- Joined
- Mar 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,464
- Format
- Medium Format
once again me not going into depth sorry. Ilford / Harmann are awesome promoters of their products. Its the other ilford i was referring to.
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".
Can't someone buy the patents and produce it?
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.
Did anyone ever make chemistry/paper for chromes other than Ilford?
StoneNYC said: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?
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
The ECN system is different from the C-41 system concerning chemistries as well as concerning emulsions.
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
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.
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
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.)
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?
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?