In the past several years, as film prices rise and film choices diminish, it’s become quite common to tap into 35mm film stocks that are ordinarily sold for motion picture use, and adapt them for still photography. Nudging us all down that path are dozens of companies (and even individuals) who are buying the motion picture stocks in bulk, cutting them down, loading them into 135 roll film cassettes, and selling them at retail, or via online marketplaces. While Eastman 5222, also known as Kodak Double-X, is a common black-and-white motion picture film that’s long been packaged and used for still photography, the practice is increasingly popular in the past few years for color films, namely Kodak’s Vision3 stocks. These films, however, have some unique attributes that make them unsuitable for most lab development, and challenging for home processing as well. Among them is the fact that technically speaking, they’re designed for the ECN-2 process (and chemicals), not the more common C-41 process of developing standard color negative films for still photography. In this article, we dive into the differences, and what you need to know to get great results from these films.
The Back Story
The genesis of this article was the late 2020 release of a home ECN-2 film processing kit by QWD — Quiet We’re Dreaming — a Philadelphia-based company ostensibly founded by filmmakers. To the best of my knowledge, it was the very first time that an ECN-2 chemical kit was sold for home processing use. QWD claimed that there is a difference in the chemistry itself between ECN-2 and C-41 (which is correct, they are not the same; see the information at the end of this article for more information), and they further claimed that the color rendering and overall sensitometric performance of Vision3 motion picture stocks depended on the use of the correct ECN-2 chemicals — and not C-41 chemicals — since the dye couplers used in the film depend on the right chemicals to perform as designed. It was this part of the equation that I wanted to test; was the performance different? If so, how — and by how much?
It was originally my hope to do my testing and write this article within a few months of the release of the QWD ECN-2 kit. Unfortunately, the pandemic, and my photo-taking habits, both conspired to make it impossible to justify mixing both the QWD ECN-2 kit, and a standard C-41 kit, at the same time, until now — about three years later.
In the meantime, it appears as I write this (Summer 2023) that QWD has thrown in the towel. Their website is no longer online, their social channels haven’t been updated since 2021, and slowly but surely, retail stocks of the ECN-2 chemicals and the company’s factory-loaded films are diminishing.
In any case, I think the article is still relevant, since others are now selling ECN-2 chemistry (or what is ostensibly ECN-2 chemistry). So let’s begin with some basic level-setting.
What is ECN-2?
For the uninitiated, ECN-2 (or more accurately the “ECN-2 process”) is a standard set of darkroom chemicals and procedural steps for processing certain types of color negative films intended for motion picture use, most notably Kodak’s popular Vision3 line of films. (Some now-discontinued stocks from Fujifilm also used ECN-2.) If you want a deep dive on the process, the Kodak publication titled Processing Kodak Motion Picture Films, Module 7, Process ECN-2 Specifications has the full scoop. (At the time of this article, that document is available online as a PDF here.)
Color negative films traditionally used for still photography — including Kodak Ektar, Kodak Portra, Kodak ColorPlus, Lomography Color Negative, Fujifilm Fujicolor, and dozens of others — all use a process called C-41. This is the process that’s been used for decades now, by film labs around the world, for still photographers using color film.
All of this matters for two reasons:
- Vision3 Film is Being Converted for Still Photography Use
As I already mentioned, several companies, including the aforementioned QWD, Film Photography Project (FPP), Photo Warehouse (Ultrafine Online), Flic Film, Amber, and countless others currently sell Kodak Vision3 film stocks that have been purchased in bulk, then cut and loaded into 135 film cassettes for use in still cameras. - Vision3 Has a Remjet Layer
Vision3 films are coated with a special layer of carbon-based material called a remjet. I’ll explain what that is and why it matters below, but the bottom line is that the remjet layer has to be removed during processing of the film, and that removal is an integral step of the ECN-2 process. Furthermore, these films cannot simply be sent to a traditional film lab; their equipment isn’t designed for it, and the remjet can foul their processing chemicals and equipment.
