Motion Picture Film Used As Stills. Post Results Here.

[dabsond]

I also went from baking soda to the Kodak Formula and the results have been superior. After final wash it only takes one wipe with a PEC pad and all remaining remjet is gone. I used to have to do multiple passes to get it all off.

 

[faberryman]

Those Pec-Pads seem to work pretty well. Several endorsements here in this thread. Maybe the folks developing black and white film and experiencing problems with water spots with Photo-Flo could give them a go.

Some of the driveway cleaners contain sodium hydroxide (lye). It's great for clearing a clogged drain, but I wouldn't use it on my film.

Anyone here using an 81B filter for the tungsten balanced cine films, or are you just fixing it in post?

 

[radialMelt]

Would anyone be up for sharing some examples of their processed negs? I've just done my first two rolls of 250D in C41 and since I have no reference point cannot judge the quality of the negs visually. Would love to see some examples!

 

[koraks]

Would anyone be up for sharing some examples of their processed negs? I've just done my first two rolls of 250D in C41 and since I have no reference point cannot judge the quality of the negs visually. Would love to see some examples!

Maybe this helps:

Top: Vision3 250D developed in C41 developer; 3m15s @ 38.0C
Middle: Vision3 250D developed in ECN2 developer; 4m45s @ 41.0C
Bottom: Kodak Ektar developed in C41 developer; 3m15s @ 38.0C

Note that the middle strip is quite overdeveloped to match the lowish gamma of this film to RA4 paper. I overcooked this particular roll; I'd recommend around 3m45s to 4m00s instead. This yields negatives that print similarly to regular C41 negatives, save for the different color balance (particularly the magenta filtration).

From my blog on ECN film processing: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/balancing-act-a-brief-look-at-ecn2-vs-c41-colors/

Some of the driveway cleaners contain sodium hydroxide (lye). It's great for clearing a clogged drain, but I wouldn't use it on my film.

Many photographic formulas include hydroxide, usually sodium hydroxide. It's especially common in e.g. paper developer concentrates, but indeed also in some remjet cleaning formulas. Note that it's virtually always (I don't know any exceptions) part of a buffer which makes it not the same thing (not even remotely) as a solution with just hydroxide. Note that any photographic developer, so the ones based on e.g. carbonates, contain free hydroxide in the solution, because that's what an alkaline solution in essence is: hydroxide ions in water. So whenever you develop film, you're treating it to a generous dose of hydroxide. I always use drain cleaner pellets as my source for sodium hydroxide in the formulas that call for it. It has served me fine for years. The advantages of pellets is that they take a little time to dissolve and therefore are relatively safe to handle (as opposed to a fine-ground powder).

 

[koraks]

Talk and write all you'd like about photography but the photos are what matter.

'Aight. I'll comply, but I'll also make a case one more time why it's irrelevant, at least in the context of this thread and the choice to use this (or any other) film.

Abby of Monreale, Sicily

Near Corleone, Sicily

Agrigento, Valley of the Temples, Sicily

Somewhere along the south coast, Sicily

Tree, Catania, Sicily

Looking towards the Mediterranean, Catania, Sicily

Some caveats:

• Color management was basically...absent.
• Scanning & color correction were haphazard; scanned as positives, then truncated the R, G and B channels approximately cutting off the curves left and right where image information seemed to stop - I probably cut off a little here and too much there. Some post-processing was done to adjust color balance to how I remember the scene. I didn't shoot color checkers etc.
• Processing problems galore. I the spirit of 'experimentation' (a.k.a. just get it over with and we'll see what we can get away with) I made a chemistry mixing errors that was so ridiculous I could hardly imagine it myself and had problems with fogging (pilot LEDs on devices in the darkroom). Nonchalance, basically.

I generally don't scan. I shoot color negative film mostly because I like making color prints. These are some rare scans from recent times and overall, the whole procedure of scanning these rolls reminded me that (1) I don't really like scanning to begin with and (2) there's nothing absolute about the colors in color negative film.

Neither are particularly surprising insights, or very novel, but especially the latter still seems to puzzle some people who believe that color printing (or scanning) is somehow an exact science. It really isn't. In part, it's a set of processes that you can control for some degree of real-world accuracy. At best (if that's what you're after), the end result approximates the real thing, but never, ever gets there, regardless of technology & technique. Materials are inherently limited - there's no such thing as a computer screen image, let alone a print, that truly mimics reality. Not even close.

