1. CD2 is NOT good for C41 films. Image stability will be an issue.
What would be the nature of instability? Fading over time?
How would a change from CD2 to CD4 change this formula? Just one for one substitution? (And Dan, why did you use CD2 instead of CD4?)
2. The time and temp are not too critical as this 2 bath process is self limiting. As long as you get good imbibition of chemistry there should be no problem with development except for crossover, grain and sharpness. Color would probably be ok for the most part.
PE
The only problems will be crossover, grain and sharpness? Meaning, almost everything that's important?
Atm, my CD-4 source is Flexicolor part C, I've worked out that 2x the normal amount per litre of regular C-41 developer is a good starting point for Bath A. I would prefer to get my hands on the dry salt before moving onto CD-4 testing though!
What would be the nature of instability? Fading over time?
How would a change from CD2 to CD4 change this formula? Just one for one substitution? (And Dan, why did you use CD2 instead of CD4?)
Substitute Dignan's NCF-41 Bath A for my Bath A.
I used CD-2, because that's the dry CD salt I have. I was originally playing with CD-2 split bath to develop Vision Print ECP-2 film, I wanted pictorially good results from it because it has grain and sharpness of a ridiculous level and would make a good 35mm landscape film if I could get 'normal' results out of it. ECP-2 film is stable with CD-2, as the ECP-2 developer is CD-2 based.
So now I'm using it, because it's what I have. I want to play with the other controls (The other ingredients besides the CD agent) in Bath A and B in the mean time until I get dry CD-4.
Here is EI 6400 (the only sample) from this roll, I suspect it'd be worse in scenes you typically would reach for such high speed (dim with high contrast lighting/deep shadow and way-off daylight light sources)
Last edited by Athiril; 02-21-2013 at 10:16 PM. Click to view previous post history.
1. CD4 was designed to work with the couplers and there is a big difference between CD2 and CD4 from a chemistry POV. One is far more polar than the other. So, you get different hue and stability. I did not mention hue before because stability is far the greater problem.
2. Yes, everything is a potential problem. But, curve shape may be perfect. Got that?
Dan, are you sure? The current ECN and ECP go through the same process. The previous films went through 2 processes, but they were able to vastly improve the stability of the print film by using CD3. In fact, the new archival film is even better.
At least, that is the information given me by some west coast processors.
I'm just going off the data sheets from Kodak. The film I have is regular Vision Print Film (but SO with remjet added) which is specified as ECP-2D process in their current documentation.
I can't find any mention of running ECP-2 film through ECN-2. So that just sounds kind of suspicious, as I would think it'd be at least in the current documentation, if it were an official thing.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Adv Reply
