Has anybody tried ECN-2 developer kit from QWD?

[lantau]

The biggest Problem in the EU is that laws are Iffy on chemicals, Borax for example is banned and some other things are hard to obtain or even illegal. I totally gave up on ECN-2 for that reason. The QWD from what I have have seen has not many great reviews, i read once a comment which praised the QWD kit for its accessibility for filmmakers that they are able to shoot locations and develop the film quick for results. I would love to try the original recipe but getting in trouble over some rolls of Kodak vision is not worth it. Maybe the chemical restriction is the reason why no true ECN-2 kit is commercially sold in powder form. I'm not an expert correct me if you know more about this topic.

The ECN formulas are pretty simple. Some processing steps offer different variations, I chose the ones without Borax.

You can't buy conc H2SO4, any longer, which is extremely stupid, but the 15% sulfuric acid should be good enough for mixing stop bath. And while we don't know for sure why it is used, the world (likely) won't end if you used acetic acid, instead. It's probably better to use it buffered, though. Or fresh each time.

You can get CD3 from Mr. Suvatlar. It's good quality and mine hasn't degraded over several years. Other, more generic chems as well, or at S3 chemicals. If the latter has it, it'll be cheaper in most cases. The only ingredient, which was hard to source was the antifoggant. I can't tell you if you really need it. Maybe I'll find out when I print on print film one day. I have some in the freezer already, but first I need to source CD2 and also get back into ecn processing.

 

[QWD]

Hey all! Been following this thread for a bit. There are some cool questions in here and yes. We have made changes to time and temp in addition to formulations and now providing a stop bath and final wash.

If has questions feel free to ask! We’d love to answer anything that comes up before we fully launch our new kits though they are out in the wild!

Lets get deep!

 

[pbromaghin]

QWD, do you have any suggestions for processing older, out of date film? I have 1100ft left to shoot and hope to be buying several kits in the next couple years.

 

[QWD]

QWD, do you have any suggestions for processing older, out of date film? I have 1100ft left to shoot and hope to be buying several kits in the next couple years.

For sure! Expired stock is great. Check out this link:



It was shot with Kodak Vision2 500T on a 2 perf Arri 235 and was some talent test footage from a few summers ago. We rated it 1.5 stops over with a stock chemical development. It held up incredible well.
For us, this kit is in part to use for things like this. To take a still camera and expired stock and go shoot some brackets with a shutter at 1/60. Hone in on the the age and what characteristics come with it and experiment with mitigating it in 36 frames.

There are two things you can do to shoot expired stock better. Over-exposure and chem push.

On the exposure side, there are alot of variables but a good rule of thumb is rate your film one stop over per decade of age. In that aging process, even things like certain dye layers might fade quicker than others. Often seen in high ASA expired stock.
A good note also is the higher the ASA or the higher speed the stock, the more prone it is to get those color shifts or a very noticeable increase in grain.
50D will hold up much better with age than 800T from 3 decades ago.

Chem push side can help but its at a cost of increase in grain. Motion stock is bulletproof with highlights (hence high dynamic range) but isnt as good with shadows comparably. Push processing is wonderful if you know you need to get into shadows more with an image. Something like Vision2 500T, will almost certainly have a ton of grain to begin with due to age.
Introducing a chem push could also make that more present.

TLDR:

Over exposure in camera is your best friend with expired stock. That is the gold standard.
Chem push is a slippery slope and can help but you need to find where you need to be exposure first.

 

[pbromaghin]

QWD - thank you so much for showing up here. As an untrained amateur, I've been sitting on this film for several years, reluctant to tackle the whole ecosystem, so different from B&W. And the idea of cross-processing with C41 just didn't sit well. Your single reply to one question has really opened a whole new avenue. I plan to retire next year and this should fill many hours.

 

[Brad Deputy]

Finally mixed the new QWD chems today! I've got 2x Cinestills (50D & 800T) and a roll of Vision3 250D from Motipix (Ultrafine Online) ready to go.

