Remjet - remove, dry, then process in C41 (will it work)?

GBS · Jul 10, 2020

Part of my upcoming tests will be sending some Vison through C41 (proper Vision straight from the can to 35mm cassette, not Cinestill).

I intend to remove the remjet myself, but the focus for the day will be on ECN-2 developing and I'm concerned this one roll will get left behind if I don't send it out for processing.

My question is: *AFTER EXPOSURE* is it possible to wash the remjet, then dry the film, respool it, and take it to my local lab for processing (with their permission of course)? Will drying the film after the remjet removal and before developing have an unintended effect on the final image?

Thanks!

koraks · Jul 11, 2020

It should work; it's what Cinestill does after all. However, from a practical viewpoint, it seems a tad challenging. You'd have to make sure all the remjet is removed and then succeed in drying the film - all in the dark of course. But in principle there's no reason why it couldn't work.

mohmad khatab · Jul 11, 2020

Even if you can do that, the final results will be miserable.
I advise you to prepare ECN2 developer chemistry from scratch with your bare hands and make some effort and sweat in order to get the best results.

AgX · Jul 11, 2020

I too think, if you are inclined to go through the hassle of remjet removal and dark drying, you could also add further self-processing in C-41 (as C-41 is what you want to be done at a commercial lab anyway.)

But in case it is just about one film and you got no C-41 set-up yet, then it may look different.

Concerning the uncertainty of not having all layer off, you could inspect in the light just the tank with the rem-jet removal bath after repeated changes for residual carbon.

guangong · Jul 11, 2020

I process my own Super 8 and 16 mm b/w, which can be done by hand. However, I leave color reversal to the labs because they were designed for automated machine processing. Not only are the Vision films designed for machine processing, but were designed for conversation to digital, not projection. Even Kodak’s current TriX , using their recommended chemistry, has developing times way too short and must be machine processed.

GBS · Jul 11, 2020

koraks said:
It should work; it's what Cinestill does after all. However, from a practical viewpoint, it seems a tad challenging. You'd have to make sure all the remjet is removed and then succeed in drying the film - all in the dark of course. But in principle there's no reason why it couldn't work.

Thank you. After talking to my lab, who uses a machine, the chance of contamination is too high. I'll eventually get to C41 at home, but this one roll is for a comparison test and I may not have my setup ready by then.

mohmad khatab said:
Even if you can do that, the final results will be miserable.
I advise you to prepare ECN2 developer chemistry from scratch with your bare hands and make some effort and sweat in order to get the best results.

Hi! Thanks for the input! We will be doing ECN-2 mostly. I am working with a cinematographer friend to do a handful of tests. I know Vision in C41 is undesirable, but we want to have one roll processed in C41 as a comparison--exposed with the anti-halation later, unlike Cinestill.

AgX said:
I too think, if you are inclined to go through the hassle of remjet removal and dark drying, you could also add further self-processing in C-41 (as C-41 is what you want to be done at a commercial lab anyway.)

Thank you. I agree 100%. The intent is to get a C41 system going, but the cost effective ones are sold out. I am only able to find the Cinestill powder Cs41 (which is probably fine for the basic comparison tests. I intend to eventually mix C41 from scratch, but the formulary is closed and we will be doing our ECN-2 testing soon, so it's either Cinestill powder kit, or send this one roll from our tests to the lab.

guangong said:
Not only are the Vision films designed for machine processing, but were designed for conversation to digital, not projection.

Thanks! I'd love to see some of your films. Photography got me into making films, and here I am, back focusing on photography many years later. Ultimately, we're going to bulk load our own Vision and process in ECN-2. The C41 is for one test roll. I'm looking forward to scanning the Vision (properly developed), but afraid of how it'll print if I ever want that done optically.

Donald Qualls · Jul 11, 2020

Everything I've read and seen on YouTube suggests that Vision films, like the Cinestill stocks with "premoved" remjet, are fully compatible with C-41 (the difference between ECN-2 and C-41 is very small). The lab concern is that some remjet will get into their processing machine, requiring replacing all the chemicals and full machine cleaning (a major expense compared to normal replenished operation).

If you have a developing tank and a dishpan (to fill with tempering bath), you can process C-41 yourself, and you can combine the remjet removal with the prewash (prewash in a developer-temp sodium carbonate solution -- soda ash for swimming pools, or Super Washing Soda from the detergent aisle at the supermarket, very vigorous continuous agitation for one or two minutes, pour out, then rinse with same temp plain water until the rinse pours out clear -- then you're ready to pour the color developer and start the timer, but you'll still have to scrub off some remjet with your fingers after the final rinse).

Otherwise, I think it fairly unlikely that drying the film in total darkness will work out well. Dry it on a reel in a tank, you'll wind up gluing the edges to the reel; pull it out and hang it, and you'll be trapped in the dark for an hour or more and have limited ability to even tell when the film is dry before winding it back up into the cassette -- where, if it was in fact still damp, the film will glue to itself and/or the inside of the cassette.

I can understand wanting to expose with the remjet intact -- I'm not a huge fan of the halation the Cinestill products show around strong lights -- but doing so is pretty much a commitment to doing your own negative processing, including remjet removal at time of processing.

GBS · Jul 11, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
Everything I've read and seen on YouTube suggests that Vision films, like the Cinestill stocks with "premoved" remjet, are fully compatible with C-41 (the difference between ECN-2 and C-41 is very small). The lab concern is that some remjet will get into their processing machine, requiring replacing all the chemicals and full machine cleaning (a major expense compared to normal replenished operation).

