• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodak planning to replace remjet on vision 3 films

Does anyone know when Eastman Kodak stopped producing cellulose triacetate, in-house?
 
MultiFormat Shooter said:
Does anyone know when Eastman Kodak stopped producing cellulose triacetate, in-house?
Click to expand...

It was in 2013 that Kodak stopped making cellulose triacetate.

I think the main makers today, at least for the cellulose triacetate that is used for film base, are Daicel in Japan and Island Polymer Industries in Germany.

Daicel has been Fuji's supplier since the beginning. In fact, Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. was originally spun off from Daicel in 1934.

Island Polymer Industries is the successor to the old AGFA and ORWO.

https://www.daicel.com/cell_ac/en/

https://www.daicel.com/cell_ac/en/triacetate/

https://www.islandpolymer.com/tac-for-photographic-purposes
 
Can't stop
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20251009_172538710_HDR.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 109
Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Has anyone done bleach bypass processing with the new Vision3 films? Any experiences to share?
Click to expand...

Nope, but this is what Kodak says: "The new Anti-Halation layer is a technically advanced formulation containing proprietary components and SILVER. This will result in significantly higher densities in a skip-bleach process."
 
Fortepun said:
Nope, but this is what Kodak says: "The new Anti-Halation layer is a technically advanced formulation containing proprietary components and SILVER. This will result in significantly higher densities in a skip-bleach process."
Click to expand...

Thanks so much!
 
FYI I just developed and am currently scanning my first roll of Vision3 250D AHU (bought from Reflx lab in a roll of 36 as "320D AHU").

The only thing I changed from normal ECN-2 development was handling the remjet (or lack thereof). With the older 250D, I'd use Kodak's actual recipe for remjet removal bath as the first step, then rinse pretty thoroughly a few times until the water wasn't coming out gray anymore. Then after fixing, I'd unspool the film and gently rub off any remaining remjet with a gloved thumb in running warm water.

With this AHU stuff I just used a normal 2-minute presoak at temperature and developed per usual, also skipping the mechanical removal step after fixing. It looks exactly as good as the old stuff, and was simpler to process, which was my hope.

Anyone know where I can get more of this stuff? I don't care who is re-rolling it. Reflx lab appears to be out of stock. In the US but willing to ship from outside the country.
 

Can we start a 'studio' and do a group buy? I'm out of 250D and I can't get my mittens on short ends right now.
 
I saw Reflx Labs has 320D AHU in stock again, so I ordered two rolls to try out. While I was at it, I ordered two rolls of Lucky 200 color film too. We shall see...
 
I just developed first roll of Kodak Vision 320D AHU (Reflx Labs branded) in Kodak C41 kit, and the color was quite awful. I don't think it is worth posting here, and cross-process this film in C41 is ruining it. In the same tank, the also new-to-me Lucky C200 roll turns out well (I posted in another thread).

For my next roll of 320D AHU, I will definitely use proper ECN-2 chemical (sans remjet removal) and see if I can get better results.
 

It's true. The new AHU looks worse developed in C41 than in ECN-2, regardless of remjet.
 
I can't imagine it's different than the remjet-backed version. After all, Kodak ensured that the film as such is the same, so logically, it will process the same. Mind you, I've never found Vision3 developed in C41 to come out very well.
 
I don't have any of the new film with AHU (I still have quite a lot of older stock - I even stocked up right before they stopped production temporarily), but I've also heard some complaints from friends. Perhaps the new film behaves a bit differently under 'atypical' conditions, compared to the tightly controlled lighting on film sets. Kodak guarantees it for cinema use, but not necessarily for the ways this film is used outside of that context…
If you remember the CineStill version with the remjet removed - it behaved quite differently, not just because of the halos but overall. Perhaps AHU cannot compensate 100% for certain aspects, and even though it's technically the same emulsion, there may still be some differences…
 
lamerko said:
If you remember the CineStill version with the remjet removed - it behaved quite differently, not just because of the halos but overall.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this to be true.

Also, Kodak has been very clear on the identical performance of the old vs. the new AHU product:

If you see differences, it's due to differences in the processing and possibly post-processing digital corrections.
 
lamerko said:
Perhaps the new film behaves a bit differently under 'atypical' conditions, compared to the tightly controlled lighting on film sets. Kodak guarantees it for cinema use, but not necessarily for the ways this film is used outside of that context…
Click to expand...

I have not used the new version without remjet, but as koraks writes, it‘s very unlikely to behave differently than the old version since Kodak specially mentions the films behave the same.

I‘ve shot quite a lot of Vision3 film processed in ECN-2 for motion picture projects, many of them in uncontrolled/mixed light situations, and the film reacts beautifully (similar to Portra800 and better than most other photo emulsions).

I‘ve also made many scans and some fully analog prints of Vision3 films cross-processed in C-41 chemicals and like koraks, I find the color reproduction rather unsatisfactory and much worse than properly developed cine film in ECN-2 if aiming for natural colors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register