Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    TPF Noob!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Garden of Eden (AKA Scotland)
    Posts
    2
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times

    Motion Picture film for Stills ?

    I'm sure someone will have been down this path before me so stop me before I go too far.
    I've just run a few feet of film through my F2 to satisfy my own curiosity about using film intended for Motion picture cameras in a Still camera body.
    I realise that the while the perf. pitch is the same, there are differences in the form of the perf. No problems with transport or noise (cant hear a thing over that MD2 !) and no marks on the picture area / dust on the sproks.
    So far so good.......

    Does anyone have experience with C41 'v' ECN.II processing ?

    Scott



  2. #2
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Posts
    3,296
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    464 times
    I'm a bit late, but as nobody else has answered, here goes:

    As you have discovered, the rounded 'B&H' perforations are not usually a problem.

    C-41 will produce acceptable results, but you need to get the rem-jet backing off the film. Do not send the film to a commercial lab - if the rem-jet (very fine carbon particles) comes off in their chemistry they will have to dump it, and other people's film may be spoiled. If you develop the film yourself, you can wipe the rem-jet off after processing, using a damp piece of cotton wool.

    If you want to mix your own developer to mimic ECN-2 I can give you a formula that has components that are easier to obtain than the real ECN-2 ones.

    Dale Labs in Hollywood, Florida will develop and print ECN-2 film that has been loaded into cassettes. So will most motion picture labs, but they will often charge a lot if you are not getting a few thousand feet of film developed as well.

    You can get short ends of colour negative movie film for around 15 cents a foot - ie 75 cents for 36 exposures. Both daylight and tungsten balanced film is available, in a variety of speeds. I particularly like Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T.

    Best,
    Helen

  3. #3
    multi format master in a film geek package
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,479
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    It seems to me that Mysteryscribe has been doing this type of stuff, too. Maybe he'll see this thread.

  4. #4
    TPF Noob!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Garden of Eden (AKA Scotland)
    Posts
    2
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    Thanks for the response Helen, I'd be very interested in that ECNII formula if you would be so kind. Just returned from a job so I'll load up a couple of rolls of Fuji and a Couple of Kodak and see what happens in a c41 tank. From memory a Borax solution and water jets are used to remove the A-H backing commercially however I've been led to believe that Fuji use a different anti-halation technique, not requiring the same removal process.....we'll see. (P.S. how much 500T do you want ? )

    Neal i had a look for Mysteryscribes discussion but could not find the relevent one. Can you help with the thread?

    Thanks both
    Scott

  5. #5
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Posts
    3,296
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    464 times
    Scott,

    Here is the original Kodak PB-1 pre-bath for jet backing removal:

    Borax (Na2B4O7.10H2O) 20 g
    Sodium sulphate, dessicated 100 g
    Sodium metaborate 6.5 g
    Water to one litre.

    or

    Borax (Na2B4O7.5H2O) 15 g
    Sodium sulphate, dessicated 100 g
    Sodium metaborate 10 g
    Water to one litre.

    Immerse for 10 seconds, then remove jet backing, then rinse.

    Alternative:
    Process, and after final washing stage swab the back of the film (only) with moist cotton wool. Don't worry if some of the jet remains on the back. Don't let the jet get on the emulsion side.

    After drying swab the remaining jet with a pad of cotton wool moistened with

    Water (deionized, demineralized or distilled) 60 mL
    Methyl alcohol 20 mL
    Ammonia 10% 15 mL
    Water to 100 mL

    These formulae by George Ashton were originally published in Darkroom Techniques in 1983:

    Colour developer Part A
    Water at 70-80 F 800 mL
    Calgon 2 g
    Sodium sulphite (anhydrous) 8 g
    Sodium bromide (anh) 4.8 g
    Sodium carbonate (anh) 100 g
    Sodium bicarbonate 10 g
    Water to 1000 mL

    Part B
    Water at 70-80 F 80 mL
    Potassium metabisulphite 2 g
    CD-3 10 g
    Water to 100 mL

    Mix one volume of A with three volumes of water, then add 10 mL of B per litre of the A+water mix. For example, one litre of developer would be made with 240 mL part A, 720 mL water and 40 mL part B. Use one-shot.

