Experiment: Color Cine-film shot through both remjet layer and orange mask then developed as B&W negative

O z · Apr 8, 2024

Hi everyone!

Novice here. I’ve been lurking for a while now and thought It’s time that I start posting and
asking for constructive feedback.
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks in advance!
Oz

[Snapshot of negatives taken with iPhone]

[Positive image Inverted quickly using Lightroom app]

Objective: trying to test if an inverted, color motion picture film, has the potential to behave in a way similar to having in-camera ND and orange filters, due to light being forced to pass through the remjet layer and the orange film base before hitting the light-sensitive layer of the film.
———
Film: I don’t know much about its origin other than the following: it’s a 200 ISO Kodak motion picture film that was repurposed as B&W negative film by a local lab. It has the code: “EK 16 1551 9638” printed on it, but I couldn’t find anything online about it.

For normal processing, the lab recommended using a simple baking soda solution to soften the remjet before developing it in B&W chemistry, then removing the remaining remjet manually while rinsing the film at the end.
———
Exposure: I reloaded a small clipping from the film into a spare canister (with remjet facing the lens) and shot a few frames using a Nikon F90x in broad-daylight at estimated ISO 6 (5 stops overexposure).
———
Process: I followed the times and instructions provided by the lab to establish a baseline. Pre-soaked it for 3 minutes, sat it in baking soda bath for another 3 minutes, then developed it for 20 minutes in D76 stock solution @ roughly 20°C. Agitation was continuous for the first minute then 5 light inversions every 5 minutes, stopped with water then fixed as usual. Remaining remjet was carefully removed underwater using my thumbs during the final rinse.
———
I Haven’t had a chance to try printing yet but I plan on doing so later tonight. Will post a follow up as soon as I can.

lamerko · Apr 8, 2024

There should be another marking that has the film ID and year of production.
I don't think you can get fairly comparable results with black and white film and a color filter. Color films are by definition panchromatic, but unlike black and white, they have several layers (for each primary color), with additional layers in between, including a color filter. Exposing through the remjet layer shouldn't change the color balance, it just makes it harder for you. You can try removing it beforehand or just use film without remjet coating.

koraks · Apr 9, 2024

Welcome to Photrio @O z!

Many interesting things going on!

lamerko said:
There should be another marking that has the film ID and year of production.

Indeed. You can read more about the edge print on cine films here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...e-edge-printing-on-kodak-vision3-films.202974

O z said:
It has the code: “EK 16 1551 9638” printed on it

Yes, but as @lamerko says, there's another number somewhere that probably starts with "EASTMAN" and is then followed by a 4-digit number, starting with "5". This will tell you which film this is.

Btw, the only current-production 200-speed Kodak color negative cine film is Vision3 200T, so in this sense, there's not much of a mystery.

O z said:
trying to test if an inverted, color motion picture film, has the potential to behave in a way similar to having in-camera ND and orange filters

Well, I can already say this: it won't, or at least not all of it. This is because the film base isn't orange. The orange is part of the dye set within the emulsion layers. If you strip the gelatin emulsion from the film, you'll be left with a clear, colorless base.
The 'orange' mask consists of magenta dyes in the bottom (cyan-forming) layer and yellow dyes in the magenta-forming (middle) layer. This means if you expose the film from the back, you'll first expose the cyan layer, and there's no filter at work there (other than the colorless film base and the remjet). You then expose the middel layer, through the magenta filter of the cyan complementary mask. Finally, if you expose really heavily, you will also have some light filtering through the middle layer's yellow filter as well as the additional yellow filter between the top and the middle layers.

What you will mostly note is that you need to overexpose massively to even get an image; your EI6 exposures on a nominal 200-speed film match this fairly well, and show that the exposure is even on the low side.

O z · Apr 9, 2024

lamerko said:
There should be another marking that has the film ID and year of production.
I don't think you can get fairly comparable results with black and white film and a color filter. Color films are by definition panchromatic, but unlike black and white, they have several layers (for each primary color), with additional layers in between, including a color filter. Exposing through the remjet layer shouldn't change the color balance, it just makes it harder for you. You can try removing it beforehand or just use film without remjet coating.

Thank you. Will check the rest of the roll to identify the film.
Unfortunately, removing remjet beforehand isn't something i can confidently do at this stage.
The reason behind playing around with this specific film is that it's the least expensive option available where I live. I've only been practicing/trying to learn for a year or so. I'd like to focus on black and white for the time being but fresh film is just too expensive to practice with, so, here we are.
The lab advertises this film as a high contrast black and white film. It usually scans very well when developed in D76, but doesn't print very well. I read that the orange tinted base is to blame, as it filters out a portion of the light from the enlarger, so i thought i'd try to see if it would have the same effect in camera.
As for the remjet, I don't think extending exposure time would be a problem if light passes through it evenly. It would allow me to make long-exposure shots on a tripod without having to use an ND filter, witch i don't have at the moment.