If you have a developing tank and a dishpan (to fill with tempering bath), you can process C-41 yourself, and you can combine the remjet removal with the prewash (prewash in a developer-temp sodium carbonate solution -- soda ash for swimming pools, or Super Washing Soda from the detergent aisle at the supermarket, very vigorous continuous agitation for one or two minutes, pour out, then rinse with same temp plain water until the rinse pours out clear -- then you're ready to pour the color developer and start the timer, but you'll still have to scrub off some remjet with your fingers after the final rinse).

Otherwise, I think it fairly unlikely that drying the film in total darkness will work out well. Dry it on a reel in a tank, you'll wind up gluing the edges to the reel; pull it out and hang it, and you'll be trapped in the dark for an hour or more and have limited ability to even tell when the film is dry before winding it back up into the cassette -- where, if it was in fact still damp, the film will glue to itself and/or the inside of the cassette.

I can understand wanting to expose with the remjet intact -- I'm not a huge fan of the halation the Cinestill products show around strong lights -- but doing so is pretty much a commitment to doing your own negative processing, including remjet removal at time of processing.

Thank you, Donald! I intend to do my own C41, and would be able to remove the remjet in that case and continue as normal for hand-developing. However, most of what we'll be developing is Vision in ECN-2 for a series of motion film tests. The one Vision roll in C41 is a comparison test which I may not be prepared to develop when we get started. So I was wondering if removing remjet then taking to the lab is feasible. Sounds like it would be more problematic in the long run. I am in Memphis and we found a lab in Nashville that will handle the remjet and process in C41, so that's taken care of now.

Donald Qualls · Jul 11, 2020

GBS said:
I am in Memphis and we found a lab in Nashville that will handle the remjet and process in C41, so that's taken care of now.

Well, that's the easy way out, then. Good luck with the main project!

GBS · Jul 11, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
Well, that's the easy way out, then. Good luck with the main project!

Heck yeah, thanks!! I fully intend to share what we find when complete.

btaylor · Jul 11, 2020

Glad you found a lab to do the work for you- seems much better than reInventing the wheel. Speaking of which- I cant quite figure out why you are doing this. It seems as though there is an intent to test for an actual mo-pic purpose? If that is the case why not just shoot some tests and have a proper motion picture lab develop? That would give you an opportunity to test camera and lenses too. Years ago it was possible to shoot ECN in your still camera, have it processed at the mo-pic lab. Would your lab attach a 3ft roll to the head or tail of a larger run?

GBS · Jul 11, 2020

btaylor said:
Glad you found a lab to do the work for you- seems much better than reInventing the wheel. Speaking of which- I cant quite figure out why you are doing this. It seems as though there is an intent to test for an actual mo-pic purpose? If that is the case why not just shoot some tests and have a proper motion picture lab develop? That would give you an opportunity to test camera and lenses too. Years ago it was possible to shoot ECN in your still camera, have it processed at the mo-pic lab. Would your lab attach a 3ft roll to the head or tail of a larger run?

Cheers, thanks for the thoughtful question. I'm a mo-pic professional with a photography background. In short, these tests will ultimately help develop a still use workflow for Vision, not mo-pic. I used to shoot mo-pic film for mo-pic tests and get it processed at RGB Colorlab in NYC, RIP. Some labs still do ECN-2 process for stills but I am working with another mo-pic professional to ultimately shoot and process Vision in ECN-2 at home. Whether- and how long we keep doing it is TBD by our tests. One of the tests will be a side-by-side comparison of Vision 500T developed in ECN-2 and C-41--hence the need to get the remjet off and then developed in C41. I should have my C41 system ready by test date, but if not I want to be sure we can still process it.

btaylor · Jul 11, 2020

Makes sense. I have several thousand feet of Vision in my freezer and since I no longer test or shoot 35mm movie, I keep thinking I will shoot it in my still cameras and process ECN2 because the film is essentially free. But that’s a hassle, I don’t shoot that much anyway, and sticking with true C41 film and processing and then printing RA4 removes any incompatibilities. Back in the ‘70’s I used to shoot 5247 stalls and have it processed and “slides” printed at those wonky labs, but when I wanted a frame enlarged at a legit photo lab they would shrug, wince and promise to do what they could as it wasn’t really compatible with enlarging paper.
I hope you share your test results with us, sounds like an interesting project.

GBS · Jul 11, 2020

btaylor said:
Makes sense. I have several thousand feet of Vision in my freezer and since I no longer test or shoot 35mm movie, I keep thinking I will shoot it in my still cameras and process ECN2 because the film is essentially free. But that’s a hassle, I don’t shoot that much anyway, and sticking with true C41 film and processing and then printing RA4 removes any incompatibilities. Back in the ‘70’s I used to shoot 5247 stalls and have it processed and “slides” printed at those wonky labs, but when I wanted a frame enlarged at a legit photo lab they would shrug, wince and promise to do what they could as it wasn’t really compatible with enlarging paper.
I hope you share your test results with us, sounds like an interesting project.

@btaylor I don't have any new advice on how to spool larger rolls onto 100' loads for a bulk loader, especially considering the effort if you don't shoot much still film anymore, but I'm sure you know your way around if you want to go that route. I just picked up some Moviola film winders for my darkroom with that intent, but so far I've found short ends <100' that fit in my bulk loader for cheap enough.

I'm sure you have a line out the door, but I'd love to be considered if/when you clear out the freezer.

We are assuming Vision will have to be scanned, but I will also be sending a couple frames off for optical printing. That's where it may be a no-go for me. But who knows?! I just did a 24x36 blow up from high-res Flexicolor scan on an Epson printer and it looks great. Printing is a whole other set of intricacies I'll have to wade through next.

And--absolutely--I intend to come back with a full report when this is done!

Remjet - remove, dry, then process in C41 (will it work)?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency