Who processes rolls of ECN-2?

[Paul Verizzo]

I'm well versed in B&W and C-41 photochemistry. I've no qualms about mixing and using ECN-2 from scratch. But the reality is that I don't see myself shooting more than the two rolls of Eastman that I have. Not at $10/roll from Film Photography Project. Not saying they charge too much, just not in my budget to keep using. I have several dozen rolls of high quality color neg films.

Do you know of any labs? The days of Seattle Film Works, Dale, and Indenticolor are long gone.

 

[quiver]

Well you could always cut out the middle man and buy short ends or order direct from Kodak. Never did the latter myself, but I understand that they'll take anyone's money who wants to buy. Sure it looks expensive but when you look at cost per foot it really makes some cheap color shooting.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Well you could always cut out the middle man and buy short ends or order direct from Kodak. Never did the latter myself, but I understand that they'll take anyone's money who wants to buy. Sure it looks expensive but when you look at cost per foot it really makes some cheap color shooting.

I understand the economics of the film bidness. This doesn't answer my question.

 

[koraks]

I've no qualms about mixing and using ECN-2 from scratch. But the reality is that I don't see myself shooting more than the two rolls of Eastman that I have.

Ok, so in terms of chemistry, it would be mostly CD3 that you'd need as the rest is fairly common stuff. Not sure how well stocked you are on the rest of the components, but if this happens to boil down to the question how you can get your hands on a few grams of CD3, drop me a note.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Color Lab, in Maryland will. It's not listed on their website, but they will process ECN-2 movie film, that has been loaded for 35mm still cameras. I know because I called them about it. I would call to get current pricing.

 

[AgX]

Mail order lab that uses ECN-2

I’m not certain if this is the correct section to pose this question, please forgive me if not. I have several 36 exp. loads of Fuji Eterna 250D Vivid motion picture film in my freezer. I’d like to use them, but want to get them processed in their native ECN-2, not cross-processed in C41 as...

www.photrio.com

 

[Ten301]

Mail order lab that uses ECN-2

I’m not certain if this is the correct section to pose this question, please forgive me if not. I have several 36 exp. loads of Fuji Eterna 250D Vivid motion picture film in my freezer. I’d like to use them, but want to get them processed in their native ECN-2, not cross-processed in C41 as...

www.photrio.com

I’m the OP of the thread AgX referenced. I can report that Bellows Lab in Miami does, indeed, process in true ECN-2, and their results are excellent. Great people to do business with, too. Real film geeks!

 

[spark]

Andrew's Analog Service Center (https://www.needfilmdeveloped.com) did good work for me last March on some 50D. It looked so much better than ECN film developed in C41.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Thanks, guys. Andrews charges a reasonable $10 per roll. With $10 cost per roll (plus shipping) for the film, that's over $20/roll.

I think I'll stick to C-41 after this.

 

[Rudeofus]

There's nothing wrong with C-41 film, but there is no 500T film for C-41. One can argue about the other Cinestill products all day long, but in the analog world there is nothing comparable to Cinestill 800T.

 

[koraks]

There's Portra 800 which for still photography is a superior product.

 

[Rudeofus]

There's Portra 800 which for still photography is a superior product.

Portra 800 turns into an ISO200 emulsion in tungsten light. Sorry.

 

[koraks]

Yep, but 500T will never turn into a C41 film and will always keep making pretty rainbows in white snow if you try and treat it as such. Sorry!

 

[Rudeofus]

The very visible red rings around the highlights are not a development artifact, but a "lack of anti halation layer" effect specific to Cinestill's product. If one would sell the original Vision 3 500T on a 120 format film roll, there would not be such red rings.

BTW I did develop this film roll in home brew ECN-2 dev.

 

[AgX]

Portra 800 turns into an ISO200 emulsion in tungsten light. Sorry.

A loss in effective sensitvity has Vision 500T in daylight too.

 

[AgX]

If one would sell the original Vision 3 500T on a 120 format film roll, there would not be such red rings.

A film without antihaltion means would show same artefact independant on format of conversion.
Only difference would make the image scale, as the artefact size will absolutely remain the same.

 

[koraks]

The very visible red rings around the highlights are not a development artifact, but a "lack of anti halation layer

I'm aware of this and it's not what I was talking about. I mean the severely crossed over colors all over the frame which are only partly due to mixed lighting. It's the main problem with ECN-2 films. It might help if they're scanned with the LUTs and profiles the movie industry must use for them but I've never heard of anyone doing this for stills. Worth looking into though; give it a thought if you are happy with ECN2.

