ORWO NC500 - FIRST RESULTS & QUICK REVIEW

[koraks]

I would also be careful with claims about "horrible grain" and "awful image structure" until I see these images printed on RA-4.

But then again, as a maskless C41 film, I don't know how well it'll print RA-4. Of course all bets are off anyway if it's cross-processed in ECN2 as was done here. I also wonder what the impact on speed might have been; depends a bit on how you measure it I suppose. ECN2 development should give a very low-gamma image, making it appear as a slower speed film than it really is. But it shouldn't affect toe density all that much.

This really is an oddball film. Frankly, I think it makes the most sense to scan it and process digitally. Nothing points to it being optimized in any way for RA4 printing.

 

[Rudeofus]

But then again, as a maskless C41 film, I don't know how well it'll print RA-4. Of course all bets are off anyway if it's cross-processed in ECN2 as was done here. I also wonder what the impact on speed might have been; depends a bit on how you measure it I suppose. ECN2 development should give a very low-gamma image, making it appear as a slower speed film than it really is. But it shouldn't affect toe density all that much.

This really is an oddball film. Frankly, I think it makes the most sense to scan it and process digitally. Nothing points to it being optimized in any way for RA4 printing.

Without orange mask it may have poorer color rendition, but from what I see on Orwo's web page, they cover up potential color defects by lowering saturation in shadow areas. I do know from personal experience, that technically horrible negatives (from scanning) can turn into great images in RA-4 prints. Grain mysteriously disappears from sight in an enlarger.

On the other side, color slide film never had a color mask, it at least for me it works great. Not all hope is lost with maskless film. If your work does not want "characteristic colors" but instead strives for "absolutely accurate color rendition", then maybe some Kodak invention from 1975 may be the right answer.

 

[koraks]

I do know from personal experience, that technically horrible negatives (from scanning) can turn into great images in RA-4 prints.

My experience is the opposite. Negatives that are perfectly salvageable in digital post processing may not print remotely well on RA4. YMMV, I guess.

If your work does not want "characteristic colors" but instead strives for "absolutely accurate color rendition"

Something in-between, mostly, sometimes the former, rarely the latter. Again, personal.

 

[relistan]

Might be an interesting film to reverse in C-41 chemistry given the clear base and lack of orange mask. Sure, positives will be thinner than a real slide, but cool nonetheless. Seems colors might be OK? Guess it would need to be tried to know.

 

[MattKing]

I haven't tried this, but would inserting some imageless c-41processed colour negative film (complete with mask) into the light path above a negative make RA-4 printing easier?

 

[koraks]

I would assume so, yes. If it's a perfect solution, I don't know. Without wanting to start something nasty on this, but I recall having read somewhere that part of the orange correction mask in C41 film is actually density-dependent. I also recall that last time this was brought up here or on LFPF, it sparked a rather heated debate on the nature of the orange mask...

 

[MattKing]

You are correct in your recollection .

 

[koraks]

Well, that's a first

 

[Rudeofus]

I would assume so, yes. If it's a perfect solution, I don't know. Without wanting to start something nasty on this, but I recall having read somewhere that part of the orange correction mask in C41 film is actually density-dependent. I also recall that last time this was brought up here or on LFPF, it sparked a rather heated debate on the nature of the orange mask...

Orange mask is decribed well in Haist's book part 2 p 495ff. I have no idea, why there can be heated discussions about this old topic.

 

[Lachlan Young]

CD-3 couplers and lack of a mask rather suggest that it might really be closer to an E-6 film that can be run as a neg in ECN-2 (which uses CD-3 - thus not as much of a 'cross' process as running in CD-4 using C-41) - and there was an announcement a while back about some people attempting to get a high speed E-6 emulsion back into the market. The worse sharpness and acutance reported may also have a relationship to DIR/ DIAR (etc) couplers being very difficult to enact in colour reversal emulsions.

 

[sydwhitaker]

Definitely an interesting look, I'd shoot it even if just to support the folks behind this. I really can't wait to see how this film responds to C-41 vs ECN-2 vs E6 (especially with the lack of orange mask). With how often it seems like stocks are getting discontinued, I hope this is the start of a good thing.

 

[koraks]

CD-3 couplers and lack of a mask rather suggest that it might really be closer to an E-6 film

I missed the bit where it was stated that such dye couplers are used in this film. It would make the choice for an ECN2 process more sensible, especially from a dye stability viewpoint, I guess. Although it does raise the question if the color balancing was done for CD3 couplers and CD4 chemistry, or CD3 couplers and CD3 chemistry.

Orange mask is decribed well in Haist's book part 2 p 495ff. I have no idea, why there can be heated discussions about this old topic.