    Stop bath
    Acetic acid, glacial 15 mL
    Water to 1000 mL

    Bleach
    Water at 70-80 F 900 mL
    Potassium ferricyanide 35 g
    Sodium bromide 20 g
    Water to 1000 mL

    Fixer
    Water at 70-80 F 700 mL
    Sodium thiosulphate 150 g
    Sodium sulphite (anhydrous) 20 g
    Potassium metabisulphate 20 g
    Water to 1000 mL

    Stabilizer
    Water at 70-80 F 800 mL
    Formaldehyde (35% - 40%) 5 mL
    Wetting agent (10%) 10 mL
    water to 1000 mL

    Colour dev 3 min @ 106 F
    Stop 1 min @ 80-100 F
    Wash 2 min @ 80-100 F
    Bleach 3 min @ 1002 F
    Wash 2 min @ 80-100 F
    Fix 3 min @ 1002 F
    Wash 4 min @ 80-100 F
    Stabilizer 1 min @ 80-100 F

    Agitate continuously for the first 15 seconds, then by inverting the tank for five seconds every half minute.

    2-minute washes can be replaced by four changes of water, and the 4-minute wash can be replaced by eight changes of water.

    As far as I know Fuji colour negative MP camera stock also has resin-based jet backing, and it is designed for ECN-2 processing.

    How much Expression 500T would I like? About 40,000 ft would be enough for now.

    Best,
    Helen

  6. #6
    TPF Noob!
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio - United States of America
    Posts
    4
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    Or send to us. Shameless plug, but what a hassle mixing from scratch!


    Unless it's an extreme variation, standard push, pull, bleach bypass yield very diverse results, even if you're just doing optical manipulation. You can get looks that are all ove rthe place. Add in the possibility of swapping in C-41, E6, RA-4 developers, have I got you hooked yet?

    If you value your time at minimum wage or better, you come out win win win using Double Exposure Ltd.'s Lab :-D


    I just had to do a batch of 100 feet spliced together by hand on the little lady's ironing board. Our splicer is broken. Anyway, I think I killed SIX HOURS down there, just splicing. One roll at a time spiral reel fine, but adjusting temperatures with fish tank heaters? No thanks. Machine machine win win win every time. With a skilled operator (myself and my coworkers) you can get top-notch professional scratchles dustless stapleles ECN-2 processing for prices only slightly higher than C-41.

    If you "roll your won" you come out way ahead saving money using ECN-2 over C-41.


    Mostly though we just get Cinematographers for stock tests. Since we run right on the line in control, you can get almost exactly (within 1/6 F/stop or so) what you
    'll get form say Technicolor Deluxe to look at from your properly-calibrated still 35mm SLR

  7. #7
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,723
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    7890 times
    Good Lord, why even bother? Don't you also end up with a film that's quite soft and prone to scratching with "abuse" like sliding it in and out of Neg-a-File pages? lol.

    But seriously, isn't this motion picture film considered to be somewhat delicate compared with film stocks that were expected to be handled by hand multiple times in the developing/printing out/cutting/sleeving phases?
    "It's about time people started taking photography seriously, and treating it as a hobby." Elliott Erwitt

    My most recent photos posted to TPF http://www.pbase.com/derrel/recent_tpf_uploads

  8. #8
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Posts
    3,296
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    464 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Derrel View Post
    Good Lord, why even bother? Don't you also end up with a film that's quite soft and prone to scratching with "abuse" like sliding it in and out of Neg-a-File pages? lol.

    But seriously, isn't this motion picture film considered to be somewhat delicate compared with film stocks that were expected to be handled by hand multiple times in the developing/printing out/cutting/sleeving phases?
    No, it's not a problem.

