....Any amount of rem-jet left behind will get into the emulsion and be trapped there leaving behind black dots. I've seen them. Many people here have had this problem.
PE
For what it's worth, I haven't had any issues with my approach. However, any ECN2 film is NOT a replacement/equivalent of Ektar or any other C41 film.
...the REM-Jet ....is a total advantage in the movie application, good anti-halo, anti static (important at 90 feet a minute) slippery through the camera.
Eastman Colour is a very High tech film. While fuji was in the game, it probably got more R&D than any other Kodak product - Going from XTR, to Vission 1, 2 then 3 in a little over a year for each change. (and Fuji also spent a lot of time and money upping their product)
besides the REM-Jet (which is a total advantage in the movie application, good anti-halo, anti static (important at 90 feet a minute) slippery through the camera) the problem in still use is the lower contrast design. in the original theatrical application, the negative was printed to a master positive, a printing negative and then the final film print. Low Low contrast was needed to keep the image from blocking up. (and effects shot sometimes added another set of negative and positive steps)
using the computerised methods of printing that can be corrected, but ECN looks lousy on direct printed paper.
in teh 1980s I used a lot of ECN, partly because Kodak said it would not work in a still camera, and I figured that they were joshing me - I developed some myself using chemicals measured by Teaspoons using the Dale Nevile formulas, I got rem-jet all other the place.
My "method" was to use the chemicals one shot and use two wet Photo sponges - I would hang the film with one clarn sponge on the emusion side and one on the base. Draw the sponges down slowly for 6 inches, then rinse them both in water. go back and start again until the black was gone from that part, and then proceed a bit further.
the sponge at the back was to keep the Guck from getting on the image on the emulsion side. after the black was off then I used the see-saw method to treat with stabilizer.
hold both ends of the film (one in each hand) and bend it in the middle and go back and forth in the solution for at least the minimum stabilizer time.
as far as AGX's comment, Double X (5222/7222) DOES have a clear backing layer.which they warn you needs to be abraded when splicing the film. Not sure when that came into use.
note that I am not recommending my method! it has the disadvantage of the sponge touching the emulsion. BUT at the time I figured that they was the lesser evil compared to getting the rem-jet on the image side. the Movie processing machine use a water jet to keep the black stuff away form the emulsion.
With this method does the film get enough contact with the stab as if it was on the reel? If it works I'm going to have to switch.
I do have ECN-2 which I develop, scan or print from at home.
Just don’t be sissy with it.
Pre-soak with relatively hot tap water. Like minute.
Then put same temp mix of hammer sofa and cowbaby powder.
Shake like crazy, rj gunk will come out. Repeat.
Then develop. Before final washing clean it with your fingers under tap.
If film dries and rj gunk still shows up as spots here and where just squeeze it through something like Ilford cloth.
It will lieave some residuals in chemicals and on plastic reels, but again; don’t be sissy about it.
at the time I was using dale Neville's formulas which were nothing like official ECN, or even C-41. I did manage ot get usable scans out of the negatives 30 years alter. so it must have worked. I recall Formilin was involved and the film did have a distinct odor from that when they were drying. Even Official ECN-2 has changed a couple of times since then.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?