I thought I'd try the Cinestills first so I can get more comfy with the process without the remjet hassle.

I've had one Cinestill 50D souped with C-41 in a lab, and I was disappointed with the heavy yellow/green color shifts (that I could not correct without ruining the other colors). The high resolution was jaw-dropping and I can't wait to see what ECN-2 chems do for the color.

(FYI: I find Ultrafine Online a great bargain for ECN-2 film. 135-36 rolls @ $6-7 each, and they offer all 3 Vision3 stocks. Plus, they sell 100 foot rolls for the same price as Ilford's B&W ..! )

 

[Brad Deputy]

Alright, I've developed and scanned 3 rolls now; Vision 250D, 50D (cinestill) and 500T (cinestill). All processed in QWD's ECN-2 chemistry (at recommended 100f, 4:00)

The 250D and 500T were shot with my Olympus OM-10. The 50D was shot with a very old Olympus PEN Half-frame

Starting with the 250D, I developed by itself in a single-roll Arista stainless tank with a Hewes roll. Removing the Remjet was a breeze! Just soak 10 seconds in the pre-bath (literally, pour it in, and pour it right back out without shaking). Then, 5 rinses of muddy purple water, and proceed with remaining steps. I opted to "polish" any remaining remjet from the film with a microfiber cloth after drying. It was a very thin haze of black carbon, which came off with a light touch.

I use Silverfast 9 with my Plustek 8200 AI; I found the negafix profile for Portra 160 to work best here. Very minimal curve adjustments:

I am amazed at the level of detail from a 250 speed film:

I could never get this level of detail from Kodak Gold 200 or Fuji C200.

Speaking to shadow detail:

Again, remarkable details in the fine grain:

Next up is the Cinestill 800T. I developed this along with the Cinestill 50D in my plastic tank. Didn't want to muck up plastic reels with remjet.

I found the Portra 800 negafix profile fit best; again very minute curve adjustments.
I shot this one using my 28mm F3.5 wide open, at 1/30 second. Indoor fluorescent only:

Grain? What grain? This is an 800 (500) speed film?

Here shows how it maintains the skin tones? (50mm F1.8, wide open, 1/60 sec):

Again, apart from the re-curving from the negafix profile, I made very minute adjustments. The color accuracy of these scenes is probably 90% to what I remember.

Now finally is the 50D. This is Cinestill's version. Remember these were shot with a 60 year old camera, fixed 28mm F3.5 lens with selenium metering. EI was 50.
I used the Negafix profile for Portra 400 to match best, but I had to make moderate curve adjustments due to the under-exposing from this old camera.

Here's my daughter again, to help with skin tone representation:

And of course 50D's legendary lack of grain thru very old lens:

For comparison, here's a shot from this spring when I first tried Cinestill 50D, but processed in C-41:

I had to work those curves HARD to get it to look like this. It was so yellow/green no matter which negafix profile I tried. As others have mentioned, attempts to correct the colors only tint the others toward blue.

Bottom line: I am very happy with Vision3 films, and I will be ordering up some more. I find C-41 films like Kodak or Fuji always have a "tint" toward yellow or blue (respectively). ECN-2 film does not appear to tint images. You get what you see, and benefits from proper exposure.

 

[pbromaghin]

Spectacular!

 

[koraks]

ECN-2 film does not appear to tint images.

That's a difficult statement, really. On the one hand, evidently it doesn't 'tint' them because that would have made the product unfit for the motion picture industry, for which it is intended. But let's assume that you want to say that it doesn't involve a significant color cast when processed as a still negative. And that might be true, which your examples more or less indicate (OK, there are some minor color issues, but probably acceptable for most people), in your hybrid workflow. I am not, however, optimistic about this holding up if the negatives were to be printed onto RA4 paper. Well, that is at least my experience with the Vision3 films. Note that the enormous influence of digital correction is apparent in the indoor shots with the 800T film; the film is tungsten balanced whereas you shot under fluorescent lighting. The fact that the shots don't show as more or less pure sickly green demonstrates the enormous 'behind the scenes' correction that the software has pulled.