Another (very big) part is how we perceive color and what we like to see in images, and the many choices we make (deliberately or intuitively) to make the end result match our personal vision and creative style. This creative/subjective part fills the (massive) gap between reality as it exists and the print or digital image as we can (and want to) make it. As such, I also don't think it's a problem in the vast majority of non-technical photography that colors aren't 'correct'. In a way, they're not even supposed to be 'correct'. They're supposed to be the way we want them to be.

So the colors in the images above aren't 'good', or 'bad', or 'correct'. They're certainly, with a firm guarantee, not consistent in any way - all along the way I allowed myself deviations from what would be 'good' processing. It doesn't matter that I shot these on Vision3 film - had I done the same on C14 or E6, it would have been the exact same merry mess, because there's nothing inherent to those other film types that somehow makes them magically more tolerant of user f***ups. I could do more consistent than this. I'd have to start with being a bit more disciplined and not trying to rush things (my impatience is almost legendary).

As a result of all this, I'm also very much aware of the many ways in which online examples are limited in telling something concrete about the quality of the film used. I know, as you can tell from first-hand experience, how many choices are made along the way and how many factors there are that influence how a color image looks like - especially if film is involved at some stage. I also know that virtually nobody who posts their photos online, especially in the analog realm, generally does a really serious effort in matching the end result closely to reality - let alone succeeding in this to any credible extent. That's not to disqualify anybody - far from it. It's just an observation of what people do, not judgement of their motivations, competencies etc.

For all these reasons, I think looking at pictures of color images online in an attempt to judge a film is virtually useless. Any attempt to say something about the consistency of a material while exploring images made by different sets of hands and eyes (or even the same set, but at different moments!) is futile. Any attempt to judge the 'inherent color balance' of a color negative film based on whatever positive renditions one can find online, is equally futile. The only guarantee I can get from those examples is that in my hands, the results will look differently. Whether I'll like them or not, is impossible to tell - the only thing I could do, is actually try it myself. This has proven to be true for any kind of film, maybe with the exception of slide film, and most definitely for any color negative film I've ever tried. I've seen gorgeous shots on Portra 400 and I've never been able to replicate exactly that particular style. I've seen absolutely horrendous junk (in my humble opinion) shot on Vision3/Cinestill stock, in the knowledge that I've made far better images (humble opinion, again) with the exact same products.

So by all means, fill this thread up with more images. Don't get me wrong - I love to see what you make, if you feel like sharing it. But what those images will say will be much more about the people who produced the images than the materials involved. For that purpose, just pull up the datasheets for some objective information. That's what they're there for. Notice how datasheets of color film never include example photographs? There's a good reason for that. It would be a waste of space.

 

[radialMelt]

Thanks for the comprehensive response, koraks, and the example negs!

 

[faberryman]

Many photographic formulas include hydroxide, usually sodium hydroxide. It's especially common in e.g. paper developer concentrates, but indeed also in some remjet cleaning formulas. Note that it's virtually always (I don't know any exceptions) part of a buffer which makes it not the same thing (not even remotely) as a solution with just hydroxide. Note that any photographic developer, so the ones based on e.g. carbonates, contain free hydroxide in the solution, because that's what an alkaline solution in essence is: hydroxide ions in water. So whenever you develop film, you're treating it to a generous dose of hydroxide. I always use drain cleaner pellets as my source for sodium hydroxide in the formulas that call for it. It has served me fine for years. The advantages of pellets is that they take a little time to dissolve and therefore are relatively safe to handle (as opposed to a fine-ground powder).

I checked and driveway cleaners contain a 1%-3% solution of sodium hydroxide depending on the brand. Kodak's PB-2 remjet removal bath contains 1 gram of sodium hydroxide in 1 quart of water, which, if my math is is correct, is a 0.001% solution. Are cine film aficionados using driveway cleaner straight, and, if not, at what dilution?

 

[koraks]

1 gram of sodium hydroxide in 1 quart of water, which, if my math is is correct, is a 0.001% solution.

No, the math doesn't pan out. 1g/1000ml is 0.1% w/v.

