Thickness of film support

[StoneNYC]

confirmed the cine colour neg is not C41 but it will be ok in C41chemicals with dip and dunk or spiral tank.

It is like 5222 'needs' D96 and trix D76...

Wet printing may be more difficult dependent on enlarger, scanning no problem

but don't try it with a mini lab unless you know the managers real well. Some machines can cope if the staff are trained.

It is nice film as the rem jet layer reduces burn relative to normal 135 colour

when you finish washing in spiral you need to sponge off remjet layer under bath faucet in good light

try a short end if you home process c41

If you can get short ends and don't need mini labs it can be real cheap...

I'm not sure if I trust your chemical recommendations, considering that you said that Double-X can only be used in D 96 or D-76, just not at all true, any normal developer can develop Double-X film, I've used in Rodinal, HC-110, and Ilfsol 3 with lovely results. I've also heard others using Pyro style developers with Double-X

With regard to the ECN-2 film, the rem jet layer, if I recall correctly, can be dissolve easily pre-development by washing the film in sodium bicarbonate and water a few times before you use the first developer. Can't remember the amount but it's not that much.

I could be wrong about that chemistry, but you know it's something simple like that.

And I wanted to know what you meant by okay, I wouldn't want to develop something in C-41 expecting GOOD Color, and get something that looked like he was developed in the 1970s color scheme...

I do have some C-41 processing to do, so perhaps I'll throw it in at the end of a batch, but at one point I researched this because I have a bunch of it, and I collected the chemistry in order to make my own ECN-2 developer, and it certainly was not the same as what's in C-41.

Anyway I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, but have you actually done this process and compared cine film both films developed in standard ECN-2 chemistry and C-41 chemistry and they look the same?

If so do you have examples?

Thanks.

 

[MattKing]

Stone:

Xmas was using "It is like 5222 'needs' D96 and trix D76..."

in the same way that someone might say that a Nikon F 'needs' Kodachrome - it is a statement of strong preference, not absolute requirement.

And don't forget, the cine films plus ECN-2 chemistry pairing is designed to give lower contrast results than would normally be suitable for optical printing, and most likely less contrast than is optimum for a scanning workflow.

The differences between ECN-2 and C41 chemistry may very well correct part of that contrast problem.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

Xmas was using "It is like 5222 'needs' D96 and trix D76..."

in the same way that someone might say that a Nikon F 'needs' Kodachrome - it is a statement of strong preference, not absolute requirement.

And don't forget, the cine films plus ECN-2 chemistry pairing is designed to give lower contrast results than would normally be suitable for optical printing, and most likely less contrast than is optimum for a scanning workflow.

The differences between ECN-2 and C41 chemistry may very well correct part of that contrast problem.

I'll give it a try...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

General consensus seems to be with film manufacturers, that

a) 35mm film is coated on 0.12 or 0.13 mm film support
b) MF film (120, 220) is coated on 0.10 mm support
c) LF film is coated on 0.19 mm support

Now I can understand that the sheet film is somewhat thicker than the other film, but why is the MF film thinner than the 35mm?

Is the film thickness specified in some industry standard?

Yes, there is an industry standard for itand isn't here for everything these days?
That's a good thing.How else could you be surethat any 35mm film fits your 35mm camera?

 

[Photo Engineer]

MF film is thinner to account for the paper backing (but 120 and 220 differ). It is also thinner to allow the film to fit around the tight curves in an MF camera back.

PE

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...My questions:
1) What is the thickness of Ilford HP5+ 5x7 film to make the 4x5 mask? Thickness of FP4+?
2) What is the thickness of Ilford HP5+ 8x10 film to make the 5x7 mask? Thickness of FP4+?
3) How close to opaque can these films be developed (to minimize flair)?

Both FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus sheet films, in all sizes, are coated on 7-mil polyester bases. See the current data sheets:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20106281054152313.pdf​

Expose either one of them to room light for a minute or so, then develop to completion in HC-110 or Ilfotec HC, and you'll have something opaque enough to use as a sun-viewing filter.