ECN2 process with jobo

[Radost]

I use the pre-bath at about 30 degrees Celsius, but I don't temperature control it - it always works. The chemistry itself does not pollute - I return it relatively free of impurities. During the water flush, I strongly agitate the tank, the first water comes out completely black, the next two - with decreasing. After the third water bath, there are only pink dyes, no Remjet particles.
The one time I skipped the pre-bath, the developer had turned almost black, heavily saturated with Remjet particles. Worse, for some reason the Remjet stuck to the tank's spirals - extremely unpleasant. If I use a preliminary bath, the contamination of the spirals is many times less and they are easy to clean. I have no explanation why.

Please try at 80F/27C +-1 C like Kodak recommends. I really think that is the magic. They would not put extreme temp limitation for no reason.

 

[Radost]

I use the pre-bath at about 30 degrees Celsius,

How many dirty water changes do you have? I only have one and the second one is 100% carbon free.

 

[lamerko]

My "about 30 degrees" is pretty close to the recommended 27+/-1. I've tried really different temperature ranges, including the recommended ones. There is no difference in the removal quality of the Remjet. But I have doubts that very high temperature can damage the dyes. I will find out with tests...

 

[Radost]

My "about 30 degrees" is pretty close to the recommended 27+/-1. I've tried really different temperature ranges, including the recommended ones. There is no difference in the removal quality of the Remjet. But I have doubts that very high temperature can damage the dyes. I will find out with tests...

I am sure Kodak would not put a temp restriction for no reason.
might be my OCD…

 

[lamerko]

How many dirty water changes do you have? I only have one and the second one is 100% carbon free.

After the third change, there are no more particles... but quite a bit of pink dye comes off.

 

[Radost]

After the third change, there are no more particles... but quite a bit of pink dye comes off.

Hm,
Mine is absolutely gone with only one change of water.
Here is a picture of the second water:

 

[Radost]

I

Can You explain why 3:45 on a jobo compared to kodak recommended 3:00 cinema machine process?
I just did 3:45 and I think my negatives look a lot better.

 

[Radost]

After the third change, there are no more particles... but quite a bit of pink dye comes off.

I think the pink die is protective gel coat layer.

 

[koraks]

Here is what comes after.

Yeah, that's what it looked like in my case when using a remjet removal prebath as well.
When not using the bath, the developer looks dirty as it catches much of the remjet, and stop, bleach, fix and wash water are all clean. Makes sense since everything from the stop bath is acidic or at least not alkaline, and this keeps the remaining remjet in place. It only tends to wash off in alkaline environments.

Can You explain why 3:45 on a jobo compared to kodak recommended 3:00 cinema machine process?
I just did 3:45 and I think my negatives look a lot better.

The gamma of ECN2 film developed in ECN2 developer is lower than for C41 film in C41 developer. Extending development time increases gamma. Look at the sensitometry plot in the datasheet:

The black plot is Vision3 250D. The cyan plot overlayed on top of it is Kodak Gold 200. Note how much steeper the Gold plot is (but otherwise very similar). Extending development time steepens the curve so it looks more like C41.

I think the pink die is protective gel coat layer.

No, it's sensitizing dyes mostly and maybe some acutance dyes. The protective top coat gelatin layer does not wash off. It protects the very thin image layers underneath.

 

[Radost]

Yeah, that's what it looked like in my case when using a remjet removal prebath as well.
When not using the bath, the developer looks dirty as it catches much of the remjet, and stop, bleach, fix and wash water are all clean. Makes sense since everything from the stop bath is acidic or at least not alkaline, and this keeps the remaining remjet in place. It only tends to wash off in alkaline environments.



The gamma of ECN2 film developed in ECN2 developer is lower than for C41 film in C41 developer. Extending development time increases gamma. Look at the sensitometry plot in the datasheet:
View attachment 363721
The black plot is Vision3 250D. The cyan plot overlayed on top of it is Kodak Gold 200. Note how much steeper the Gold plot is (but otherwise very similar). Extending development time steepens the curve so it looks more like C41.



No, it's sensitizing dyes mostly and maybe some acutance dyes. The protective top coat gelatin layer does not wash off. It protects the very thin image layers underneath.

Thanks for the info.
I have not scanned yet but I feel for scanning the less contrasty image will give more room for adjustment.

The one thing that looks different from my 3:00 dev negative is some green leak stain at unexposed leader.

 

[koraks]

I have not scanned yet but I feel for scanning the less contrasty image will give more room for adjustment.

I'd expect the opposite. Scanners are designed to work with transparency/slide film as well, which has far more dynamic range (on the film, not capture dynamic range!) than negative film. This means that if you scan negative film, you're only using a tiny bit of the dynamic range the sensor and ADC system is capable of. Hence, the s/n ratio will be higher for this smaller signal, so the more you boost the contrast in the negative, the cleaner a digital signal you'll have to work with.

However, in my experience the difference is negligible. This is because scanners are also designed to work well enough with color film, so the penalty of dropping contrast in the source image a little further isn't too obvious.

 

[Radost]

I'd expect the opposite. Scanners are designed to work with transparency/slide film as well, which has far more dynamic range (on the film, not capture dynamic range!) than negative film. This means that if you scan negative film, you're only using a tiny bit of the dynamic range the sensor and ADC system is capable of. Hence, the s/n ratio will be higher for this smaller signal, so the more you boost the contrast in the negative, the cleaner a digital signal you'll have to work with.

However, in my experience the difference is negligible. This is because scanners are also designed to work well enough with color film, so the penalty of dropping contrast in the source image a little further isn't too obvious.

