That's great to hear, thanks for the info.In the past when I was able to process color films I had no problems with ECN films processed in ECN chemicals.
Many, many years ago ECN was intended to be printed on color positive stock. At that time there was a slight mismatch between the positive film and color papers. That problem no longer exists so you will get beautiful prints from ECN if you exposed and process the film correctly.
I really have a problem with companies like Cinestill that re-purpose film and pretend that there are no problems. If you process ECN in C-41 you will get bad results. Color shifts and cross-overs that are impossible to correct. They cannot be corrected with filtration.
Thanks PE, That's good to know, I'm pretty excited to get developing!ECN in its process is as good or better than C41 films in their own process. The difference is that ECN has longer latitude when compared to it's counterpart, EKTAR 100. Using color paper to print ECN films is not advised due to a contrast mismatch, but in scanning you can correct for that problem.
Image stability should be about the same between both films.
PE
ECN in its process is as good or better than C41 films in their own process. The difference is that ECN has longer latitude when compared to it's counterpart, EKTAR 100. Using color paper to print ECN films is not advised due to a contrast mismatch, but in scanning you can correct for that problem.
Image stability should be about the same between both films.
PE
>>> I really am getting VERY tired of the Political Correctness Police. Now you cannot even quote a post containing a word like scanner without being slapped on the wrist. What may have seemed like a good idea when AGUG was updated has become a PITA. The message box breaks a person's train of thought. The moon is not going to fall in the Atlantic if certain words get mentioned in APUG. <<<
You can't edit your reply to remove the "offending" word either, your only choices are delete or continue. A hybrid approach is probably the best way to print Vision 3 negatives.That makes sense since one is viewed by transmission and the other by reflectance. However it seems to me that the problem could be partially corrected by choice of subject, lighting, etc.
>>> I really am getting VERY tired of the Political Correctness Police. Now you cannot even quote a post containing a word like scanner without being slapped on the wrist. What may have seemed like a good idea when AGUG was updated has become a PITA. The message box breaks a person's train of thought. The moon is not going to fall in the Atlantic if certain words get mentioned in APUG. <<<
Ok, I'll try that next. I really scratched it up good and I thought I was being careful but I think it's because I pinched it between my fingers with the rag on the emulsion side also.We used a sponge wetted with the rem-jet removal solution. Laid the film on a flat clean surface or hung it and then wiped twice with the sponge. We rinsed the sponge between each pass.
PE
Are you saying that the small remnant of remjet that's left after the washing step can be removed after drying the film? That's pretty awesome if it would work. I'll have to try that.Is Rem-Jet removal solution formula secret? For scans as above, washing soda is good enough, without sponge. If something left, wiping with soft cloth after film is dry works without scratches.
I have old Kodak 50D and it is much more harder to get rid of Rem-Jet comparing to Fuji 250D. But maybe it is too old film....
I'm using Moscow based 16mm motion film enthusiast made ECN-2 kits and it isn't any better comparing to C41 kit from known suppliers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?