Me neither, but it happened. Can't recall the specifics, I suppose I (or you) could find them. Thanks for the reference; sadly, I don't have Haist here.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I missed the bit where it was stated that such dye couplers are used in this film. It would make the choice for an ECN2 process more sensible, especially from a dye stability viewpoint, I guess. Although it does raise the question if the color balancing was done for CD3 couplers and CD4 chemistry, or CD3 couplers and CD3 chemistry.

That is where there's a significant lack of clarity - it's clear that they are fully capable of making a standard masked C-41 film (Color Mission), but the film they refer to as inspiration is a (masked) ECN-2 stock (XT320). They claim the material to be both ECN-2 and C-41 compatible (obviously delivering different contrast behaviours), but don't clarify which couplers it actually uses. There seem to have been several maskless Agfa products (after the point in time where most Agfa colour neg films for 'normal' usage were masked) made for uses outside of the sector of professional/ amateur photography (i.e. aerial, industrial, governmental sectors etc) where the mask etc was not an issue for the data acquisition needed relative to other characteristics desired. The extra filtration switch on many Durst dichroics was intended for dealing with maskless films.

 

[relistan]

Thanks for the reference; sadly, I don't have Haist here.

It’s now in the Internet Archive. Volume 1 is here if that helps: https://archive.org/details/modernphotograph0001hais/mode/1up

 

[koraks]

Thanks @relistan! Vol.2 isn't in that collection though, is it?

 

[relistan]

Thanks @relistan! Vol.2 isn't in that collection though, is it?

Ah, sorry I missed that it was pointing to volume 2. I’m not sure why that hasn’t been scanned yet. I’m reasonably sure the rights are ok for stuff on that site. There is another place that has the PDFs of both volumes but it seems sketchier so I’m not eager to post the link. Googling “z-lib grant Haist” may lead you there.

 

[koraks]

Much appreciated

 

[MattKing]

IIRC the "heated" discussions about the mask got that way because some people became quite insistent that it served no modern purpose if someone was digiting film, rather than printing it optically.
For some reason some people seem to believe that it would be easier to visually evaluate maskless colour negatives, and that it would be easier to scan them and colour correct the resulting files.
I guess they must be able to do colour inversion and correction for dye problems in their heads.

 

[foc]

I haven't tried this, but would inserting some imageless c-41processed colour negative film (complete with mask) into the light path above a negative make RA-4 printing easier?

Many years ago, I have used imageless clear orange mask, between the light source and the non masked negative, on a Fuji Frontier scanner and it produced better scans and (RA4) prints that without the orange mask.

Other scanners may be different.

 

[Rudeofus]

IIRC the "heated" discussions about the mask got that way because some people became quite insistent that it served no modern purpose if someone was digiting film, rather than printing it optically.
For some reason some people seem to believe that it would be easier to visually evaluate maskless colour negatives, and that it would be easier to scan them and colour correct the resulting files.
I guess they must be able to do colour inversion and correction for dye problems in their heads.

If these people were used to and experienced with maskless negatives for decades, then I can imagine them struggling with masked negatives.

Many years ago, I have used imageless clear orange mask, between the light source and the non masked negative, on a Fuji Frontier scanner and it produced better scans and (RA4) prints that without the orange mask.

These orange masks are quite dense, I have seen D=1.0 in some C-41 film data sheets. It would not surprise me at all, that advanced scanners are optimized for this, i.e. more light sensitive in the blue channel, but at the same time less able to handle strong blue light.

 

[koraks]

It would not surprise me at all, that advanced scanners are optimized for this, i.e. more light sensitive in the blue channel, but at the same time less able to handle strong blue light.

It would surprise me as it would inherently limit these scanners' ability to scan chromes.

 

[Rudeofus]

It would surprise me as it would inherently limit these scanners' ability to scan chromes.

They might switch between modes, depending on what they scan.

 

[koraks]

They might switch between modes

It'll still be the same CCD strip and light source.

 

[Rudeofus]

It'll still be the same CCD strip and light source.

My measly V700 can do some kind of HDR scan, in which two scan passes are made with different gain settings to get more dynamic range.

 

[foc]

It'll still be the same CCD strip and light source.

On the Fuji Frontier scanners, for scanning negatives or transparencies, it was basically the film carrier that was changed. This change also signaled the software to switch to the correct input and output.

The Frontier software was excellent at handling negative and positive film (and producing great scans and prints) but its Achilles heel was Kodak bw400cn. This was a black & white film with an orange mask. The scanner and software treated the film like a normal C41 colour negative and so the scanned images had colour casts. The solution was to press the B&W button (just like desaturate in Photoshop).