Ilfochrome substitute

[Stephen Frizza]

Most who are interested in this thread will know this, but for those who don't.....

There are two Ilfords now.

Ilford/Harmann are the ones who make black and white products. They are good at promoting and making their products easy for anyone to obtain.

Ilford Imaging Switzerland GmbH are the other Ilford. They were the manufacturers of Ilfochrome (Cibachrome, when they were known as Ilford/Ciba) and may still be the manufacturers of Ilfoflex and other Ilfocolor products.

The Swiss Ilford are the ones you will find when you go to "Ilford.com".

once again me not going into depth sorry. Ilford / Harmann are awesome promoters of their products. Its the other ilford i was referring to.

 

[AgX]

Can't someone buy the patents and produce it?

There are so many discontinued halide materials and so many patents to licence.

 

[AgX]

Remember guys, I'm "young" and don't really know the whole history.

Ilford as well as Tellko as Lumiére had several owners:

In 1958 ICI buys a minority of Ilford Ltd. After some years of cooperation with Ciba (who have bought Lumiére in 1962) Ilford Ltd. finally is owned solely by Ciba in 1969.
I guess in that period swiss Tellko was acquired too (probably as Ciba Photochemie).
Ciba merges with Geigy.
In 1978 all photographic enterprises are placed under Ilford.
In 1989 Ilford is sold to International Papers.
In 1997 Ilford is sold to Doherty Hanson, a private equity company.
The following year the name changes to Ilford Imaging.
In 2004, the year of its 125th annyversary (Britannia Works), the company collapses with the Swiss branch being still the profitable one.
In 2005 the UK branch (with half of its employees made redundant) is bought by its management, getting a new name: Harman Technology and trade under Ilford Photo.
A few months later the Swiss Branch is bought by the old Japanese paper manufacturer Oji.
Meanwhile Ilford Imaging got another owner.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ilford as well as Tellko as Lumiére had several owners:

In 1958 ICI buys a minority of Ilford Ltd. After some years of cooperation with Ciba (who have bought Lumiére in 1962) Ilford Ltd. finally is owned solely by Ciba in 1969.
I guess in that period swiss Tellko was acquired too (probably as Ciba Photochemie).
Ciba merges with Geigy.
In 1978 all photographic enterprises are placed under Ilford.
In 1989 Ilford is sold to International Papers.
In 1997 Ilford is sold to Doherty Hanson, a private equity company.
The following year the name changes to Ilford Imaging.
In 2004, the year of its 125th annyversary (Britannia Works), the company collapses with the Swiss branch being still the profitable one.
In 2005 the UK branch (with half of its employees made redundant) is bought by its management, getting a new name: Harman Technology and trade under Ilford Photo.
A few months later the Swiss Branch is bought by the old Japanese paper manufacturer Oji.
Meanwhile Ilford Imaging got another owner.

Thanks. Crazy story.

Did anyone ever make chemistry/paper for chromes other than Ilford?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak made Type R paper which was replaced by Ektachrome paper and finally ended production in about 2000 when they were making Radiance paper.

PE

 

[ulysses]

Fuji Reversal Paper

If someone wants to play, I have a box of Fuji 8x10 color reversal paper in the freezer (same process as Kodak's, *not* Ilfochrome compatible.) No chemicals for processing, but you can probably find the formulae or experiment. Yours for the cost of shipping (US only.)

Ulysses

 

[JoJo]

Did anyone ever make chemistry/paper for chromes other than Ilford?

Yes, most companies did. There was Agfachrome Speed, some Kodak stuff, Fujichrome R3...
Some used the R3 reversal process, others used a kind of Polaroid-like diffusion process.
Most of them weren't successful and were gone as fast as they came out.
AFAIK, Ilfochrome/Cibachrome was the only paper for chromolytic process.

What about Vision3 500T ? That's what I have in my fridge, also, how do you get ECN-2 developer? Does it chemically remove the remjet? Where do you get it?

500T will also work but could produce more grain. I used 500T as well but just for smaller prints.
The developer is mixed from scratch. There are just a handful of cheap chemicals needed. No big deal.
I use the following formula:

850ml Distilled Water 21 to 38°C (70 to 100°F)
2.0g Sodium Sulfite (Anhydrous)
1.4g Potassium Bromide (Anhydrous)
25.6g Sodium Carbonate (Anhydrous)
2.7g Sodium Bicarbonate
4.0g CD-3
Distilled Water to make 1L

It will remove the remjet but better is to prewash the film. Use 1L warm water + a teespoon of Sodium Carbonate (Soda). 2-4 tank fills plus strong shaking will remove nearly all of the remjet. Followed by 1 fill of clear water.
Remaining Soda is no problem for the developer (which contains itself a high amount of Soda).
Lifetime of the developer is short (1-2 weeks). Processing is 41°C at 3.5 minutes. I prefer 4-5 minutes to get some higher density and contrast.

