Problem developing ECN-II in C-41

Dradis · Aug 9, 2012

I recently got a roll of Kodak Vision 2 500T film. I've tried a few test rolls developing in both C-41 and B&W. The results I've gotten have not been good. I understand that ideally this should be developed in true ECN-II chemistry, and I have found the homebrew recipe here on APUG which I plan to try when I can buy the chemicals and once i know the film is good. I also know that good results can be had in C-41 (http://www.flickr.com/groups/diy_color/discuss/72157629804159613/). The results on this link look better than I had expected was possible doing this in C-41 and he claims it is without color correction.

I shot 5 identical pics metering as 100, 200, 500 (500 is the native ISO), 800, and 1600. I have read tests that show this film can be used from 200 - 1600 without any push/pull. (Dead Link Removed). I developed the test roll in fresh Rollei/Comprard C-41 chemicals. I removed the rem-jet with a washing soda presoak and an appropriate cloth before drying. Of the shots I took only the 100 was even scannable, but was still way under exposed. The first is the standard JPEG scan from VueSCAN. The second was the best i could get from a raw DNG with color correction in PS.

So where did I go wrong? Why do my pics look like crap? By the way, i also shot some outside. They looked worse.

There was no expiration date printed on the box, but i'm pretty sure all vision 2 is expired by now. I got it off ebay and the seller said it was purchased in '09 and refrigerated since then. Obviously I cannot verify this. I've had similar results with some Kodak C-41 that expired in 03. Is it possible that this film is just too expired and can't be salvaged? Or did I do something wrong in the developing?

Please help. I've got about 95 more feet of this stuff that I want to make good use of.

wildbill · Aug 9, 2012

you messed up somewhere along the line. I've shot movie film much older than that which was fine (a little base fog).Iso 200 should even have been fine.

Dradis · Aug 9, 2012

Well that's one vote for the film is still good. But why would these under expose so badly?

I also did a test roll with a nearly exhausted set of c-41 chems and another with b&w ilfosol 3. All three rolls were way under exposed. Two were metered by my ae-1, while the other was metered with a handheld meter using a different camera.

John Shriver · Aug 10, 2012

Do the edge markings confirm that it's Vision 500T? Maybe the film is in the wrong can...

Dradis · Aug 10, 2012

John Shriver said:
Do the edge markings confirm that it's Vision 500T? Maybe the film is in the wrong can...

Good question. How often should the edges be marked? I'm looking at a 12 frame strip and see no markings at all. My typical 35mm films (like kodak gold) have markings every frame on both sides. I mean name and barcode, not just the frame numbers.

Athiril · Aug 10, 2012

First up you can't not have colour correction/balance. It's colour neg. You have to to get a positive.

I've had terrible results with 5201 in C-41, though great with in ECN-2 kit, and colour split bath.

ECN-2 developer is also cheap as, for a whole lot of it.

Dradis · Aug 10, 2012

John Shriver said:
Do the edge markings confirm that it's Vision 500T? Maybe the film is in the wrong can...

OK, I found the edge markings barely visible on the last roll that I shot. It says EH 38 1278 0223. I've read somewhere that the EH is kodak, but I could be wrong. Can anyone help me figure out the rest of the code?

@Athiril, thanks for your reply, but I am already aware that ECN-II chemicals would be better. I'm trying to verify that the film is good before I buy them. Besides, i know that some great results have been achieved with C-41, so I know that it can be done. Also, I've recently color corrected some negatives shot on kodak gold and they came out far better than VueSCAN's interpretation. Just invert the negative DNG by inverting the curves, then you can see the positive before doing corrections.

Athiril · Aug 10, 2012

If you want to verify the quality of the film, say grain, base fog and sensitivity, you can always try it as a B&W neg if C-41 is too much of a pain to get it working in.

For what it's worth my 50D came out super thin in C-41 too, but my C-41 process is good, I run it almost daily.

Dradis · Aug 10, 2012

Athiril said:
If you want to verify the quality of the film, say grain, base fog and sensitivity, you can always try it as a B&W neg if C-41 is too much of a pain to get it working in.

For what it's worth my 50D came out super thin in C-41 too, but my C-41 process is good, I run it almost daily.

Just tried another roll as B&W, stand developed in Rodinal 1+100 for an hour (ok, 55 minutes. I'm I was feeling impatient). These results turned out as well as I could expect for B&W xpro. The frame I posted was metered at 500. I think 400 might be a sweet spot for this film. I tried some illfosol 3 following dev times for Tri-X with bad results the other day. So far I like these and at least have a good use for this film now if I cant get good color results.

Right now i'm trying a stand develop C-41 with Rollei/Comprard chems at 1+9 for 1 hour. I'll post later how those turn out.

Dradis · Aug 11, 2012

Here's one from c-41 stand develop. The chemicals may be getting to old, and I had to do a good bit of color correction to the DNG, but it looks like the potential is there. I think i'll try standard (and fresh) C-41 again with longer dev times.

newcan1 · Aug 11, 2012

I have various Kodak and Fuji movie stocks - mostly expired -and speed loss varies amazingly. I have some Fuji Reala 500D which seems to have fallen to about ISO 80; I have much older EXR 200T that is almost as good as new. Maybe your film wasn't stored optimally all its life. But you won't know until you process in ECN-2. I use a slightly adjusted version of the ECN-2 developer that uses 5.2g/L CD3 - I have found (by trial and error) that home processing in a plastic tank, the official formula always produced somewhat thin negatives.

