Ok...I want the low down: Is ECN-II really that much better than C-41 for Kodak Vision3 film?

rpavich · Jul 16, 2016

Ok, I am about to decide whether or not to buy the chems for ECN-II processing as I have a LOAD of Vision3 500T and am getting color issues; not 100% of the time, but enough to be irritating. You know, purple in the shadows, lots of harsh blue etc. It's not all of the time, I can shoot 24 shots and half will be amazing and the other half need a LOT of post to make them even presentable. I've seen on the APUG here that folks say that you CAN use C-41 on Kodak Cine films but the best thing is to use ECN-II processing.

So my question is; will I still see issue with ECN-II as I do with C-41? I'm VERY careful about times, and temp with my C-41. I don't do anything but go by the recipe. I HAVE notice that things got a LOT better when I bought the Flexicolor kit with separate bleach and fixer as recommended here. It helped a LOT but not 100% of the time. I don't want to spend time removing color casts from my images if I can help it so if using ECN-II chems makes that happen...I'm more than willing to invest.

rpavich · Jul 17, 2016

Darkroom mike,
I saw your post in my email but it's not showing up here. Thanks for the help.

darkroommike · Jul 17, 2016

Pure Speculation on my part
But based on what I've learned here and elsewhere.

ECN-2 uses cd-3 and C-41 uses cd-4
Vision films require a final stabilizer step that is no longer required with C-41 films. So long term stability is questionable, also.
The purple shadows, etc. are caused by crossover (the dyes made do not match up with the dyes "expected" by the Vision film color couplers).
It is probably possible to fix these things with color printing masks but more easily fixed if your workflow is "hybrid" (forgive the d-word terminology).
Standard ECN-2 also processes to a lower contrast than C-41 since the final intent is a projection print rather than a paper print and developing to a higher contrast (with C-41) will also create crossover since not all three emulsion layers develop at the same rate, so you get three gammas, one for each color.

Gerald C Koch · Jul 17, 2016

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.

rpavich · Jul 17, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
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.

That's great to hear, thanks for the info.
It seems like I can use the bleach and fix from my flexicolor kit with ECN-2 , true?

Photo Engineer · Jul 17, 2016

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

rpavich · Jul 17, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
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

Thanks PE, That's good to know, I'm pretty excited to get developing!

Gerald C Koch · Jul 17, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
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

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. <<<

pdeeh · Jul 17, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
>>> 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. <<<

+googolplex

darkroommike · Jul 17, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
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. <<<

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.

MattKing · Jul 17, 2016

APUG doesn't care if you refer to scanners or scanning as part of a discussion concerning a wide variety of APUG type issues.

The flag that pops up is to alert those who might be straying into discussions that are predominantly off topic. It is a caution, not a a penalty.

pdeeh · Jul 18, 2016

but it's still very very bloody annoying

Athiril · Jul 22, 2016

Minilab scanners usually offer a fixed grade of contrast like paper does so to speak so you may get more dynamic range and lower contrast out of ECN films down that route than with C41. When you can scan the entire negative range, C41 isn't lacking dynamic range, and personally I have found Portra, 160NS and Ektar all preferable to ECN films, including Vision3 50D vs Ektar.

You also have the option of shooting the current superia line or C200 which is grainer but sharper than all the above films.

If you shoot medium format, CineStill is going to cost a lot more than C41 films, and they're simply not offering something worth the price difference, in my personal opinion it's not offering any additional advantage at all. You could buy and shoot more regular film for the same cost.

edit: looks like I misunderstood the question oops

rpavich · Jul 22, 2016

Ok, it's official.
ECN-2 developing is miles ahead of C-41 (for me.) I couldn't be more pleased. On my C-41 images I'd have to spend a few minutes on each frame to get the colors anything near accurate and most of the time go into photoshop. For me, this really took the fun out of shooting film.
On this roll, all I had to do was hit the auto white balance on about 1/2 of the images and click my normal preset (just additional contrast and black and stuff) like would on any film.
This REALLY made my day to see that this film (Vision 3 500T) is a viable alternative for me both indoors and out.

Here are a few samples.
On the fireball image, no adjustments to WB.

On the flower just a slight WB.

On the redhead girl, just a slight WB also.

I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED in the fact that I scratched the crap out of the film removing the remjet I also left a ton of little flecks of remjet in the negs. I used a microfiber cloth and pulled it through my fingers but apparently much too hard. I think I'll go back to the fingers on the backside only-running water method.

Photo Engineer · Jul 22, 2016

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

rpavich · Jul 22, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
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

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.

Ko.Fe. · Jul 22, 2016

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.

rpavich · Jul 22, 2016

Ko.Fe. said:
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.

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.

Photo Engineer · Jul 22, 2016

The Kodak formulas are published. They are on the internet at the Kodak web site. They are also available in Kit form. The developer does not keep as well as other color developers.

PE

Ok...I want the low down: Is ECN-II really that much better than C-41 for Kodak Vision3 film?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency