Pushing Kodak Vision 2 500T

[newcan1]

I have a 1,000ft roll of Kodak Vision 2 500T film that is in good condition. I am experienced in developing ECN-2 film with great results, but I have never pushed or pulled it.

I would like to experiment with this film by pushing it 1, 2, and 3 stops. Can anyone tell me how much I need to alter the development time by in each case? The normal development time is 3 min at 106 deg F. I'm guessing about 8 percent per stop, but that is just a guess.

I've seen incredible results with Vision 3 500T pushed to 3200ASA, and I want to see what the Vision 2 stock can do. In addition, an up-and-coming NYC photographer is coming to my daughter's wedding in June; he specializes in film and grainy, artistic shots, and I would love to offer him a camera loaded with this stuff with a big push if it would suit his genre.

 

[Tim Gray]

You might get better responses on cinematography.com (if doing ECN-2). Try the film sub forum.

 

[newcan1]

Thanks for the tip - I'll give it a try. But I am also hopeful for some help here, there have been some great ECN-2 posts here in the past.

 

[frobozz]

Kodak says 3:40 and 4:30 for 1 and 2 stop push.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Support/Technical_Information/Processing_Information/push.htm

Duncan

 

[holmburgers]

Would love to see results if you get around to doing it and feel like sharing. I've shot 500T but still haven't seen the results... the lab I sent to is taking their "sweet time", to say the least... :-/

 

[frobozz]

I have a couple of thousand feet of 800T if someone really wants to get extreme

I've basically been collecting film stock types faster than I can shoot test rolls and want to send them all off to Double Exposure Ltd at once, so I still have no results yet either... If the weather warms up a bit maybe I can shoot a few more rolls and then just do it.

Duncan

 

[newcan1]

Thanks Duncan. I'll post results here (if they are worth posting) but it will take me a while to actually do the test. I also have some 800T, I took some natural light test shots one evening at home. It didn't scan too well - the scans were grainy, but until I do an analog print I just can't tell if the film is really as grainy as it looks on the scan. If I did it right, a sample should be attached to this e-mail. This was shot at 800 speed, no push or pull.

 

[newcan1]

And by the way, the Kodak literature you linked to states, somewhat disappointingly, that "push 2" only gains 1/2 a stop in speed. So there really isn't a possibility to push it two or three stops. I saw an article somewhere by a guy who pushed Vision 3 500T by 3 stops or at least to 3200 ASA. I guess you just end up eating into the exposure latitude of the film and get a thinner negative, but maybe still usable.

I'm going to take my Vision 2 500T and shoot it at 3200, develop with "push 2" and see what comes out.

 

[frobozz]

Yeah, that article, like most discussions of cinematic film exposures, used a lot of ambiguous weasel words. Basically it's all just rough guidelines and everyone is expected to work out their exact specs for themselves. 'Cause it's not just how the negative was exposed, it's also how the release print is timed, and there's a whole ton of latitude between those two, and color correction that comes along with it.

That scan looks pretty grainy for 800T, but it may as you say be scanning-artifacts. Also I'm not sure scanning the negative is the right way to go - I think better results would probably be obtained by printing it to release film and scanning that. Everything about ECN-2 negatives is a little whacked compared to C-41, because they are expected to be printed onto release film, and I'm not sure anyone has any scanner presets that take that into account.

Has anyone tried these folks?

Dead Link Removed

I sent them a message asking for pricing if I supply my own film - all they offer on their website is 5-packs of film with processing included, but I already have piles of film, I just need it processed.

Duncan

 

[newcan1]

Rather than print to release film, I will probably just make analog prints of pictures that I really like. Adding 10cc of hydrogen peroxide per liter of print developer seems in my experience to give enough contrast boost to make ECN-2 (lower contrast) film print normally on RA4 paper. It does, however, tend to slightly increase the yellowness of base for on the paper, if there is any base fog. (I learned of this contrast control technique from another thread here on APUG).

I find that many types of film that were not designed specifically to be scanned, look grainier in a scan than in an analog print. I shot some old expired Ferrania 200 C-41 film, and the scans looked horrid. The analog prints looked quite a bit better. The best films for scanning, I have found, are the Vision 3 ECN-2 films.

I don't know anything about the outfit you linked to. How about getting yourself a changing bag, a developing tank, and some raw chemicals and doing it yourself?

 

[frobozz]

I'm able to process B&W negatives quite well under difficult conditions (small townhouse, kitchen sink) but just don't have the time, money, room, etc. to take on color of any kind at the moment - I send all that out to labs for now. I have a storage unit full of darkroom equipment and will build a darkroom as soon as we get a house, but that's pretty low on the life priorities at the moment. I'm also leery of my ability to successfully scrub the remjet off. Folks running this stuff through a proper processing machine get it off the right way (water scrubber), anything I could do would be risky by comparison.

I suppose with enough demand, someone (Ed Hamrick?) could figure out the scanner presets for ECN-2 film, but I'm willing to go the release "print" route with Double Exposure Ltd. in my initial tests, just to give myself all the info and options possible.

Duncan

 

[Tim Gray]

Considering that most motion picture film shot nowadays is scanned, I'd just scan it instead of getting it printed to release print film. If you look at how a lot of the motion pictures tools deal with color correction, it becomes clear that we don't need Ed Hamrick to do any magic. Just bring the scan into Photoshop and adjust the RGB curves.

 

[frobozz]

Well this is swerving into DPUG territory, but since we're talking about variations in analog processing before the scanning... I think the scanners they use for real film have much better dynamic range than the poor little Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED I have. Ed Hamrick's tricks simply center the useful curve of the consumer scanners in the right spot for the film being scanned... something that would be easier if it has been printed onto something with a more normal set of colors and contrasts.

In any event, I plan to get my first test rolls printed onto release film but of course I'll also still have the original negatives, so then I can play with it to my heart's content, to see if the printing step is really worth it, or provides any advantage.

Duncan

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah it is DPUG territory, but...

I don't speak from great experience, but I have had some film scanned to DPX and color corrected it in various film programs. The dynamic range didn't seem that much different than what you can get out of Vuescan and a Coolscan V (what I have), particularly if you scan to a linear gamma file. You do have to convert the gamma yourself, invert it, and set the curves properly, but there's quite a lot of dynamic range in those scans. This is how I deal with my scans and I get much better color than other methods I've tried.

The big difference is probably that motion stock is developed to a lower gamma in ECN-2, and the stocks are designed to be low contrast and have higher dynamic range.

 

[tomalophicon]

That Sheila's eyes must be pretty damn square!