Photo Engineer · Aug 11, 2012

ECN andCr41 are not compatible. PERIOD;

jm94 · Aug 12, 2012

I guess if you want the best results to develop in the right chemicals, what is the difference between ECN and C41? Do they have the same colour developing agent? I suppose the only thing it doesn't have that E6 has is the reversal stage? I Don't know why kodak would not use the same process for this as negative 35mm or 120? No doubt they had their reasons... I am not sure with movie film what yield your chemicals will have (i.e how many it will develop well) If you can home process it is much cheaper than sending it off to a lab...

madgardener · Aug 12, 2012

PE has posted extensively on ECN-II. Just do a quick search. I myself was thinking about going that way because the film would be available in rolls and I could simply roll my own, but according to PE ECN-II doesn't archive well at all. Which is a shame, because it could be a good way to get a lot of color film very cheap.

Photo Engineer · Aug 12, 2012

Just to save a tad of time, ECN and C41 are processed using different color developing agents and are processed at different temperatures. ECN is designed to work with a film contrast of 0.5 and a print material contrast of about 3. C41 is designed to have an average contrast of 0.66 and uses a print material with an average contrast of about 2.5.

Does that help?

PE

jsnapp · Aug 13, 2012

Rem-jet removal before use in a camera?

PE, any idea how rem-jet might be removed BEFORE use in a still camera? That seems to be the goal of this product:

http://www.etsy.com/listing/91624856/500tungsten-xpro-c-41-propack-5-rolls

Obviously the process must be done in the dark, but I am wondering if it might be a wet, or purely mechanical dry process? I assume that any process that gets the film wet would alter the characteristics of the film fundamentally!

Justin

Photo Engineer · Aug 13, 2012

I can think of several ways, but the film would have awful flare I would guess. But, if they process the film in C41, as is implied, then the contrast would be way off and the dye hues and dye stability would be in question.

PE

justin parker · Aug 13, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
I can think of several ways, but the film would have awful flare I would guess. But, if they process the film in C41, as is implied, then the contrast would be way off and the dye hues and dye stability would be in question.

PE

Care to elaborate about some of the possible ways? I am really curious. I agree to be skeptical that it is ideal, but I still find the puzzle of how to remove the backing before exposure to be intriguing.

Photo Engineer · Aug 13, 2012

Tack film emulsion down on a smooth piece of countertop.

Wet a sponge in remjet removal solution and wipe the back side.

Rinse the sponge and repeat wipe with fresh solution.

Wipe back with clean sponge wet with Distilled Water.

Dry in dark.

DO NOT WET THE EMULSION SIDE WITH EITHER WATER OR REM JET REMOVAL SOLUTION.

Flare will be high, sensitivity to static discharge will be high.

Anyone who does this is lacking in a certain amount of hmmmm.. Let me think here a minute. Hmmmmm. Well, I can't think of the right words. You all have left me speechless.

PE

justin parker · Aug 13, 2012

I agree flare might be an issue. It is a shame these tungsten films aren't available in C41 versions.

Photo Engineer · Aug 13, 2012

Used to be, but no more.

PE

James in GA · Aug 13, 2012

Try a 85B filter on the camera. Your film is for 3400 lights not day light. This may be the fix you need.

Photo Engineer · Aug 13, 2012

But then it isn't a 500 speed film!

PE

justin parker · Aug 13, 2012

The way I see it, these are great films to use if you are scanning rather than printing using an enlarger. The only issue is that you need to do ECN processing, and so can't just send it to a lab. The appeal of removing the remjet before hand (as a service) is that the exposed film could be sent off with the rest of your rolls from an event to the lab for C41 processing.

Athiril · Aug 14, 2012

Dradis said:
Just tried another roll as B&W, stand developed in Rodinal 1+100 for an hour (ok, 55 minutes. I'm I was feeling impatient). These results turned out as well as I could expect for B&W xpro. The frame I posted was metered at 500. I think 400 might be a sweet spot for this film. I tried some illfosol 3 following dev times for Tri-X with bad results the other day. So far I like these and at least have a good use for this film now if I cant get good color results.
View attachment 55209

Right now i'm trying a stand develop C-41 with Rollei/Comprard chems at 1+9 for 1 hour. I'll post later how those turn out.

if you take that b&w neg and bleach it, wash it, expose it to light and develop in c41, ecn2, ra4 or e6 colour developer and then rinse bleach, fix, wash. Youll get colour out of it.

Anyway ECN2 process by hand is not hard. In any case Ive been fooling around with a splith bath variant made from the developer concentrates, which can make it lazy friendly. First few were terrible results, getting a lot better though.

As for no edge markings, that is severe underdevelopment, like my first test of the split bath, no edge markings, but images from the heavy overexposed section. Also thin dmax from the leader/tongue of the film, had to double the developer concentration for the edge markings to show up.

Problem developing ECN-II in C-41

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency