ECN-2 vs C41 Development Comparison on Kodak Vision3 500T

[@pushingfilm]

Excellent test and a beautifully done video. Reflects my findings in similar past comparisons too

[@alexandermatragos]

🙏🏻

[@FloDsu]

Came here from your Reddit post. Really like the calm editing style, looking over your shoulder, but still good pacing! Hello from a fellow Londoner!

[@alexandermatragos]

Much appreciated 🙏🏻 Glad you liked it!

[@Sludge_Inc]

Great no nonsense video. This is exactly what I want from an informative video.

[@alexandermatragos]

Much appreciated! I recently uploaded a part 2, exploring the differences when printed in the darkroom, if you want to check it out. Many thanks!

[@GettingNegative]

Just got a bunch of short ends. I really appreciate you making this video. Looking forward to shooting them and making more videos with them.

[@alexandermatragos]

Much appreciated!! :)

[@Drcraigfreeman]

I have done a very similar test and have found ECN-2 and C41 processes to close to call enough difference to store two separate chemical products, I’ll continue to use C41 processing for all of my Vision 3 film and color print films

[@bryanswisshelm941]

It’s videos and content like this that keeps me on KZbin. I loved this video. Both for the invitation for collaboration among the film photography community and learning from others. While one could argue with the precision of the experimental design (you called out possible confounding favors) I think you were careful and I think you have a good “publishable” and meaningful result. ❤ your content!! I always learn something from your content. I’ll think twice when paying extra for the EC2N processing!

[@alexandermatragos]

More than grateful for your kind words! There is nothing wrong with either process, it’s just that shooting, scanning and post processing will play a far greater role at the final look of your images rather than the choice between ECN-2 or C41.

[@arturors30]

I made darkroom color printings. I tried developing 250D and 500T in C41. Both where shot -1 stop (at 500 and 800 ISO). The developing, normal, 3:15 minutes. Just looking at it I can see that is very constrasty compared with Gold 200 or ColorPlus. I noticed too that the shadows has a very little magenta tint but not very disgusting. It can be from the stop bath (acetic acid). Kodak recommends another acid, i think sulfuric because can be color changes if another is used, like acetic. Maybe in the future try the Bellini´s ECN2 Kit and try pringting them.

[@alexandermatragos]

I would be very interested in doing darkroom prints and see how the negatives behave there. Maybe at some point in the future.

[@GettingNegative]

I’d watch a video about that!

[@Grisel.lashes]

I have physical negative archives of Kodachrome from an estate sale. And I love the color on the Kodachrome, highly saturated and contrasty in a good way. From your photos, it very similar to the Kodachrome when it come to the blue color in the ECN 2. The blue of the Kodachrome is vivid and has magenta tint in the shadow of the blue, and your ecn2 photo show that character. I will order a ecn 2 kit to test now. Thanks

[@matheusmpedrosa]

Great video! I'm planning on shooting landscape photography on Vision3. I was searching for ECN2, but I think I'll give C41 a try.

[@alexandermatragos]

Thank you! I would definitely encourage a try and even better a comparison for yourself to see what suits your work better.

[@geireplekake820]

Thank you for testing and documentation, looking into this right now. I do think that c41-cross processed cinestill has a slight magenta/pink/yellow color cast, but its not always so visible. Color casts from other issues are a bigger problem for me (age fog and using tungsten balanced film without a filter, in particular).

[@elbert5208]

Now ECN2 is me film choice since c41 colour films are Hella expensive in my country. Kodak gold 200 is RM60 = USD$15

[@alexandermatragos]

It’s definitely a very good option. It’s a great film that is also inexpensive compared to anything else.

[@thiagocunhafoto]

This video was incredible. I'm starting to work with analog photography and I almost gave up because of the price of film and development. I live in Brazil and the cheapest colored film costs 30 dollars. Yes 30 dollars! Your video helped me discover that there are other options and not give up. Thanks.

[@eladtall]

I think that the main different is when you have harsh light outside and you want to take a picture of a very contrasy situation , i use mainly the vision 3 50-D and using the zone system , i usually put the shadows in zone 3 but the highlights are at zone 8 or even 8.5 and with ecn 2 i can pull very nice amound of data , defently more then with c-41 , its a 1 stop different wich can make the different , also to strech the file when its a bit flatter its easy

[@mozaic_channel]

Well this is really helpful! Great approach to the comparison process.

[@alexandermatragos]

Many thanks!!

[@flyingo]

This is great because I was hoping for exactly the results you’ve shown.. not a big enough difference to warrant the extra expense of ECN-2 processing (at a lab or at home). I’m not trying to achieve museum quality prints, so I’m fine with saving money!

[@alexandermatragos]

I would argue that you are fine with anything you want to achieve. If it was slide film and your intention was to project it or view it as is then sure, even slight colour differences might be problematic. But negative film needs to be converted or printed in a darkroom and there is no “absolute” way of converting the colours, it’s up to your interpretation.

[@stratocactus]

If anyone wants to develop ECN-2 films in C-41 at home, I highly recommend Bellini Pre-Bath (reference ECNP-PB). It works way better than baking soda to remove the remjet layer, and I barely had to scrub remaining remjet before the stabiliser bath. Also, people be careful when you scrub the remjet not to touch the emulsion side, or you'll transfer remjet in it and then it's there to stay. Here's my procedure : 1) hang the wet film after blix and rinse, and weight it 2) use a clean and wet microfiber cloth to scrub the backing side 3) soak the film back into stabiliser 4) hang it back to dry No need to ever touch the emulsion side, so no damage, and no remjet transfer :)

[@alexandermatragos]

Good points! I’m also looking for an alternative to the current technique I’m using. I’m trying Kodak‘s suggestion. So far with great results.

[@stratocactus]

@@alexandermatragos What do you mean by Kodak's suggestion ? You're talking about their published pre-bath recipe ? (with sodium hydroxyde and other nasty chemicals I can't remember) I think Bellini's pre-bath is based on Kodak's. Or it's just Borax. But for sure it's not just plain sodium bicarbonate, cause that's xhat I tried at 1st and it was not super efficient at removing remjet. Bellini's product is pretty good. Don't know if it's as good as Kodak's formula cause I haven't rued it.

[@alexandermatragos]

@@stratocactus Yes, that’s the one I was talking about. Borax, Sodium Sulfate and Sodium Hydroxide. It worked impressively well the first time I used it but I want to develop a few more rolls to see if it depletes at all. I think you are supposed to do over 20 rolls with one solution. I’ll see how it goes and if I have time I might do a video if there is anyone interested.

[@wildechap]

Maybe but baking soda work really well and i guess is way cheaper than that

[@alexandermatragos]

@@wildechap It definitely is a bonus that you can source it easier, but I can't say it works better from what I've seen so far. It did require quite a lot of scrubbing for me compared to kodak's recipe. As for cheaper, not really. The chemicals are pretty cheap and if it's true that you can do 20 rolls with every batch then they are cheaper than baking soda. I still need to see these things in practise though, I haven't processed that many rolls yet with this solution, but it looks very promising so far.

[@jamesskehan5400]

Really great test, this was a huge help for me!

[@alexandermatragos]

Thank you! Glad you found it useful!

[@jamesskehan5400]

I'm about to bulk load 500T myself, what iso did you rate the film at?

[@alexandermatragos]

@@jamesskehan5400 I’m usually metering at 400, just as a small safety net. Have fun with it!

[@devroombagchus7460]

Excellent video! Thank you. Of course, you can do all sorts of tests under lab conditions. But then, the results should be viewed only under lab conditions. Not printed or on a display at home.

[@RockWILK]

I found two rolls of Signature Color film from my father’s old camera, (he passed away in 1988) and I can’t find anybody who can develop the film. It’s ECN2. Do you know anywhere or anyone near NYC or in the US in general who can do it?

[@alexandermatragos]

I remember seeing MidwestFilmCo posting lots of ECN-2 stuff on Instagram, so I thing they are processing cine films. But have a look on Reddit as well, many people are interested so there should be a list or something with labs developing ECN-2. Hope you get your film developed and manage to salvage some images.

[@RockWILK]

@@alexandermatragos Ah, I really appreciate that. Thank you. ;)

[@strawberrycrxme]

5:27 What camera did you use for this? And where did you get the 500T film from?

[@alexandermatragos]

I used the Canon EOS 600 and the Canon EOS 50E for all the comparison shots that you see. As for the film, I purchased it from frame24.co.uk

[@strawberrycrxme]

@@alexandermatragosAh okay sweet, do you remember the lens?

[@alexandermatragos]

@@strawberrycrxme Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZE

[@grainificent]

great test, although i am wondering: if the same lens was used for both than why is the C41 version always sharper?

[@alexandermatragos]

Thanks, as for the sharpness I can’t say I noticed one being sharper than the other. Though I can have a look at my files and see if I can spot anything. Are you referring to a particular image or do all the c41s appear sharper to you?

[@grainificent]

@@alexandermatragos at 07:24 for example when you zoomed in, the left image (if i understood well was C41) looks a bit sharper. i turned up video quality to max to double check and see the left one's sharper during close ups.

[@alexandermatragos]

@@grainificentThat one was a long exposure so there is always the potential of a slight movement from wind etc. I’m currently working on a part 2 comparison where I did darkroom prints to see if I can find the differences there. While printing I didn’t run in any sharpness issues.

