think that all of these stocks keep fairly well if properly stored.

I suspect they may be useable at higher speeds for scanning than they would be useable for analog printing.

 

[Athiril]

Athiril (or anybody), is 5230 a more recent product introduction than 5219? I didn't even know it existed.

I also did my tests on Vision2 (5218), at 1600 the negatives were a bit thinner than the 5219 but the results were very similar. So I think that all of these stocks keep fairly well if properly stored.

I suspect they may be useable at higher speeds for scanning than they would be useable for analog printing.

5230 is cheaper (slightly) than 5219 iirc, the one guy here in Aus that deals with mopic for Kodak told me that it was for TV shooters, and 5219 on the big screen should appear better, but I think it's the other way around, 5230 would appear better at normal usage.

Was also told it's Vision2 based, but it is certainly not relabelled 5218, and it's not Vision3 either.

ECN-2 iirc doesn't have stabiliser built into the film.