Is ECN2 the Future for Color Film?

[koraks]

Actually I am puzzled by the opposite: why do cine films still exist?

Because of the likes of Wes Anderson. Much like in still photography, there are film 'nuts' in the cine world, as well.

 

[Steven Lee]

@koraks But photographic film 'nuts' have tangible reasons to prefer film, and I named a few (but not all). I am not aware of a single tangible reason for a movie director to prefer film. Vision3 emulsions are fairly color neutral, their curves are straight, with a ton of digital doctoring, color grading, and affordable "CGI" on top. So I am wondering what Mr. Anderson would say if he joined this thread!

 

[koraks]

@Steven Lee you'd get the same kind of 'tangible' reasons you get from still photographers, really. I wouldn't consider them tangible, though, but generally very intangible to the point of emotional and metaphysical. That's not intended as derogatory, either, but just the observation that many film shooters (still & moving) seem to prefer film (at least some of the time) for reasons that are difficult to objectify.

 

[dokko]

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.

That all pretty much matches my experience to the dot!

I've printed some Vision3 film on Fuji Maxima paper to get back saturation and contrast, and while it's an interesting look for some motives, it often looks a bit artificial.

Portra 800 is an amazing film - love the grain texture, easy to print, and the colors scan very well. I agree it's expensive, but so is Portra 400 by now, so the difference is quite small now if you shop around.

 

[MattKing]

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

The camera film manufactured for one single movie - Oppenheimer - involved more square meters of photographic film manufacture than all the still film ever used by all the members of Photrio over the years.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some awfully premature doom n gloom. Kodak seems to be quite busy trying to keep up with the demand for color film. Yeah, the selection might be limited; but their color neg films are their best ever,
and they again have a very solid chrome product too. You'd have to ask movie producer why they would still shoot color film. I quit going to movies once it was all about teenage blockbuster digitized everything. Not the same look at all. If I had my druthers, they'd still be doing em real Technicolor. But I feel the same way about still film too. I can achieve highly nuanced prints in my own darkroom, as well as a level of hue accuracy I have yet to see in inkjet prints - no, not perfect by any means, but often surprisingly good. My favorite combo is Ektar sheet film printed on Fujiflex Supergloss.

 

[Steven Lee]

The camera film manufactured for one single movie - Oppenheimer - involved more square meters of photographic film manufacture than all the still film ever used by all the members of Photrio over the years.

My point was that Photrio members have good reasons to shoot film, while Christopher Nolan (or Wes Anderson) do not. I disagree with koraks here. Film photography offers tangible benefits over digital cameras, but movies don't. Tarantino also expressed his love for film in a few interviews, but could not articulate why, clearly lacking technical depth on the subject and religiously believing that film gives him the "special look". Again, I am willing to be proven wrong, but so far nobody offered an explanation for cine film's accidental existence other than metaphysics and eccentricity of high profile directors. That's not enough to sustain a business.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some of them obviously have a LOT of money to spend as they please. Not in color, but have you seen Bob Dylan's Shadow Kingdom flick? Masterfully done deliberately old school Double XX. I can't imagine it being done any other way. If one wants a "look", they want that look, not something else, whether they can precisely articulate the why of it or not. No need to dismiss that as mere eccentricity. I don't personally know any directors, but I have known serious cinematographers, and what they understood technically would run rings around most of what passes for information on this forum. They wouldn't get paid big bucks themselves otherwise. They have to make the intended look actually look that way, or at least get it close enough to the goal post for someone to kick the rest of the distance. I sure learned some valuable things about the behavior of color film from them.

 

[MattKing]

My point was that Photrio members have good reasons to shoot film, while Christopher Nolan (or Wes Anderson) do not. I disagree with koraks here. Film photography offers tangible benefits over digital cameras, but movies don't. Tarantino also expressed his love for film in a few interviews, but could not articulate why, clearly lacking technical depth on the subject and religiously believing that film gives him the "special look". Again, I am willing to be proven wrong, but so far nobody offered an explanation for cine film's accidental existence other than metaphysics and eccentricity of high profile directors. That's not enough to sustain a business.

Because it is worthwhile for EK to keep film makers interested in using it.
I think you will find that the people who use motion picture film like using it and like how different it is to use.
They like the discipline it imposes, and appreciate both its practical limitations and practical advantages.
And they happen to be the ones who are instrumental in inspiring and training new users.
And when it comes to Tarantino and others like him, they communicate much better with film/moving images and sounds and dialogue than they do with their own words .

 

[Steven Lee]

Because it is worthwhile for EK to keep film makers interested in using it.
I think you will find that the people who use motion picture film like using it and like how different it is to use.
They like the discipline it imposes, and appreciate both its practical limitations and practical advantages.
And they happen to be the ones who are instrumental in inspiring and training new users.
And when it comes to Tarantino and others like him, they communicate much better with film/moving images and sounds and dialogue than they do with their own words .

