ECN-II film in still camera lengths - where to process?

B&Wpositive · Feb 21, 2010

Kodak Vision 500T, etc look like great films. And the movie films are the last tungsten balanced films, too. But what lab would process them in short still-camera lengths? Let alone finding someone who will push process it.

Or could one process them in C-41 chemistry in a Jobo? I guess not; I think PE warned against using C-41 chemistry with ECN II film because it won't be archival.

What's the solution then? Short of mixing raw chemicals yourself? We're missing out on so many great films because we can't process them easily.

nickandre · Feb 21, 2010

ehhhhhhh...splice many many rolls together?

I looked at this myself but then said "aha! Ektar 100 has been released...there's no need!" I was going to begin scratch mixing.

B&Wpositive · Feb 21, 2010

tiberiustibz said:
ehhhhhhh...splice many many rolls together?

I looked at this myself but then said "aha! Ektar 100 has been released...there's no need!" I was going to begin scratch mixing.

How would you splice them? I wouldn't mind doing that actually to get enough to process. Like, shoot 20 rolls and splice them together to get 120 feet. And then send it all for processing as a reel.

nickandre · Feb 21, 2010

I think tape is out. Either with film cement or with those nifty hot splice ones. Sorry I've never tried it before.

Photo Engineer · Feb 21, 2010

The ECN and C41 process differ enough to cause problems for you.

The ECN is 0.5 in contrast and the C41 family is 0.6+ in contrast. Prints will not be optimum.

Good luck.

PE

B&Wpositive · Feb 21, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
The ECN and C41 process differ enough to cause problems for you.

The ECN is 0.5 in contrast and the C41 family is 0.6+ in contrast. Prints will not be optimum.

Good luck.

PE

Can exposure in camera or developing time compensate for this contrast shift? Is archival stability impacted when processing ECN in C-41? Is there any other reason not to do it?

nickrapak · Feb 21, 2010

I believe that Wal-Mart still processes it via their send-out service, although the last time I looked was over a year ago. There should be a blue booklet next to the send-out box that explains all of their services. If it's not there, the lab "tech" should have it behind the counter.

B&Wpositive · Feb 21, 2010

nickrapak said:
I believe that Wal-Mart still processes it via their send-out service, although the last time I looked was over a year ago. There should be a blue booklet next to the send-out box that explains all of their services. If it's not there, the lab "tech" should have it behind the counter.

Wal-Mart is a lost cause when it comes to stuff like this. I'll bet it's only for "movie film reels" if they even offer it anymore. But who knows if they actually do. Even if they did, I would not want to trust a commercial send-out service to handle the film.

So maybe there's a way to do it in a Jobo with premade C-41 chemistry without the terrible contrast shift and without clogging anything up due to the rem jet...?

nickandre · Feb 21, 2010

ehhhhhh trust me it's more trouble than it's worth. I've had to clean out a dark closet of remjet gook before. Not particularly fun...If you really want you should mix your own developer--it's not that hard. But removing the rem jet will be a royal pain.

Is there any reason you're opposed to using ektar? Or have you just been given a large supply of film and want to use it? Your results are not going to be particularly fascinating...

Last time I tried to process movie film through Walmart I waited two weeks and it was handed back to me saying "service not offered." I thought it strange since the "book" they handed me offered it plainly...

B&Wpositive · Feb 21, 2010

tiberiustibz said:
ehhhhhh trust me it's more trouble than it's worth. I've had to clean out a dark closet of remjet gook before. Not particularly fun...If you really want you should mix your own developer--it's not that hard. But removing the rem jet will be a royal pain.

Is there any reason you're opposed to using ektar? Or have you just been given a large supply of film and want to use it? Your results are not going to be particularly fascinating...

Last time I tried to process movie film through Walmart I waited two weeks and it was handed back to me saying "service not offered." I thought it strange since the "book" they handed me offered it plainly...

Ektar is too slow for indoor wedding work.

Athiril · Feb 22, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
The ECN and C41 process differ enough to cause problems for you.

The ECN is 0.5 in contrast and the C41 family is 0.6+ in contrast. Prints will not be optimum.

Good luck.

PE

With my home built processor, it wont make a difference if I process it in the way I've been doing colour neg (Rodinal, Fix, Bleach, E6 CD, Bleach, Fix) as contrast will be set by the first dev right? This is intended for a short film to be telecined.

Photo Engineer · Feb 22, 2010

B&Wpositive said:
Can exposure in camera or developing time compensate for this contrast shift? Is archival stability impacted when processing ECN in C-41? Is there any other reason not to do it?

Image stability will suffer and crossover will occur causing color shifts. Some contrast can be gained by push processing, but with the other problems, they will also be magnified.

PE

Photo Engineer · Feb 22, 2010

Athiril said:
With my home built processor, it wont make a difference if I process it in the way I've been doing colour neg (Rodinal, Fix, Bleach, E6 CD, Bleach, Fix) as contrast will be set by the first dev right? This is intended for a short film to be telecined.

Other than the fact that ECN is a negative masked film with low contrast.

So, in your process you will get a masked color positive with a low contrast. IDK what the quality will be in your process, so good luck.

PE

David Grenet · Feb 22, 2010

It would be a negative, I believe, due to the first fix.

Not sure why you would do it that way but I'm a firm believer in experimentation for its own sake, so let us know how it turns out!

Photo Engineer said:
Other than the fact that ECN is a negative masked film with low contrast.

So, in your process you will get a masked color positive with a low contrast. IDK what the quality will be in your process, so good luck.

PE

Photo Engineer · Feb 22, 2010

David Grenet said:
It would be a negative, I believe, due to the first fix.

Not sure why you would do it that way but I'm a firm believer in experimentation for its own sake, so let us know how it turns out!

Yes, you are quite right. Sorry for my error and thanks for catching it.

I still don't know what it will do. I do know that the rem jet backing will make a mess of any process not equipped to handle it!

PE

hrst · Feb 22, 2010

IMO the remjet is the biggest inconvenience. You have to deal with it even if you use C-41 developer, so if you go through this trouble, you could also mix your ECN-2 developer (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/h2407.pdf page 30). Even if you omitted KODAK Antifoggant AF-2000 (which is not easily available), it would still probably be a much better formulation (with correct CD) than C-41 developer. With the correct ECN-2 developer, you could do a small push to increase the contrast a bit and probably get perfect results?

On the other hand, if you use high-contrast paper like Ultra Endura, it may not be a problem at all?

Baking soda seems to be good for softening the remjet. You just have to come up with a method to remove it without causing deposits to emulsion side. It is possible but you have to practice a little.

Athiril · Feb 22, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Yes, you are quite right. Sorry for my error and thanks for catching it.

I still don't know what it will do. I do know that the rem jet backing will make a mess of any process not equipped to handle it!

PE

Im intending on processing it similar to tube sheet film processing. So it shouldnt it be a problem, plus I can drag the film through a film squeegee after first wash or a bath to help remove it. Requires testing. I'm getting around 5000 ft whenever it shows up... maybe next week, plenty of stuff to test with.

Anyway, film is wrapped emulsion side out around a tube. Like something 1m long, 10cm radius for 100ft worth of 16mm. Placed inside a bigger tube with a key and an inner radius of 10.5cm

Should take approx 3.3 litres of developer solution, which is a bit more developer per square mm of film than 36 exp 35mm in 300mL.

Cold/ambient process and uses minimal amount of chemicals due to high dilutions which is good, been working great so far, will need testing on the actual film Ill be using it on when it gets here though

I was intending originally to process it to colour positive.. but no matter how I try to do a cold process with Rodinal or what I add to it, it comes out with either opaque film with no image or really really dense positives, it only seems to work in a hot process (~40c)...

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 22, 2010

B&Wpositive said:
How would you splice them? I wouldn't mind doing that actually to get enough to process. Like, shoot 20 rolls and splice them together to get 120 feet. And then send it all for processing as a reel.