Kodak's PB-2 remjet removal bath contains 1 gram of sodium hydroxide in 1 quart of water

Not just that. It also contains borax and sodium sulfate. Together they form a buffer with a pH of 9.25. The driveway cleaner in this scenario would just be a part of that formula. As such, the comparison between driveway cleaner (pure or diluted) and Kodak PB2 is not straightforward (and probably not very sensible in most ways), in particular if you only focus on hydroxide concentration. Since the PB2 is strongly buffered, it's not very relevant to look at just how much hydroxide goes into it. A solution of just 0.1% w/v sodium hydroxide will still have a pH of over 12 (if my math is correct...) Note the difference with the 9.25pH of the PB2 bath which also contains 0.1% w/v sodium hydroxide.

Are cine film aficionados using driveway cleaner straight, and, if not, at what dilution?

You'd have to ask them. I'd expect that a prolonged soak in undiluted driveway cleaner will make the emulsion slide off of the film base, but that a quick dip (up to 30 seconds or so) will probably do little to no harm. Kodak's color emulsions are pretty darn tough; hardened to an almost excessive degree. They withstand a lot of abuse.

There's no point in trying straight driveway cleaner for this purpose, or even driveway cleaner diluted 1+10 (to come close to the hydroxide content of PB2), since the pH will still end up between 11 and 13 or thereabouts - i.e. bloody darn caustic. It's unnecessary for remjet removal. Even a brief soak in a rather weak (e.g. 0.1% w/v) sodium carbonate solution will almost instantly soften the remjet and wash off much of it.

Thanks for the comprehensive response, koraks, and the example negs!

 

[Cholentpot]

'Aight. I'll comply, but I'll also make a case one more time why it's irrelevant, at least in the context of this thread and the choice to use this (or any other) film.

Abby of Monreale, Sicily

Near Corleone, Sicily

Agrigento, Valley of the Temples, Sicily

Somewhere along the south coast, Sicily

Tree, Catania, Sicily

Looking towards the Mediterranean, Catania, Sicily

Some caveats:

• Color management was basically...absent.
• Scanning & color correction were haphazard; scanned as positives, then truncated the R, G and B channels approximately cutting off the curves left and right where image information seemed to stop - I probably cut off a little here and too much there. Some post-processing was done to adjust color balance to how I remember the scene. I didn't shoot color checkers etc.
• Processing problems galore. I the spirit of 'experimentation' (a.k.a. just get it over with and we'll see what we can get away with) I made a chemistry mixing errors that was so ridiculous I could hardly imagine it myself and had problems with fogging (pilot LEDs on devices in the darkroom). Nonchalance, basically.

I generally don't scan. I shoot color negative film mostly because I like making color prints. These are some rare scans from recent times and overall, the whole procedure of scanning these rolls reminded me that (1) I don't really like scanning to begin with and (2) there's nothing absolute about the colors in color negative film.

Neither are particularly surprising insights, or very novel, but especially the latter still seems to puzzle some people who believe that color printing (or scanning) is somehow an exact science. It really isn't. In part, it's a set of processes that you can control for some degree of real-world accuracy. At best (if that's what you're after), the end result approximates the real thing, but never, ever gets there, regardless of technology & technique. Materials are inherently limited - there's no such thing as a computer screen image, let alone a print, that truly mimics reality. Not even close.

Another (very big) part is how we perceive color and what we like to see in images, and the many choices we make (deliberately or intuitively) to make the end result match our personal vision and creative style. This creative/subjective part fills the (massive) gap between reality as it exists and the print or digital image as we can (and want to) make it. As such, I also don't think it's a problem in the vast majority of non-technical photography that colors aren't 'correct'. In a way, they're not even supposed to be 'correct'. They're supposed to be the way we want them to be.

So the colors in the images above aren't 'good', or 'bad', or 'correct'. They're certainly, with a firm guarantee, not consistent in any way - all along the way I allowed myself deviations from what would be 'good' processing. It doesn't matter that I shot these on Vision3 film - had I done the same on C14 or E6, it would have been the exact same merry mess, because there's nothing inherent to those other film types that somehow makes them magically more tolerant of user f***ups. I could do more consistent than this. I'd have to start with being a bit more disciplined and not trying to rush things (my impatience is almost legendary).

As a result of all this, I'm also very much aware of the many ways in which online examples are limited in telling something concrete about the quality of the film used. I know, as you can tell from first-hand experience, how many choices are made along the way and how many factors there are that influence how a color image looks like - especially if film is involved at some stage. I also know that virtually nobody who posts their photos online, especially in the analog realm, generally does a really serious effort in matching the end result closely to reality - let alone succeeding in this to any credible extent. That's not to disqualify anybody - far from it. It's just an observation of what people do, not judgement of their motivations, competencies etc.

