The film process in filmmaking has a few variations really. You're spot on that ECN-2 has reduced contrast to give it a bit more flexibility/log look. When the ECN-2 negative is printed to a positive film for projection like 2383 or 2393, those films have a far stronger contrast curve so the ECN-2's reduced contrast helps to preserve detail in highlights and shadows. ECN-2 is also designed to be a bit more of a fine grain developer if I'm not mistaken, that way the grain isn't too bothersome when blown up to 50 feet wide. 2383 and 2393 have pretty strong tonal characteristics, 2383 specifically has very cool shadows and warm highlights. I believe the print is really where a lot of the "film look" comes from more so than the ECN-2 negative. Not so common these days, but during the early days of digital color correction or the D.I. (digital intermediate when it was digitally corrected but still printed to film for projection prior to digital projectors), there was another film between the negative and the print as well, but those intentionally did not have particularly strong characteristics as they were just more a step in the process than a creative choice. Nowadays, people have been doing film outs sometimes where they shoot digitally and then print the digital footage onto either negative film like above or print film as described above, and then have it scanned back to digital to try and add some of the characteristics of film. It can get really pricey really quick though.
this is really interesting! thanks for sharing. seeing all the of the back and forth for creative purposes really opens the door for a lot of choice. its good for photographers to know how these tools are part of vast system and history. thanks again 😊
Very enlightening comparison 😊thanks for taking the time to do this. I do prefer the ECN-2. I’m going to start shooting more ECN-2 stock from Midwest Film which you spotlighted in another video. I was even able to get some 220 ECN-2 from Reflx Labs so the stars are aligning. I do develop at home too but I like the idea of supporting businesses like Midwest.
yeah defiantly into c41 results how ever trying something new is always fun .... your videos are just getting better and better ... and that bronx beer tshit is dope ....
Thanks for the nice comparison, it's good to see that this film can look good when processed the way it was designed. I took some nature photos on Cinestill 50D processed in C41 and I got even more highlight color cast and general overexposure than you got here. I thought it was really funky and decided not to use this film again.
Thanks for that, I actually like ECN2 in both videos, but mostly because the scans look better in my view. You could go one further and develop a similar C41 film (would that be Portra150 or ColorPlus or what?) in ECN2 to see what happens :) Thanks for your work, always appreciate it!
To add another layer to this it would be interesting to see some of the original non cinestill film developed both ways. Only because I wonder if ramjet removal process has changed any of the characteristics of the film at all or if there have been any modifications to make it more friendly for c-41 chemicals.
Interesting how the C41 shot brings out some vignetting from the lens. Higher contrast I guess. Re exposure, Silbesalz recommend overexposing Vision 3 film by a stop for stills work.
yea over exposing could help. but in my tests i don't find that overexposure makes a difference when comparing between the two dev processes. but agreed, in each individual process, yes, over exposure gives you nicer shots
Really nice video. I'm always interested in these comparisons because I always fear to loose something for not using the proper processing technique. I'm curious as well to test in the future some custom formulas for ECN2, which seems a funny experiment.
A very well done and complete comparison. My take-away is to remember that Vision 3 film uses a different dye set than C-41 films and is tuned to print on its dedicated positive film to make movies for projection. While it is interesting to see how close (or not) the color and contrast of the RA-4 prints may be when the film is developed in ECN-2 or C-41, the conclusion is that neither process produces a finished RA-4 print which is anything close to the quality of color and contrast you can routinely get from C-41 film. Only the capacity to radically modify the film's characteristics in digital processing makes it acceptable for digital imaging. Conclusion: There is no pathway starting with Vision 3 (or Cinestill) film and ending with an RA-4 darkroom made print which is worth the expense, hassle and loss of quality. Otherwise, Vision 3 processed in ECN-2 and scanned can yield a very good looking positive image, less so with C-41 processing. Given the limited and fairly uneconomical sources of Vision 3 (or CS) film, and the comparable cost of the processing kits, I do not see any motivation to use Vision 3 film except as a novelty.
thanks for the feedback. i agree with you on the physical differences, but i do think that vision3 dev'd in c41 can produce nice subsequent prints. it may be technically imperfect by design, but visually there can be alot to appreciate of an image made that way. to each their own i guess haha 😁
Also, although I agree that there are inherent technical issues with printing, I don't see how else to get a decent wall size print other than an ultra fine grain film; such a film may indeed be Kodak Vision 3 500T, although I suppose Portra 400 might suffice if using 645 or 6x9.