[@grainificent]

@@alexandermatragos ok :)

[@willy0297]

It's interesting to see that the actual background from the still life photo is actually dark grey 6:16 rather than blue-cyan 6:33. Is it the characteristic of the negative or because of negative lab pro conversion that the neutrals always have tint on it?

[@alexandermatragos]

The background is actually dark blue with lighter blue undertones. It’s an interesting observation and one to remind us that no camera represents reality, especially in raw format. The analog conversion looks more than it really is while digital looks like a lifeless grey. Both of these would need a lot of color correcting.

[@HDpackage]

Looking forward to your ra4 comparison. Nobody has explicitly done that on KZbin yet although Ribsy got close by at least trying both processes but no A/B comparisons.

[@alexandermatragos]

I recently started dipping my toes in ra4 printing. I might have a quick go next time on a few of these frames. If I do I will definitely update the blog post.

[@Floppyrom]

Very interesting findings. I've noticed some spots on the film you processed at home with C41. Is this because of the imperfect Ramjet removal?

[@alexandermatragos]

Thank you! Yes that’s definitely it. Since then I have tried a different method that has worked much better for me in terms of removing remjet. Though I haven’t shot a lot of 500T the last two months.

[@kaphotography4898]

Did you remove the remjet after shooting the film, and before scanning it?

[@alexandermatragos]

Yes I did. Wether you develop in C41 or ECN-2 chemistry, the first step is to remove the remjet layer. Unless you are shooting an already remjet removed version of the film like the ones sold by cinestill.

[@kaphotography4898]

Thank you!

[@JeanSuki]

were you using a 85b filter to shoot the 500T?

[@alexandermatragos]

No I did not use a filter.

[@wv_]

The issue with scanning ECN2 on a DSLR is you are using a narrower band of dynamic range of the digital sensor. So once you set a white point and black point you are dealing with a smaller range of data leading to more noise

[@alexandermatragos]

I assume you are comparing it to scanning it using the scanners they use in motion picture films like the Blackmagic Cintel. I have shot some Vision3 through Silbersalz so I have seen how flat the Cintel scans the film, though I have never done a side by side comparison with a dslr.

[@mvonwalter6927]

I love these types of gut-check videos. Thanks!

[@ArmandoStreets]

Great video Alexander. I'm about to develop my first cinema film cross processed with C41. I hope I get results as good as yours. In my humble opinion, having to develop a cinema film only with ECN2 outweighs the advantages of shooting this more affordable type of colour filmstock, so if we can get very similar results with C41 then that's the way it can become sustainable. Current turnaround times for ECN2 processing in a lab in the UK are currently 2 weeks 😅 What ratio of baking soda to water did you use for the remjet removal? Greetings from a fellow KZbin channel creator!!!

[@alexandermatragos]

Thank you!! Developing in C41 is definitely a great option and there is no degradation of the quality of this film stock. And it's not just the low cost of it (although a big factor, especially with the prices these days) but I think in general it's a beautiful film. Great colours, versatile as it's 500 ISO and plenty of latitude. I'm using about 40g of bicarbonate soda per 1L of water (at a warm temperature). Although I am currently trying different methods as well that could potentially be more efficient.

[@ArmandoStreets]

@@alexandermatragos Hi again Alexander. Cool... Looking forward to see the results you get using other methods too. Thanks on the recipe for the remjet removal 😉

[@simonecilli597]

can you give the recipe for the baking soda bath?

[@alexandermatragos]

Hey there, I’m using 40g of bicarbonate soda per 1L of water. Have a look at Hashem’s video on removing the remjet layer, I’m essentially using his method. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHKbgKxqrdp8hdk

[@lestyers]

Very new to photography is the same process to develop? Or is something really special to develop the ecn-2?

[@alexandermatragos]

Cinema films are manufactured based on the needs they have in the movie industry. Few quick examples: a film that runs through a movie camera, will move at a speed of 24fps or higher hence the need for a protective layer against scratches, static electricity and halations. Another example would be that these films are meant to be contact printed on the projection film (print film) and that requires the films to have lower contrast than the ones we use for photography. These are just two examples to illustrate the differences between a movie film and a stills film. And since the movie films are created with these different specifications they also have their own developing process, ECN-2. Now photographers like to fool around and play with different processes and have found (as you saw on my example) that it’s perfectly feasible to cross process a ECN-2 film on C41 chemistry (with a few extra steps) and end up with nearly identical results, especially since we are using a digital workflow.

[@luciengraetz]

Great video mate 🤌

[@alexandermatragos]

Thank you buddy 🙏🏻

[@davidkarapetian6061]

which lab did you go to for the ecn-2 processing ?

[@alexandermatragos]

I sent the roll to SilverPan film lab here in the UK.