    Best,
    Helen

  9. #9
    Been spending a lot of time on here!
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indian Territory
    Posts
    146
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    1 times
    Do I remember that the motion picture films were tungsten light balanced? Seems to me that some I used years ago were. That is not really a problem, but might be more difficult to scan at home properly?

  10. #10
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Posts
    3,296
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    464 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Pgeobc View Post
    Do I remember that the motion picture films were tungsten light balanced? Seems to me that some I used years ago were. That is not really a problem, but might be more difficult to scan at home properly?
    There are both daylight and tungsten balanced motion picture negative films (see post #2 above). Scanning isn't a problem with either type.

    Best,
    Helen
    Last edited by Helen B; 04-20-2011 at 04:01 PM.

  11. #11
    TPF Noob!
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio - United States of America
    Posts
    4
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    Hey Helen: Sorry to catch your response 8 mos. later (10 years ago or 10 sec., it is all the same to the WWW). I remember reading quite a few posts where you had sung the praises of Vision Expression 5229 (or something like that). Now that it is discontinued, what are you shooting these days? Is Fuji still making a 400T equivalent, or have you had to give in to the newer emulsions?

    I very much enjoyed your opinion of the stock, and was disheartened after ordering a can to find it had been axed, thanks no doubt to the proliferating digital intermediate.


    @Derrel: ECN-2 prints the same, shoots the same, feels the same and smells the same*, really save for the rem-jet backing and the cat-eye sprocket holes if you look really close. Think about the demands of a piece of movie film that is to be copied 2,000 times versus a negative that is printed once, without a machine running 90 ft./sec. (or more).

    I would say that all of the past troubles with fading that were experienced in filmmaking were just as bad or worse with C-41/C-22. The reason the issues weren't noticed. Compare your average still photographer to say Stanley Kubrick or Martin Scorcese or Spielburg.. ANd that's no offense to stills shooters, I'm one myself.

    A still negative heads for a shoebox or a dumpster after one 8x10" print. How many have you gone to after 40 years with an order for another 1,000?


    *one acquires a heightened sense of smell, and an ability to innately sense and avoid banging one's head against the wall working in the dark more than an hour a day.

  12. #12
    No longer a newbie, moving up!
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Western South Dakota
    Posts
    58
    My Gallery
    (5)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    11 times
    I use exclusively 35mm movie stock for my stills. Lots of Kodak color and Super XX and Fuji. If you are developing your own film on reels, the remjet issue is all blown up out of proportion. Here in South Dakota where my water is pumped from just shy of 3000 feet down, we have very alkaline water. Mine measures a 9pH, but low mineral content. Using one-shot developing, I do a warm presoak for 1 minute followed by 3 quick rinses. All the black jemjet comes right out in the first 2 and clear on the next 2.

    Process in C-41 developer for 3 minutes at --85-- degrees for normal negs, --98-- degrees for high contrast and for soft muted color develop in RA4 for 3 minutes at --95-- degrees. This film has an extreemly wide exposure latitude. I can shoot 250D at EI from 12 to 16,000 on the same roll and get good printable results. Snow scenes are beautiful using the RA4 process, Fall colors are really punchy with C41.

 

 

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Wanted 35mm Motion Picture equipment
    By photo.in.chicago in forum Buy and Sell
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-13-2010, 03:22 AM
  2. Shooting stills while a film crew is filming
    By lhp in forum Commercial/Product photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-27-2010, 05:21 PM
  3. Scanning motion picture film
    By darter in forum Film Discussion and Q & A
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 12:47 AM
  4. film stills photography
    By letsbefriends in forum Beyond the Basics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 03:30 PM
  5. Phillipe Halsman (motion picture making of)
    By santino in forum Photojournalism & Sports Gallery
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-16-2006, 12:31 AM

Search tags for this page

ecn-2 lab
,

motion picture film for photography

,

motion picture film for stills

,
motion picture film still photography
,
motion picture films for still camera
,
photography with motion picture film
,
remjet removal
,
shooting motion picture film as stills
,
using motion picture film in still camera
,

using motion picture film still photography

Click on a term to search for related topics.