For all these reasons, I think looking at pictures of color images online in an attempt to judge a film is virtually useless. Any attempt to say something about the consistency of a material while exploring images made by different sets of hands and eyes (or even the same set, but at different moments!) is futile. Any attempt to judge the 'inherent color balance' of a color negative film based on whatever positive renditions one can find online, is equally futile. The only guarantee I can get from those examples is that in my hands, the results will look differently. Whether I'll like them or not, is impossible to tell - the only thing I could do, is actually try it myself. This has proven to be true for any kind of film, maybe with the exception of slide film, and most definitely for any color negative film I've ever tried. I've seen gorgeous shots on Portra 400 and I've never been able to replicate exactly that particular style. I've seen absolutely horrendous junk (in my humble opinion) shot on Vision3/Cinestill stock, in the knowledge that I've made far better images (humble opinion, again) with the exact same products.

So by all means, fill this thread up with more images. Don't get me wrong - I love to see what you make, if you feel like sharing it. But what those images will say will be much more about the people who produced the images than the materials involved. For that purpose, just pull up the datasheets for some objective information. That's what they're there for. Notice how datasheets of color film never include example photographs? There's a good reason for that. It would be a waste of space.

Excellent. Photos and description.

I started this thread to see what people out there were doing with cine film and to share their results. Share however you feel or don't share at all. In the end I just like looking at photographs.

 

[koraks]

In the end I just like looking at photographs.

I can relate

 

[faberryman]

No, the math doesn't pan out. 1g/1000ml is 0.1% w/v.

Thanks. Pressing the % button on the internet calculator I used did nothing but add a % symbol to the end of my calculation. Using calculators is not my area of expertise. I should have done it the old fashioned way.

Anyway, I won't argue with someone with a background in chemistry, but will say driveway cleaner would not be my go to solution for remjet removal no matter how much you dilute it. Kodak's PB-2 would be my choice. I also am not keen on caffenol as developer, white vinegar as stop bath, and pool cleaner as fixer, even though they apparently work, so perhaps my reluctance to go with driveway cleaner as a remjet remover is not surprising. I do not understand the thrill of using grocery store and home center products for photography. But hey, photography is a big tent, and it is the results that count.

 

[koraks]

I won't argue further with someone with a background in chemistry

My background in chemistry is about as profound ad that in photography. Don't let it hold you back.

driveway cleaner would not be my go to solution for remjet removal. Kodak's PB-2 would be my choice.

Perfectly reasonable. For the adventurous among us - PB2 can be made using driveway cleaner as one of its components. I use drain cleaner.

For stop bath, I use either cleaning vinegar or food grade citric acid.

For me, it's not about thrill; it's about convenience, among other things.

Raw chemistry for the most part is just that - basic building blocks. It doesn't matter for most photographic purposes for which application the materials are marketed. Drain cleaner is called that because most people wouldn't know that they need sodium hydroxide to get the bathroom sink to flow again, while drain cleaner sounds like an obvious choice. It happens to work fine as a constituent of photographic developers, of remjet removal baths, to adjust pH of various solutions, to strip PCB etching resist - heck, I've even fixed one or two clogged drains with it on occasion.

 

[btaylor]

'Aight. I'll comply, but I'll also make a case one more time why it's irrelevant, at least in the context of this thread and the choice to use this (or any other) film.

Abby of Monreale, Sicily

Near Corleone, Sicily

Agrigento, Valley of the Temples, Sicily

Somewhere along the south coast, Sicily

Tree, Catania, Sicily

Looking towards the Mediterranean, Catania, Sicily

Some caveats:

• Color management was basically...absent.
• Scanning & color correction were haphazard; scanned as positives, then truncated the R, G and B channels approximately cutting off the curves left and right where image information seemed to stop - I probably cut off a little here and too much there. Some post-processing was done to adjust color balance to how I remember the scene. I didn't shoot color checkers etc.
• Processing problems galore. I the spirit of 'experimentation' (a.k.a. just get it over with and we'll see what we can get away with) I made a chemistry mixing errors that was so ridiculous I could hardly imagine it myself and had problems with fogging (pilot LEDs on devices in the darkroom). Nonchalance, basically.

