Does anyone have a general idea of how much of a loss in image quality Cinestill 50D suffers, if any, from what Kodak intended for the film, when cross-processed in C41 as opposed to its intended ECNII chemistry? Perhaps as a percentage or specific degradation/defects in image quality caused by processing in chemistry for which it wasn't intended?
The C-41 and ECN-2 processes use different color developing agents so from the get go there will be different color values. Then as with all color cross processing there will be a color shift due to the top color layer getting more/less development. The anti
halation layer (remjet) has been removed before the film is exposed. This may cause problems in certain lighting condtions. Besides the film is certainly no bargain at the quoted prices $11 to $12 per roll.
My advice would be to look at as many sample photos as possible. There is a definite color shift toward colder tones. Reds come out with an orange cast. Skin color is somewhat bluish. You may not find this annoying but I do.
Color correction filters just do not work for cross processed films. The shift is not across all colors. I remember some years ago using an ECN film (along with ECN chemistry) which was balanced for color positive cine stock and not for prints. I could get EITHER yellowish highlights OR a magenta cast in the shadows.. Eliminating both was an impossibility. Then too most people do not have the required CC filters which would be an added expense.
An anti halation coating is appreciated when dealing with backlit subjects or with specular highlights. It prevents light from bouncing back into the emulsion and causes haloes around bright areas. Again some people are unaware of any problems.
Given how good / inexpensive / reliable / convenient that Ektar 100 is, I see no reason for the effort and hassle of using Vision 50D for C41.
Yes but notice : Kodak EXR and Fuji Eterna is very very old stuff.Over the last year I developed several different ECN-2 based motion picture films (Fuji Eterna, Kodak EXR and Kodak Vision 3) which I shot in my still camera.
I started with C-41, moved to C-41 with RA-4 developer and more recently finally used real ECN-2.
At least my personal results are MUCH MUCH better in real ECN-2 chemistry!
I used to always get images that had way too much magenta in them and also a very high contrast that did not look nice at all.
If you develop at home (as I do) buying cheap short ends of current or old motion picture stock is the best way.
It is much cheaper than any of that Cinestill stuff (which I did try for quite some time) and at least I personally used to have lots of problems with halation.
That's what I was trying to sayYes but notice : Kodak EXR and Fuji Eterna is very very old stuff.
I would not expect good results with this
expired films. But you may have luck with
ECN 2 developer.
Yes I mentioned it at above.But before we definitivly will now how much imageI would also worry about image stability.
PE
Ok I respect your results - but this is a bad news to me because I just got a big amound of cheap c41 chems.That's what I was trying to sayI did in fact use those old expired films as well as new Vision 3 films in both C-41 and ECN-2.
And in my experience all of them, no matter how old or new they were, had always much nicer colors and contrast when done in ECN-2.
It even looked like the expired films had less grain when developed in ECN-2.
The process is a bit more effort than C-41 though, higher temperatures, additional remjet removal step and I am not a big fan of the sulfuric acid that is used.
Sure! It's a matter of personal taste. So just use whatever looks best to youPS : May bethe colors are much nicer with c-41 to me ????
C41 films have their own anti-halation materials that wash out during processing.
ECN films have a slightly more effective solution for halation - remjet - that also provides lubrication and static energy control.
When Cinestill removes the remjet from ECN camera films, they don't replace the anti-halation function with anything.
They also are selling a film that is designed to be printed onto other (print) film or scanned for eventual printing on to print film, or nowadays digital projection, so the colour response and contrast is designed very differently than films that are designed for either printing on to paper, or scanning for the preparation of prints.
I doubt that the OP's question can be answered in terms of percentages. I'm sure that the differences are sufficient to really bother those of us who tend to notice differences.
May be you are right - perhaps I forget a bit the funktion of anti halo layers in c41
because they are a bit different from conception and design (located between other layers).
They do their job "unvisible" so we don't care about.And by removing Ramjet noting is left.
But on the other hand to me - there is no problem at all.
Perhaps I did not care about therefore so much.
Cause I still like the cinestill "Idea" but the stuff is much overpriced to me.
And so I do the job from cinestill by myself (removing ramjet).
With original 50D (before developing - not before exposure).
And by using this method I need indeed
no halo layer (because I have it)
its only a question to get Ramjet away.
Sorry I mixed this a bit - and yes (in theory) it may caused problems wich original cinestill? ?????
with regards
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?