Photo Engineer was right; ECN-II for Kodak Vision3 500T film IS much better than C-41.

[rpavich]

Ok, I just had to post. I'm very happy that things turned out this way. I was shooting a bunch of Kodak Vision3 500T Tungsten film that I got and was developing it in C-41 with "mixed" results. The problem is that even with good results, I spent a fair amount of time in Photoshop or LR getting the color balance right (as possible without a reference point) and that just didn't do it for me. If I wanted to spend that much time on a computer to get a film image to the acceptable stage then I'd rather just shoot a digi-cam. Yuk.

So I ordered the chems for ECN-II and I took a shot that it would be better.
Whoa! It's much better. Not only is the end result nice but getting there is effortless. No more effort than what it takes for my C-41 negs to look great...just a click or two..nothing like digi-surgery!

I couldn't be happier, the colors are accurate and it's now a joy shooting this film!

Thanks PE. (and others)

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Imagine that. PE is right about a Kodak chemical product.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks all.

PE

 

[AgX]

The problem is that even with good results, I spent a fair amount of time in Photoshop or LR getting the color balance right (as possible without a reference point)

Your reference point would be a grey card located in the scene under same lighting, ar alternatively in a second exposure done for reference.

 

[rpavich]

Your reference point would be a grey card located in the scene under same lighting, ar alternatively in a second exposure done for reference.

Yes, I know but I just bought one a little too late.

 

[pbromaghin]

Where did you find ECN-II chemicals in a reasonable size for home use?

 

[rpavich]

Where did you find ECN-II chemicals in a reasonable size for home use?

Photographers Formulary

 

[pbromaghin]

Thank you, sir! With 1200 ft of Expired Visions II in the fridge, this sounds a lot better than the original plan.

 

[Punker]

I just developed my first roll of 500t last night; C-41. What a chore! None of the remjet came off during the prewash or during processing. It was such a hassle trying to wipe it off and not mess up the emulsion. On top of that, the whole roll was ridiculously underexposed somehow. I had shots taken in AP mode, manual and even some long exposures up to 40 seconds. Night time and in bright sunshine. Dark dark dark.

My negs barely started getting thin after processing the last regular C41 batch so I added 30 seconds to this one and it still didn't help. I've never seen C41 go bad THAT fast so I'm thinking it was the film somehow. Maybe a bad roll. I got it from Ultrafine.

 

[mnemosyne]

I couldn't be happier, the colors are accurate

I am afraid to have to tell you that the colors shown in your two example pictures are not accurate at all. Both show a heavy magenta cast. Not sure if this is due to Tungsten film used under daylight conditions or some processing or post processing problem. If you cannot see the magenta cast on your display, I suggest you invest some money towards a color calibration solution for your display.

 

[rpavich]

I

I am afraid to have to tell you that the colors shown in your two example pictures are not accurate at all. Both show a heavy magenta cast. Not sure if this is due to Tungsten film used under daylight conditions or some processing or post processing problem. If you cannot see the magenta cast on your display, I suggest you invest some money towards a color calibration solution for your display.

I see what you mean, that's just a function of the WB slider. I can remove as much as you like. This has slightly less.
My display is calibrated but I think it's a function of just not having enough "distance" after post processing an image. You know how it is, you stare at something so much you don't see the forest for the trees.