I generally don't scan. I shoot color negative film mostly because I like making color prints. These are some rare scans from recent times and overall, the whole procedure of scanning these rolls reminded me that (1) I don't really like scanning to begin with and (2) there's nothing absolute about the colors in color negative film.

Neither are particularly surprising insights, or very novel, but especially the latter still seems to puzzle some people who believe that color printing (or scanning) is somehow an exact science. It really isn't. In part, it's a set of processes that you can control for some degree of real-world accuracy. At best (if that's what you're after), the end result approximates the real thing, but never, ever gets there, regardless of technology & technique. Materials are inherently limited - there's no such thing as a computer screen image, let alone a print, that truly mimics reality. Not even close.

Another (very big) part is how we perceive color and what we like to see in images, and the many choices we make (deliberately or intuitively) to make the end result match our personal vision and creative style. This creative/subjective part fills the (massive) gap between reality as it exists and the print or digital image as we can (and want to) make it. As such, I also don't think it's a problem in the vast majority of non-technical photography that colors aren't 'correct'. In a way, they're not even supposed to be 'correct'. They're supposed to be the way we want them to be.

So the colors in the images above aren't 'good', or 'bad', or 'correct'. They're certainly, with a firm guarantee, not consistent in any way - all along the way I allowed myself deviations from what would be 'good' processing. It doesn't matter that I shot these on Vision3 film - had I done the same on C14 or E6, it would have been the exact same merry mess, because there's nothing inherent to those other film types that somehow makes them magically more tolerant of user f***ups. I could do more consistent than this. I'd have to start with being a bit more disciplined and not trying to rush things (my impatience is almost legendary).

As a result of all this, I'm also very much aware of the many ways in which online examples are limited in telling something concrete about the quality of the film used. I know, as you can tell from first-hand experience, how many choices are made along the way and how many factors there are that influence how a color image looks like - especially if film is involved at some stage. I also know that virtually nobody who posts their photos online, especially in the analog realm, generally does a really serious effort in matching the end result closely to reality - let alone succeeding in this to any credible extent. That's not to disqualify anybody - far from it. It's just an observation of what people do, not judgement of their motivations, competencies etc.

For all these reasons, I think looking at pictures of color images online in an attempt to judge a film is virtually useless. Any attempt to say something about the consistency of a material while exploring images made by different sets of hands and eyes (or even the same set, but at different moments!) is futile. Any attempt to judge the 'inherent color balance' of a color negative film based on whatever positive renditions one can find online, is equally futile. The only guarantee I can get from those examples is that in my hands, the results will look differently. Whether I'll like them or not, is impossible to tell - the only thing I could do, is actually try it myself. This has proven to be true for any kind of film, maybe with the exception of slide film, and most definitely for any color negative film I've ever tried. I've seen gorgeous shots on Portra 400 and I've never been able to replicate exactly that particular style. I've seen absolutely horrendous junk (in my humble opinion) shot on Vision3/Cinestill stock, in the knowledge that I've made far better images (humble opinion, again) with the exact same products.

So by all means, fill this thread up with more images. Don't get me wrong - I love to see what you make, if you feel like sharing it. But what those images will say will be much more about the people who produced the images than the materials involved. For that purpose, just pull up the datasheets for some objective information. That's what they're there for. Notice how datasheets of color film never include example photographs? There's a good reason for that. It would be a waste of space.

Love the examples!
I completely agree on the color neg final result- it is an extremely plastic journey from exposure to finished result and a lot of choices are made along the way to get there. IMO, I am trying to get a result I like. And hopefully in a way I can repeat.
Concerning RA4 printing, I seem to recall in an earlier thread that you stated you were unable to get a satisfactory color print using Vision 3 film and RA4 materials. Now I see you are suggesting an increased development time to be able to get satisfactory RA4 prints: am I reading this correctly?
I read these threads with interest as I have several thousand feet of frozen Vision 3 35mm short ends and I have not yet taken the plunge into ECN2 film development.

 

[pbromaghin]

Here's a Flickr group on Cinestill. The colors and contrast look blah. They also seem off. What advantage is this film if this is what you're going to get?

