Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Colour Work > Colour film

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 14th July 2020, 11:29 AM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,668
Default Kodak Vision3 500T

I’ve just bought a bulk roll of this colour negative film. I have also ordered the ECN2 kit to process it. Has anyone tried the film? What did you think? Also, what about the chemistry? Any experiencing advice would be most welcome. Thanks.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 14th July 2020, 01:12 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

Alex your post made me check out the Vision 3 500T and up came the YouTube videos which were reasonably informative but lacked some vital information. There was also an interesting comparison with Cinestill 800T

However I'll hold off any other comments unless invited to make them until you tell us about your experience.

I'd certainly be interested in how you get on with clearing the Remjet and what you find different with the ECN2 kit compared to the standard C41. It may be that the ECN2 kit includes instructions and stuff to clear the remjet but I have no idea

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 14th July 2020, 06:13 PM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,668
Default

Mike, the chemistry includes a solution to remove the remjet layer. The images I’ve seen of night scenes with bright lights look great. I think this is the same as the Cinestill film. It is exposed at 800asa.
I’ll report back when the chemicals arrive.
Alex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 14th July 2020, 08:20 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

Thanks Alex. I have had the time since my posting to do more research and I think you have the Nik and Trick ECN2 kit which does have the solution to remove the remjet.

From my research the only other major thing I noted was that because it's film designed for tungsten light an 85B filter is required to remove the blue cast in daylight shots which reduces the speed but still leaves you with enough to play with.

There was an interesting video or two that suggested a C41 kit is fine but there also appears to be evidence to the contrary to the effect that using a C41 kit can create problems.

If it does the job then the way C41 film, especially Kodak Portra 400 seems to be rising in price, this film is a bargain.

The issue these days with all the YouTube videos on motion picture film used for stills photography is that the end result in terms of prints is the product of expensive scanners which makes any neg faults much easier to correct or at least disguise

It would seem that nobody but nobody who makes these videos ever uses RA4 prints from an enlarger.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 15th July 2020, 09:16 AM
EdmundH EdmundH is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 394
Default

I've successfully printed with RA-4 from Cinestill 800T film. It is possible to compensate for the blue cast (if used in daylight), but an orange toned warming filter on the camera lens may be useful under some circumstances. Bear in mind that Kodak vision films are balanced for tungsten floodlights, which are presumably at the whiter end of the warm spectrum.

Here's an example print, taken of my son a couple of years ago. It is quite contrasty. I had considerable difficulty balancing the colour, as the sunlight was very golden that afternoon, and the warming filter made the result too orange.

Apparently developing Cinestill film in C41 chemicals results in increased saturation and contrast, whereas the correct ECN2 developer should give milder results.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0786.jpeg
Views:	502
Size:	258.4 KB
ID:	3835  
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15th July 2020, 09:39 AM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

Thanks Edmund. Your portrait is fine and in fact is what I suspect most people expect to see when shown a colour print as nearly all new users of colour film want high contrast with deep colours. In fact if the scan comes out as less saturated they regard the picture as "faded" and simply screw the controls up a few notches or whatever you do with scanners

I take it that you did take your son using a warming filter on that occasion and had to correct at the printing stage but now suspect that it would probably have been OK in the afternoon's golden light without one?

That's interesting as on the video I watched I inferred from the examples of with and without a filter that any daylight created a blueness that looked strange. The problem again is that videos tend not to have many nuances in them in terms of instructions such as a comment of "please note that these shots were in the middle of the day. Shots later in the day might have been OK without the filter"

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 15th July 2020, 10:17 AM
EdmundH EdmundH is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
Thanks Edmund. Your portrait is fine and in fact is what I suspect most people expect to see when shown a colour print as nearly all new users of colour film want high contrast with deep colours. In fact if the scan comes out as less saturated they regard the picture as "faded" and simply screw the controls up a few notches or whatever you do with scanners

I take it that you did take your son using a warming filter on that occasion and had to correct at the printing stage but now suspect that it would probably have been OK in the afternoon's golden light without one?

That's interesting as on the video I watched I inferred from the examples of with and without a filter that any daylight created a blueness that looked strange. The problem again is that videos tend not to have many nuances in them in terms of instructions such as a comment of "please note that these shots were in the middle of the day. Shots later in the day might have been OK without the filter"

Mike

Hi Mike, Yes I was using a warming filter, but it would have been fine without one on this occasion. The blueness is really not that pronounced in direct sunlight anyway.

More recently I used 800T for a wedding in a modern church, where there was a mix of daylight and halogen, without any filter. The results were actually fine.

By the way, I can highly recommend Cinestill 50D (or indeed Vision 3 50D) , generally overlooked by reviewers as it doesn't have the same novelty value. This is a lovely film, with finer grain and milder colours, if the speed isn't a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 15th July 2020, 10:31 AM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

Thanks Edmund. Do you use the ECN2 kits as well or stick with C41? As far as I can discover Nik and Trick seem to be only ones doing the ECN2 kits in the U.K.

Not cheap but they have cottoned on to the fact that everything in one kit and simplicity of use are the key

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 15th July 2020, 10:54 AM
EdmundH EdmundH is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
Thanks Edmund. Do you use the ECN2 kits as well or stick with C41? As far as I can discover Nik and Trick seem to be only ones doing the ECN2 kits in the U.K.

Not cheap but they have cottoned on to the fact that everything in one kit and simplicity of use are the key

Mike
So far I've used the Bellini C41 kits. However, some time ago N&T mentioned in their blog that RA-4 developer gives very similar results to the proper ECN2 developer, so I shall give that a try soon.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 15th July 2020, 11:06 AM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

Thanks Edmund. So that's simply substituting RA4 developer for the ECN2 developer, the rest being standard bleach and C41 fixer and not a total substitution of RA4 blix instead of the standard bleach and fix?

Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak D76 Dev KidderJem Darkroom 20 2nd November 2017 07:07 PM
WTB Kodak Vision2 or Vision3 250D film Domingo Sale or Wanted 5 26th January 2014 12:19 PM
Kodak Film and Paper - New Ownership by the Kodak U.K. Pension Fund Mike O'Pray Photography in general 24 14th May 2013 06:17 AM
Kodak AZO. Keith Tapscott. Auctions of Interest 3 17th December 2010 05:51 PM
Kodak T- Max Developer OK for Kodak Tri-X 400 kennethcooke Monochrome Film 5 13th March 2009 10:49 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.