A Side-by-Side Comparison of ECN-2 and C-41 Film Developing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Joe compares the looks of film that is developed in ECN-2 developing and C-41 developing. He does this with Kodak Vision3 500T film and Kodak Portra 160
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#filmphotography #ECN2 #filmdevelopment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Website: jtobiason.com
Instagram: / jtobiason
Film Instagram: / joetobiason
Twitter: / jtobiason_
Facebook: / jtobiason.photography
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the songs are from audiio.com: ref.audiio.com...
Get a Leica M6
ebay.us/rv74P3
Gear:
Cameras
Canon R6: amzn.to/3FzSq8L
iPhone 12: amzn.to/3w3cAVD
Film from Film Supply Club: filmsupply.club/
Lenses:
Canon 24mm f1.4: amzn.to/36mebXk
Canon 50mm f1.2: amzn.to/2FdE7s5
Canon 135mm f2: amzn.to/2SOU9R8
Editing:
MacBook Pro (2017): amzn.to/36pTv0E
iMac 27" (2019): amzn.to/2QjLZP4
Divinci Resolve 18
Photoshop CC
Lightroom CC
"Cheap and Nerdy" also has a leica ...
How do you think I saved enough to buy the Leica?
holy crap the amount of information that i learn from just one video!!!!!!!! thanks for your works!
Glad to help
also a point I just discovered, with your comparison, C41 has a dye development from the oxidised developer, so, like 510-pyro developers, some of the negative density is silver halide converted, the rest is this dye on the emulsion, so explains the dark tone, and contrast differences?, so ECN-2 just works on the silver halide alone, no toning affect built in, like C41 has.
Dang! That's a deep dive and useful. Thanks!
First off peace - because I'm doing to say some stuff here.
I've worked and still work, in both movie film and photographic labs since 1983 and to me, you're ECN-2 looks significantly underdeveloped - thus your lighter base and less contrasty image. This also is going to skew all your sample digitization comparisons. Both processes need proper tempering bathers and accurate timing. My guess is that either whoever made the ECN-2 kit has skimped on some component of the developer, the chemistry isn't as fresh as it could be or you don't have the means to properly control your process. ECN-2 was designed for continuous roll movie film processors with replenishing systems. People running these machines properly run regular control strips and have a photo chemist on site to be about understand those control strips and adjust the chemistry accordingly . it's kind of a bitch of a process
All that said, I completely agree with our conclusion. ECN-2 film in still cassettes is a redundant and just makes life more difficult. Even if it were properly developed, There is very little difference between how ECN-2 and C-41 looks when scanned. I have no idea about printing it on RA-4 paper but that's an entirely different arguement. With the exception of 500T, because it might be nice to have a higher iso color negative film to shoot under tungsten balanced light, shooting ECN-2 film is just creating work for one's self and adding another unnecessary variable to the photographic process
That's good to know. It wouldn't surprise me if it was underdeveloped. It was my first (and probably last) try with it on a kit from some random company. Though the cinnestil kit might be worth a go as I do trust their c-41 kits. But in the end, I really think just sticking to c-41 for everything is the easiest solution.
Have been waiting for your take on this for a bit and you confirmed what I thought. My feeling is that the ECN-2 process is designed to maximize dynamic range for digitizing movies that are then graded. I'm not sure our consumer scanners have enough dynamic range for it to matter.
yea. I believe you're right on the original needs. I don't think it's a matter of not having the DR In modern scanners, but rather that something like DSLR scanning and NLP spread the image over the whole histogram no matter what and so once processed, the difference is very minor. Still good to see them side by side. I'd definitely be curious to see professional scans of ECN2 and see if they were different.
@@JTobiason Good point. I think the conclusion I am drawing is that Vision3 (especially 500t) looks nice in C41.
Yea. That's my learning too and plan for using going forward.
What about GRAIN? There are differences?
It's probably slightly more pronounced with c-41, but not much. I am not someone who obsesses about grain though.
Vision3 is made with the idea of color correcting when printing, or nowadays, making the digital copy for release. Unfortunately it means that these films are unsuitable for darkroom printing. Unless you own a Lambda, you won´t make a decent C-type from a movie stock.
Totally. But it was interesting to see it in digital form.
Wow. You are the first tuber that uses cotton gloves. Cuddos I cringe when I see film videos with fingers
I at least do when I'm filming. Haha. 😉
Can you tell where I can read how to scan this film?
I use a Valoi system. I made a video about my first impressions. There are a thousand other videos about how to do this as well by other channels.
Valoi 360 | First impressions
ruclips.net/video/WWWTz3Q1rZo/видео.html
Wish you edited text onto the pics to show which films were C-41 and ECN-2, please do for the next comparison video! Would be really helpful
Thanks for the feedback. 👍
Thanks for the feedback. 👍
Thanks for the video. This is informative. I have been using ECN-2 kit to develop Vision3. Wanted to try C-41, but the idea that my (not so) great pictures might come out bad has always prevented me from doing so. The fact that there are minor differences gives me confidence that I can try it out as well. Also, could you post a link to the 85b filter you are using on your M6? Thank you!
Glad it's helpful. I'd say go for it. I think I like it better with C-41. And here is the link. I have to use a step up filter for my Voigtlander 35mm lens.
amzn.to/3YSAqyy
@@JTobiason Thanks again, and for the quick response!
Very good video, thank you!
Glad to help!
excellent video. I have read a paper from Kodak, where they explained why they made ECN-2. They pointed out two reasons: Since nobody wants to look a negative film in the cinema you have to copy the film to another negative film. ECN2 process results in thinner negatives, which let more light pass through. This saves a lot of time when you have to expose 100 thousands of single pictures for a 120 min movie. And of couse they made more than only one copy of the film.
Second reason is color grading: Remember that stuff was made before digital. So, color grading had to be done with real color filters. If you have saturated colors, that process will become very difficult. Please note: this point is still valid today, even if you scan the film.
Therefore: ECN2 thinner negative and less saturated colors, C41 normal process .
As far I understood the paper, both ECN2 and C41 are "legal" development processes for any (Kodak) color film, it depends on your needs and further processing of the negative.
And for the majority (?) of film photographers who work with scans, IMHO there is no need to use ECN-2.
I shoot Vision 3 D250 at box speed, developed in C41 since years. I have no, or only very minor editing work, if exposed properly. People who are into film photography judge my result either to be Portra or Ektar....
Thx a lot for showing some evidence of the information I have read.
That all makes total sense. I'd never thought about the thinner density issue. When I develop it, this does feel ever so slightly thinner to the touch. That all makes sense. cheers!
This has been a concern of mine as I have ECN-2 super 8 I want to process, but we don’t have ECN-2 here, and C-41 chemicals are already expensive, just like E-6.
So I’m gonna need to get a C-41 kit now seeing as it should work fine.
I was told I’d have to rate the film differently when shooting but I think that’s a little pedantic.
Yea. I wouldn't worry about the rating difference. Personally, i overexpose everything anyway, so it is all about the same.
And it sounds like you're going to self develop super8. Wow. That is quite an undertaking. Good luck!
Looking at the film rebate it seems that the ECN-2 are not developed properly. They seem a bit thin.
Maybe. Was my first try. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Super informative, thank you 2005 Ewan McGregor. I get a lab to develop and scan, do you recommend I pay an extra 100% for ecn2 or just stick to c41? I do like me some dr
Haha. I get there one all the time.
As far as the look goes, only you can answer. But I'd you're shooting an ecn-2 film that still has the remjet layer, you need to send that to a lab that will develop it specifically. That layer can mess up normal C-41 machines (but doesn't matter for home dev)
I just shoot 500T without a filter and white-balance in post, looks fine to me haha
Awesome. I do too. It works awesome. I just personally like the filter look a little more when i have a camera with the option.
Very helpful! The main worry I had with the ECN2 is the shelf life, which apparently isn't as long as the C41 chems. The only kits I can find here are 3L, so it would expire before I have a chance to use it.
I'll stick with C41
Glad to help. 3L is a lot. I used a powder kit that made 1L for this video. I think CineStill sells a 1L kit if you want to give ECN2 a try. But that said, i don't anticipate using it again. I prefer the look and ease of just doing C-41
interesting! got my friend a Silbersalz-Kit as a birthday present including proper movie scanning... I am excited if they come out flatter than NLP works...
Yea! I'd love to see it scanned by a professional to see the difference. Someday maybe I'll use one of those kits or something from Atlanta Film Co and see how they compare.
I've owned a 1000ft can of 500T for many years and just today did I develop some bulk loaded film in an ECN-2 kit for the first time. Needed this video, thanks.
Way to go! That is so much 500T! I bought 500' a few years back and still have well over 100. I can't even imagine how long that'll take. But go wild! Enjoy!
The "bump" in film speed from 500 (Kodak) to 800 (Cinestill) is not from some inherent speed increase imparted to its modified movie film. When Cinestill removes the remjet from the Kodak film, light which would be absorbed in that remjet anti-halation layer just reflects and bounces around in the film. So that extra speed is just added fog density, which Cinestill attempts to deal with by raising the ISO rating from 500 to 800. Botton line: There is no additional film speed in the Cinestill products, just a slight loss of shadow detail from a bit of under-exposure.
Hmm. I don't know if that's correct. The remjet is on the back of the film. So it's removal wouldn't change the speed of the film. You are correct that there is no actual film speed difference, but from what I've read, the 500 vs 800 is that it's 500 when developed correctly in ECN-2 and 800 when in C-41. I'm not 100% sure that is correct, but that is what I've read.
@@JTobiason The whole point of the rem-jet layer is to absorb light. Remove it, and that light is not absorbed. It is that simple. As to the differences between C-41 and ECN-2 chemistry imparting extra speed to development in C-41, there is none. The original formulas for C-41 and ECN-2 are very similar. The ECN-2 formulas are published, and I make my own C-41 from bulk chemicals. Finally, if you look at a well done dynamic range comparison, the Cinestill (no rem-jet) film will look a bit more contrasty. That's the EI 800 slightly under-exposing the image shadows, while the non-absorbed light builds up the overall density to make bright highlights a bit more dense (brighter) in the negative.
I loved these images! I've just bought a stack of kodak 500d that I'm super excited about trying. Thanks for the video mate!
Glad to help! Enjoy! These films are so fun!!
Very helpful video. I love to shoot ECN-2 and C41 but having to buy two sets of chemicals is not ideal. Although i really can't decide if i would prefere the ECN-2 or C41.
Thanks for watching. I'm on team c41 because though the extra latitude in the scans was nice, I generally like the look of c41 better and don't just shoot movie films, so would use c41 for normal color development.
@@JTobiason I actually think i would prefere having a flatter image to start with. Although I am probably going with the cheaper version, which is C41.
Yea. It is nice, but you can start with really flat settings in your scans. I use a camera and NLP. So i can set it to begin very flat and then make adjustments from there too.
@@JTobiason also if developing 'wet' you can use the Ilford contrast filters to get the contrast up or down, Also for movie cameras, this film has a halation layer, to save from accidental reflections from the pressure plate, etc. NOT present on most still 135 films, but IS on lf sheet film, so if you don't need the anti-halation removal step, then C41 is the way to go, also is available to "amateurs", not just movie sets, in commercial quantities.
Very well oresented. Will tune in again.
Awesome, thank you! See you on the next one :)
very helpful, thank you.
Anytime!
Very helpful.
So glad! Cheers!
@@JTobiason I just, finally developed 6 rolls of ECN. Vision 50D, 250D, 500T and some Fuji Eterna 400T.
I had been sending my rolls to MidWest Film for developing.
I made my own pre bath for the REMJET removal. 4 Tbs of baking soda in tap water (102 degrees). That worked great. Very little residual REMJET when I wiped the film at finish.
Used C41 for the process, It came out great. Seriously doubt I'll bother with the ECN developers.
I really love the colors and grain of these films. I have over 2000 feet of ECN in my freezer. I'll be shooting it for a long time.
Sorry, too mumbled and fast to follow. Plus many variables quickly discussed.
Ok