Rolf-Werner
"The other day" on the neighbouring forum, someone mentioned that Cinestill films are actually cross-processed using C41. As the colour stabilisers aren’t an exact match, I should expect the films to develop a colour cast more quickly.
€
So far, I’ve only done the exposure and development of an 800 film myself, and I was fascinated by the film. That’s why I’ve now bought a few more on the fineartforum, and there’s another one waiting to be used.
€
What do the experts here think about this? Perhaps Mirko has heard something? The general consensus was something like, “that’s for people who just scan and then throw them away”. But I’m a “full analogue” guy, so the negatives should last a bit... ;)
€
Thanks for all the tips!
€
Rolf
€
MirkoBoeddecker
So what is the basis for this ‘myth’?
Cinestill is not developed using the ECN process. Both are negative processes. ECN produces a softer result, primarily because the film is intended to be printed later.
Cinema film processed using ECN is therefore not suitable for analogue prints in your own colour lab; with Cinestill and C-41, you get negatives that are easier to print.
Given the small number of active colour coupler molecules, it also seems rather unlikely that a different coupler counterpart is actually used in ECN than in the C-41 process.
A comparison of the formulations would provide more precise details. Does anyone have an ECN formulation to hand?
Isn’t there CD4 in there as well?
€
We’ve had reference samples here since 2010. So far, no complaints. Longer-term test results are not yet available.
So there’s certainly no question of ‘scan and bin’.
Where is this other thread? There’s been a lot of rumours circulating recently. Someone’s been bored again.
€
Best regards,
€
Mirko
Sandro
ECN-2 contains CD3, just like E6. I sometimes develop film using my own homemade ECN-2 chemistry.
Sandro
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Rolf-Werner
Hello,
It’s taken a while because I haven’t been able to check in over the last few days. But I’ve now found the old thread again; you can read here (from about halfway through, though the beginning is interesting too) what’s been on my mind since then:
https://aphog.de/forum/index.php/Thread/43358-Funktionsweise-E6-Stabilisierbad/?postID=397337#post397337
By the way, I’m not going to let this stop me from continuing to take photos on film. I also find it far too exciting for analogue printing, if only because of the colour balance. With a Portra 800 or similar, you’d have to laboriously filter that out first.
Hope the link is readable for you.
Best regards,
Rolf
Rolf-Werner
Do you have any thoughts on this, or is the link not working?
€
Best regards,
Rolf
Photux
I suspect that very few of those present know enough about colour processes to be able to judge whether the use of different colour couplers has a negative effect on stability.
€
At any rate, it is now clear to me why Kodak does not launch a product like Cinestill itself – after all, it would surely be easier not to apply the Remjet coating during production in the first place than to remove it laboriously afterwards. But on the one hand, without it, the antihalation protection is inadequate, as far as I understand, and on the other hand, C-41 is simply not the right process. Using a different type of antihalation – or none at all – would still be feasible or tolerable, but to optimally adapt the film to the C-41 process, the development and casting of a completely new emulsion would be necessary, which is certainly not worth it – especially as this would effectively mean creating competition for oneself.
€
Certainly, the development of Cinestill in C-41 works and the results are sometimes impressive, but a small company like Cinestill can simply afford to bring such a product to market much more easily than one of the global market leaders in the film sector. I also can’t help but wonder whether the chemistry might be affected by the development process not being entirely suitable for the film type – after all, there are occasional rumours of this sort when it comes to E-6 in C-41 or vice versa.
€
But back to stability: the developed material doesn’t seem to be completely unstable, and as far as long-term storage is concerned, it’s worth bearing in mind that even correctly developed colour film isn’t necessarily stable over the long term, especially cheaper consumer films. This aspect seemed to me to have been somewhat overlooked so far. So perhaps it’s best not to worry too much about it but simply to enjoy taking photographs.
€
Personally, I haven’t tested the Cinestill films yet, but I’m grateful for any meaningful addition to the analogue market. As for colour films below ISO 100, Velvia is pretty much the only option left, and even though ISO 100 films have very fine grain, I still appreciate being able to shoot in bright sunlight with a wide aperture – in this case, less is more. And unfortunately, apart from Cinestill, there are no other films for artificial lighting left, much to my regret (I hope my stock of Ektachrome 64T will last a while longer...).
Wolfgg
Raffay once said that the colour developing agents can be interchanged, provided the additives are adjusted accordingly. And 4.4 g of CD3 would correspond to 3 g of CD4 or 2.4 g of CD1.
Replacing CD3 with CD4 does not necessarily mean that the shelf life will be compromised.