Thanks for the comparison. I wonder how it turns out when developed in C-41 with 1/2-1 stop of pull. I still have some 250D kicking around and might try that once I get to shoot it.
Thx for the video, I recently developed 250D using C41 process, and scanned using Pakon F135, the images are very tint green/cyan. And if I scan them as Pakon raw, the image is very flat, slightly warm colour but the contrast is super poor. Guess I have to use the ECN to process the film then.
I’m with you. I prefer the c41 printed version. Kodak vision 3 (ecn2), as you well know, requires some post processing. It provides much flexibility in the cinema industry.
@@ribsy When running the Cinestill products in C-41, have you tried processing the developer at the ECN2 temperature (106F IIRC) rather than C-41's 102F? This would process the film at the temp the film wants rather than what is recommended for a different type film. I would like to see this!
A topic for a future video could be this one. I know, it’s hard to do it. Making a photo with a (true) anamorphic lens and make a print. The magic of cinema transferred to paper.
Films like Portra are actually designed and built similarly to their Vision3 motion picture counter parts allowing them to work and look great in ECN-2
I know this is an older vid now, but what about lowering the developing time of the c41 version. It looks maybye a bit too dense? or would you loose shadow detail?
Well if it comes out so thin when developed with ecn2 why not expose the film longer initially and then use the ecn2 wouldn't that give you more to work with?
I think that developing in ecn2 may need some testing on exposure rating. To my eye the film developed in ecn2 May need more exposure as your print looks muddy. Maybe test it’s over and under exposure limit. Liking the experiments. Funny years ago I was trying to find the formula so I could develop at home as the big motion picture developers wouldn’t do single rolls. How time’s have changed lol
Hey. I didn’t show it but I bracketed shots. The trend is the same. For the ecn2 negatives, The prints are all very low in contrast. Darkroom Printing just isn’t their strong suit
@@ribsy oh. Well thinking of it the film is digitally scanned after development so kinda makes sense. When you gave the frame more light when you bracketed did you notice a difference in the physical negative as well as the scan?
The film process in filmmaking has a few variations really. You're spot on that ECN-2 has reduced contrast to give it a bit more flexibility/log look. When the ECN-2 negative is printed to a positive film for projection like 2383 or 2393, those films have a far stronger contrast curve so the ECN-2's reduced contrast helps to preserve detail in highlights and shadows. ECN-2 is also designed to be a bit more of a fine grain developer if I'm not mistaken, that way the grain isn't too bothersome when blown up to 50 feet wide. 2383 and 2393 have pretty strong tonal characteristics, 2383 specifically has very cool shadows and warm highlights. I believe the print is really where a lot of the "film look" comes from more so than the ECN-2 negative. Not so common these days, but during the early days of digital color correction or the D.I. (digital intermediate when it was digitally corrected but still printed to film for projection prior to digital projectors), there was another film between the negative and the print as well, but those intentionally did not have particularly strong characteristics as they were just more a step in the process than a creative choice.
Nowadays, people have been doing film outs sometimes where they shoot digitally and then print the digital footage onto either negative film like above or print film as described above, and then have it scanned back to digital to try and add some of the characteristics of film. It can get really pricey really quick though.
this is really interesting! thanks for sharing.
seeing all the of the back and forth for creative purposes really opens the door for a lot of choice. its good for photographers to know how these tools are part of vast system and history. thanks again 😊
You should make a video developing some regular c41 films like portra and ektar in ecn2 chemistry to see what they look like
yea thats on the list! seems like people like these
Very enlightening comparison 😊thanks for taking the time to do this. I do prefer the ECN-2. I’m going to start shooting more ECN-2 stock from Midwest Film which you spotlighted in another video. I was even able to get some 220 ECN-2 from Reflx Labs so the stars are aligning. I do develop at home too but I like the idea of supporting businesses like Midwest.
Thanks
You're my absolute favorite film photography UA-camr.
thats a mighty compliment. i appreciate it 😊
yeah defiantly into c41 results how ever trying something new is always fun .... your videos are just getting better and better ... and that bronx beer tshit is dope ....
thanks for watching! and yea reppin NYC!
Thanks for the nice comparison, it's good to see that this film can look good when processed the way it was designed. I took some nature photos on Cinestill 50D processed in C41 and I got even more highlight color cast and general overexposure than you got here. I thought it was really funky and decided not to use this film again.
yea the c41 dev affects the film for sure. changes the overall look a bit
Thanks for that, I actually like ECN2 in both videos, but mostly because the scans look better in my view. You could go one further and develop a similar C41 film (would that be Portra150 or ColorPlus or what?) in ECN2 to see what happens :) Thanks for your work, always appreciate it!
Ohh, it could be interesting to see the results
yea def considering trying this same thing on portra 400! everyones favorite film haha
yup - one day soon 😊
To add another layer to this it would be interesting to see some of the original non cinestill film developed both ways. Only because I wonder if ramjet removal process has changed any of the characteristics of the film at all or if there have been any modifications to make it more friendly for c-41 chemicals.
*Remjet, but yeah this would be in interesting
yup! gonna do portra 400 next 😊
yup will be interesting
Great to see these comparisons! Thanks for sharing!
thanks for watching 😊
Interesting how the C41 shot brings out some vignetting from the lens. Higher contrast I guess. Re exposure, Silbesalz recommend overexposing Vision 3 film by a stop for stills work.
yea over exposing could help. but in my tests i don't find that overexposure makes a difference when comparing between the two dev processes. but agreed, in each individual process, yes, over exposure gives you nicer shots
Really nice video. I'm always interested in these comparisons because I always fear to loose something for not using the proper processing technique. I'm curious as well to test in the future some custom formulas for ECN2, which seems a funny experiment.
there are trade offs in each direction since the film simply isn't designed for the usual c41 style process with dev, scan, and print. have fun!
A very well done and complete comparison. My take-away is to remember that Vision 3 film uses a different dye set than C-41 films and is tuned to print on its dedicated positive film to make movies for projection. While it is interesting to see how close (or not) the color and contrast of the RA-4 prints may be when the film is developed in ECN-2 or C-41, the conclusion is that neither process produces a finished RA-4 print which is anything close to the quality of color and contrast you can routinely get from C-41 film. Only the capacity to radically modify the film's characteristics in digital processing makes it acceptable for digital imaging. Conclusion: There is no pathway starting with Vision 3 (or Cinestill) film and ending with an RA-4 darkroom made print which is worth the expense, hassle and loss of quality. Otherwise, Vision 3 processed in ECN-2 and scanned can yield a very good looking positive image, less so with C-41 processing. Given the limited and fairly uneconomical sources of Vision 3 (or CS) film, and the comparable cost of the processing kits, I do not see any motivation to use Vision 3 film except as a novelty.
thanks for the feedback. i agree with you on the physical differences, but i do think that vision3 dev'd in c41 can produce nice subsequent prints. it may be technically imperfect by design, but visually there can be alot to appreciate of an image made that way. to each their own i guess haha 😁
Also, although I agree that there are inherent technical issues with printing, I don't see how else to get a decent wall size print other than an ultra fine grain film; such a film may indeed be Kodak Vision 3 500T, although I suppose Portra 400 might suffice if using 645 or 6x9.
The print comparison was the most interesting part for me ... super curious if there's a filmmaker who has something to say, too.
Same
I feel like some dodging on the darker areas might make it bit less muddy. I'm interested on trying it out on my own darkroom.