[@MrAndrewClaycomb]

I realize that they don’t all do this, but the labs scanning on motion picture scanners really are delivering a vastly different product.

[@alexandermatragos]

I have to agree that the scanning they do with motion picture scanners is very good. If you are referring to the Blackmagic one they use at Silbersalz, I would say it delivers beautiful results which are very flat and give you plenty of room to color correct and grade in post. What I have noticed though is that the flatness of the scans can be achieved with other scanners as well. Drum scanning and DSLR scanning (digitising) can both delivery incredibly flat results. I suspect you can get similar results in terms of flatness from Noritsu and Frontier scanners but I haven’t tried myself. This is actually another comparison I’m interested in doing, Drum vs DSLR vs Frontier etc. (not so much about the resolution that each one gives you but more about the colours, tonality and how much room they give you to play in post). First for my own interest and then for anyone else that finds this comparison worthwhile.

[@willy0297]

By the way have you tried applying print film emulation LUT kodak 2383 D60/D65 on davinci resolve to the raw scan file? If I remember correctly, vision3 negative, after scanned, is supposed to be applied with the PFE LUT to "simulate" the look of a print. Just a thought.

[@alexandermatragos]

That is something I haven’t tried but I am interested to have a go at it. I’ll have a look when I have some free time. Thanks for the info!

[@AL3X2580]

I didn’t know you could develop vision 3 in C41? I thought it would ruin the c41 chemicals?

[@alexandermatragos]

You can if you remove the remjet layer first. The remjet layer has to be removed wether you process in ECN-2 or C41. The difference is that if you send it to a lab that processes only C41 and you don’t tell them anything you are risking ruining their equipment. If you send it to a lab that processes ECN-2 they will remove the remjet first as this is standard procedure of ECN-2 development. So you can send these films to labs that process ECN-2 or do it yourself at home in either process.

[@heitormeirelles1607]

I think that in all the comparisons made the one on the left (I think it's the ECN-2) is more greenish and the one on the right (I think the C-41) is more magenta

[@alexandermatragos]

I will agree, If you look very closely there is a slight tint. Easily correctable though. I’m currently working on the same comparison but with darkroom printing instead of scanning. Things are looking much different in this one. I will be probably posting a video by the end of this month.

[@thenexthobby]

I believe context and final output matters. Which begs the question, what if the intended output is an analog print … i.e. an image that was never scanned? Is C41 a convenience for most of us who never scan and print digitally? Or does it still hold up for an entire analog chain?

[@alexandermatragos]

Unfortunately due to lack of space (a common problem for many people) most of us don’t print our negatives in a darkroom. So I don’t have any experience with that. What I can say though is that with the exception of slide film that can be projected or viewed as it is, all negative films cannot be considered as final images. The process ends with the print or the scan. And both of these involve color correcting and then color grading of the image. I don’t know of any absolute way of converting a negative, and then again if there was any I would still argue that the final image is yet to be formed as we don’t know the photogrspher’s vision and intent. So, as long as both ECN-2 and C41 seem to give nice results on these films, I don’t see a reason to disregard one or the other. What I find untrue is the extreme comments saying that C41 gives a very contrasty image that has weird colours etc. Something that I encountered often before doing this test.

[@ericdomazlicky6413]

The real test would be printing them with RA-4 prints I bet.

[@alexandermatragos]

I’ve recently started dipping my toes in RA4 printing. I would be interested in making a couple of prints at some point, just for the sake of it. If I do then I might update the blog post.

[@RonEMarks]

Grain appears to be the biggest difference

[@alexandermatragos]

Haven’t noticed a grain difference so far. What’s your experience?

[@RonEMarks]

@@alexandermatragos 7:41 in your video. The sky has a noticeable difference in grain. I home develop my film and I stick with c-41 simply for the cost and easier temperature management during developing.

[@alexandermatragos]

@@RonEMarks it’s kinda hard to tell on this one. One of the shots could have been slightly underexposed even though I used the same settings. Light was fading fast in this scenario. Keep in mind I had to swap lenses and change the camera on the tripod. Not a long procedure but still could have some effect.

[@mikafoxx2717]

That Photoshop inversion was done all wrong.. you need to divide the base layer to remove the base and then adjust RGB points. That's all you need.

[@alexandermatragos]

Photoshop and the word “wrong” don’t really go well in the same sentence. You can reach your goal in a million different ways. That being said you might want to elaborate on the technique you are referring as I’m always interested in learning different ways of doing things.

[@seencere7284]

"slight differences in light and color" - this is exact difference between ecn2 and c41 it is can be seen and measured does it matter for "everyday photos"? absolutely not

[@alexandermatragos]

I was expecting something more based on what I kept hearing or reading about it. A negative is not an image by itself until it gets printed or scanned and color corrected in both cases. So at the end of the day these differences are not really significant.