O z · Apr 9, 2024

koraks said:
Welcome to Photrio @O z

Many interesting things going on!

Thank you very much.

koraks said:
Indeed. You can read more about the edge print on cine films here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...e-edge-printing-on-kodak-vision3-films.202974

Will do. Thanks for sharing.

koraks said:
Yes, but as@lamerko says, there's another number somewhere that probably starts with "EASTMAN" and is then followed by a 4-digit number, starting with "5". This will tell you which film this is.

Btw, the only current-production 200-speed Kodak color negative cine film is Vision3 200T, so in this sense, there's not much of a mystery.

Turns out the film is Vision2 50D [EASTMAN 5201] manufactured in 2011. Much appreciated.

koraks said:
Well, I can already say this: it won't, or at least not all of it. This is because the film base isn't orange. The orange is part of the dye set within the emulsion layers. If you strip the gelatin emulsion from the film, you'll be left with a clear, colorless base.
The 'orange' mask consists of magenta dyes in the bottom (cyan-forming) layer and yellow dyes in the magenta-forming (middle) layer. This means if you expose the film from the back, you'll first expose the cyan layer, and there's no filter at work there (other than the colorless film base and the remjet). You then expose the middel layer, through the magenta filter of the cyan complementary mask. Finally, if you expose really heavily, you will also have some light filtering through the middle layer's yellow filter as well as the additional yellow filter between the top and the middle layers.

What you will mostly note is that you need to overexpose massively to even get an image; your EI6 exposures on a nominal 200-speed film match this fairly well, and show that the exposure is even on the low side

Makes sense. Duly noted and much appreciated. Will keep you posted and I'll give it another go after assessing finished scans or prints from this clipping.

I was doubtful that any image would be recorded at all if I'm being honest. The lab operator suggested that remjet would prevent light from passing through altogether. Glad I tried it anyway.

lamerko · Apr 9, 2024

O z said:
The lab advertises this film as a high contrast black and white film. It usually scans very well when developed in D76, but doesn't print very well. I read that the orange tinted base is to blame, as it filters out a portion of the light from the enlarger, so i thought i'd try to see if it would have the same effect in camera.

I don't know why your lab told you this film is high contrast. On the contrary, it is a low-contrast film. Of course, the contrast can be manipulated somewhat by processing, but that doesn't change the facts.
Indeed, because of the color mask, you will have some printing problems. If you develop these films as black and white, I'm not too sure if the built-in yellow filter layer will be dissolved without a bleach bath, which you can't use in this case. This is another problem to think about.

O z said:
As for the remjet, I don't think extending exposure time would be a problem if light passes through it evenly. It would allow me to make long-exposure shots on a tripod without having to use an ND filter, witch i don't have at the moment.

To be honest, I really don't see any reason to shoot it that way. Shooting through the remjet coating would lead to several problems: long exposures; possible scattering of light through the substrate, which will greatly reduce the contrast; possibly non-uniform image or with reduced resolution. Why not just take a normal picture and develop it in black and white? And why not develop it as a color? Color negatives can also be printed/scanned as black and white.

By the way, if you have a source of Kodak film stock, check to see if they have Kodak 5222 for sale - this is true black and white film that does not have a remjet and can be used directly in still cameras. And because I use this film, I can say that it's actually not bad at all. And it's one of the most affordable options ever!

O z · Apr 9, 2024

lamerko said:
I don't know why your lab told you this film is high contrast. On the contrary, it is a low-contrast film. Of course, the contrast can be manipulated somewhat by processing, but that doesn't change the facts.

The film, shot properly, is fairly high contrast. Here's an inverted snapshot of a clipping from the same film, shot regularly at ISO: 200 and developed exactly the same as the clipping that was shot through remjet.

I recently started mixing my own solutions from raw chemicals and I have the 3rd edition of the Darkroom cookbook as a guide. It offers a number of options in terms of controlling contrast in processing. This would be a good excuse for me to start trying that.

lamerko said:
Indeed, because of the color mask, you will have some printing problems. If you develop these films as black and white, I'm not too sure if the built-in yellow filter layer will be dissolved without a bleach bath, which you can't use in this case. This is another problem to think about.

I can try developing it as black and white slide film using Hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid baths to bleach. Could be fun.

lamerko said:
To be honest, I really don't see any reason to shoot it that way. Shooting through the remjet coating would lead to several problems: long exposures; possible scattering of light through the substrate, which will greatly reduce the contrast; possibly non-uniform image or with reduced resolution.

I hear you, This is a long shot. But I also enjoy experimenting and testing things for myself if i can, knowing that the results might be substandard.

lamerko said:
Why not just take a normal picture and develop it in black and white?

That's what i usually do.

lamerko said:
And why not develop it as a color?

Commercially available kits are too expensive and not readily available where I am, so i stick with black and white in terms of developing at home. I send color film to the lab for processing.

lamerko said:
By the way, if you have a source of Kodak film stock, check to see if they have Kodak 5222 for sale - this is true black and white film that does not have a remjet and can be used directly in still cameras. And because I use this film, I can say that it's actually not bad at all. And it's one of the most affordable options ever!

Appreciate the recommendation. Will ask the lab if there's a way for them to import it and make it available locally.

koraks · Apr 9, 2024

O z said:
Here's an inverted snapshot of a clipping from the same film, shot regularly at ISO: 200 and developed exactly the same as the clipping that was shot through remjet.

Quite interesting; I've never tried processing this film B&W. I can see how it could come out high contrast; it's a matter of giving enough development. Which is necessary if it's rated at EI200 and it's in reality a 50-speed film.

I still think the choice of selling this particular film as a B&W stock is very odd. If people can obtain 50D in Egypt, surely they could also get their hands on Double-X, which is a proper B&W, actual 200-speed film with no messy remjet either.

O z · Apr 9, 2024

koraks said:
I still think the choice of selling this particular film as a B&W stock is very odd. If people can obtain 50D in Egypt, surely they could also get their hands on Double-X, which is a proper B&W, actual 200-speed film with no messy remjet either.

I personally like the contrasty results I get with this film processed as B&W negative, and the remjet removal step is not a big deal. But I can’t speak to why the lab decided to sell it as such. I trust they have a good reason behind it, and I’ll ask them about that (plus the feasibility of importing Duble-X in bulk) next time I go. The owner is a well established photojournalist who knows his stuff, and the team operating the lab are knowledgeable and have been extremely helpful so far.

cmacd123 · Apr 9, 2024

FWIW EK is the code for : EK 5201 colour negative
KODAK VISION2 50D Color negative Film 5201 / 7201 (EK)

Made 2005 to 2012.

lamerko · Apr 10, 2024

Yes, I had forgotten about that emulsion code table. Anyway, the other marking is more comfortable and I'm used to it
There's now some logic to why this film was offered in black and white - it probably isn't very suitable for color anymore. Hence its more affordable price. Which perhaps reduces the likelihood of a cheap 5222.
Two stops of push would really lift the contrast, but given the age, I'm not too sure what's going on with the midtones...

koraks · Apr 10, 2024

O z said:
I personally like the contrasty results I get with this film processed as B&W negative, and the remjet removal step is not a big deal. But I can’t speak to why the lab decided to sell it as such. I trust they have a good reason behind it, and I’ll ask them about that (plus the feasibility of importing Duble-X in bulk) next time I go. The owner is a well established photojournalist who knows his stuff, and the team operating the lab are knowledgeable and have been extremely helpful so far.

Yes, it's great that they're so helpful, which also shows in their suggestions for dealing with the remjet (which I do in the same way they suggest!)
It remains a little puzzling to me why they sell a color film for B&W purposes; I've processed quite some color film as B&W and when printing the negatives in the darkroom, the orange base adds so much density that it's often a little difficult to work with. It does help that variable contrast paper is quite fast these days, and that most people make only small prints most of the time. Moreover, most people don't darkroom print at all, and scanning such negatives is less problematic.

I also know from a previous member of this forum that the availability of materials in Egypt can be challenging, so this film may simply be the only thing they could offer to their customers. It's better to have a film that's not optimal, than to have none at all!

O z · Apr 13, 2024

[update: replaced the bad quality snapshots with a better one of the dry test-print in sunlight].
———
Follow up:
Test-print #1 (Kindly excuse the poor quality)

[snapped with iPhone and compressed using WhatsApp]

[White-balanced and converted to B&W with Lightroom]
———

Paper: Expired [~~Orwo]~~ Forte grade 4. Fiber-base~~/glossy~~.
Exposure: 30 sec @ f/5.6 (no dodging or burning).
Development: ≈ 2 minutes in home-brewed D72 1:1
———
Enlarger: A restored auto-focus Zenith Upa-5 with LED bulb and no contrast filter.
———
Feedback is most appreciated!