And yes, the 50D is very, very smooth and free of grain. But for the other ones, I have the strong impression that your digital workflow is masking the grain to a large extent. Also based on the smearing/blurring of fine details in those shots. This degradation of detail is beyond the expected influence of the lenses used.

So much of the success is IMO explained by a successful use of apparently quite user-friendly and effective digital post processing software.

 

[pbromaghin]

I have the strong impression that your digital workflow is masking the grain to a large extent. Also based on the smearing/blurring of fine details in those shots. This degradation of detail is beyond the expected influence of the lenses used.

Can you point some of this out? And I'm not trolling or being a smartass. This is a serious question from a guy who isn't experienced or discerning enough to see and understand that kind of thing when he looks at color photographs.

 

[koraks]

The overall lack of crispness combined with the relative lack of (in digital terms) color noise. The look is similar to what you'd get from a pretty good flatbed scanner; from the particular scanner used for these images, the result could have been different as its effective resolution is higher than what we see here.

 

[Brad Deputy]

I feel like most of these photos go beyond the optical resolution of my scanner; even TMAX-100, known for extreme sharpness, looks similar. My scans look about the same sharpness-wise than any local labs scan for me with their extreme-res TIFFs (Noritsu), but I can balance the colors better (to my eye anyway).

It's sad Silverfast can't make profiles for Vision3 films. I am researching how to create my own. Not a lot of info on the web.

I also wonder about the other factors:

- Chemicals used (QWD's 100F process is brand new)
- Did I keep the temps stable?
- How fresh is the film? (the edge marking on the 250D say 2017. I dont know if that's the vintage, or when Kodak last revised?)
- This camera and lens is >40 years old. My late father bought the OM-10 new in 1980 with the 50mm 1.8 lens, but I bought the other lens recently in OK condition (a little dust and fungus in some).
- ??

 

[brbo]

A drum scanned Vision3 5219 (500T) developed in ECN-2 (3:00, 41ºC). Effective resolution of the selected optical path for this scan was about 3400dpi (at the smallest aperture my scanner gives excessive appearance of grain on colour negative film.), nominal resolution is 4000dpi.


(if you click on image you can jump to unedited scan)

For still pictures I found that it's better to overdevelop a bit (3:15 - 3:30) in ECN-2 to get higher contrast. If you do that there is no grain advantage compared to Portra 400 (if it was there in the first place), imho.

 

[Auer]

For still pictures I found that it's better to overdevelop a bit (3:15 - 3:30) in ECN-2 to get higher contrast. If you do that there is no grain advantage compared to Portra 400 (if it was there in the first place), imho.

ECN-2 is low contrast by design. It's the main reason I use it. Gives you a lot more options in post too.



[url=https://flic.kr/p/2mGLyku] [/url]

 

[brbo]

ECN-2 is low contrast by design. It's the main reason I use it. Gives you a lot more options in post too.

I know ECN-2 is low contrast.

I haven't come across a C-41 frame where I thought it would be easier to scan if it had lower contrast (maybe because I have a number of good scanners). But if you wet print your colour negatives ECN-2 (lack of) contrast is a problem.

 

[Auer]

I know ECN-2 is low contrast.

I haven't come across a C-41 frame where I thought it would be easier to scan if it had lower contrast (maybe because I have a number of good scanners). But if you wet print your colour negatives ECN-2 (lack of) contrast is a problem.

Nice.

I dont have those issues as I dont print ECN-2.
It scans nice, with a number of good scanners.

 

[koraks]

I haven't come across a C-41 frame where I thought it would be easier to scan if it had lower contrast (maybe because I have a number of good scanners). But if you wet print your colour negatives ECN-2 (lack of) contrast is a problem.

