Mixing custom ECN2 color developer for expired motion picture stocks

Hi all,

I have some motion picture reels in my freezer since 2019. However, even if stored at -13 Celsius, what's left from my Vision3 500T reel managed to expire somehow. The 500T stock lost some dynamic range, some details in the shadows and also is showing a more visible grain. I am usually mixing my own ECN2 chemistry using Kodak's published formulas and I was thinking how I could modify the ECN2 developer in order to reduce a bit the grain? I know that the dynamic range can't be recovered once a stock started to degrade, but maybe the grain can be managed somehow.
Just out of curiosity, I made a 2-stock 500T comparison, using a 2022 strip and a 2019 strip, stitched with transparent tape, loaded in the same canister, then shot with same lens and camera with identical exposure, then developed in the same tank and finally scanned and inverted together to see the differences between stocks. Individual frame scans usually can not reveal the differences because histograms are auto-adjusted to white and black point. Anyway I am attaching some scans just for anyone curious to see the level of expiration and grain and my question is regarding the developer formula : how it can be modified to reduce the grain ?

Alain Deloc said:

how it can be modified to reduce the grain ?

Click to expand...

I don't know...I could think of things, like adding sulfite, but they will throw off color balance by a mile and create new and far bigger problems than what you're trying to solve.
Instead, I would suggest overexposing the film by 1/2 to 1 stop and print/scan a little darker. This will make the shadows substantially less grainy as you shift them outside of the toe of the curve where the grain problem is the worst. Going by the examples you've posted, I think this would be a fairly effective workaround to this problem.

koraks said:

I don't know...I could think of things, like adding sulfite, but they will throw off color balance by a mile and create new and far bigger problems than what you're trying to solve.
Instead, I would suggest overexposing the film by 1/2 to 1 stop and print/scan a little darker. This will make the shadows substantially less grainy as you shift them outside of the toe of the curve where the grain problem is the worst. Going by the examples you've posted, I think this would be a fairly effective workaround to this problem.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer! I had the same thing in my mind and I shot few frames at EI 320, but the grain is quite the same because it seems to be given by the time spent in the chemistry. Shooting overexposed at EI 250 and reducing developing time (as for b&w films) would probably reduce the size. I was thinking actually to increase the amount of CD-3, which is 4 gr. in the published formula, and reduce the developing time.

You could pull development, yes, but in my experience with color negative film this comes at the cost of greatly reduced acutance and reduced color saturation. Since ECN2 film is kind of bland to begin with, you end up with very little color at all. Of course enough to pull up in digital post processing, but...

Alain Deloc said:

I shot few frames at EI 320

Click to expand...

That's a marginal 'over'exposure. Try 200.

koraks said:

color negative film this comes at the cost of greatly reduced acutance and reduced color saturation

Click to expand...

Even with a developer that cponmtaions more CD-3? Like 6 grams?

Oh, I misread; I thought you intended to decrease CD3. Well, hard to tell since acutance is a function of the formulation of the entire developer, not just CD3. Mostly it's associated with halides in the developer which in an ECN-2 developer would mostly be bromide if memory serves.

Anyway, it's pretty much unpredictable what will happen if you modify the developer. If you increase CD3 content, activity will increase - but by how much? The same with for instance pH. The relationship between CD3 concentration and pH on the one side and resulting density is non-linear, so you'd have to do a truckload of calibration to get anything reliable.
Having done some experimenting with adjusting ECN2 pH mainly to influence the curve shape, I'd be very hesitant personally to waste any more time on something like that.

Perhaps someone else would care to comment as I think I'm not the right guy to talk to about this. The more testing and experimentation I do, the more I am of the opinion "if you want good results, use fresh film in a properly controlled, manufacturer-spec process". At least as far as color is concerned. With anything out of spec or out of date, it's somewhat random what you get; I'd say embrace the results for what they are or sell off the film to someone who does.

Just shoot the 2022 while it's still fresh (your results are excellent) and worry about the 2019 vintage later. I believe PE said before that ECN-2 stocks were not designed with much consideration about the shelf life in mind.

I still have 500T and use it for test shots when I need to check whether camera/lens is working OK... It still OK, but frankly I'd rather pay the price for fresh Portra 400/800 (or in your case, fresh V3 5219) and be sure that I'm getting proper results. I know, not a solution for your problem, but I'm afraid that getting an expired negative to develop to look like it was shot on fresh film might be a tall order.

My 500T was not completely fresh (bought as shortend in 2016), but I didn't notice such a big loss in performance as you have shown here. Maybe this stock is best fresh, drops fairly quickly when not completely new and then degrades more slowly after that...

Last test shots from my 2016(ish) 500T (first two shot without 85 filter):

That "grain" you observed is most likely a scanning artifact from film, which has lost some of its sensitivity over time and which therefore appears underexposed. Scanning software always tries to make something from these negatives, therefore previously weakly exposed regions will appear very grainy in the scans. It's in fact amplified scanner noise you see.

All these tricks, which try to boost film speed, may not work all that well, since ECN-2 film is already at the limit of technical feasibility, and it will likely have picked up some fog over time, too. I am afraid to say it, but you will not be able to fully rescue these images.

Rudeofus said:

I am afraid to say it, but you will not be able to fully rescue these images.

Click to expand...

Oh, I am not trying to recover the lost speed, because that's impossible. I was just thinking how I could reduce the grain size and that thin fog using maybe benzotriazole, like for b&w developers.

Alain Deloc said:

Hi all,

I have some motion picture reels in my freezer since 2019. However, even if stored at -13 Celsius, what's left from my Vision3 500T reel managed to expire somehow. The 500T stock lost some dynamic range, some details in the shadows and also is showing a more visible grain. I am usually mixing my own ECN2 chemistry using Kodak's published formulas and I was thinking how I could modify the ECN2 developer in order to reduce a bit the grain? I know that the dynamic range can't be recovered once a stock started to degrade, but maybe the grain can be managed somehow.
Just out of curiosity, I made a 2-stock 500T comparison, using a 2022 strip and a 2019 strip, stitched with transparent tape, loaded in the same canister, then shot with same lens and camera with identical exposure, then developed in the same tank and finally scanned and inverted together to see the differences between stocks. Individual frame scans usually can not reveal the differences because histograms are auto-adjusted to white and black point. Anyway I am attaching some scans just for anyone curious to see the level of expiration and grain and my question is regarding the developer formula : how it can be modified to reduce the grain ?

Click to expand...

Funny, I've found the stuff to be pretty bulletproof when it comes to being expired. Are you sure it's from age or something else in your chain is off?

Cholentpot said:

Funny, I've found the stuff to be pretty bulletproof when it comes to being expired. Are you sure it's from age or something else in your chain is off?

Click to expand...

I can't see what he could do better to ensure that he is only seeing the difference in films. Same time/place, same camera, same development, same scanning...

brbo said:

I can't see what he could do better to ensure that he is only seeing the difference in films. Same time/place, same camera, same development, same scanning...

Click to expand...

He should check his background radiation levels. You never know...