I am not familiar how CCD scanners work compared to CMOS video camera sensors. But in Video capturing less contrast vastly improves the ability to edit and highlights mid and shadows. I imagine it is a standard ever since d96 to have less contrast.

 

[koraks]

I think you're confusing scanning with camera capture. They're totally different ballgames. One of the main challenges with camera capture is the inherent nature of reality, which involves massive scene brightness ranges. "Reduced contrast" in this case is the ability of a system to not have any of its channels blow out under those conditions (i.e. SBR doesn't exceed sensor channel latitude). A scanner is a different proposition with a known & limited maximum brightness range (negative/slide + light source) to which the latitude of the sensor can be tuned.

Apples & oranges.

 

[Radost]

I think you're confusing scanning with camera capture. They're totally different ballgames. One of the main challenges with camera capture is the inherent nature of reality, which involves massive scene brightness ranges. "Reduced contrast" in this case is the ability of a system to not have any of its channels blow out under those conditions (i.e. SBR doesn't exceed sensor channel latitude). A scanner is a different proposition with a known & limited maximum brightness range (negative/slide + light source) to which the latitude of the sensor can be tuned.

Apples & oranges.

Good to know.
In this case for normal still film scanning developing it like you do for printing should be ideal.

I have access to a cinema film scanner.
Just need to find a cheap film splicer so I can splice bunch of films together.
I don’t know how those work but I assume they are optimized for ecn2 low contrast and saturation.

 

[koraks]

Oh, that would speed things up quite nicely.
How about just splicing manually with suitable tape? I imagine you'll only do a few rolls at a time.

 

[Radost]

I was thinking to scan a lot of films together.

 

[Mr Bill]

I have access to a cinema film scanner.
Just need to find a cheap film splicer so I can splice bunch of films together.

I don't know your arrangement regarding the cine scanner but assuming that it is in production use I would expect that they also have splicers available.

I don't recall exactly how the tape splicers work but they have to hold the sprockets of both films in alignment when cutting the film ends square. Then butt the film ends together for taping (automatic for production work). If the film is gonna have auto-advance controlled by sprockets the tape is not allowed to interfere so probably needs to also be perforated. (In the outfit where I worked film was spliced to go through cine PROCESSORS, not scanners so no need for the perfs to continue through a splice.)

FWIW I would anticipate issues with the scanner jumping across rolls. Presumably it's gonna reference individual frames by "counting" sprockets; if your next roll doesn't match up exactly it's a problem. How does that get handled? I dunno. I would expect that a modern scanner ought to be able to detect a problem and figure it out, but maybe not? I'd be asking the people who oversee the scanner. Might be worth a couple of limited trials to verify what works.

 

[Radost]

I don't know your arrangement regarding the cine scanner but assuming that it is in production use I would expect that they also have splicers available.

I don't recall exactly how the tape splicers work but they have to hold the sprockets of both films in alignment when cutting the film ends square. Then butt the film ends together for taping (automatic for production work). If the film is gonna have auto-advance controlled by sprockets the tape is not allowed to interfere so probably needs to also be perforated. (In the outfit where I worked film was spliced to go through cine PROCESSORS, not scanners so no need for the perfs to continue through a splice.)

FWIW I would anticipate issues with the scanner jumping across rolls. Presumably it's gonna reference individual frames by "counting" sprockets; if your next roll doesn't match up exactly it's a problem. How does that get handled? I dunno. I would expect that a modern scanner ought to be able to detect a problem and figure it out, but maybe not? I'd be asking the people who oversee the scanner. Might be worth a couple of limited trials to verify what works.

He does not have a splicer.
It’s not a production.
Usually he scans whole rolls.
It’s a black magic scanner that shoots raw images so no issues with different films.

 

[Mr Bill]

Cool, looks like quite the scanner.

It’s not a production

FWIW I used the term "production work" to mean something like significant commercial work being done, as opposed to experimental or hobbyist things. In other words the money making part of the business.

I know you did not ask for advice on this, but personally I would start out with a very limited trial of the scanning process. Perhaps 2 or 3 rolls spliced together, with several feet of leader on each end. So if, for some reason, it turns out to be unworkable you don't have a lot of work tied up in it.

 

[Radost]

I’m scanning cinema vision three and 5222 films. I am risking nothing. I have already scanned 16 mm. It’s a pretty straightforward process.

 

[Mr Bill]

Well then congratulations on your past and future success (I hope)!

 

[Radost]

Can You explain why 3:45 on a jobo compared to kodak recommended 3:00 cinema machine process?
I just did 3:45 and I think my negatives look a lot better.

Dear Koarks,
I would like to thank you for all your help!
I finally got the result I wanted.
Your advice for increased dev time with ECN-2 and Jobo was a game changer in the fidelity of my negatives.
I approach film differently than most. I want the colors to be as close to reality as possible.
Here are my scans that looks very very close to reality. Even my portra scans “and older richard’s noritsu scans“ are not that that close.

I did not over expose in camera like i usually do for the increased development.

 

[koraks]

I'm happy you're happy!!

 

[MattKing]

I approach film differently than most. I want the colors to be as close to reality as possible.

I'm happy you're happy!!

I for one am happy as well.
And by the way, I think you greatly underestimate the percentage of people who want realistic colour!!

 

[Radost]

I for one am happy as well.
And by the way, I think you greatly underestimate the percentage of people who want realistic colour!!

Thanks. I mostly see pictures with strong yellow cast and wrong color balance. In cinema movies people stylize it like that but I have never liked daylight looking like candle light.