Challenging with a thin negative like that
yea same! the difference was pretty wild
😊
Thanks for the comparison. I wonder how it turns out when developed in C-41 with 1/2-1 stop of pull. I still have some 250D kicking around and might try that once I get to shoot it.
not sure!
Very interesting result. Thanks for a objective comparison :-)
Thanks
Hope, one day you can use the "real stuff" with the remjet layer. The latitude and detail in the HL is insane
i have! i have a few visions with raw vision 3. check them out
Thx for the video, I recently developed 250D using C41 process, and scanned using Pakon F135, the images are very tint green/cyan. And if I scan them as Pakon raw, the image is very flat, slightly warm colour but the contrast is super poor. Guess I have to use the ECN to process the film then.
hmm interesting. i do agree that colors shift, but i'm surprised you didn't get a little contrast boost
Hey man can we get a memoir video for Fuji's Pro 400H? :) The only Colour Negative stock that could rival Portra 400 may it RIP
haha i can do the official eulogy
I’m with you. I prefer the c41 printed version. Kodak vision 3 (ecn2), as you well know, requires some post processing. It provides much flexibility in the cinema industry.
yup! so many options! 😅
Great stuff!! Learning a lot from these comparisons.
Your printer border is awesome. Is it a DIY job? Maybe a video on making your own print borders?
na the print border is from the negative. the enlarger i bought has wider masks (some had filed them a bit)
im interested to see this same test on actual vision 3 instead of cinestill (with remjet removal naturally)
Check my other videos 😄
@@ribsy will do! Keep up the good work! You’re making some of the most useful analog content out there!
@@ribsy When running the Cinestill products in C-41, have you tried processing the developer at the ECN2 temperature (106F IIRC) rather than C-41's 102F?
This would process the film at the temp the film wants rather than what is recommended for a different type film. I would like to see this!
A topic for a future video could be this one. I know, it’s hard to do it. Making a photo with a (true) anamorphic lens and make a print. The magic of cinema transferred to paper.
yea i def want to mess with an anamorphic lens at some point. gonna be a challenge haha
Interesting results!
yea! thanks 😊
Maybe you can switch it around and do C41 film in ECN-2 and C41 chemistry just for the fun of it. Another video right there
Films like Portra are actually designed and built similarly to their Vision3 motion picture counter parts allowing them to work and look great in ECN-2
yea i suspect portra will hold up very nicely with the scans. but i am very curious about the printing aspect
yea there are many combos. i plan to keep playing with it
I know this is an older vid now, but what about lowering the developing time of the c41 version. It looks maybye a bit too dense? or would you loose shadow detail?
If you lower the development time the image may suffer
@@ribsy Got it 👍🏻
Well if it comes out so thin when developed with ecn2 why not expose the film longer initially and then use the ecn2 wouldn't that give you more to work with?
No clue. I don’t think the “thinness” would improve with exposure time. The exposures are correct, it’s more about how the chemistry develops the film
Did you use the same colour settings on the enlarger for both prints?
yup! i didn't change those at all
I think that developing in ecn2 may need some testing on exposure rating. To my eye the film developed in ecn2 May need more exposure as your print looks muddy.
Maybe test it’s over and under exposure limit.
Liking the experiments. Funny years ago I was trying to find the formula so I could develop at home as the big motion picture developers wouldn’t do single rolls. How time’s have changed lol
Hey. I didn’t show it but I bracketed shots. The trend is the same. For the ecn2 negatives, The prints are all very low in contrast. Darkroom Printing just isn’t their strong suit
@@ribsy oh. Well thinking of it the film is digitally scanned after development so kinda makes sense.
When you gave the frame more light when you bracketed did you notice a difference in the physical negative as well as the scan?
How long can I store the dissolved chemicals?
several months
@@ribsy thank you very much
Whoa, white balance
what do you mean
I think C-41 looks more like portra
interesting
Hate that he makes me question my life choices. Why can't it be easy haha
Hahah