The difference between CD3 and CD4 lies in the residue attached to the nitrogen atom on the right-hand side of the formula:
CD3: C2H4NHSO2CH3
CD4: C2H4OH
Tetenal’s Neofin-Color is also worth mentioning. It was capable of developing Kodak and Agfa (old process) colour negative films in a single bath, even though they were constructed completely differently (e.g. Agfa CN17, CNS20 and Kodak Ektacolor-S, Vericolor II, Kodacolor II, etc.). And in my archive, I am not aware of any reduced stability of the colorants compared to the original chemicals.
To be on the safe side, use a stabilizer containing formalin; I find the fear of it childish. Forty years ago, I often had the stinging sensation of formalin in my nose for hours on end, and I’ve never been seriously ill to this day. Perhaps that’s precisely why :)
Earlier, whilst cycling, I had a freshly started cold petrol engine in front of me; I found that far more worrying than formalin.
Regards, Wolfgang
Wolfgg
One more thing:
In 1995, I came across a Neofin-Color formula and immediately mixed it up using raw chemicals.
It was based on CD1 rather than CD4, so I was naturally sceptical. But the result didn’t disappoint; the colours were all spot on. The masks were too.
The test negatives from back then still exist and are now almost 23 years old. This deviation from C41 has not yet affected the longevity of the colours; all three colour layers are still intact, just as they were in films developed at the same time using the standard C41 process. Here, for your inspection, is a scan I’ve just made of an Agfa Ultra, which was ‘developed’ back then using the CD1 Neofin process:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
So the film hasn’t held the wrong CD against it to this day.
Regards, Wolfgang
Rolf-Werner
Right then, thanks a lot for your thoughts! So I was on the right track after all (that’s all it was). But can you still get formalin or a stabilising bath containing formalin these days?
€
Wolfgang, where can you get the raw chemicals to mix something like that yourself? I’m a bit of a novice in this area, I’m just curious. And why do people do that? To always have a fresh batch? Or just for the fun of it? :)
€
Regards
Rolf
Wolfgg
Hello Rolf-Werner,
Why use raw chemicals? Firstly, because raw chemicals last indefinitely. Secondly, because you always have the same chemicals, so you won’t be caught out by changes made by the manufacturer. This can cause a lot of unnecessary work, particularly for users of the zone system. Furthermore, you can tweak the formulas. Or mix things that are no longer available to buy. For example, the Pota developer, which gives documentary films a lovely soft look. Or the pyro solutions (e.g. Pyrocat-HD for extreme bench development). Some things even become really cheap if you use washing soda from the supermarket (or chemist’s) as the alkali.
It’s simply a universal kit: from the simplest black-and-white developer to the complicated E6 process, anything is possible, and in whatever quantity you need (often just small amounts at the moment). A vast field for experimentation. But you do need a certain amount of idealism. Compared to ready-made chemicals, it takes time, so it’s not for those who are chronically short of time. And you have to work with great precision (no incorrect weighing, no mix-ups). A balance with 0.01g resolution and a motorised mixer are required.
For reference: have a look on Mr Moersch’s website for raw chemicals.
Regards, Wolfgang
Rolf-Werner
Yes, Wolfgang, that sounds sensible, but probably not for me.
€
Thanks anyway for your explanation! I’ll have a look at Moersch...
€
Best regards,
Rolf
biesifoto
...
At any rate, it’s now clear to me why Kodak doesn’t launch a product like Cinestill itself – after all, it would surely be easier not to apply the Remjet coating in the first place than to go to the trouble of removing it afterwards. But on the one hand, as far as I understand, the antihalation protection is inadequate without it; on the other hand, C-41 isn’t really the right process. Using a different antihalation coating, or none at all, would still be feasible or tolerable; however, to optimally adapt the film for the C-41 process, it would be necessary to develop and cast a completely new emulsion, which would certainly not be worth the effort – especially as this would effectively mean competing against oneself.
...
This film has been around for ages – it’s called Portra 160 and Portra 400...
When Kodak launched the latest generation of Portra, they specifically emphasised that it was based technologically on their latest developments for cinema film – namely the Vision 3 series.
Best wishes and happy holidays,
Thomas
Rolf-Werner
That may be true – but they’re daylight films, not artificial light. And I think that’s an important factor, because they react quite differently when it comes to colour.
?
Besides, I like the halos :)
?
I used a 35 mm Cinestill 800 at the Christmas market and was thrilled with it again. You can’t achieve that very special look with a Portra 800.
?
Best regards,
Rolf