A small lab that might be open to such things would be Spectra in L.A., but their minimum for 35mm neg film is 400'. So if you could get a few people together or advertise the service, learn to hot splice undeveloped film in the dark and use a system of twin-checks that won't come off the film in the process to keep track of the individual rolls (I think this had to be done with Kodachrome K-Lab processing), and get a lab to process it, you might have a little side business there.

I suppose you might be able to set up a light trapped system for splicing the leader of one roll to the trailer of the next roll with the lights on in a dark box, then close the doors of the box to roll the film from the canister to the big reel for processing.

If you're printing by methods better discussed on APUG's sister site, http://hybridphoto.com , the reduced contrast might not be a problem. To print optically, you might be better off with Portra 400 in your flavor of choice or Portra 800.

Photo Engineer · Feb 22, 2010

Athiril;

Beware that diffusion in thick color films is your enemy. A thick film pack processed at lower than recommended temps will cause the top layer to be overdeveloped and the bottom layer to be underdeveloped. One way to overcome this is to develop the top layer to optimum and then soak the film in water after the development stage. This allows the bottom layers to catch up a bit.

Also, if someone can remind me what AF2000 is, I might have a substitute.

PE

Athiril · Feb 22, 2010

If its just an anti-foggant couldn't benzotriazole substitute? I've replaced all restrainer completely with benzotriazole in E6 first devs to great result before. According to the site, AF2000 is a replacement for the hazzardous AF9.

I'll see how it goes, I'm generally finding that 1+100 Rodinal, 1 hour stand is the place to be, maybe 50 minutes. Wouldn't that kind of lengthy developing time overcome that?

In any case thanks for the tip, I'll see how it compares to regular C41 when processed in the same manner and see if adjustments need to be made

Photo Engineer · Feb 22, 2010

Well, IDK what AF9 is nor do I know what AF2000 is. I have forgotten if I even ever knew them by those names. Internally we used different nomenclature so, I can recognize them now only by their chemical names.

And no, not all antifoggants are equal. Some go after a specific layer in color films and papers and others are generic. So, it is important to know the intent and name of the AF. I know of 3 antifoggants that go after respectively, the cyan, magenta and yellow in color paper in that order. You can use any combination to fight any particular fog type.

PE

David Grenet · Feb 22, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Also, if someone can remind me what AF2000 is, I might have a substitute.

According to the MSDS it is 5%-10% (weight) Sodium-3-nitrobenzenesulphonate.

Photo Engineer · Feb 22, 2010

David Grenet said:
According to the MSDS it is 5%-10% (weight) Sodium-3-nitrobenzenesulphonate.

That is not generally considered to be an antifoggant, but rather an anti foamant. Hmmm. I'll have to think about that.

PE

hrst · Feb 23, 2010

IIRC, h2408 or h2409 from KODAK (effects of chemical & mechanical variations in ECN2) shows that halving the AF-2000 concentration has no effect at all. Doubling it, instead, had some effect. Sadly they didn't test for omitting it completely. However, this makes me think that this is not super-important part and I'd rather just omit it than cross-process in C-41.

ECN-2 indeed used "Anti-Foggant No 9" before and it was flammable and replaced with AF-2000 (proprietary liquid concentrate) which, according to some of the processing manuals, has very high stability in the developer IIRC.

Minimum order size is 2 x 2 liter bottles IIRC (which is very much at 5 ml/l), and KODAK directly may be the only dealer?

hrst · Feb 23, 2010

I happened to find an older version of h2408 ( Dead Link Removed ) where AF-9 is used instead of AF-2000, and that test goes to concentration of 0 g/l! (See page 9.) Omitting the antifoggant seems to give Dmin a rise of 0.02 to 0.04. Doesn't sound so problematic at all. It shows a green crossover of 0.04 but can you see a crossover this small in real images?

The bromide level seems to play a MUCH bigger part and it seems possible to compensate it carefully to address the green crossover, but for me it seems that it's hard to even measure that accurately at home! (1.15 g/l instead of 1.20 g/l, when AF-9 omitted.)

ECN-II film in still camera lengths - where to process?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency