Is ECN2 the Future for Color Film?

[JWMster]

Just spent a week developing and scanning C41 and wrestling with the color temp balance. Yes, I shot film at an event instead of digital, and there's a lot I should have done that I didn't of course, but this past weekend, I caught up with Studio C41 and the Atlanta Film Company's site and FB page. Seems I'm not the only one who is fine with Portra 400 and the colors but wonder a bit about the saturation, vibrancy, etc. and whether host Bill Manning's argument that longer term, ECN2's where we'll all be. For own part, I'm wondering if we won't just be shooting digital for color and sticking with film for B&W (since native digital B&W that shoots like film B&W outside of the Pentax K3 Monochrome is just a bit pricey). I love the film process, and B&W film is fabulous, but color is indeed "reproduction" as Clyde Butcher calls it... and maybe that tends to slender one's breadth of expression.

Thoughts on color film? Thoughts on home developing color film - i.e. is it worth the bother? (Should this type of thread be here or in "Lounge Lizzards"?) I've done plenty of C41 and E6 but these stocks aren't offering a lot of choice these days... so one wonders. I'm an ink printer, too.... so not feeding a color wet darkroom either.... but I'm not aware where the analog mainstream is these days.

 

[brbo]

I wonder which C-41 problem do you expect ECN-2 will solve for you?

 

[JWMster]

brbo: I can solve my own problems just fine, or with the occassional "ask" here. So thanks for that inquiry, but that's not really my point.

To help clarify, I added some more text.... focusing on long term AVAILABILITY. There's not a lot of incentive to go through the bother of solving my own shooting and processing issues if the medium is vanishing for good is there?

This isn't my problem alone to solve per se so much as to simply and more broadly wonder where are we going? and what is the long term environment for analog color film is going to look like? Fuji seems inclined to quit and Kodak's commitment to still photography at the moment has narrowed to film and only film.... divorcing itself from still photography processing needs.

This leaves still photographers interested in color with either 1) Start-ups (including re-starts) that really haven't made mainstream yet, or 2) Kodak's motion picture Vision 3 films - where Hollywood's "agreement" has made for sustainable volume at least for now. So that's the context of my question. You could extend that to wondering whether film is increasingly a B&W-only process or not, but that sells the whole of it short and is more likely negative hyperbole. Yes, I have a fridge full of color and B&W film... but I'm mixing my own B&W developer and find my choices for restock of color developers has vastly narrowed.

 

[koraks]

Seems I'm not the only one who is fine with Portra 400 and the colors but wonder a bit about the saturation, vibrancy, etc.

Saturation and contrast of color film are mostly a concern for those of us who print color in the darkroom. For people who scan and then proceed digitally, it's a non-issue.

Manning's argument that longer term, ECN2's where we'll all be

That would be a bleak outlook for color darkroom printers. ECN2 prints OK, but it's rather muted color-wise. Sort of a bland Portra 400 - which is not a derogatory comment; it's very useful in that sense. But if you want some more oomph, it's good to have e.g. Portra 160 and even Ektar.
While there is some (marginal) variation in C41 films that suits the needs of color darkroom printers, ECN2 offers no such choice. As such, it's not a complete alternative.

, but color is indeed "reproduction" as Clyde Butcher calls it

I don't know the context of that remark, but it feels a bit like he's ignoring the artistic side of the matter. The risk with overly technique-focused 'photographers' is that they chuck out the child with the bathwater. Seems like that might be happening here. If color would have just been 'reproduction' and nothing more, Eggleston wouldn't have happened.

Thoughts on home developing color film - i.e. is it worth the bother?

For me, it is. Both ECN2 and C41. But especially for C41 and also increasingly ECN2 there are plenty of commercial lab options, so it's not really a necessity.

This leaves still photographers interested in color with either 1) Start-ups (including re-starts) that really haven't made mainstream yet, or 2) Kodak's motion picture Vision 3 films

Or (3) Kodak's offering of C41 film stocks. Not sure why you're ignoring that highly relevant factor. It's there and there's no sign of it being discontinued.

my choices for restock of color developers has vastly narrowed.

Arguably, you only need one decent C41 suite to keep going. It's nice to have options, but even if you have a single dependable option, it's all very feasible. Chemistry-wise, Fuji seems to be doing fine, but the stuff is apparently easier to get here in Europe than over in the US.

 

[JWMster]

Koraks: Ah... "ignoring" might overstate it, but if it seems like I'm doing that, maybe its because I stumbled on Ektar 100 AFTER stocking up on Portra 400... and Portra 400 can do fine scanned - you're right. But it takes a bit of wrestling and tweaking to get the colors right. Something an iPhone just gets fine with none of that (most of the time). Wish it were otherwise.

I'm also more of a 400 shooter rather than a 100 since it opens up faster shutter speeds. But you're right that Portra 400 is kind of washed.... which ain't bad for skin tones per se, but the rest of the landscape needs some warmth.

BUT.... do you shoot ECN2 then? I got the C41 bit, but no E6?

 

[koraks]

"ignoring" might overstate it, but if it seems like I'm doing that, maybe its because I stumbled on Ektar 100 AFTER stocking up on Portra 400...

I don't really follow...you left out the entire line of C41 films, which is more varied than Kodak's ECN2 films, because...? You are aware that there's more Kodak C41 stuff going on than just P400 and Ektar, right?

BUT.... do you shoot ECN2 then? I got the C41 bit, but no E6?

Yes, ECN2, quite a bit of it, lately. Also C41, mostly Portra 400 lately, but I've shot P160, Ektar and loads of Superia, C200 etc. One of the merits of Portra 400 is that it's such an easy breeze to print optically. You mention it takes 'wrestling and tweaking' to get the colors right after scanning, and I can sort of relate. With optical printing, it all just falls into place. Even with today's 'digital' RA4 papers.

E6 - no. Much of the appeal of photography to me is in printmaking. With E6, I'd realistically be limited to scanning and then inkjet, in which case I might as well start out with digital capture instead.

 

[Prest_400]

I am strangely loyal to still films. If one looks to the last couple decades, Cine film and Aerial/industrial films have mostly been alternatives led by price and there weren't the best remarks about using short ends then (Seattle film works).

The Fuji-Kodak matter is tragic, again, back in 2008-10 it seemed that Fuji would have been the sustainable future (and they are for other products) yet they discontinued their ECN2 based cine line back then. On the other side, I would not have voted for Kodak either and the oft discontinued discussions gave a bleak outcome. Now Eastman Kodak seems stabilized and commited, but they donät have the rights to commercialize Still films (Alaris) or Chemistry (Sino Promise) and so that is the circus.
The newcomers are an interesting bunch to track, with the Monheim based post-Agfa Inovis iterating towards a decent C41 film (Orwo NC200 upcoming) and perhaps others such as Ferrania might rejoin. However, to catch up to what Agfa offered back then, or what Fuji and Kodak have now is a very very long way.
Kodak marketed Ektar and Portra optimised for scanning, For P400 I recall this very vivid portrait of a biker with saturated colors and with some technique and post, very lively results can be attained. Think that Cine films go through colorization afterwards and the iPhone is doing that on software - you also have the option to have RAW files.
I have also been a fan of the Portra/400H airy pastel look, but even if it biases towards that due to overexposure I am sure one can readjust the contrast and saturation. OTOH Ektar well exposed can also be quite neutral.

For me, color film is a bit of a periodical to and fro. B&W and access to darkroom now is a very solid proposition; Color I do hybrid but could jump into RA4 anytime. E6 still has a beautiful factor and I was lucky to try the legend of Kodachrome so there is a tiny piece of heart that likes Slide film.

 

[brbo]

I'm also more of a 400 shooter rather than a 100 since it opens up faster shutter speeds. But you're right that Portra 400 is kind of washed.... which ain't bad for skin tones per se, but the rest of the landscape needs some warmth.

Scanned Potra 400 is as washed out as you want it to be (same as anything else). Properly exposed Portra 400 is not washed out when printed.

There is also Portra 800 if you want faster shutter speed. There is Lomography CN 100, 400, 800 - all made by Kodak. There are 4 other emulsions from Kodak besides Portra and Ektar line (ProImage 100, ColorPlus 200, Gold 200, UltraMax 400), a tiny bit of what remains from Fuji is still around, stupid Lomochrome Purple/Turquise colour and semi-decent Lomochrome Color '92 from Lomography (made by Inoviscoat), pretty bad Orwo colour film NC400/NC500 and Ilfocolor 400 Vintage Tone (Inoviscoat), surprisingly good Adox Color Mission 200, numerous sources of Aerocolor IV (Kodak)... That is all C-41.

With currently produced ECN-2 films you get 3 films. That's it.


ECN-2 Vision3 films are not bigger than C-41 for Kodak. It's pretty much clear that ECN-2 has in fact less certain future than C-41.

Listening too much to a couple of businesses that are selling Vision3 with pre-removed remjet films (with all the problems that go with it) and a couple of small labs hand rolling Vision3 films is not a great way to take the pulse of still film photography market.

 

[dokko]

With currently produced ECN-2 films you get 3 films. That's it.

I thought there are still 4 stocks (50D, 200T, 250D and 500T) but I agree that the variety of C-41 in terms of "look" is still quite a bit larger on the C-41 side, even if Fuji decides to pull out of the market for good.

it's nice to have tungsten balanced film on the ECN-2 side, but apart from that benefit, the whole series is rather similar in how they look.

 

[blee1996]

Last year I did quite a bit of ECN-2 film, partly because of the lack of C41 availability, partly because I want to see the palette and process. In addition, ECN-2 film (repackaged or bulk roll) are quite a bit cheaper than professional C41 film. But now I'm mostly back to C41.

I do all my color processing at home, and I find the ECN-2 process tedious and remjet removal a hassle. The money I save on film price, I pay back in darkroom effort. With 3 bath C41 process, I can be done in half an hour. With ECN-2, I typically need an hour or more in order to thoroughly clean the remjet.

The ECN-2 color palette and look can be easily adjusted in Lightroom, especially with the grading tools. Professional C41 film can look very good right off the scanner, by using standard profiles. So I tend to spend more time in post-processing for ECN-2 film as well.

So everything considered, I still prefer C41. My only wish is that Kodak will mass produce Visions 3 type of emulsion without Remjet coating for still film photographers. I guess that might never happen though.

 

[brbo]

I thought there are still 4 stocks (50D, 200T, 250D and 500T).

Yes, you are right. I missed the 200T. I used to buy Vision3 end rolls and there was never any 5213 available.

So everything considered, I still prefer C41. My only wish is that Kodak will mass produce Visions 3 type of emulsion without Remjet coating for still film photographers. I guess that might never happen though.

They do. You just have to buy a whole lot of it

 

[koraks]

My only wish is that Kodak will mass produce Visions 3 type of emulsion without Remjet coating for still film photographers.

That's Cinestill.

 

[MattKing]

I cannot forsee a future where remjet backed films are the mainstream option.
And I don't see anyone doing the extensive R&D necessary to replace the remjet in an ECN process product - in particular incurring the expense involved.

 

[JWMster]

I believe the suggestion made elsewhere (not Photrio) is that Manning went the route toward ECN offered through Atlanta Film Company for 2 reasons: 1) Temporary (and potentially permanent) shortages of C41 product and 2) Less than thrilling results from Cinestill ...to with, the (apparently "new to me") issue of bubles in the images from remnants of remjet (I'm vague on the cause but have seen the posted shots and read the attribution). Agree with Matt that this appears to make a more difficult process.

FWIW, I have created and saved a CONFIGs in Silverfast and made a PRESET in DxO to deal with Portra 400 - one for people and another for landscapes. Getting skin tones right AND the blues isn't simple, but yes, the colors pop once you do that. That works in general, but a few photos will still need individual adjustments.... just fewer of them. Without that, you tend to get "blah" by default.

I spent an hour this morning sleeving some E6 from a few years back that in the press of grand kids visits, I simply rolled up and put in a glass jar. You forget how beautiful reversal films are... but those are now being flattened "in-sleeve" under my Irving Penn's "Centennial" book (with others a-top that for more heft). They had been briefly DSLR scanned - a process I have since dispensed with given my results just didn't match my expectations.... and the Epson scans seem just more reliable. In my experience, native E6 film has certain color sensitivities that bring out the reflected sky colors in water that just is harder to manage with digital images.... and I very much appreciate how it more palettably colors my otherwise brackish (brown) Chesapeake Bay waters. "Better than the original" is fine here.

BTW, Freestyle wrote me back this morning to suggest 120 MF ECN2 film from Reflx where they've slit 65mm and spooled it with backing paper that may admittedly have issues (according to Reflx's website) owing to the production process.

 

[koraks]

1) Temporary (and potentially permanent) shortages of C41 product

This is a supply/demand thing. Kodak hasn't been able to keep up with global demand for color film. While it's frustrating if you can't always get the film you'd like, it's not necessarily a permanent problem.

2) Less than thrilling results from Cinestill ...to with, the (apparently "new to me") issue of bubles in the images from remnants of remjet

It's been a long time since Cinestill was actually in the remjet removal business. The stuff you'd buy from them today has never had any remjet on it. They buy it straight from Kodak who skip remjet coating specifically for them. If you can live with the halation, it's technically OK.

Now, don't get me wrong - I shoot ECN2 for a reason, too, and those reasons have to do with some unattractive traits of C41 at this point in time. Availability is one thing, price another. I just shoot easier with less inhibition and ultimately to better effect if I don't have to worry about cost. At least in 35mm. But in 120, I really prefer actual C41.

 

[Pioneer]

No.

I live in a very, very small market for film. I cannot buy black and white film locally but I can still get color film from several local sources. I can also drop it off and get it developed at several locations. I could be mistaken but I do not see C-41 film going away anytime soon. If you looked at the availability where I live you would believe the black and white film was endangered, not color film. It is easy to buy on-line, but then so is color film.

 

[Richard Man]

I'm "married" to Portra 160, especially on 4x5. Just bought 40L of Kodak Flexicolor which should be good for 720 sheets of 4x5 It handles skin tones beautifully for my 4x5 portrait projects and has the pastel look I want in my Impressions series

 

[halfaman]

Here I put my two cents...

C-41 film supply is struggling because of increasing demand exceeding Kodak Rochester confectioning capability, so I would not bury a healthy patient. Non-stop price increase of still color film in the last couple of years make ECN-2 film far more cheaper than C-41 and many people is looking at it as an alternative (sometimes the only affordable) to shoot color if you accept the rem-jet and manual spooling from cine reels. In Russia was done since decades along with Aerial film.

Portra 400 is a medium contrast and saturation film with excellent latitude, it is the workhorse of still color films and what I carry when I am not sure of what I am going to do or which kind of light I will have. But it is not my favourite current film stock... My favourite is Portra 160, more vivid colors and better contrast for my taste. Portra 800 is also very good in MF with the highest saturation and more neutral than Ektar but utterly expensive.

I used Cinestill 800T with C-41 chemistry and I found it "good enough" for night and interior photography scanned and optically enlarged in RA-4. I don't like what I have seen of Vision3 processed in ECN-2 and printed optically in RA-4, they were very flat due to low contrast.

 

[koraks]

I don't like what I have seen of Vision3 processed in ECN-2 and printed optically in RA-4, they were very flat due to low contrast.

In my experience it's necessary to push develop Vision3 in ECN2 by extending the 3m00s development time (at 41C) to 3m45s ~ 4m00s. This way, contrast is approximately the same as with regular processed C41 film and shadow detail is good when shot at box speed. Developed at 3m00s in ECN2 gives overly flat negatives that are virtually impossible to print unless exposure is cranked up by around a stop at least (downrating V3-50D to 25, 250D to 100-125 etc.) and colors will indeed be very muted. Note that this can work very well if that's what you're after.

When printing C41-developed ECN2 film, I find that contrast is sort of OK, and as long as the contrast of the scene isn't too big, the colors will sort of balance out OK-ish when printing RA4. However, on contrasty scenes with sensitive color reference (e.g. cloudy skies with bright areas), there's a nasty green/cyan tinge to C41-developed ECN2 negatives that I can't quite filter out. YMMV. Perhaps I've just always been unfortunately in this respect; I understand others like their C41-developed ECN2 negatives just fine. But for me, ECN-2 development (with adjusted time) works better.

 

[halfaman]

In my experience it's necessary to push develop Vision3 in ECN2 by extending the 3m00s development time (at 41C) to 3m45s ~ 4m00s. This way, contrast is approximately the same as with regular processed C41 film and shadow detail is good when shot at box speed.

Thanks for the tip!

 

[Cholentpot]

Last year I did quite a bit of ECN-2 film, partly because of the lack of C41 availability, partly because I want to see the palette and process. In addition, ECN-2 film (repackaged or bulk roll) are quite a bit cheaper than professional C41 film. But now I'm mostly back to C41.

I do all my color processing at home, and I find the ECN-2 process tedious and remjet removal a hassle. The money I save on film price, I pay back in darkroom effort. With 3 bath C41 process, I can be done in half an hour. With ECN-2, I typically need an hour or more in order to thoroughly clean the remjet.

The ECN-2 color palette and look can be easily adjusted in Lightroom, especially with the grading tools. Professional C41 film can look very good right off the scanner, by using standard profiles. So I tend to spend more time in post-processing for ECN-2 film as well.

So everything considered, I still prefer C41. My only wish is that Kodak will mass produce Visions 3 type of emulsion without Remjet coating for still film photographers. I guess that might never happen though.

An hour? What are you doing?

It's five more minutes for me to remove the remjet with baking soda. Another 3 to scrub the reels with a toothbrush if I use plastic reels. If I use metal reels it's not an issue cleaning at all.

And yes, the day color goes away is the day I'll shoot b&w on film and color on digital.

 

[blee1996]

I do like the Vision 3 500T a lot for night and indoor mixed-lighting shots, since I did not find any current ISO 400 C41 film as appealing. I do use ECN-2 chemistry for ECN-2 film, and color grade to kind of "cinema" look.

 

[Samu]

First, there is remjet in Vision3, which makes it impossible for many labs to process these films with their existing equipment. CineStill style film with no antihalation layer is no solution. I doubt Kodak is going to make ECN-2 films specially for still photography, when it would compete with their own films such as Portra. ECN film is not compatible with C-41. although some is marketed as such. I am very much against the philosophy of making poor negatives, and then correcting them digitally. Film should be possible to be printed as such, without pushing it. It works in small scale, but C-41 negative is a standard, and making different kind of negatives for each use would be like black & white with color films. Also, there is an issue with ECN-2 chemistry having a very short shelf life compared to C-41 and even E-6 chemistries. So, I think it will be C-41 for prints and ECN-2 for movies, as it has been until now. There is no reason to change the situation for worse. Of course, nobody prevents people wanting to experiment from using Vision 3 for stills, but for the whole market, I doubt it will ever happen.

 

[Steven Lee]

Actually I am puzzled by the opposite: why do cine films still exist? Still photography on film kind of makes sense: there's large format, there's wet printing community, there are folks like me who enjoy the experience of manual focus mechanical cameras, there's that unmistakable by-default film look that takes a lot of effort to replicate digitally. But cine films? While I am not a cinematographer, but from a distance cine films make no sense. ECN-2 is annoying and is not optimized for small volume processing. The developer doesn't keep long. And in Hollywood everything is scanned and digitally post-processed to the same orange/teal look anyway, and I doubt that the 16mm hobbyist market matters at all.

Unless I'm missing something, I would not expect cine films to be the "future". I expect them to disappear.

 

[blee1996]

Cine film is definitely not the future for movies, but it will stay around for a while. There are diehard directors and cinematographers that holds large swing over studio boss and Kodak. They are after that particular film look, which is arguable whether reproducible in digital or not.

I went to see Oppenheimer in 70mm IMAX projection. But if you don't tell me it was shot on film and projected on film, will I know? I highly doubt it, even though I consider myself a diehard film fan.