CineStillFilm

This is a place for users of CineStill Film to share their images and experience with this film and discuss techniques for shooting this unique emulsion. CineStill 800Tungsten is motion picture film, prepped and rolled for still photography! The base emulsion is Kodak's Vision 3 5219 500T that...

www.flickr.com

Alan, I think a lot of what you are seeing is work done by people younger than you and me (90% of the population) who definitely have a different sensibility about how photos "should" look. We may love the contrast and high saturation of Kodachrome and Velvia, but it seems the really like the washed out, low saturation and contrast look they produce. The inherent design of Vision 3 films seems to play right to them.

 

[faberryman]

My background in chemistry is about as profound ad that in photography. Don't let it hold you back.

Perfectly reasonable. For the adventurous among us - PB2 can be made using driveway cleaner as one of its components. I use drain cleaner.

Perhaps you have a pure sodium hydroxide driveway cleaner available to you in your neck of the woods. At my local home center they have a couple of brands, the most popular of which contains, in addition to 1-10% sodium hydroxide, <5% Alkyl C9-11 alcohol, and <5% Sulfonic acids, C14-16 alkane hydroxy, C14-16 alkene, and sodium salts. If you don't have a background in chemistry, I don't know how you determine that the additional ingredients are not problematic. If you don't have a background in chemistry, I don't know how you would remove them from the driveway cleaner so that you could use it as one of the components for making Kodak BP-2.

I did find some drain cleaner that claims to be 100% sodium hydroxide. I can’t get it locally. Since I would have to order it, I’d just as soon order sodium hydroxide from where I order my other photographic chemicals. The price is not significantly higher. I’d just add it in with my next order.

What brand driveway cleaner and drain cleaner do you use?

 

[lamerko]

Forgotten roll of Vision3 50D in the fridge for about four months. The film is marked for production in 2017 and I bought it as a short-end last year. It is not known how it has been stored over the years (bought with this stipulation). There are odd scratches and smudges with something like glue. All photos are without post-processing, only resizing (no reframing). They are scanned with SilverFast 8 for faster...

The light was scanty - the March sun peeking through the trees in the forest here and there - but overall it was gloomy. Shot with a macro lens at a maximum aperture of 3.5 - focusing was difficult as additional light is lost and the DOF is too narrow.

And something interesting. Along with this roll, I shot another one, thinking it was Vision3 500T, but later it turned out that due to confusion with the labels, I took EXR 500T - a film more than 30 years old. Shot on 320 ASA, the result is too optimistic - the shots are so faint that they are almost invisible to the naked eye. Separately - the film has a massive fog that is so thick that if not viewed against a light, it looks like completely black! However, the scanner was able to pull up something I didn't even think was there. I am impressed

 

[koraks]

in addition to 1-10% sodium hydroxide, <5% Alkyl C9-11 alcohol, and <5% Sulfonic acids, C14-16 alkane hydroxy, C14-16 alkene, and sodium salts.

I wouldn't waste time on that.

What brand driveway cleaner and drain cleaner do you use?

We don't have a driveway. Besides, most people around here clean their driveways with stop bath concentrate cleaning vinegar. I can actually smell when spring has arrived when I bike to the supermarket because the whole village smells like one big darkroom printing session.

As to drain cleaner - they're local brands, specific to the local chains of stores I buy the stuff at. Meaningless in an international context, but it's probably all from the same source. They're roughly 1mm diameter pellets of sodium hydroxide, purity is listed as 99%.

 

[lamerko]

Some chemicals are sold directly unadulterated in the commercial network under various trade names - in grocery stores, pharmacies, home stores... But in general, in specialty chemical stores, these chemicals would be cheaper and perhaps better stored if not of higher purity. I don't see the point in buying something with a brand name label if it's readily available at your local chemist shop

 

[faberryman]

I wouldn't waste time on that.

Neither would I. Just order sodium hydroxide and the other Kodak PB-2 chemicals from your photographic chemical supplier when you order your other chemicals. It sure beats scouring the internet and reading product safety data sheets trying to find a driveway cleaner that is pure sodium hydroxide and doesn't contain other stuff that you have know idea what it is and how it may affect your color film. And we haven't even discussed the colorants - blue, green, orange - that are used in driveway cleaners. Is that why you film colors are wonky?

As to drain cleaner - they're local brands, specific to the local chains of stores I buy the stuff at. Meaningless in an international context, but it's probably all from the same source. They're roughly 1mm diameter pellets of sodium hydroxide, purity is listed as 99%.

And the other 1%?

 

[koraks]

Is that why you film colors are wonky?

