Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,862   Posts: 1,583,181   Online: 712
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    515
    Images
    12
    I have various Kodak and Fuji movie stocks - mostly expired -and speed loss varies amazingly. I have some Fuji Reala 500D which seems to have fallen to about ISO 80; I have much older EXR 200T that is almost as good as new. Maybe your film wasn't stored optimally all its life. But you won't know until you process in ECN-2. I use a slightly adjusted version of the ECN-2 developer that uses 5.2g/L CD3 - I have found (by trial and error) that home processing in a plastic tank, the official formula always produced somewhat thin negatives.

  2. #12
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,540
    Images
    65
    ECN andCr41 are not compatible. PERIOD;

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    197
    I guess if you want the best results to develop in the right chemicals, what is the difference between ECN and C41? Do they have the same colour developing agent? I suppose the only thing it doesn't have that E6 has is the reversal stage? I Don't know why kodak would not use the same process for this as negative 35mm or 120? No doubt they had their reasons... I am not sure with movie film what yield your chemicals will have (i.e how many it will develop well) If you can home process it is much cheaper than sending it off to a lab...

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Allentown PA area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    371
    PE has posted extensively on ECN-II. Just do a quick search. I myself was thinking about going that way because the film would be available in rolls and I could simply roll my own, but according to PE ECN-II doesn't archive well at all. Which is a shame, because it could be a good way to get a lot of color film very cheap.

  5. #15
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,540
    Images
    65
    Just to save a tad of time, ECN and C41 are processed using different color developing agents and are processed at different temperatures. ECN is designed to work with a film contrast of 0.5 and a print material contrast of about 3. C41 is designed to have an average contrast of 0.66 and uses a print material with an average contrast of about 2.5.

    Does that help?

    PE

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1

    Rem-jet removal before use in a camera?

    PE, any idea how rem-jet might be removed BEFORE use in a still camera? That seems to be the goal of this product:

    http://www.etsy.com/listing/91624856...ropack-5-rolls

    Obviously the process must be done in the dark, but I am wondering if it might be a wet, or purely mechanical dry process? I assume that any process that gets the film wet would alter the characteristics of the film fundamentally!

    Justin
    Last edited by jsnapp; 08-13-2012 at 04:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #17
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,540
    Images
    65
    I can think of several ways, but the film would have awful flare I would guess. But, if they process the film in C41, as is implied, then the contrast would be way off and the dye hues and dye stability would be in question.

    PE

  8. #18
    justin parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I can think of several ways, but the film would have awful flare I would guess. But, if they process the film in C41, as is implied, then the contrast would be way off and the dye hues and dye stability would be in question.

    PE
    Care to elaborate about some of the possible ways? I am really curious. I agree to be skeptical that it is ideal, but I still find the puzzle of how to remove the backing before exposure to be intriguing.

  9. #19
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,540
    Images
    65
    Tack film emulsion down on a smooth piece of countertop.

    Wet a sponge in remjet removal solution and wipe the back side.

    Rinse the sponge and repeat wipe with fresh solution.

    Wipe back with clean sponge wet with Distilled Water.

    Dry in dark.

    DO NOT WET THE EMULSION SIDE WITH EITHER WATER OR REM JET REMOVAL SOLUTION.

    Flare will be high, sensitivity to static discharge will be high.

    Anyone who does this is lacking in a certain amount of hmmmm.. Let me think here a minute. Hmmmmm. Well, I can't think of the right words. You all have left me speechless.

    PE

  10. #20
    justin parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    39
    I agree flare might be an issue. It is a shame these tungsten films aren't available in C41 versions.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin