Process ECN-2 for Pictorial Use

[quiver]

quiver submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Process ECN-2 for Pictorial Use

Title: Process ECN-2 for Pictorial Use

Purpose:

To demonstrate that color motion picture film can be used for pictorial use.

To present a variation of process ECN-2 for the creation of still negatives.

Procedure:

ECN-2 negative film can be gotten for very reasonable prices as short ends but there doesn't seem to be any information about using it for pictorial use, except that it probably a bad idea. Further the ones that want to do it seem intent on using C-41 chemicals instead of...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Guiver, that's a very interesting demonstration. If I am right, the first two photos are on Fuji film and the last two on Kodak Vision?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Are you sure that the ECN-2 process uses CD-3? At one time it used CD-2.

Also, regarding ECN films, they are built to a contrast value of 0.5 as opposed to professional and consumer negative films with a gamma of 0.6 - 0.65. Therefore, the print material for ECN films has a higher gamma to yield an equivalent positive image.

The normal printing process on Endura or CA paper would yield a print with low contrast and low color saturation and is inappropriate for the ECN family of films.

Use of the wrong developing agent would further reduce contrast and color saturation so please check on that. I have not looked up the ECN formulas in years, so I may be wrong OTOMH like this.

PE

 

[Nick Zentena]

If you're using home made bleach etc then how do you avoid the formalhyde?

 

[quiver]

PE,

I'm pretty sure that it's CD-3 since the formula that I adapted came from "Processing KODAK Motion picture Films Module 7 Process ECN-2 Specifications" document h2407. It can be looked up on the Kodak website.

Nick,
The material used in the final rinse is what matters for image dye stability. Also the bleach was one of many alternatives specified by Kodak. This was only the simplest and cheapest. I'm using Kodak's final rinse which is now formaldehyde free. I checked Kodak's MSDS for there motion picture final rinse. Same chemical.

Mhv,

Correct. The first two are Fuji the second two are Kodak Vision 2.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I accept that it uses CD3 as I have not looked at an ECN process for a few years, but the contrast is still an issue regarding the quality of the final print.

You just cannot make good prints on current color papers with motion picture negative films even though the overall image quality for the intended purpose may be outstanding.

PE

 

[quiver]

PE,

I don't disagree that this isn't an abuse of this material. While it may be difficult to make a good print from this material I don't think that it is impossible. Some subjects may even benefit from the lower contrast. I was actually surprised at how well these prints came out considering that this was done without prior preparation to the machine making the prints (not that I think that they would have made adjustments even if I asked).

I obviously need to experiment with this material to see what it can do. Results to be posted in the forum.

 

[Helen B]

There was a very similar set of formulae published in Darkroom Techniques a few years ago. The main difference was that the developer was split up into two concentrates so that the mixed developer could be brought to temperature with hot water.

Best, Helen

 

[Petzi]

Has anyone tried the original chemicals for this process in the darkroom, e.g. with a Jobo?

 

[fschifano]

I'm curious to know how well ECN-2 films do in C-41 chemistry. The remjet backing shouldn't be too hard to deal with, and I'm pretty comfortable with the C-41 process in a home darkroom.

 

[O.O.O.]

Pardon the intrusion.

My better half's grandmother died a short time ago, and going through her stuff we found two rolls of 35mm film - one we were able to get developed and the other no one will touch.

I did a search using "process ecn II" and ended up registering on this board hoping that someone could help me.

The roll of film is labeled "Signature" which I am assuming is Montgomery Wards brand name, and has "DX process ecn II" written on it .

My question is this: where in the world can I get this developed to see if there is anything of interest to the family on this film? I live within 100 miles of Denver, so I am assuming any there may be a lab that can process this film there.

I hope someone can point me in the right direction. I think I have my email enabled, so feel free to offer suggestions.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Some body will correct me but I think a US company used to load movie film up and then process it. I don't think they do it any more.

If they don't you might want to check for a shop that processes movie film. Hopefully they can do short bits of film.

With luck maybe one of the people with a movie background will see this.

 

[Dug]

Oh the Humanity

The "Signature" film is from a company called Seattle Film Works (now renamed Photoworks(?) for reasons that will become clear below), who used to sell the respooled movie film and require that the film be returned to them for processing. This was because running the ecn II film through a standard C-41 machine would gum up the machine when the backing dissolved and deposit black goo on all the other rolls running through the machine (!). I do not know whether this is true or not, but all photofinishers policed their incoming 35mm cassettes to see if they were the dreaded Seattle Film Works film. SFW later switched to C-41 film stock, but the die was cast, and photo finishers would not develop rolls of their film even when clearly labeled C-41.

What would lead a company to do such a thing?? Why would people buy into it?

FREE FILM!

The deal was that you would get 2 rolls of film in the mail FOR FREE, and you send them back in a little pouch and get prints AND slides from the same roll! I caught the Seattle Film Works Free Film Fever, got back a set of really washed-out looking prints AND slides, and was immediately cured.

However, my bout of Free Film Fever recurred after they switched to sending FREE C-41 (!!) This led to making requests for free film (which was C-41) and using a photo finisher who would process the C-41 film even though it had the dreaded SFW label that others would not touch. The photo finishers who managed to process E-6 (slide) film in their C-41 machines were good candidates for the SFW C-41 film. But that is another story...

It appears the whole scheme started to fall apart after they started distributing film (for free) that could be processed by anyone and trying to convince people that they HAD to use SFW processing services.

The whole sad story can be found in the archives of photo.net (ahh the pre digital days of photo.net (1996), with Mr. Greenspun spinning yarns and folks coming out of their caves to club each other over the head with their Canon v. Nikon debates).

 

[srs5694]

A small correction to Dug's post: The "Signature" film is actually from Signature Color, which was a lab that did much the same thing that SFW did. I don't know if they're still in business, but I know that they stopped processing ECN-II film a few years ago, so even if they're still around they won't be much good to O.O.O. I believe SFW/Photoworks also no longer processes ECN-II film. (When both existed, either would process the other's ECN-II film.)

To answer O.O.O.'s question, there are a few places that will still process this film. One is Rocky Mountain Film Lab in Aurora, but they're expensive and they only do runs of ECN-II film every once in a while, so you could wait weeks or even months on the order. The last I heard, Dale Laboratories in Florida would also do ECN-II film, and at lower cost than Rocky Mountain Film Lab, but I haven't checked lately; call or e-mail them to be sure. It's been a while since I used them, but when I did they were a pretty good commercial photofinisher.

 

[sdavis914]

I just ran some rolls of kodak 5296 through dip and dunk C41 with the d&d the remjet backing stayed intact and no problems were noticed on the plots-the remjet backing is easily removed with a soak in warm water and a pec pad. The resulting RA4 prints were very low contrast although printing with increased ND on the filter pack yielded some pleasing muted prints-very retro looking-some loss of contrast could be due to the age of the film which is now discontinued-I'll try this again with some fresh short ends-and will make up the some of the above mentioned developer-I also heard mention of using E6 bleach as a substitute as well-which may increase the dmin-and increase contrast a bit.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Motion picture film is built to an average contrast of 0.5, while still film is built to an average contrast of 0.6. Motion picture film therefore has an inherent contrast mismatch when printed on normal color papers, as the print film intended for use is much higher in contrast than the current Endura or CA papers.

PE

 

[Zeclas]

cd3 or cd2

sorry
but what is cd3 or cd2?
it's some kodak chemical?there's a formula for that?
thakn you best regards

 

[srs5694]

Yes, CD-n (CD-2, CD-3, CD-4, etc.) are Kodak color developing agents. They've got very long chemical names that would probably be meaningful only to chemists. The photochemical suppliers that sell them (at least, to the general public) don't use the full chemical names; they sell them as CD-3, etc., so just look for that. The last I checked, Art Craft had both CD-3 (used in RA-4, E-6, and ECN-2) and CD-4 (used in C-41).

 

[alanrockwood]

A quick comment. Phototherm's documentation says explains how to process ECN-2 in their machines using C-41 chemistry. They claim that the anti-halation layer is not a problem in a one-shot processor like a Phototherm because the developer solutions are discarded. This would no doubt work just as well in a Jobo processor.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The dye hues and dye stability would suffer by processing the film in C-41 as the developing agent is incorrect. In addition, REM Jet is removed from the back by a scrubber. If the carbon gets into the swollen gelatin on the front of the film during any processing step, it is locked in place and will leave microscopic black specs in the image.

REM Jet must be removed from the back only with a sponge scrub and then a wash before the film begins processing.

I have seen film ruined by the processing method described by Phototherm. At the time, it was others doing the job though. And, BTW, you may get by with an apparent good image from this, but the test is color quality, keeping of the image, and whether there are any microscopic white dots in the prints.

PE

 

[pedropolis]

Thank you guiver

I have had a roll (bulk) of 5247 sitting in my fridge for about 8 months now and have been searching for a usable processing solution for this since finding out it was different from the usual C-41, I've now ordered the required chemistry from silverprint and hope to post results of my experiments here soon! thanks for the formulas!

ta
pete

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I putzed with the movie films in C-41 chemistry 20 years ago. I can't tell you about densitometer results, but to the eye the looked just fine. I had been using one of those movie film slide plus prints outfits in North Hollywood. I just wanted to see if C-41 could do it.

The rem-jet backing just falls away even using your finger across the film. A followup with tissue or cotton is needed.

Of course, no one can print this stuff except those specialized houses because of the different masking, it's much redder.

Prints made from this stuff lack contrast and saturation. It is meant to be "printed" to the appropriate 35mm film. Those slides were just fine.

 

[Lexkex]

Tried both the described process and c-41 development on ecn-2 film.

The reason i had to do the development was to test an old Bolex 16mm camera that i am using for a stop motion project. Since i am shooting on Kodak vision 3, 500T i used a strip of this film for testing purposes. The scanning was done on an Imacon Flextight 848
I have now tried both c-41(in a automatic jobo machine) and the described ecn-2 (in a fully manual Lomo tank) recipe on kodak vision 3, 500T, and I must say that for testing exposure and focus, both methods worked. Rem-jet was removed after the last wash, but before final rinse.

For the ecn-2 process every step of the recipe was followed except:

I could not get hold of CD-3 in powdered form, so i chose to use the color developer part B supplied with kodak E-6 kits. I believe they contain the same chemicals but i am not 100% sure. I used 50 ml of this for one liter, and therefore used 50 ml less of distilled water.

I only had Acetic Acid 85,5%, so i used 12,5ml of this and filled up with water to make 1 Liter.

During the mixing i used different measuring glasses for each chemical and in overall followed Kodaks advice on solution mixing supplied in their manual for ecn-2 processing: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/h2407.pdf

The processing was done using kodaks description for sink line processing c-4:1 http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z131_03.pdf

but with addition of the stop bath which i guesstimated from the ecn-2 processing manual to be 2 minutes (but maybe this was to little?).

Unfortunately the finished precessed film suffered from a slight Prussian blue (cyanish) tint, but not to such a degree that it couldn't be corrected in photoshop after scanning. A slight lack of contrast, compared to normal c-41 film was also noticed.

I believe the Prussian blue tint could have come from to little or to much? washing after the stop and that the pH of the bleach went below 6.0 because of this .

The result was good enough to check exposure,etc, and confirm that the camera was working, and (just for fun) printing out some of the pictures that were color corrected in photoshop.

I believe the resulting negatives would not be satisfactory for darkroom paper printing , because of the Prussian blue tint, and a slight lack of contrast.

Processing the film in c-41 chemicals in a jobo machine did no harm to the equipment (but maybe because it was just a 50 cm strip) or the film, and actually gave better results than the ecn-2 process, but i have no idea how the negatives will manage over time. But I will claim that for just equipment testing, c-41 process is the simplest and the best. Just remember to remove the rem-jet from the film and clean it properly during the final wash.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Lex;

The E6 color developer contains a hefty batch of sulfite which would reduce contrast in the film. In addition, the pH might be wrong. ECN film is built to have a lower contrast than professional and consumer color negative films, and is built for optimum printing dye hues with CD3 not CD4. So, all in all, it was a gamble and you got usable results.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Discussion of getting ECN-II Processing.... take a look