I've stopped using the PB2 bath. I don't find a separate remjet removal bath to be necessary. No hydroxide was involved in the images I posted in this thread.

It sure beats scouring the internet and reading product safety data sheets trying to find a driveway cleaner that is pure sodium hydroxide and doesn't contain other stuff that you have know idea what it is and how it may affect your color film.

I wouldn't know about that. The way I 'got into' the drain cleaner hydroxide is because I needed some drain cleaner for a clogged drain. I read the label and it said 99% sodium hydroxide, so the next time I needed some hydroxide, I just took that bottle of drain cleaner. That was several years ago; I've used the same stuff in many different formulas, without problems. Didn't take a whole lot of scouring and reading.

Also, I don't know about the driveway cleaner. If it comes in different colors, I'd suggest picking a color that appeals to you and that goes well with the flagstones.

And the other 1%?

My bet is it's the same kind of impurities as the other 1% in the sodium hydroxide you'd otherwise buy from chemicals suppliers.

I hope I've satisfied your thirst of knowledge about drugstore-bought hydroxide. I'll of course remain available for further questions about good-grade sodium bicarbonate, citric acid and vitamin C, or laundry soda a.k.a. sodium carbonate and cleaning vinegar. To preempt two specific questions about the latter: I get the unscented type that just reeks of acetic acid, but I have a very strong suspicion that the remaining 92% might be dihydrogen monoxide, which I hope won't harm the longevity of my film and paper. Fingers crossed on that one.

 

[koraks]

Concerning RA4 printing, I seem to recall in an earlier thread that you stated you were unable to get a satisfactory color print using Vision 3 film and RA4 materials. Now I see you are suggesting an increased development time to be able to get satisfactory RA4 prints: am I reading this correctly?

Yes, I've had some really bad experiences with printing RA4 from ECN2 negatives in the past. The examples are still visible on this forum in a few places. My testing back then was mostly with the 50D and 500T films, the latter in Cinestill confectioning, so without remjet, and in 120 format. The 50D I shot in 35mm and with remjet backing. I did not test 250D in that period, I think, but it's all I use now (for ECN2 stock, that is). I can't imagine that 50D would somehow print dramatically different from 250D, though.

I'm not sure why things seem to be going better this time. Since my last tries a few years ago, quite a number of the materials I'm using have changed, and I really don't know which factor in the end is/was responsible for the crossover issues I had back then. I only notice that printing so far is surprisingly trouble-free, except for a dramatically different color balance especially on the magenta channel compared to C41 negatives.

One other change is that I no longer use the 'alternative' ferricyanide bleach for ECN2 and just use the same C41 Fuji bleach I use for my other color negative film. But I'm pretty sure I tested that back then as well and I saw no differences in the negatives. And come to think of it, back then I used a dichroic enlarger for color printing, but I've switched over to LED since then. Maybe the narrow LED wavelengths skirt the problems I had before with a broader spectrum light source. Both are pretty wild guesses, and I'm very doubtful if they explain the difference.

 

[Donald Qualls]

FWIW, I've always used plain old lye for "sodium hydroxide, anhydrous" when mixing Parodinal, and gotten very good results. According to the label, it's above 99% sodium hydroxide. It's available in supermarkets in some regions (or was a few years ago) under the Red Devil brand and also as a store brand in some chains. Last time I looked, though, it wasn't at my local Food Lion, so I ordered a can of whatever brand from Amazon.

 

[koraks]

According to the label, it's above 99% sodium hydroxide.

But as I understand now, we need to worry about the remaining <1%. Apparently veritable horrors may be lurking in those margins. Our negatives may spontaneously combust, disintegrate or start a new sectarian movement that retreats to the Columbian jungle while luring other negatives and prints with them.

 

[Cholentpot]

But as I understand now, we need to worry about the remaining <1%. Apparently veritable horrors may be lurking in those margins. Our negatives may spontaneously combust, disintegrate or start a new sectarian movement that retreats to the Columbian jungle while luring other negatives and prints with them.

They ARE the 1%.

 

[faberryman]

... I have a very strong suspicion that the remaining 92% might be dihydrogen monoxide, which I hope won't harm the longevity of my film and paper. Fingers crossed on that one.

I recommend using distilled dihydrogen monoxide when mixing or diluting photographic chemicals. I like eliminating variables. If I eliminate variables, I have only myself to blame for unintended results.