Ilfochrome substitute

[Photo Engineer]

Kodachrome film was used as both motion picture and still film, and there was a print material on a white plastic support. All date from nearly the same time.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Oh ok I thought the filter factor might have been the reason, so then why does XX have a 250 tungsten 200 daylight rating? What filter would you need for B&W films?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

You just said there is only one developer step? That makes the development twice as fast for home developing in a tank.

Did I misunderstand something?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

Oh ok I thought the filter factor might have been the reason, so then why does XX have a 250 tungsten 200 daylight rating? What filter would you need for B&W films?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I would assume that XX has a bit of extended sensitivity in the red part of the spectrum, so it is more sensitive to tungsten light than to daylight.

IIRC, traditionally, many (most?) black and white films used to report at least two different ASA ratings - one for tungsten, and the other for daylight.

It may be that the modern ISO standard, together with improvements in modern emulsions, made that unnecessary. That, I don't know.

 

[MattKing]

You just said there is only one developer step? That makes the development twice as fast for home developing in a tank.

Did I misunderstand something?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

C-41: http://wwwca.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z131_02.pdf see page 1

ECN: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...t_en_motion_support_processing_h247_h2407.pdf see page 6

 

[StoneNYC]

C-41: http://wwwca.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z131_02.pdf see page 1

ECN: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...t_en_motion_support_processing_h247_h2407.pdf see page 6

That is page 4 not 6... Haha if you go by the page numbers... Hehe

Thanks, that's GREAT!!

Guess I've found my new CN film of choice haha.

If only I could get some non-tungsten.

I got the 180 feet from a film loader friend on set but its much herder for them to slip me the extra when we are outside shooting daylight film.

Need to get that filter...

Also Ron, I do work in the industry, AS AN ACTOR haha, I don't have experience with movie cameras except by watching and asking questions.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kb3lms]

Stone,

Remjet is easily removed using the sodium carbonate pre-wash. It's documented in the h2407 pdf above. Soak in the prewash for two minutes, empty and fill with water. Shake vigorously and the remjet will drain out like a black ink. Repeat until the water runs clear and then process per ENC-2. I guess you have been looking at the document so you will notice the process is analogous to C-41. Make sure you use the sulfuric acid stop bath. It makes a difference.

ECN-2 film is great but you have to be aware it is a lower contrast material as the negatives are intended for printing onto MP positive film for distribution. Now, in some cases lower contrast may be what you want. Anyway, it's great stuff and it scans very well. It can be wet printed with finagling. The Vision films are Kodak's latest technology. Ektar and Portra are descended from them.

You can get all kinds of ECN-2 films by buying short ends through eBay, Film Emporium or Comtel Pro Media. (Google them) Some of the people you work with can likely set you up with a source.

I was once told told the reason there are two different processes is that historically the still films and MP films were developed by two completely different groups at EK. I believe they are all the same group now.

-- Jason

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think that that being compatible with previous versions of MP film might have been important regarding dye hue. I'm not sure, but I do know that CD3 and CD4 make different hued dyes from the same dye formers (couplers). Also, MP films are built to take a lot of magnification and must be able to make multiple generations.

So, the two film families are quite different.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

Remjet is easily removed using the sodium carbonate pre-wash. It's documented in the h2407 pdf above. Soak in the prewash for two minutes, empty and fill with water. Shake vigorously and the remjet will drain out like a black ink. Repeat until the water runs clear and then process per ENC-2. I guess you have been looking at the document so you will notice the process is analogous to C-41. Make sure you use the sulfuric acid stop bath. It makes a difference.

ECN-2 film is great but you have to be aware it is a lower contrast material as the negatives are intended for printing onto MP positive film for distribution. Now, in some cases lower contrast may be what you want. Anyway, it's great stuff and it scans very well. It can be wet printed with finagling. The Vision films are Kodak's latest technology. Ektar and Portra are descended from them.

You can get all kinds of ECN-2 films by buying short ends through eBay, Film Emporium or Comtel Pro Media. (Google them) Some of the people you work with can likely set you up with a source.

I was once told told the reason there are two different processes is that historically the still films and MP films were developed by two completely different groups at EK. I believe they are all the same group now.

-- Jason

Thanks, I tend to shoot color in high contrast areas anyway so perhaps this will help me tone down the contrast.

I wouldn't ever BUY ENC-2 film... they literally throw away thousands of feet a day of film on set, I'll just wait till the loader is in a good mood and ask him for an end roll ... anything less than 200 feet they throw away because they can't risk a roll-out ...

Crazy to load a 400 foot roll on a handheld and only shoot half of it before changing it out.... Hence why I got the 180foot of tungsten ...

they literally just pull it out and throw it in the trash, never in a can, always exposed ... it's a shame they couldn't have some system of donating the film to a local college or something that has a film school....

Good notes on the sulfuric acid stop bath .. how do I know which one that is or where to get it? you guys and your knowledge sometimes you know way too much and assume everyone knows this stuff ... it's simple to you but complicated to those who haven't done it ... I've only used the 3 bath arista kits for E-6 and ABOUT to do a run of C-41 in the same kind of kit.

So now I have the mixture for the developer step as listed by that guy above... thanks guy! (can't recall the name at the moment) but what about the stop, fix, bleach ingredients? is it better to get those from a store that sells them? do they sell small amounts? as I THINK PE said they go off fast? I wouldn't want a huge bottle to spoil.

I've never done C-41 developing, so I thought there was a 1st developer and separate color developer step... thats why I was excited about ECN-2 not having two development steps... so you're saying C-41 and ECN-2 only have 4 steps? Dev/stop/fix/bleach and done? (or stabilizer as a last step for both?) but no separate color developer for either?

 

[AgX]

Meanwhile Ilford Imaging got another owner.

That investment company that took over Ilford Imaging in 2010 seemingly lost interest again.
See here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ciba was doomed by several factors. I think shoddy distribution here in the US was a major issue, esp given the cost increases while receiving product that looked like it had been handled by chimps and orangs. Raw materials went way up, inkjet was on the rise (no substitute visually,
but for temporary commercial displays it became a factor) and labs were starting to get tired of the maint and health issues. Just a few minutes ago I had a friend in the office who lost a lung to working with Ciba on a commercial level. I personally used one-shot chem in drums outdoors, so didn't have the same kind of health risk as the big labs. The "look" can be resurrected on RA4 polyester materials, and I'm already doing it, though some color negs require a little mask tweaking themselves (generally to increase contrast, whereas garden-variety
masking with Ciba was to decrease contrast).

 

[Bob Carnie]

I ran a Ciba lab for 10 years, I bought one of the last 30 processors designed for Ciba.
I made contrast reducing , highlight protection, mid tone contrast masks in the beginning for use on Enlarger.
I purchased a Lambda exposing unit and then controlled image contrast and tonality via PS.
Both methods were excellent .

The big downfall for me was, the complete lack of marketing of this product by the Swiss company.
Then a complete uncertainty with product supply, chemistry supply, it was completely brutal for us to get a proper
supply of the product.

As Drew pointed out the influx of digital did have an effect for analoque only Labs but was not IMHO the reason for its failure.
I point directly at the manufacturer as being out of touch with the end users and sadly there came a point where the decision to dump
the processor was made, and for us it was the correct one seeing where the product scaled down too.

There are those who stockpiled the materials with significant supply and are still working away at the stock.

 

[StoneNYC]

I ran a Ciba lab for 10 years, I bought one of the last 30 processors designed for Ciba.
I made contrast reducing , highlight protection, mid tone contrast masks in the beginning for use on Enlarger.
I purchased a Lambda exposing unit and then controlled image contrast and tonality via PS.
Both methods were excellent .

The big downfall for me was, the complete lack of marketing of this product by the Swiss company.
Then a complete uncertainty with product supply, chemistry supply, it was completely brutal for us to get a proper
supply of the product.

As Drew pointed out the influx of digital did have an effect for analoque only Labs but was not IMHO the reason for its failure.
I point directly at the manufacturer as being out of touch with the end users and sadly there came a point where the decision to dump
the processor was made, and for us it was the correct one seeing where the product scaled down too.

There are those who stockpiled the materials with significant supply and are still working away at the stock.

It's almost like a sad fairy tale story the way you told it...

So ... People can still make paper, I mean I've made crude paper from chopping up fiber board and grinding it, mixing it with maple leaves, pressing it in a screen to dry... So, in theory, can't I take paper, cost it with a kind of emulsion by hand, and then print it? I mean on a small scale to make 20 prints a year or something?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AgX]

Of course one could. But as the offer of papers including handmade ones is still bigger than that of photographic paper, this only would make sense for the fun of it or if you want some very special kind of paper.

Or for the principle.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Some familiar individual stories here, especially Bob Carnie's story, quite the reason we had had a guts full of the Swiss. I had many ongoing battles with the suppliers of Ilfochrome Classic raw materials, not just limited to failure to deliver, but poor QC, damaged stock, lost in transit, unexplained billing errors, huge variations in pricing and the sheer high cost of the product as opposed to the restrictive nature of it. Digital did get a leg up on the old bastion, or I would not have jumped ship and been praised of the work now being produced by that method.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Stone NYC

you can do almost anything...


Johnny Cash made a Cadillac over a 10 year period. wrote a song about it. I am thinking of making a space ship and be the first person to step on the MOON.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It's almost like a sad fairy tale story the way you told it...

So ... People can still make paper, I mean I've made crude paper from chopping up fiber board and grinding it, mixing it with maple leaves, pressing it in a screen to dry... So, in theory, can't I take paper, cost it with a kind of emulsion by hand, and then print it? I mean on a small scale to make 20 prints a year or something?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Except for making the paper stock, I have been coating film, plates and paper for several years now.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Except for making the paper stock, I have been coating film, plates and paper for several years now.

PE

So you're saying that you can make some ilfochrome paper for me? And probably mix up the chemicals to develop the paper? ... you shouldn't have said that... now you're in trouble because we already had planned to kidknap you to have you process all our kodachrome, now you'll be busy making prints too

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have a formula that would work. The material is low quality and will never equal Ilfochrome without years of work, but yes, it can be done. It is probably the only color material that can be done.

You need dyes, emulsions, support and the processing chemicals. But that s not the question you asked before. You asked :So, in theory, can't I take paper, cost it with a kind of emulsion by hand, and then print it? I mean on a small scale to make 20 prints a year or something?" and that is more general than just Ilfochrome.

And, BTW, Ilfochrome cannot be coated on paper. Most paper is destroyed by the process chemistry!

PE

 

[lxdude]

I am thinking of making a space ship and be the first person to step on the MOON.

Yeah, but why bother? People will just call it a hoax!

 

[StoneNYC]

Yeah, but why bother? People will just call it a hoax!

haha I was going to say that!

 

[StoneNYC]

I have a formula that would work. The material is low quality and will never equal Ilfochrome without years of work, but yes, it can be done. It is probably the only color material that can be done.

You need dyes, emulsions, support and the processing chemicals. But that s not the question you asked before. You asked :So, in theory, can't I take paper, cost it with a kind of emulsion by hand, and then print it? I mean on a small scale to make 20 prints a year or something?" and that is more general than just Ilfochrome.

And, BTW, Ilfochrome cannot be coated on paper. Most paper is destroyed by the process chemistry!

PE

You are so wise Ron ... haha

 

[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

CD-3 isn't available at Photographers Formulary ... they seem to only have CD-2 and CD-4 ... where do I get it? or do they just have it out of stock right now? and what's the difference? (sorry to detract, just got to an actual computer to order all the chems from PF, I've never mixed my own but it's about time I start...

 

[CRhymer]

Artcraft Chemicals has CD-3 listed:

http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/products/products-page/general-chemistry/a-m/cd-3-part-1090/

Cheers,
Clarence Rhymer

 

[StoneNYC]

Artcraft Chemicals has CD-3 listed:

http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/products/products-page/general-chemistry/a-m/cd-3-part-1090/

Cheers,
Clarence Rhymer

Thanks.

What's the difference? is CD-2 or CD-4 used in E-6? I can't find the E-6 thread that listed the supposed formula's for the 1st Dev and Color dev formulas.