Joachim

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes, most companies did. There was Agfachrome Speed, some Kodak stuff, Fujichrome R3...
Some used the R3 reversal process, others used a kind of Polaroid-like diffusion process.
Most of them weren't successful and were gone as fast as they came out.
AFAIK, Ilfochrome/Cibachrome was the only paper for chromolytic process.



500T will also work but could produce more grain. I used 500T as well but just for smaller prints.
The developer is mixed from scratch. There are just a handful of cheap chemicals needed. No big deal.
I use the following formula:

850ml Distilled Water 21 to 38°C (70 to 100°F)
2.0g Sodium Sulfite (Anhydrous)
1.4g Potassium Bromide (Anhydrous)
25.6g Sodium Carbonate (Anhydrous)
2.7g Sodium Bicarbonate
4.0g CD-3
Distilled Water to make 1L

It will remove the remjet but better is to prewash the film. Use 1L warm water + a teespoon of Sodium Carbonate (Soda). 2-4 tank fills plus strong shaking will remove nearly all of the remjet. Followed by 1 fill of clear water.
Remaining Soda is no problem for the developer (which contains itself a high amount of Soda).
Lifetime of the developer is short (1-2 weeks). Processing is 41°C at 3.5 minutes. I prefer 4-5 minutes to get some higher density and contrast.

Joachim

But I thought it was basically C-41 with remjet so couldn't you just buy a C-41 kit and the do the soda trick first then just process it as C-41?

Also, you make it sound so easy, I've seen lots of Kodachrome guys talk about how difficult it is to get remjet off.. And you make it sound simple...

I'm writing this down for sure to perhaps make it from scratch but again curious about the C-41 question.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AgX]

The ECN system is different from the C-41 system concerning chemistries as well as concerning emulsions.

 

[StoneNYC]

The ECN system is different from the C-41 system concerning chemistries as well as concerning emulsions.

So what about the rest of the process, he only gave the developer, (assuming first dev) what about color dev etc?



~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AgX]

That formula above is the colour developer.
This is about using a negative acting camera film as internegative. It only needs a single developing stage.
That formula is not that for reversal processing that RA-4 paper. (With such internegative that RA-4 paper would be processed single stage anyway.)

 

[Photo Engineer]

C41 and ECN are totally different. The formulas for the ECN process are posted on the Kodak web site and the chemicals are available from Kodak in individual pieces, no kits. The developer does not keep well once mixed.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

C41 and ECN are totally different. The formulas for the ECN process are posted on the Kodak web site and the chemicals are available from Kodak in individual pieces, no kits. The developer does not keep well once mixed.

PE

Sometimes I think Kodak makes it sure difficult just so you HAVE to use a lab ...

Anyone want 180 feet of vision 3 500T looks like I won't be able to use it


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

That formuly above is the colour developer.
This is about using a negative acting camera film as internegative. It only needs a single developing stage. That formula is not that for reversal processing that RA-4 paper.

I don't really understand what Internegative means.. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I've been trying to follow along but no one has explained exactly what this is, is it like cross processing. Or something?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Truzi]

You'll get more detailed, explanatory, and accurate answers, but...
As far as I understand it, "inter-negative" can be used for a number of things. The "inter" part would denote something in between two (or more) things.

In this context, you take a slide and expose it onto negative film. You now have a negative you can use in many ways, such as making a positive print on RA-4 paper.
I believe people also use the inter-negative route to produce enlarged (or reduced) negatives for other purposes.

 

[AgX]

If one has a positive image as in tranparency/slide film or print paper one could for copying/enlarging either use:


-) a direct positive material (e.g. instant or rapid access diffusion materials or that obsolete Ilfochrome)

-) a reversal processing (obsolete chromogenic materials for rev. proc. or reversal processed materials actually intended for single stage processing as that RA-4 paper.

-) a single stage processing as with RA-4 but from a copy on negative acting material forming the negative for a standard neg-pos. process with RA-4 paper at the end.

As this negative copy is inserted in that whole process and not as usual the primary source it is called intermediate negative (internegative).

As ECN-2 camera film is lower in gradation than C-41 camera film it yields a good material for an improvised internegative in reproducing an image on slide film on RA-4 paper.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ok but then why do you need ONLY a color developer for ECN-2, what about the other steps?

Also, again is remjet really that easy to just wash off with that soda water? I've always read it's so difficult.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AgX]

Because ECN-2 films are intened to be used as single stage processed film.