Vision3 films are appealing for a few reasons. First, they are exceptionally fine grained — they’re designed for multi-generational copying, so their grain qualities are excellent, because they have to be. They’re available in a range of film speeds, from ISO 50 to ISO 500. They have excellent exposure latitude. And they have a beautiful and authentically cinematic color palette — when properly developed and post-processed.
(As an aside, Kodak currently offers four primary Vision3 color negative films: 50D and 250D, both daylight balanced, and 200T and 500T, both tungsten balanced. You can read more about the color balancing in this article about it.)
Between the beauty of the film and a desire to shoot it, as well as that pesky remjet, the availability of an ECN-2 kit is a bit of a big deal, because up until then, if you shot Vision3 as still film, you had two choices for getting it processed (and getting that remjet removed at the same time):
- Find a Lab (Good Luck)
Labs that process ECN-2 are generally for filmmakers, and they process film in motion picture lengths; they do not handle the short lengths of 24- or 36-exposure film shot by still photographers. There are a very few labs for still photographers in the United States that can process film marked “ECN-2” — but most of them actually cross-process the film in C-41 chemicals, and remove the remjet separately. Boutique Film Lab in Tennessee cross-processes in C-41, as does Old School Photo Lab in New Hampshire. The Camera Shop in Minnesota apparently does true ECN-2, and Blue Moon Camera in Oregon is rumored to be doing the real thing too. But the bottom line is that it’s unusual — and expensive. (My research on labs is dated, and these are examples from my original 2020 draft of this article; I encourage you to do your own homework, and ask a lot of questions about how the films are actually processed.) - Do it Yourself
Many people have been cross-processing ECN-2 films using C-41 chemistry kits at home. The remjet layer can be removed after the regular processing steps by submerging the processed film in a bucket of hot water and rubbing it off with your thumb, then hanging it to dry. This does, however, contaminate the C-41 chemicals with carbon residue — something I dislike and that I’ve found causes issues when processing more than just a few rolls. It’s also possible to formulate a proper ECN-2 pre-bath (instructions at the end of this article), or use a concentrated baking soda solution, to loosen* the remjet and remove most of it, then proceed with normal C-41 processing.
Remjet removal aside, however, while QWD’s ECN-2 kit may have been the genesis of this article, the real trigger for it was the late 2020 marketing push for the kit by California’s Freestyle Photographic Supplies, in the form of a marketing email message sent on October 21, 2020. QWD claims that cross-processing ECN-2 films in C-41 chemistry results in color shifts, usually toward blue — something tangentially referenced in a Freestyle promotional e-mail at that time.
The very day after I received that e-mail about the kit from Freestyle back in 2020, I received an e-mail from the Film Photography Project (on October 22, 2020). Its timing seemed almost like a rebuttal, frankly, and FPP’s email message promoted the use of their C-41 kit to process these films, and stated straight-up that they have compared the results of the film processed in ECN-2 and in C-41, and that there’s no difference between them (emphasis mine). In fact, here’s a screen shot from that very FPP email message:
So basically, here was one entity (QWD, and by extension, Freestyle) claiming that the results are not the same, and another (FPP) claiming that they’re identical. While I’m not pointing fingers at anyone, I wanted to see for myself what the truth was, and to get there, I needed to do my own testing and form my own opinion — something I’d encourage you to do yourself as well. But what follows is my experience in trying to uncover the reality of all this.
Some Additional Notes
Before I get to the testing, I wanted to cover a couple of additional points.
