Remjet stains on ECN-2-developed film

[Pseudodionizy]

Recently I had my lab develop a roll of Kodak Vision3 500T for me, and when I started to scan it, I noticed dark stains on the negative, light in the inverted pictures. I'm attaching two examples. I contacted the lab and they told me that it could happen if the film was old or stored in not-ideal conditions (that's fair enough, I had the film inside the camera for about two months). I'm wondering though, are the stains just remjet remains that I could try to wash off, or have these remains affected the development in these areas so it can't be fixed anymore? Thanks.

 

[Dr. no]

That could be remjet...look at the negs, are there streaks or hazy patches on either side (especially non-emulsion side)? They look like drying residue to me, from hard water or something left on the film. If you see anything, you can rub the shiny side with a lens cloth, after blowing damp breath on it.

Did you tell them it was not regular C41 film? Did they do anything to remove remjet? They may not be happy with getting that into their C41 brew.

 

[Spektrum]

The problem is with the lab, and this is probably bad news for you, as there are few labs in Poland that process ECN2.
They don't do it automatically, but manually in tanks.
If it were a regular C-41 lab, you'd probably get a huge scolding instead of polite replies.

The remjet isn't on the emulsion side, so it doesn't affect development.
Removing it might be a problem, but not after the film has been in the camera for two months. This is more likely to be the case with films that are many years out of date.
However, I don't recommend keeping the ECN2 film in the camera for several months, as these films weren't designed to wait long for development after exposure.

If these are remnants of the remjet, it means that the guys from the lab didn't do a good job and removed it carelessly.
But in your case, similarly to @Dr. no I see rather streaks after the final bath. This means the lab did it carelessly.

If I were you, I'd rinse the film again.
If you don't have Kodak Photo-Flo or the even cheaper Czech Fotonal, simply use dishwasher rinse aid (regular, clear, unscented).
A few drops per liter of warm water (preferably distilled or demineralized). Rinse the film again in this bath. Be careful not to scratch the emulsion.
Then hang the film and run two wet fingers from top to bottom. Gently, being careful with the emulsion.
This should solve your problem.

 

[Pseudodionizy]

Thanks for your replies so far. Yeah, I did tell them the film needs ECN2 development. I think it's remjet because the stains sometimes have dark bits in them, and I think they were only on one side of the negative. I'm glad to hear it didn't affect development, so I hope I can clean it off and get good quality negatives still. If it's remjet, I'm wondering though if I should use wetting agent like Fotonal or maybe something more akin to the solution used to remove remjet in the ECN2 process.

That's a shame that the lab doesn't bother to do it properly though.

I've had good experience with Vision films with the remjet removed by the seller, but I know it's not meant to stay for long inside a camera this way. That's why I bought the ECN2 versions, to be able to use them for longer, but I see now it's not as convenient as I hoped. This seller I bought from now sells the new AHU versions of the Vision films though, so maybe I'll give these ones a try instead.

 

[Spektrum]

If it's a remjet, you can remove it using baking soda (PL:"Soda Oczyszczona").
As I mentioned earlier, first soak the film in something similar to Photo-Flo.
Then use a very soft microfiber glasses cleaning cloth. Soak it in a solution of water and baking soda and wipe the non-emulsion side of film.
You'll see black marks on the cloth if it is really a remjet.
Rinse the cloth frequently in the solution and wipe until the remjet no longer stains.
Then soak the film in Photo-Flo again. Finally, hang it up and use your fingers (as I mentioned in the previous post) to remove remaining final wash.

All Kodak Vision films are designed for processing in the ECN2 process. It doesn't matter if remjet was removed by someone who rebranded them or the latest AHU ones.

Even if you see C-41 on the retailer's packaging and you are sure it is Kodak Vision film, it means the only process that works best for it is ECN2.
So you have CD-3 agent in the developer, not CD-4 as in C-41

All Kodak Vision films are designed to be exposed and then developed quickly.
That's how it works in cinematography, and if you want to use these films for photography and get good results, you have to follow this..

Theoretically, you can give yourself a little more time if you freeze the film, but would you want to put the camera with the film in the freezer?

The point is that quite quickly after exposure the image disappears or becomes corrupted.

 

[Pseudodionizy]

Thank you, I will try this method of cleaning. And well, I know about the rest, but I don't really mind cross processing it in C41, and well, I could still have it processed in ECN2, I just want to avoid the shabby job they did with removing remjet. As for the quick development thing, I know it's ideal to develop quickly, but I doubt the latent image retention is that poor, I'll probably still give it a try.

 

[koraks]

As for the quick development thing, I know it's ideal to develop quickly, but I doubt the latent image retention is that poor, I'll probably still give it a try.

I've never noticed any problem with latent image retention on Vision3 films even if they lingered in a camera for weeks, exposed partially. The "process promptly" recommendation is likely aimed at its original application where absolute consistency between the many wheels of film exposed in a movie production is required. The longer you keep film around, the higher the odds of external factors affecting it subtly; think of heat, radiation etc. There's no reason to expect that the latent image on these films is any less stable than on regular C41 film. Just look at the edge print ('keycode'); that seems to survive just fine, too.

Sorry to see how your film wasn't properly cleaned. Apparently this lab handles the cleaning manually and your film was hung up to dry with contaminated water still on it. There's a good chance you can get most of the stuff off as described above. In such cases, I sometimes soak the film in a weak sodium carbonate (washing soda) solution, then carefully brush off the muck from the non-emulsion side (soft brush or fingers), then briefly rinse in a weak acetic acid solution to get rid of the carbonate, finally wash and dry the film.

 

[Agulliver]

I once mislaid a Vision 2 200T super 8 cartridge for 20 years before getting it processed. Didn't come out perfect but came out very well. Slight colour shift to green when inverted and slight loss of latent image. I would imagine 2 months isn't going to be a problem.

Heck, Gauge Film here in the UK currently has a 4 week turnaround for processing ECN2 motion picture film and they are a highly respected lab used by amateurs and professionals alike.

 

[lawnerd]

I use vision 3 films extensively. I develop at home from chems made from scratch. I have read that vision 3 doesn’t keep, it has a short half-life, you can’t freeze it, and that you have to develop it quickly after shooting, etc. In my experience this information is completely false. In my hands the film lasts a long time if stored properly as you would handle c41 film. I find no difference in keeping compared to other films.

 

[MattKing]

I expect much of the internet discussion about latent image issues for ECN-2 stocks like the Vision films comes from the motion picture world.
If a major production exposes miles (kilometres) of camera film, it is very important that the results are extremely consistent across the exposed stock.
Remember, scenes in a movie are often exposed in a non-sequential manner - there may be weeks between the shooting dates for scenes that end up following each other in the finished product.
If there is variance due to slight changes in the developed negative due to slight differences in latent image retention - differences that would be irrelevant to almost all still film users - then it would cost a lot of money for the production to deal separately with the different batches of film, in order that the assembled intermediate stages were consistent in response.
The people I have contact with respecting this sort of stuff inform me that the motion picture world tends to have far narrower tolerances for variation than almost all still users.
A slightly related and very old tangent:
My father was the motion picture film market contact person at the North Vancouver Kodak Kodachrome and Ektachrome processing lab where he served as customer service manager for the last ~22 years before his retirement. So he had a bit of involvement with the motion picture world. One very interesting production that he mentioned to me was a local shoot that was attempting to finish a movie that had been partially shot before the previous production company had serious financial problems and dropped the movie.
The original production was shot using French made Kodak Pathe film stock, which, in colour response terms, differed significantly (in the world of motion picture film) then the usual current production stock available from US Eastman Kodak.
Apparently, Rochester had been convinced to source from their production output film that was both more similar to the Kodak Pathe stock that the new production already had developed, "in the can" and sufficient to complete the movie, so that was the film used to complete the movie. I would assume that the new cinematographers also would have adapted the lighting and filtration as well.
I expect though that none of the still film users I know would have noticed the difference. Perhaps a catalogue shooter or even a chain portrait shooter would have noticed - but probably not.

 

[Spektrum]

So, I should be blushing with shame now because I provided incorrect information regarding the storage length of film after exposure and before development.

Indeed, I don't have any experience with long-term storage of exposed Kodak Vision films because I always try to store them for no longer than two weeks.
This is because I follow the manufacturer's recommendations.
Besides, I have a huge amount of these films in the freezer and I don't have to skimp on them.
I develop them myself at home.
I prefer to experiment with the exposure of a given scene rather than add additional variables that could affect the result due to not following the manufacturer's recommendations.

Following the manufacturer's recommendations has never negatively affected my results.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. Now I know I can apply slightly less stringent rules.

 

[lamerko]

I had forgotten some film in a camera that was half-shot - it had been sitting there for over a year. I wasn't too surprised when I saw the results - they were perfectly acceptable.
As for the specific problem - the uncleaned remjet residue leaves other, very recognizable marks. Remember, these are fragments that block light. I wonder if this film was even washed at the end... If these are fixer residues, then it needs to be washed well immediately, otherwise it will be gone before long...