And that is exactly what we would need for this internegative approach.
(Of course it has to be bleached and fixed, if that was your question.)

 

[MattKing]

Ok but then why do you need ONLY a color developer for ECN-2, what about the other steps?

Also, again is remjet really that easy to just wash off with that soda water? I've always read it's so difficult.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

First please understand that I have never actually developed ECN.

ECN was designed for motion picture use. When you film a movie, you use a film that:
1) needs to work well in high speed motion picture cameras; and
2) results in a negative image; that
3) is intended to be printed on to another film, for projection.

The remjet backing on ECN and Kodachrome film serves as both a very effective anti-halation backing, and as a nice, very slippery surface that stands up well to the stresses that may arise in the high speed motion picture cameras (think slow motion and NFL films). Those stresses aren't nearly as likely to be encountered in still cameras.

Remjet is a coined word that comes from Remove Jet (I think). Remjet was typically removed with jets of water.

Remjet isn't that hard to remove from the film, but you have to be careful to remove it as well from the water or other solution the film is in - otherwise you will have a gooey mess.

The difference between ECN films and films designed to be processed in C-41 chemicals is that the ECN films need to be much lower in contrast, because they are being printed on to a transparency material, rather than paper. Printing on to transparency material builds contrast mmuch more quickly than printing on to a reflective medium like paper.

I think that should give you an idea.

EDIT: and by the way, the reason that Kodachrome has remjet most likely has to do with the fact that millions of home movies were shot on it

 

[StoneNYC]

Because ECN-2 films are intened to be used as single stage processed film.

And that is exactly what we would need for this internegative approach.
(Of course it has to be bleached and fixed, if that was your question.)

Well that sounds faster and easier, how come they didn't just switch from C-41 to ECN-2 (or variant without remjet) for still films?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

First please understand that I have never actually developed ECN.

ECN was designed for motion picture use. When you film a movie, you use a film that:
1) needs to work well in high speed motion picture cameras; and
2) results in a negative image; that
3) is intended to be printed on to another film, for projection.

The remjet backing on ECN and Kodachrome film serves as both a very effective anti-halation backing, and as a nice, very slippery surface that stands up well to the stresses that may arise in the high speed motion picture cameras (think slow motion and NFL films). Those stresses aren't nearly as likely to be encountered in still cameras.

Remjet is a coined word that comes from Remove Jet (I think). Remjet was typically removed with jets of water.

Remjet isn't that hard to remove from the film, but you have to be careful to remove it as well from the water or other solution the film is in - otherwise you will have a gooey mess.

The difference between ECN films and films designed to be processed in C-41 chemicals is that the ECN films need to be much lower in contrast, because they are being printed on to a transparency material, rather than paper. Printing on to transparency material builds contrast mmuch more quickly than printing on to a reflective medium like paper.

I think that should give you an idea.

EDIT: and by the way, the reason that Kodachrome has remjet most likely has to do with the fact that millions of home movies were shot on it

Pretty sure Kodachrome was a movie film first for professional movies before it moved to home and still cameras?

Thanks for the info. I'm going to spool a roll now and shoot some 4th of July events with it as a test.

One other curiosity why is it tungsten ASA500 but daylight 320? Isn't tungsten a "lower" light so why does it expose faster?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AgX]

There is nothing faster about ECN films.

They have a lower gamma and their chemistry (emulsion and processing is chemically different).

But that's all. Basically ECN-2 and C-41 are both neg.-pos. processes.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Slide > internegative > print on color paper.
Negative > print filmd > internegative used as master in making SFX. ECN is designed to do this well and up to 12 or more negatives can be combined to produce one internegative for final production printing.

Stone, I thought you were in the MP business! Anyhow, I have a friend who does ECN in his Jobo. It is not that hard.

PE

 

[AgX]

Pretty sure Kodachrome was a movie film first for professional movies before it moved to home and still cameras?

No, it was not. A neg-pos System would have been. Kodachrome was for amateurs in the beginning.

After these lectures let's go back to the original topic.

 

[MattKing]

Pretty sure Kodachrome was a movie film first for professional movies before it moved to home and still cameras?

Thanks for the info. I'm going to spool a roll now and shoot some 4th of July events with it as a test.

One other curiosity why is it tungsten ASA500 but daylight 320? Isn't tungsten a "lower" light so why does it expose faster?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but Kodachrome stayed with remjet when they transitioned to K14, even though by then most Kodachrome movies were shot by amateurs.

And as for the speeds, you need to use filtration (a Wratten 85B?) in order to expose 500T under daylight, or your shots will end up very blue.

So the ISO speed of 500T is 320 when the filter factor is taken into account.