A film without antihaltion means would show same artefact independant on format of conversion

He means the rings wouldn't be there if you bought the original Kodak film instead of Cinestill's version that had the remjet removed.

 

[bags27]

I've never shot or processed Vision 3, but I thought a baking soda soak for 3 minutes or so, removes enough of the rem jet so that you can process it in C-41. Is this correct?

 

[koraks]

Yes and no. You can remove the remjet fairly easily. It still won't be a C41 film by doing that and the color balance and gamma go way off if you process ECN2 film in C41. Some find that they can fix that to their liking in digital post processing but I'm not part of that group; I think ECN2 film taken through c41 is a total loss.

You're probably asking this because remjet muck plays havoc on commercial C41 processors, whether RT or dip & dunk. The remjet material contaminates everything; the chemistry, the equipment and other people's film. I a home setting this is not necessarily disastrous as long as you don't develop remjet film and regular C41 film side by side and use the chemistry one shot. Still there's no reason to leave the remjet on before further processing since it's removed so easily.

There are several remjet removal bath recipes to be found online; take your pick and use whatever works for you. Kodak's remjet is apparently much easier to get rid of than Fuji's, but as they left the ECN2 business years ago that's not really a concern anymore.

If you consider running ECN2 film through a c41 process I'm sure some people are willing to advise you on how to salvage the images afterwards into something presentable. It'll involve fixing severe crossover which you may or may not pull off to your satisfaction in PS. I played with it and decided it's too much hassle for ultimately a mediocre outcome.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I've never shot or processed Vision 3, but I thought a baking soda soak for 3 minutes or so, removes enough of the rem jet so that you can process it in C-41. Is this correct?

IIRC, the alkaline remjet bath is of higher pH than baking soda.

Many years ago I ran Eastman films in C-41, just being curious. I knew nothing about remjet removal bath.....this was 1980's.....I just removed the remjet after fixing via paper towels.

I never tried to either go to print, and of course, no digital darkroom. I developed some film in my gf's kitchen. Her up to date computer was an Apple III.

 

[Rudeofus]

I'm aware of this and it's not what I was talking about. I mean the severely crossed over colors all over the frame which are only partly due to mixed lighting. It's the main problem with ECN-2 films. It might help if they're scanned with the LUTs and profiles the movie industry must use for them but I've never heard of anyone doing this for stills. Worth looking into though; give it a thought if you are happy with ECN2.

I have run Cinestill 800T, exposed in a daylight setup, through a homebrew RA-4 process, and did not see all that much crossover. It's in my gallery.

Since AFAIK Kodak still offers ECP-2 process, it would surprise me a great deal, if unmanageable crossover were the norm in these films.

 

[Rudeofus]

Many years ago I ran Eastman films in C-41, just being curious. I knew nothing about remjet removal bath.....this was 1980's.....I just removed the remjet after fixing via paper towels.

I never tried to either go to print, and of course, no digital darkroom. I developed some film in my gf's kitchen. Her up to date computer was an Apple III.

I would assume, that you did not run another batch of film through the used color developer. I would be more afraid of the second roll than the first one.

 

[koraks]

it would surprise me a great deal, if unmanageable crossover were the norm in these films.

It is if you treat it as c41 film in further processing or scanning. Anyway, ignore my comment if you're happy with what you've got.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I have run Cinestill 800T, exposed in a daylight setup, through a homebrew RA-4 process, and did not see all that much crossover. It's in my gallery.

Since AFAIK Kodak still offers ECP-2 process, it would surprise me a great deal, if unmanageable crossover were the norm in these films.

What is ECP-2? Print film version of ECN-2? Despite all these years in the photo bidness, I've never heard of ECP!

Having said that, it's hard to believe that the movie color labs would have two separate developing systems. But, hey, what do I know?

 

[MattKing]

What is ECP-2? Print film version of ECN-2? Despite all these years in the photo bidness, I've never heard of ECP!

Yep. The process that was used to develop the high volumes of the projection print stock. Back in the day, far more feet of film than the camera film stock.
Remember that for a big movie they had to develop as many identical copies of the prints as there were screens that wanted to show the film on its opening day.
I'm not sure but expect that there were labs who just did ECP-2.