ECN2 processing

[lamerko]

Thanks to Cinestill et al. a sizeable part of this world develops ECN-2 materials in C-41 chemistry, and most seem to be more or less happy with the results. And no, he does not HAVE TO use the same bleach times as C-41, that's a process, which runs to completion, and different materials may well complete in different time frames. BTW the ECN-2 process uses a bleach very similar to C-41 bleach, and the ECN-2 process does bleach for 3:00.

Rudeofus: he uses Fuji CN16 chemistry - I don't think he will get good results mixing the process in this situation...

 

[Rudeofus]

Rudeofus: he uses Fuji CN16 chemistry - I don't think he will get good results mixing the process in this situation...

I am aware of that, and we are both aware, that CN-16 is Fuji's name for C-41. Yes, that's "the wrong process", but a sizable number of ECN-2 shooters use that process and seem to be happy with the results.

 

[brbo]

It appears to me, that the dark sections in these scans show much less reddish glow than in your first test run. Is this correct?

Reddish glow? Both series exhibit massive crossover, magenta shadows with cyan highlights.

Rudeofus: he uses Fuji CN16 chemistry - I don't think he will get good results mixing the process in this situation...

We have unknown process (no details how the processing is done), no visual representation of negative, no information about the scanning process, no information about the necessary digital manipulation part of inverting the scan...

Sure, C-41 is not the right process for ECN-2 film, but that problem is WAAAAY down the list...

 

[Rudeofus]

Reddish glow? Both series exhibit massive crossover, magenta shadows with cyan highlights.

Massive problems is what I see in the first couple of images posted by the thread starter. What is shown in his later images may have some cross over, but nothing unfixable. And yes, the images with 1:15 bleach and 5:00 fixing look more red in the shadows than the 3:00 bleach and 3:00 fix samples. This may be due to process variations or whatever.

Interestingly I have so far no explanation for the big difference between original sample images and the later ones.

 

[lamerko]

I am aware of that, and we are both aware, that CN-16 is Fuji's name for C-41. Yes, that's "the wrong process", but a sizable number of ECN-2 shooters use that process and seem to be happy with the results.

I agree. My comment was about his attempt to use chemistry for C-41 as an ECN-2 process (41 degrees instead of 38). The result is visible from the displayed frames

Reddish glow? Both series exhibit massive crossover, magenta shadows with cyan highlights.



We have unknown process (no details how the processing is done), no visual representation of negative, no information about the scanning process, no information about the necessary digital manipulation part of inverting the scan...

Sure, C-41 is not the right process for ECN-2 film, but that problem is WAAAAY down the list...

As far as I understand it uses C-41 chemistry in the process steps for ECN-2. This is no longer a question of cross processing, but of misprocessing with the available chemistry...

 

[brbo]

As far as I understand it uses C-41 chemistry in the process steps for ECN-2. This is no longer a question of cross processing, but of misprocessing with the available chemistry...

His first set was processed at 38ºC. If you compare it to the results at 41ºC you'd have to agree that 41ºC is MUCH better.

But, we all know that no amount of temperature drift from 38ºC can explain neon green shadows of the OP scans, so my bet is that the problem has deep roots in the digital domain, too. OP clearly does not believe that he needs to show as good as possible visual representation of the negative, so lets keep up the pointless (and baseless) guessing...

 

[lamerko]

His first set was processed at 38ºC. If you compare it to the results at 41ºC you'd have to agree that 41ºC is MUCH better.

But, we all know that no amount of temperature drift from 38ºC can explain neon green shadows of the OP scans, so my bet is that the problem has deep roots in the digital domain, too. OP clearly does not believe that he needs to show as good as possible visual representation of the negative, so lets keep up the pointless (and baseless) guessing...

I am not very sure. He repeated "at least 38 degrees" several times, and in post #8 he clarified:

Those are chemical i used to process EC-2.
as i told before .. at least 38 degrees (with digital thermometer i checked the 3 bottles 40-41 degrees).
timing for develop 3'15" : 1'15" : 2'30"

 

[brbo]

Process it at 20ºC or 50ºC if you want, for a minute or an hour, the base won't look pure magenta.

 

[lamerko]

Process it at 20ºC or 50ºC if you want, for a minute or an hour, the base won't look pure magenta.

It was also not clear whether there was agitation. Times given are for machining. Without agitation, magenta is a logical result.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Welcome to Photrio, Angah316!

 

[brbo]

Without agitation, magenta is a logical result.

Oh, boy...

 

[koraks]

Without agitation, magenta is a logical result.

No, it isn't.

I think the second set of scans looks sort of OK for tungsten balanced ECN2 film processed in C41 chemistry and then digitized with an unknown and likely uncontrolled process. I'd call it a day at that point from a chemical viewpoint. Just fix the rest in digital post, live happily ever after and all that jazz

 

[angah316]

It appears to me, that the dark sections in these scans show much less reddish glow than in your first test run. Is this correct?

Yup .. looks like that. its much better

 

[angah316]

Im so glad to read the feedback. Now the issue chemical used are for c41 and its should develop processing at exactly at 38 .. scientifically and theoretically what happen if more than 38 degree .. ?

Attached are the negatives ..
i reshoot using the phone ..

 

[koraks]

scientifically and theoretically what happen if more than 38 degree .. ?

Higher contrast, more crossover. I won't oriduce anything like the problems you reported in the first post.

Thanks for posting the negative strips as well. Is it possible to photograph them side by side in the same photograph? Your phone probably has chosen slightly different exposure settings for both shots now. However, by the looks of it, the left strip has a very significant amount of retained silver due to incomplete bleaching and fixing. This sort of thing does potentially explain the defect you ran into initially, as mentioned several times.

Be generous with bleach and fix times, then see how your next rolls go. There's a good chance the problem will stay away if you bleach and fix for at least 3 minutes each. Also be sure that the fixer isn't exhausted; either use it one shot, or replenish it as recommended by Fuji.

 

[brbo]

Yes, as @koraks already said, be as precise as possible with CD temperature (38ºC with constant agitation for C-41), remove remjet before CD, generous bleach and fix. You are close (no magenta negatives, lol), the rest of the problem is using wrong film in wrong conditions (tungsten balanced film for daylight) and scanning (out of the box, Noritsu scanner will not handle V3 500T very well).

 

[Alain Deloc]

Then your answer is probably that this developer somehow performs reasonably well at a surprisingly low pH. Which formula do you use exactly?

Btw, the 50D strip with the DIY developer at pH9.2 looks quite normal to me. All the others are pretty far off in terms of orange mask. It's evidently way too magenta and too dense in the high pH strips. The 250D and 500T lack seriously in magenta in both your low pH DIY developer and the Bellini kit. The 250D I've been using looks just like the 50D in terms of base color. Is your film very much expired or something?

Given the differences between the 50D and the other films in your comparisons, there must be something going in here that isn't quite right. Not sure if it's just the developer.

All three reels I have were bought from frame24 store some years ago. 50D is produced in 2017, 250D is from 2020 , 500T is also from 2020. All were stored in the freezer. Strips developed with Bellini are from 2020, so films should have been quite fresh at that moment. I didn't had a pH meter back in 2020 and I also never assumed back then that something could be wrong with a commercial kit. So you are saying that the base for all three should have more magenta in it? I have to say that last strip (the one named 250D 2020) is showing quite nice colors, even if it's dense and weird looking.

 

[koraks]

So you are saying that the base for all three should have more magenta in it?

For the Bellini kit, I'd expect so, yes, with the 50D showing the least deviation. With your DIY developer at pH9.2 the 50D looks just about right to my eye. The pH10 adjusted ones look way out of spec. I don't doubt that the colors can be salvaged quite well with scanning, so in that sense, the whole situation might be acceptable anyway.

 

[Alain Deloc]

For the Bellini kit, I'd expect so, yes, with the 50D showing the least deviation. With your DIY developer at pH9.2 the 50D looks just about right to my eye. The pH10 adjusted ones look way out of spec. I don't doubt that the colors can be salvaged quite well with scanning, so in that sense, the whole situation might be acceptable anyway.

I had no idea how those films bases should look like. I thought Bellini ECN2, as a commercial kit, would deliver the proper look. In this case, I will decrease the pH with few decimals. maybe a 9.8 and see how the test strip is rendered. Citric acid would be ok?

 

[koraks]

I'd use acetic acid. Not sure what the citrate would do in a developer. What's the formula of your developer in its original state, out of curiosity?

 

[Alain Deloc]

I used the published Kodak formula

KODAK Anti-Calcium, No. 4 2.0 mL 2.7 mL (replaced with Calgon 2 g)
Sodium Sulfite (Anhydrous) 2.0 g
Sodium Bromide (Anhydrous) 1.20 g
Sodium Carbonate (Anhydrous 25.6 g
Sodium Bicarbonate 2.7 g
KODAK Color Developing Agent CD-3 4.0 g
KODAK Antifoggant AF-2000 5.0 mL (skipped)

Water to make 1 L 1 L
pH at 25.0°C (77.0°F) 10.25 ± 0.05

 

[angah316]

hi folks

After follow the advice, im aware with word of PRECISE. Since the chemical used purposely for c-41, so the steps follow as well.

Prebath (warm water 1L + baking soda (1 tbsp)) .. 2 minute. Shaking little bit and drop
Out all the water . Rinse fresh water .. start the below process

Timing : CD 3’15 , BL 3’ , FIx 3’
Temperature (+/- 0.2) 38 - 40 - 38.4
- bleach was too long to wait the temperature to drop down .. cant wait .

After fixer drop out, fill in Final rinse. Drop out .. rinse fresh water .

I noticed under exposure area still got greeny little bit

Done

 

[koraks]

Yes, I see the green area too. Is it possible to photograph this particular negative in decent resolution? So without conversion to positive and color adjustments etc.
Upon visual inspection of the negative, do you see anything out of the ordinary in the shadow areas? You might have to hold the film in various angles to the light in order to see deviations of surface etc.

 

[angah316]

Yes, I see the green area too. Is it possible to photograph this particular negative in decent resolution? So without conversion to positive and color adjustments etc.
Upon visual inspection of the negative, do you see anything out of the ordinary in the shadow areas? You might have to hold the film in various angles to the light in order to see deviations of surface etc.

using phone camera usually got the wave color .. that's problem ..

ok i try

 

[koraks]

Yeah, it's often tricky to photograph. And also to accurately describe what you see! We have to make do with the possibilities of online communication