Indeed. There's no clear benefit to the inherent low gamma of ECN-2 film for still photography. When printing RA4 optically, it's a major headache. I found it took either significant overexposure (ca. +1 stop, so 50D becomes 25D effectively, although 32 ISO also worked quite well), overdevelopment, or preferably a combination of both. Colors would still be all over the place.
I concluded it was more trouble than it's worth for me, personally. Lacking objective benefits, all that remains is subjective preference for this class of film.

 

[Brad Deputy]

In my pictures above, the zoomed-in shots are flat 3600 DPI (no re-sizing). They are JPG so color is 16bit (vs. 48 scanned as TIFF), with 90% quality (doubtful that makes a noticeable difference).

Perhaps motion blur is in play too. I took these pictures freehanded, with manual focus. I had the camera on Aperture Priority mode (except the EE-2's 1/200). Potentially < 1/60 exposure.

I've got a few more rolls of film coming. I plan to try some macro work with my 1:1 lens combo next. Winter is settling in and I don't get much daylight during the rainy season here in the PNW. A snow event could be fun

 

[AgX]

For still pictures I found that it's better to overdevelop a bit (3:15 - 3:30) in ECN-2 to get higher contrast. If you do that there is no grain advantage compared to Portra 400 (if it was there in the first place), imho.

What do you refer to with "for still pictures": printing on RA-4 or scanning for Ink-jet?

 

[brbo]

What do you refer to with "for still pictures": printing on RA-4 or scanning for Ink-jet?

Both, but mainly RA-4.

 

[pbromaghin]

Hey all! Been following this thread for a bit. There are some cool questions in here and yes. We have made changes to time and temp in addition to formulations and now providing a stop bath and final wash.

If has questions feel free to ask! We’d love to answer anything that comes up before we fully launch our new kits though they are out in the wild!

Lets get deep!

I see your 5 Liter kit. Does it come as 5 Liters once, or 1 Liter 5 times?

 

[mohmad khatab]

Can this be used in conjunction with a Blix style C-41 kit? Just swap out the C-41 dev for ECN-2 for cine rolls and switch back to C-41 for regular color?

Bypassing bleaching is metaphorical and out of the question.
It is mentioned in the data sheet that he uses Bleach&Fix solution, and this definitely contains Sodium Iron EDTA, as it does the whitening work perfectly. In addition to the Fixing, it contains Ammonium Thiosulfate. Conclusion, here we are talking about a solution (Blex) integrated elements.

 

[Cholentpot]

Bypassing bleaching is metaphorical and out of the question.
It is mentioned in the data sheet that he uses Bleach&Fix solution, and this definitely contains Sodium Iron EDTA, as it does the whitening work perfectly. In addition to the Fixing, it contains Ammonium Thiosulfate. Conclusion, here we are talking about a solution (Blex) integrated elements.

C-41 Developer for C-41 film. ECN-II Developer for ECN-II film. Use same Blix.

 

[mohmad khatab]

C-41 Developer for C-41 film. ECN-II Developer for ECN-II film. Use same Blix.

1+

 

[Brad Deputy]

Roll #11 from that batch of QWD I mixed over 5 months ago. Some macro from our budding Asian Pear tree (Vision3 250D).

No sign of developer conking out yet. I store it in quart bottles, and I always "gas" it really good with my compressed air duster to remove most of the oxygen from the bottle. (I do this for Dev and Fix only).

I found constant, gentle agitation (vs. 2 agitations per 15 secs) gives slightly higher density negatives.

Remjet is still a pain. With this roll I tried wiping it down with a micro fiber cloth dipped in PreBath, just before dipping into a bucket of the final wash. Digital ICE removes most of it, but some flecks survive. If I don't wipe it at all (before it dries), the remjet leaves "snow" behind, more noticeable on the 50D I find.

Color balancing can be challenging, with no "negafix" profile available. The Portra 400 VC seems best for Vision3 250D (used for this example).

(Olympus OM-10, 50mm F3.5 Macro, F8, Auto Exposure)

At full 3600 DPI:

I'll try to check in with the final roll, and see how well it holds up. Looking to capture the spring colors of the PNW.