I had already responded to this earlier:

so far nobody offered an explanation for cine film's accidental existence other than metaphysics and eccentricity of high profile directors. That's not enough to sustain a business.

So... I stand by my prediction that ECN-2 films will be dead way before C-41. A handful of eccentric directors isn't enough to support a niche product. But millions of photographers are. Another proof point is Fujifilm. Their cine film line is dead, but they aren't ready to give up on C-41 yet.

 

[MattKing]

@koraks But photographic film 'nuts' have tangible reasons to prefer film, and I named a few (but not all). I am not aware of a single tangible reason for a movie director to prefer film. Vision3 emulsions are fairly color neutral, their curves are straight, with a ton of digital doctoring, color grading, and affordable "CGI" on top. So I am wondering what Mr. Anderson would say if he joined this thread!

It isn't just the technical characteristics of the medium itself. It is also its requirements and the workflow it requires.
You seem to be looking at this from the viewpoint of those who are further down the production chain - not from the viewpoint of the cinematographers and directors and lighting people and actors and camera operators.
The latter group have a big influence on how movies succeed.

 

[koraks]

A handful of eccentric directors isn't enough to support a niche product.

If a handful of eccentric directors suffices for ECN2, a handful of eccentric still photographers will have to make do for C41. It's really very much the same thing. The only difference is that some of those directors are capable of mobilizing significant production resources, so it doesn't take so many of them to keep a production line alive.

Another proof point is Fujifilm. Their cine film line is dead, but they aren't ready to give up on C-41 yet.

Well. They sell some Kodak film with a Fuji tag stuck onto it. If you qualify this as 'not giving up', OK I guess....

 

[brbo]

there's that unmistakable by-default film look that takes a lot of effort to replicate digitally.

Tarantino also expressed his love for film in a few interviews, but could not articulate why, clearly lacking technical depth on the subject and religiously believing that film gives him the "special look".

I guess both are going after that "look". Except that one Tarantino character is a schmuck and we Photrio luddites are true connoisseurs?

 

[halfaman]

My point was that Photrio members have good reasons to shoot film, while Christopher Nolan (or Wes Anderson) do not. I disagree with koraks here. Film photography offers tangible benefits over digital cameras, but movies don't. Tarantino also expressed his love for film in a few interviews, but could not articulate why, clearly lacking technical depth on the subject and religiously believing that film gives him the "special look". Again, I am willing to be proven wrong, but so far nobody offered an explanation for cine film's accidental existence other than metaphysics and eccentricity of high profile directors. That's not enough to sustain a business.

There is also an important agreement between Hollywood studios and Kodak to supply film for a physical backup of every movie produced. The backup is done by color separation and delivers three B/W strips on a highly stable silver negative film with proportional RGB densities. So perhaps neither still nor motion picture stock is what saved the Kodak film business...

 

[Steven Lee]

I guess both are going after that "look". Except that one Tarantino character is a schmuck and we Photrio luddites are true connoisseurs?

You made me laugh here. Actually it's the other way around. We shoot all kinds of films, including traditional S-shaped B&W emulsions. We wet print or scan using primitive equipment relying on rudimentary skills. 80% of us are afraid of computers. So yeah, our results look quite different from a digital camera by default. But movie studios rely on t-grain linear Vision3 emulsions, scanned on high-end machines and heavily digitally post-processed by well-paid digital wiz kids. Again, I am not a Hollywood insider, but I wonder what kind of "look" is there to begin with, and what survives that digital pipeline.

BTW that's also why I don't shoot Portra 400 or T-Max films. Their scans look too close to my Fujifilm digital output, and I can make them look identical especially with B&W. But ProImage 100, Gold 200, or HP5+ give you very different image by default.

 

[brbo]

BTW that's also why I don't shoot Portra 400 or T-Max films. Their scans look too close to my Fujifilm digital output...

Your Fuji digital can't record purple colour either? Man... Kodak must've designed Portra just to show us that we don't need to buy Fuji digital cameras?

But, seriously, I think Tarantino & Co. are not as irrational or unable to keep up with the new world as you think. They can get the look they want. Even if they are only kidding themselves that film is the secret souce, so what? Does it make any difference? Cost of film for Hollywood A production is less than catering.

 

[Pelovsky]

In my experience it's necessary to push develop Vision3 in ECN2 by extending the 3m00s development time (at 41C) to 3m45s ~ 4m00s.

This is exactly what I experienced while developing Vision3 film in ECN2. I think this is due to not-so-vigorous agitation when developing film in a small tank. ECN2 process specification calls for very certain type of developer turbulation and recicrucaltion of the developer solution which are impossible in a 2 or 4 reels tank. To estimate the needed development time I used the time/temp calculator at Massive Dev Chart, checking and uncheking the "continuous agitation" checkbox - and it adds approx. 45s to the standard 3:00min/41C combo.

 

[koraks]

I think this is due to not-so-vigorous agitation when developing film in a small tank.

No, it's because ECN2 film is designed to yield a lower contrast than C41. So this behavior is really by design, and if we want to repurpose ECN2 film for e.g. optical printing, we have to compensate for this.

 

[Pelovsky]

No, it's because ECN2 film is designed to yield a lower contrast than C41. So this behavior is really by design, and if we want to repurpose ECN2 film for e.g. optical printing, we have to compensate for this.

I have no professionaly developed ecn2 film to compare my results to (at least the density of the film), so that was just my wild guess. Either way, scanning or optically printing EK 5201 developed for 3:45 at 41C, the shadow details and overall "look" of the image is much better than when I develop this film for 3:00 straight minutes.

 

[koraks]

Either way, scanning or optically printing EK 5201 developed for 3:45 at 41C, the shadow details and overall "look" of the image is much better than when I develop this film for 3:00 straight minutes.

Absolutely! And it's interesting to hear that you've come to the same conclusion!

Btw, concerning the contrast: have a look at this post, which hints at the differences: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/why-ecn-and-c41.162827/post-2120718

 

[Pelovsky]

Absolutely! And it's interesting to hear that you've come to the same conclusion!

Btw, concerning the contrast: have a look at this post, which hints at the differences: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/why-ecn-and-c41.162827/post-2120718

thank you I've seen it before. My journey with developing and optically printing ECN2 films goes back a few years, I had my ups and downs developing them (all sorts and generations of Vision films) in Tetenal Colortec C41 at 30C and 38C, using blix, then separate ferricyanide bleach and C41 fixer, then in ECN2 using seriously outdated CD3 (and omitting AF2000), and after all these more or less successful experiments I now stick to ECN2 developer mixed from scratch (and exactly to specification) with fresh CD3 and AF2000. I recalculate development time from 3:45 at 41C to 38C. This way I can print really nice colors on Fuji CA paper and I am avoiding almost all frustrating color casts, crossovers etc in highlights and shadows. It's true even this way Vision3 50D that I mostly use produces a little muted colors and the contrast is not that high - but I am OK with that, as I use this film during summer.
I wouldn't care about ECN2 films at all, but my budget is tight. Pre-Covid, I could get Kodak Gold 200 in 3-pack for no more than 8 euros. Now it's closer to 25 euros and the supply is limited.

 

[koraks]

Yeah, I can relate @Pelovsky - this matches my experiences as well. Btw, I don't use the AF2000 and note no problems; do you see much of a difference? I'd expect any difference to be limited to the low density areas and hence the deepest shadows of prints. I imagine any effect may be swamped by slight overexposure, pushing down any non-linear regions of the curve (at the toe) into dmax of the print. I'm inferring this from the following publication: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/KODAK-antifoggant-af2000.pdf
Admittedly, it's a hypothetical approach, so I'm wondering what your real-world experiences are!

 

[lamerko]

I recalculate development time from 3:45 at 41C to 38C.

This lowering of the temperature, for what purpose are you doing it?

 

[Pelovsky]

Yeah, I can relate @Pelovsky - this matches my experiences as well. Btw, I don't use the AF2000 and note no problems; do you see much of a difference? I'd expect any difference to be limited to the low density areas and hence the deepest shadows of prints. I imagine any effect may be swamped by slight overexposure, pushing down any non-linear regions of the curve (at the toe) into dmax of the print. I'm inferring this from the following publication: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/KODAK-antifoggant-af2000.pdf
Admittedly, it's a hypothetical approach, so I'm wondering what your real-world experiences are!

TBH during my journey I almost completely abandoned trying to get nice colors out of ECN2 films, and then decided to go full monty - fresh CD3 in industrial amount, AF2000, sulphuric acid stop bath, recalculating the development time, getting a professional lab circulator (old but gold). It paid off, because what I am now getting pleases the eye - but there is no exact comparison I can make that shows the difference between using - or not - the AF2000. I am sure the Kodak document shows exactly what AF2000 does and the impact is, as you wrote, very limited. There's also a Document Kodak publishes online entitled "Effects of Mechanical & Chemical Variations in Process ECN-2" that comes in handy when trying to establish the reasons why what you get when developing film in ecn2 is different from expectations.
When I write this, it amazes me how much time and effort (and money, ultimately) I spent trying to time the beast of ecn2, instead of just buying straight C41 films

 

[Pelovsky]

This lowering of the temperature, for what purpose are you doing it?

It's harder to mantain the temperature of the solutions inside the tank precisely at 41.1C, when the ambient temperature is ca. 21-22C. Even if you pre-heat (obviously you have to with ecn2 as you remove remjet before development) the tank, when you pour the dev solutions inside the tank, and then inverse the tank for the initial 15s, and then proceed with 2 inversions every 15s (as I do). I found out that staying at 38C makes it easier, but that's just it. Oh, and I don't have to change the circualtor temperature every time I switch from developing C41 and ECN2