Let’s Talk About Remjet
As I mentioned above, Kodak Vision3 films are coated on the non-emulsion side with a layer called a remjet — an opaque, black, carbon-based coating that serves ostensibly three purposes:
- Anti-halation
Most films have some sort of anti-halation treatment, often a dye that is neutralized and removed during processing. It’s there to reduce light bouncing and scattering within the film substrate that can be observed as a halo around bright elements of the shot, or a loss of sharpness. It’s more apparent in certain conditions than others. It’s worth noting that Kodak’s technical literature mentions that this is the only this purpose for the remjet. - Anti-static
Anyone who’s rubbed a balloon on a rug or carpet and observed the results or has worn clothing with synthetic fibers knows that plastic materials can build up static electrical charges rather easily. Film substrates are plastic formulations, so it can happen with film as well. If the static forms on the film prior to processing, then if there’s a static discharge, it creates lightning-like patterns on the film. I live in a very dry climate where static electricity buildup is common, but I’ve never seen evidence of static discharge in my own film. But it is apparently more common in motion picture applications, given the speed at which the film is passing through the movie camera. Many sources online have stated that the carbon remjet helps reduce this static buildup. - Protection
Many other sources also say that the remjet coating also acts as a sort of lubricant to help the film move smoothly through a movie camera. This seems a bit suspicious, but I suppose it’s possible.
As already discussed, the remjet has to be removed during processing, and it is in fact the very first step in the standard ECN-2 process. Professional labs serving filmmakers use continuous processing machinery that begins with a pre-bath, where the film is immersed in a solution of water, borax, sodium sulfate, and sodium hydroxide, which softens* the remjet. The processing equipment then uses jets of water to rinse the remjet coating away, then it goes through the developer, stop, bleach and fix steps, with various wash steps between as specified in the technical literature (which I referenced previously, and which you can review yourself).
Later, I’ll talk about remjet removal in more detail.
* My reference to “softening” or “loosening” the remjet is somewhat inaccurate. The reality is that the pre-bath is an alkaline solution, and it’s the alkalinity that serves to break the bond of the remjet with the film substrate. Once that bond has been broken, it can be (mostly) rinsed away — enough so that the subsequent processing chemicals are not fouled with carbon residues. With manual processing, some amount of remjet remains on the film, however, and has to be mechanically wiped away after the final rinse step in processing.
Are There Alternatives to All of This?
The short answer is yes. The popular films from CineStill, namely 50D and 800T, ostensibly begin life as Kodak Vision3 film stocks. (Which is odd, since Kodak discontinued 800T in the Vision lineup many years ago.) CineStill is (understandably) not particularly open about their films and how they’re sourced, but it’s been widely stated and understood that these films were brought to market by using a proprietary process to remove the remjet prior to packaging the films. All indications suggest that this is no longer the case (if it ever was to start with), and that CineStill is instead buying large quantities of film directly from Kodak, and the stocks are not coated with remjet to begin with. That would also certainly explain the company’s ability to provide these stocks in 120 format, with its approximately 61mm width, as well as the fact that the film rebates in their 35mm versions are not marked in the same way as actual Vision3 films are.
The only issue is that these films then lack any anti-halation, and in my experience, they have to be shot with some care as a result. In bright areas of daytime shots, they tend to go red along edges, and in night shots, there are red halos around streetlights and the like. That said, they’re very nice films and fun to use. And — you don’t have to deal with a remjet.
The Test
In order to compare processing Vision3 film in C-41 chemistry vs. ECN-2, I first needed two identical rolls of film, with identical photographs taken on each. I have a dual tripod bracket as well as a dual cable release for that specific purpose. I also needed two identical cameras to take the photos, and the simplest answer for that is a pair of Kodak Retina IIa rangefinder cameras, which I’ve used for previous side-by-side tests.
For the film, I chose Eastman 5203, better known as Kodak Vision3 50D, a daylight balanced film rated at ISO 50. I bulk loaded two 135 cassettes with the film, loading-out 20 exposures in each.
With the film loaded in each camera, I set about exposing them over a period a couple of weeks. Images were metered with my Gossen Sixtomat F2 exposure meter, then both cameras were set at the identical aperture and shutter speed.
Finally, both rolls were processed. The remjet was softened using pre-bath that I formulated and mixed myself from the Kodak recipe, in both cases. (Details at the end of the article.) One roll was then processed with a CineStill simplified C-41 kit, while the other was processed with the QWD ECN-2 kit mentioned at the start.
A Note About Scanning
In the original version of this article, I noted somewhat interesting differences between the scans of the C-41 processed images, and the ones processed in ECN-2. In less than 24 hours, a friend of mine and fellow film photographer, Cameron Shaw, wrote and pointed out that I’d likely made a mistake in how I scanned these images. On further investigation, I had.
As is the case with any film scanning, getting the analog film into the digital domain is nowhere near as straightforward as it might at first appear. Once it’s there, and can be digitally manipulated without a trace, comparisons like the ones in this very article are nearly pointless; once properly scanned, using Photoshop or Lightroom or their equivalents, you can pretty much make any film look like any other.
In any event, I use an Epson V800 scanner, and the bottom line is that the mistake I’d made was allowing the Epson Scan 2 software to make adjustments to the scans automatically — despite believing that I hadn’t. What I didn’t realize is that the color management settings, buried in the Epson Scan 2 interface, were left enabled for this experiment. So, while the other more obvious settings were not applied, the color management was, skewing the results.
I’ve updated the scans, and this article, accordingly.
The Process
Scanning the negatives with all Epson Scan 2 automation disabled results in extremely flat images that are unusable in their raw form. As I do with all my scans, I brought the images into Photoshop for slight manipulation.
As is my custom, I manually fixed dust spots and the like using the Spot Healing Brush tool, and my Wacom digitizing tablet.
Next, to bring-up the dynamic range of the images into usable, aesthetically pleasing territory, I often use Photoshop’s Auto Tone feature for speed and simplicity, and I did on the sample images to follow. What it does, technically, is noted in the Footnotes at the bottom of this article. Please note that in my copy of Photoshop, Auto Tone is not set to its defaults, which use true black and true white as reference values; this almost never provides a satisfactory result. For the black reference, I instead use an HSB value of 0/0/4 (RGB 10/10/10), and for white, I use an HSB of 0/0/96 (RGB 245/245/245). This brings them slightly away from the edges, which tends to work well on most images, most of the time.
Generally, no matter how you set them up, automatic tools are not the ideal way to achieve optimal results, all the time. You can have more control by using the Adjustments panel, choosing Levels, option-clicking (on a Mac, anyway) the Auto button, and then adjusting the settings to your personal preferences and apply them to the image live, with the added benefit that the adjustments are non-destructive. The equivalent functionality of the Auto Tone function is the Levels adjustment called “Enhance Per Channel Contrast.” You can then modify the clip percentages, and/or the black, white, and midpoint gray reference points. When you change these values, you can then save your choices as the default, in which case, Auto Tone and the other auto functions will use them too, as applicable. Note that in most cases, the only change I make to the settings image-to-image is changing the black reference point. Usually, HSB 0/0/4 works well, but sometimes a bit darker, or a bit lighter, produces a better result on a given image. Just keep an eye out for muddying of the shadows. Rarely, I do move the white reference point as well if needed.
In any event, with the uncorrected scans made with all automation and correction disabled in Epson Scan 2, Auto Tone had a lot to work with, and it provided excellent results. That being the case, each of the images I chose are provided here in their raw form right out of the scanning workflow, and again with Auto Tone applied — using the modified defaults that I just described.
The Results
I selected three of specific images from the rolls to look at, one because it was a challenging subject, one because of the colors present in the image, and one because it’s simply an interesting landscape photo. Let’s look at each.
Image 1: Blowing in the Wind
This image was shot in southern Colorado along a roadside of plastic caught in a barbed wire fence blowing in the wind.
C-41 image, unprocessed:
ECN-2 image, unprocessed:
C-41 image, Auto Tone applied:
ECN-2 image, Auto Tone applied:
What I see in the raw scans is what QWD noted, which is a notable blue cast in the C-41 negative, while the ECN-2 negative just seems to just come out rather dark. There’s a notable difference in the darkness of the scans, and I attribute this to the fact that the C-41 negatives are more dense than the ECN-2 negatives.
Once Auto Tone was applied, there’s not a night-and-day difference in the images, and in fact if I saw the C-41 image in isolation, I’d be happy with it. But the ECN-2 image has a more pleasing color palette, and in my opinion, a more faithful rendering of the scene. In particular, the plastic sheeting caught in the barbed wire has more dimension to it; also, the sky and clouds are more natural. I think most of what I’m seeing here can be attributed to the notably higher level of red in the ECN-2 image.
Image 2: Barriers
This image was shot in southern Colorado near a highway maintenance facility, and shows bright orange construction barriers.
C-41 image, unprocessed:
ECN-2 image, unprocessed:
C-41 image, Auto Tone applied:
ECN-2 image, Auto Tone applied:
I chose this image because of the synthetic orange construction barriers, and indeed, it shows a somewhat dramatic difference between the results of the two chemical processes. While there’s nothing inherently “wrong” with the C-41 image, the ECN-2 image stands-out as being more faithful, and more aesthetically pleasing.
At first glance, the ECN-2 image appears to have a yellow-green cast, but my recollection of the scene (not a reliable method to judge, admittedly) suggests that it’s more true to life. The C-41 image almost looks faded to me, as if it was shot with a consumer-grade color film.
Image 3: Hogback
Let’s take a look at one more comparative example image, this one also taken in southern Colorado on a rural road.
C-41 image, unprocessed:
ECN-2 image, unprocessed:
C-41 image, Auto Tone applied:
ECN-2 image, Auto Tone applied:
There seems to be a pattern here at this point… Once again, the ECN-2 image offers a superior result. And yet again, with nothing to compare it to, the C-41 is fine. But when you can see the ECN-2 version right next to it, the differences become more clear. The C-41 image simply looks a tiny bit muted. In contrast, the ECN-2 image shows a purple tinge to the high clouds at the top of the photo, which seems to be slightly exaggerated in this image honestly, but it is indeed how they often seem here in Colorado on a sunny, summer day. Additionally, the greater level of red brings real life to the soil of the dirt road. The vibrant greens are faithful to the fact that we had a wet spring this year, and everything looked quite verdant. In short, the palette in the ECN-2 photograph is vibrant, rich, and I think objectively superior to the C-41 version.
The Film Processing
Before I get to the final conclusions, let’s talk a bit about the processing of the films in a little more detail.
One of the biggest challenges in processing Vision3 stocks in ECN-2 chemistry is actually finding the ECN-2 chemistry. As I mentioned above, it appears that QWD has closed-up shop, which is hugely disappointing, as their ECN-2 kit made processing these films quite simple. So what options are there?
- Other True ECN-2 Kits
The only other “true” ECN-2 kits I’m aware of as I finish this article include:- In the North American market, ones offered by Flic Film of Longview, Alberta, who offer both a 1 liter (16 roll) and .5 liter (8 roll) kit, which are available from Freestyle Photo, and f*rom Photographer’s Warehouse (Ultrafine Online). Flic Film’s website says, “Results achieved by using a real ECN-2 kit for cinema film cannot be replicated with cross processing in C-41,” which certainly suggests that they’re the real deal, and I plan on using their product for my next batch of ECN-2 processing.
- Also for North America, Ultrafine has a private labeled version of the Flic Film 1 liter kit available (at the time I write this) at a slightly lower price point than the Flic Film branded offering.
- For the European market, Bellini offers an ECN-2 kit as well, which is likely the best option in terms of availability there. (Bellini has limited distribution in the USA, and to the best of my knowledge, this kit is not available in North America.)
- CineStill CS-2
CineStill has recently introduced a film chemistry kit they’re calling “CS-2” that claims to be a simplified ECN-2 process, using different chemicals, ostensibly safer ones, that produce negatives that are the sensitometric equivalent of those processed with traditional ECN-2 chemicals. I have not personally tried this kit to verify that detail, or check the results. I appreciate that CineStill has brought this to market, but at the moment, I’ll be sticking with actual, true, ECN-2 chemicals as long as the kits remain available. - Find a Lab
As I mentioned earlier, there are some labs who process Vision3 stocks, and as I noted, most simply deal with the remjet separately and do the actual work in C-41. There are supposedly some labs using the real deal as I mentioned earlier, but I’m unable to refer people to any specific labs.
I would specifically be wary of film processing chemical kits that make any reference to both C-41 and ECN-2 film processes in the context of a single product. These are quite likely a wolf in sheep’s clothing… Or at least C-41 chemicals in an ECN-2 package.
The Conclusions
As I worked to finish-up this article, I examined some recent rolls taken with my new-to-me Nikon F4S (an arguably superior camera to the Kodak Retina IIa of the side-by-side tests above) processed with true ECN-2 chemistry as well, and some automated balancing with the Photoshop Auto Tone function discussed above. I am, frankly, amazed at their quality, their sharpness, and their color. Here’s a particularly pleasing example:
In the end, I’m convinced that the results provided by true ECN-2 chemicals with appropriate post-processing are, in fact, superior aesthetically to the results provided when processing these films with C-41 chemistry. I’m not suggesting that there’s a night and day difference — there isn’t one. But the color palette is noticeably more rich, more vibrant, and more true-to-life in my opinion than the results offered by the C-41 processing.
That’s all well and good, but I’d be remiss not to point out one glaringly obvious fact: Just a little further manipulation in Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Photoshop could very easily and quickly enhance the C-41 images, and match the ECN-2 results. Even just modifying the default behavior of Auto Tone, or using Adjustments > Levels (as I described earlier) can make a big difference in the results. Not to mention that the myriad Lightroom presets you can easily find online could, in fact, make any of my results (C-41 or ECN-2) look like any other film you want.
Personally, I prefer to do as little manipulation of my analog images as possible in the digital domain (e.g., Photoshop), and work to preserve the natural appearance of the film I’m using as best I can. As I said earlier, however, just the process of scanning itself can often move around the chess pieces on its own in that regard, so there’s only just so far you can really go with that.
So, what’s the bottom line?
- First off, there is a difference in the results between C-41 and ECN-2 processing — contrary to what some have said. Admittedly, it’s not a dramatic one, but I nevertheless think that the ECN-2 process “wins” when developing Kodak Vision3 stocks. Will I keep using ECN-2 chemistry? Absolutely, as long as I have the volume of film shooting to justify it.
- Secondly, seeing these results has removed what few doubts I had about Vision3 in terms of the quality of the result, and suitability for still photography use. My favorite color negative film for 35mm is Kodak Ektar, and it’s clear that both Vision3 50D and 250D provide results that are absolutely on-par with Ektar.
I was wondering whether I wanted to refill my bulk loaders with more of these films, as dealing with the remjet, while not difficult, is a pain. But even having to buy both C-41 and ECN-2 kits to do my various color film processing, these results have proven to me, anyway, that the hassle is worth it. Both Vision3 50D (Eastman 5203) and Vision3 250D (Eastman 5207) are both going to have a home in my vintage bulk loaders for the foreseeable future, and as a result, I expect to have a lot of ECN-2 processing in my future as well.
Happy shooting — and developing.
Additional Notes
Differences in the Chemicals
The only substantive differences between C-41 and ECN-2 processes are the addition of a pre-bath, and the use of a different developer formulation. Bleach, fixer, or blix (if applicable) are the same.
C-41 developer uses Kodak Color Developing Agent 4, also known as CD-4. The active chemical is 4-(N-Ethyl-N-2-hydroxyethyl)-2-methylphenylenediamine sulfate.
ECN-2 developer uses Kodak Color Developing Agent 3, also known as CD-3. The active chemical is N-[2-(4-amino-N-ethyl-3-methylanilino)ethyl]methanesulfonamide. CD-3 is also used as the color developer in the E-6 film process, as well as the RA-4 print process.
These developers react with the silver halide crystals in the emulsion, then combine with color couplers in the emulsion to form color dye molecules. The bleach and fix activate other chemical reactions that result in the removal the remaining elemental silver, leaving only the dye molecules to form the image.
It’s the differences both in the dye couplers used in the film, and the color developing agents that activate them, that makes the results of C-41 processing and ECN-2 processing differ slightly when processing Vision3 films.
ECN-2 Pre-bath
If you use a true ECN-2 chemical kit for processing your Vision3 films, the pre-bath should be included in the package.
But when I’ve cross-processed in C-41, I mentioned earlier the fact that I use a pre-bath mixed to the Kodak recipe to soften the remjet on my Vision3 films before development. The recipe for it is contained in the technical documentation I linked to at the start of this article. The various ingredients to mix the pre-bath were secured from Photographers’ Formulary in Montana, and mixed by weight as shown in the recipe. I mix one liter of pre-bath, and reuse it repeatedly. As I write this, I’ve only ever mixed my one bottle of it, and it’s still effective, although I would expect at some point it’ll become less so.
To use the pre-bath, pour it into your developing tank using the same quantity as you would for developer. DO NOT AGITATE! Wait 10 seconds. Pour the liquid back into your storage bottle for the pre-bath. Immediately fill the tank with warm tap water. Seal the tank, and shake vigorously for several seconds, then open it and pour the water out; it will be quite black. Refill with water and repeat this four additional times, for a total of five vigorous rinsing cycles. By the fifth time, the water should be running completely clear. If not, repeat yet again.
Now, you can proceed to development using the chemistry of your choosing.
NOTE: There are multiple “recipes” in the documentation for pre-bath. I’ve used only the primary version — not the alternates.
ALSO NOTE: Others have suggested (and I have tried) using a baking soda solution in place of a pre-bath. It sort of works, but not as well as the real thing. Some have suggested 1 tablespoon per liter of water; I’ve also tried 2 tablespoons which doesn’t perform any better.
Remjet Doesn’t Just Vanish: Wiping Your Film
The pre-bath will enable you to remove the bulk of the remjet prior to development, but it won’t remove it completely, no matter how hard you try. When the film is hung to dry, you will need to carefully wipe the non-emulsion side multiple times to fully remove it. I’ve used microfiber clothes, Kimwipes, and paper towels, and nothing really makes it easier or is inherently better than the rest. While the film is still wet, you can make one pass, dry, with any of the above options. After that, you will need to moisten your wiper of choice, and go over it again. I wipe my films down at least three times, but ideally repeatedly until there is absolutely no sign of black on the wiping cloth. (It’s easier to see it there, than looking at the surface of the film.) Be diligent, or you’ll end-up with streaking in your scans, as visible in this close-up look at the left side of an image. (Look for the light vertical lines — those are thin remnants of remjet effectively shadowing the scan.)
Processing Multiple Rolls of ECN-2 Film
In my experience, processing more than one roll of film at a time, in a single tank, makes the remjet removal less complete, and results in carbon residues collecting rather stubbornly on the film reel. With two reels in the Paterson tank, it’s just too difficult to get the necessary water circulation during the vigorous rinses following the pre-bath step. It’s a pain, but I strongly recommend developing just one roll at a time for the best results, and to (at least help) eliminate the need to scrub carbon deposits off the reels.
Photoshop Auto Tone
The website “Photoshop Essentials” has a nice article on the auto functions of Photoshop and what they do. You can read it here. But following is how that article describes how Auto Tone works:
Auto Tone is similar to Auto Contrast in that it also darkens the darkest pixels to pure black, lightens the lightest pixels to pure white, and redistributes all the other tonal values in between, but there’s one big difference. It does so on a channel-by-channel basis, meaning that the Red, Green and Blue channels each receive their own separate boost in contrast. We know that Photoshop uses the brightness values in each color channel to determine how much of each color to mix into the full color version, so by changing the color channels independently of each other, we effectively change how the colors are mixed together. This means that, unlike Auto Contrast which does nothing more than boost overall contrast, Auto Tone changes the colors in the image at the same time. If your image has an unwanted color cast, Auto Tone may be able to correct it. Unfortunately, if your image did not originally have a color cast, Auto Tone may end up introducing one.
Update: July 25, 2023
In the original version of this article, I based my analysis and conclusions on scans that were made with a rather fundamental error in workflow. The article has been updated with new scans using the proper workflow, and both my analysis and conclusions have been updated accordingly.
Update: August 9, 2023
Added technical information about the difference between C-41 developer and ECN-2 developer.
