Can you use color print film for contrast masking color 120 or 135 negatives?

[c t b]

Dear community members,

I am looking into getting into masking to step up my prints, most notably due to its capabilities for contrast reduction in color.

When looking at the options of pan film recommended to cover 120 negatives, what tends to be cited are the likes of FP4+ and TMAX 100 in 4x5, the later being very expensive in europe. I started to ask myself what the effects and if it would be possible to use Kodak movie color print stock (not to be confused with the color negatives destined to the cinema industry and repackaged by cinestill etc.), as 2383:

''https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1482764-REG/kodak_7434517_vision_color_print_film.html''

''https://www.kodak.com/content/produ...ION-Color-Print-Film-2383-3383-data-sheet.pdf''

With the difference in chemical costs being insignificant when compared to the film costs I wonder wether a filtration pack would be able to solve possible issues and make this a viable masking option.

On a small tangent I have also asked myself about the option of Fomapan 100 as a contrast reducing masker, and developer suggestions to make it more suitbale for this purpose.

Thank you all in advance for any inputs!

 

[DREW WILEY]

The only good point is that it's on dimensionally stable polyester base. The bad news is that its awfully high contrast, you're on your own trying to figure out how to tame it, it's rather thin for masking purposes, you're going to have to buy an awful lot of it at a time if you can even find it, and it requires special processing. I don't see any way your can save money that way!

As far as Fomapan 100 goes, I think you'll discover it's somewhat too grainy to be ideal for small format film masking. Its only benefit is its lower price point. Only the sheet film version is on polyester base. But you wouldn't want to use any kind of roll film for masking anyway; it needs to lay completely flat.

Yeah ... the price of all brands of sheet film has gone up a lot recently, but so has everything else. But if you're only masking small originals like 120 you could cut sheets of 4x5 in half in the dark for masking usage. That would save you money.

 

[c t b]

The only good point is that it's on dimensionally stable polyester base. The bad news is that its awfully high contrast, you're on your own trying to figure out how to tame it, it's rather thin for masking purposes, you're going to have to buy an awful lot of it at a time if you can even find it, and it requires special processing. I don't see any way your can save money that way!

As far as Fomapan 100 goes, I think you'll discover it's somewhat too grainy to be ideal for small format film masking. Its only benefit is its lower price point. Only the sheet film version is on polyester base. But you wouldn't want to use any kind of roll film for masking anyway; it needs to lay completely flat.

Yeah ... the price of all brands of sheet film has gone up a lot recently, but so has everything else. But if you're only masking small originals like 120 you could cut sheets of 4x5 in half in the dark for masking usage. That would save you money.

Thank you for the reply Drew. I think I will start with the foma 100 4x5 sheets, I would hate to make begginer mistakes on 2.5 Euros masks.

It is indeed probably wise to stir clear of the print film, I imagine that if the adventure backfired it would have been virtually impossible to sell it back and further to the contrast you noted I would have to find a way to flatten the film well without damaging it, maybe something to be studied for a larger specialized lab, as when you put it down to surface price it is among the cheapest panchromatic films, and it is supposed to be sharp and low speed (when conveniently omitting the ecp-2 costs, which i didnt look into). As i do have a can of 50D and ECN2 chems at hand I might try an attempt with that for the fun of it, wonder if the remjet will ruin the party.