O z · Apr 17, 2024

Update: Scans are finally here!!

[Experiment scans as received from the lab. Mirrored] [Compressed using WhatsApp]

I’m happy that usable images were recorded at all and I like the results. (Considering how the film was shot and developed). I’d definitely like to take another shot at this.
What do you think about these and how do you think I can improve the results next time? Thanks in advance!

O z · Apr 17, 2024

To compare:
The following are a few results from the same film shot regularly at EI200 and developed in the same way as the experiment (inverted) clipping.

[Scans as received from the lab] [Compressed using WhatsApp]

koraks · Apr 17, 2024

I notice that the first set (the images you photographed through the back of the film) don't scan too well. From a technical viewpoint, the regularly exposed frames are far superior.

O z · Apr 17, 2024

koraks said:
I notice that the first set (the images you photographed through the back of the film) don't scan too well. From a technical viewpoint, the regularly exposed frames are far superior.

Can't argue there. Thanks for taking the time. Do you think it would improve if i overexpose by a stop or 2 next time i give it a shot? or is it not worth the effort and film in your opinion?

koraks · Apr 17, 2024

O z said:
or is it not worth the effort and film in your opinion?

I'm afraid I'd opt to expose and process this film as intended by the manufacturer. It's boring, but I think your country has great light and colors that would work magnificently on it!

lamerko · Apr 17, 2024

koraks said:
I notice that the first set (the images you photographed through the back of the film) don't scan too well. From a technical viewpoint, the regularly exposed frames are far superior.

I assume they are the ones shot through the remjet coating. Which would explain this interesting texture.

O z · Apr 17, 2024

koraks said:
I'm afraid I'd opt to expose and process this film as intended by the manufacturer. It's boring, but I think your country has great light and colors that would work magnificently on it!

Thank you! I don’t mind boring at all. I’ll give it a try and see how it goes.
I just wanted to play around to see what I can do (differently) with this film as a high contrast B&W film (as the lab markets it). It is the least expensive “B&W film” available here and I wanted to focus on B&W more than color, at least for the time being.
The lab also sells Vision 3 50D for the same price as this one and it produces amazing colors. Is vision 2 a lot different?

lamerko · Apr 17, 2024

O z said:
The lab also sells Vision 3 50D for the same price as this one and it produces amazing colors. Is vision 2 a lot different?

In reality, Vision 2 is the previous generation of this same film. Accordingly, it has not been produced for 10 years and these are old stocks with an expired shelf life. Depending on how they have been stored over time, one would expect sensitivity to drop, have a denser mask (base fog) and higher grain. Of course, 50D is a very fine grain film, so it might be hard to notice some of the changes.
Sometimes, with older Vision films, the remjet coating can become more difficult to peel off and more likely to leave some fragments of it on the film. Of course, different color layers age differently, and it's quite possible to get inaccurate color rendering without the ability to correct it. In this case, it doesn't really matter, and that's probably why the lab was chosen for this film.

O z · Apr 17, 2024

lamerko said:
I assume they are the ones shot through the remjet coating. Which would explain this interesting texture.

Yes. The first set is the clipping that was shot through the remjet coating. I was planning on re-rinsing/drying the negatives when I get them back to make sure there’s no drying marks or remjet remains, then do another test print and check the texture again. I suspect both might be adding to the texture on this frame at least.

O z · Apr 17, 2024

lamerko said:
In reality, Vision 2 is the previous generation of this same film. Accordingly, it has not been produced for 10 years and these are old stocks with an expired shelf life. Depending on how they have been stored over time, one would expect sensitivity to drop, have a denser mask (base fog) and higher grain. Of course, 50D is a very fine grain film, so it might be hard to notice some of the changes.
Sometimes, with older Vision films, the remjet coating can become more difficult to peel off and more likely to leave some fragments of it on the film. Of course, different color layers age differently, and it's quite possible to get inaccurate color rendering without the ability to correct it. In this case, it doesn't really matter, and that's probably why the lab was chosen for this film.

Thank you for taking the time! That makes sense.

Experiment: Color Cine-film shot through both remjet layer and orange mask then developed as B&W negative

O z

lamerko

Attachments

koraks

Moderator

O z

O z

lamerko

O z

koraks

Moderator

O z

cmacd123

lamerko

Attachments

koraks

Moderator

O z

O z

O z

koraks

Moderator

O z

koraks

Moderator

lamerko

O z

lamerko

O z

Attachments

O z

Experiment: Color Cine-film shot through both remjet layer and orange mask then developed as B&W negative

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency