Kodak 5279 Motion Picture film, processed C-41

JonBowerbank · Mar 6, 2009

Hey everyone!

Thought I'd share with you all some of my recent results.

I bulkloaded and shot about 8 or 9 rolls of Kodak 5279 500 ISO Tungsten stock with my trusty Nikon FM SLR, and instead of ECN-2, I tried doing it with C-41 chemicals.

The images rendered very well, with a strange sickle cell grain (some think it's reticulation, but it's TBD).

Feel free to check out my set, and to ad me on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanbowerbank/sets/72157614573399785/

thanks!

Jonathan Bowerbank

RESUME: Dead Link Removed
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2815160/
Photography Portfolio: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanbowerbank/sets

nworth · Mar 6, 2009

The colors seem accurate, but not as vibrant as you might like. PE commented in another thread that motion picture film is designed for lower contrast than regular print film. That may be part of what is happening here, but I don't think it is the whole story.

perkeleellinen · Mar 6, 2009

Interesting grain pattern. What's 'TBD'? Did you develop these at home?

JonBowerbank · Mar 6, 2009

Yeah, motion picture is designed for lower contrast for sure to have more correctability in post.

The TBD is just the fact that a precise explanation of why that grain is present, has yet to surface. Any ideas? Temperature change between developer and blix has been ruled out, as the temperature while I was processing it was well maintained.

nickandre · Mar 6, 2009

That is impressive reticulation. It looks like you have a uniform colony of bacteria growing on your film.

How was your wash? I can't think of how this is possible. I take my color film from the wash at 100 and put it into stabilizer at 68 and it's fine. I also frequently use bleach at room temp after attempting to cool the film (eg removing it from the tank and blowing on it.)

It's impressive, whatever it is. Try tempering everything perfectly and running another roll through. Even stabilizer.

The grain picture failed. Sorry. Ignore the attachment.

Ektagraphic · Mar 6, 2009

Thank you. That was interesting. There were some shots where the color was very accurate and some that it was off.

srs5694 · Mar 6, 2009

Both contrast and color balance could be influenced by how the negatives were turned into Web images -- negative scan, traditional print and then flatbed scan, or something more exotic.

As to the grain/reticulation, I seem to recall hearing that radical pH shifts can also cause reticulation, but these have to be pretty extreme. I've heard of people processing ECN-2 films in C-41 without getting such effects, so I doubt if this is a factor, but I thought I'd toss it out anyhow.

fschifano · Mar 6, 2009

None of that looks like reticulation. It looks more like some very grainy film that picked up a bunch of hairs somewhere along the line. Do you have cats?

E76 · Mar 6, 2009

Did you remove the remjet backing before developing the film? I wonder if the "reticulation" you're seeing is a result of the backing coming off in the chemistry and sticking to the emulsion side; however, I have a feeling that if that was the case, the results would be a lot worse.

JonBowerbank · Mar 7, 2009

I removed the remjet afterwards, as I was told I could probably do it either way (before or after) and it'd be fine. I could try rinsing most of it off before developing or blixing, and see what happens.

perkeleellinen · Mar 7, 2009

Are all the faint white lines hairs or damage from when you removed the remjet?

Quite interested to try this film if I could find it. I'm down to my last few rolls of 320T and it would be good to find another fast tungsten film.

AgX · Mar 7, 2009

perkeleellinen said:
What's 'TBD'?

TBD = to be defined

perkeleellinen · Mar 7, 2009

Thanks.

JonBowerbank · Mar 15, 2009

Some of the faint white lines are the negative image of remjet that wasn't completely washed off. It's the first time I had ever hand processed film before, so it was a very imperfect process for the first couple rolls.

The more recent ones are much cleaner

RafaChinchilla · Aug 1, 2009

Here is what WIKIPEDIA says:

"Motion picture film, primarily because of the rem-jet backing, requires different processing than standard C-41 process color film. The process necessary is Eastman Color Negative 2 (ECN-2), which has an initial step using an alkaline bath to remove the backing layer. There are also minor differences in the remainder of the process. If motion picture negative is run through a standard C-41 color film developer bath, the rem-jet backing will partially dissolve and destroy the integrity of the developer and, potentially, ruin the film."

R.

RafaChinchilla · Aug 1, 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_motion_picture_film

brianmichel · Aug 8, 2009

i LOVE the way this looks. Where'd you get the film from?

fotophox · Aug 9, 2009

So how do you wash away rem-jet backing? What, for that matter, IS rem-jet backing?

brianmichel · Aug 9, 2009

The more I look at these pictures, the more I think the reticulation is due to the rem-jet backing. As it is too big to be actual grain from the image.

AgX · Aug 11, 2009

fotophox said:
So how do you wash away rem-jet backing? What, for that matter, IS rem-jet backing?

Rem-jet is a certain back layer serving as well as antistatic as well as a an anti-halation layer. It is formed of carbon particles in a binder dissolving in weak alkali.

See for the designation itself:

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

Domin · Aug 29, 2009

I've done two rolls of 5245 in C41 and my conclusion is that remjet should be removed before processing. I do not have any scans but looking at the negs I see some marks witch simply do not happen when processing a C41 neg. They are somewhat similiar to yours.

I suppose the developer is alkaline enough to make remjet soft so some particles can get into emusion. However someone here on apug reported removing it at the end of process with no problems. It might depend on something hard to account for with anecdotal experience we have - agitation, age of film etc.

Cine labs here do process 135 rolls in ECN so I do not bother to scrape the horrible remjet myself.

As for contrast, skipping the bleach might increase it to that of C41 neg or somewhat higher. It works well with ECN bleach bypass but straight C41 gives somewhat higher contrast than ECN so C41-BB might be too drastic. On the other hand extending development time might work. Anyway contrast is moot if you do not intend to print optically.

Kodak 5279 Motion Picture film, processed C-41

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency