Jump to content


Photo

For John P. Pytlak


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 30 January 2006 - 11:56 PM

Hey John,

How many feet of 35mm negative can be processed using Kodak's standard ECN2 chemistry kits?

Thanks.
Paul
  • 0

#2 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 31 January 2006 - 12:35 AM

How many feet of 35mm negative can be processed using Kodak's standard ECN2 chemistry kits?

Probaly depends on how well your process is controled. :P You mix enough stuff at the working dilution to fill your tanks, and then You add replenisher to the solutions as you run film, and IF you can run enough to keep the solution fresh, you seldom actually mix up a new batch. The processing manuals should give the rate of replenishment for 100 Ft of 35 and 16mm for each of the chmicals.... Eventualy the chemicals change over by replecing the overflow from the tanks with fresh replenisher. Fixer and bleach overflow can even be "regenerated" to make new replenisher :rolleyes: with the fixer treated with an electo-plating machine to get out the silver. B)

Of course you have to dump the whole machine full :o if your process gets too far off.
  • 0

#3 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 31 January 2006 - 05:17 AM

Say, can you replenish while it's processing or do you have to wait for the tank to be empty of film, then for the batch to be well mixed and then run again ?
  • 0

#4 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 31 January 2006 - 08:27 AM

As mentioned, the Kodak processing manual H-24 has the suggested replenishment rates on page 7-17:

http://www.kodak.com.../h247/h2407.pdf

Much depends on the design of your processing machine, and factors such as the overall exposure of the film (overexposed negative uses more chemistry), solution carry-over, etc.

http://www.kodak.com...4.11.6.10&lc=en

Note that these kits are designed for smaller labs using continuous processing machines with replenishment systems. For "batch" use, you need to determine what works for you and the conditions under which you are processing.
  • 0

#5 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 31 January 2006 - 01:05 PM

I ran a 16mm, B&W, reversal processor when I was in college. So, I am aware of carry-over and replenishment. I'm looking for the actual chemical costs per foot of 35mm. Or, I am looking for the total real estate of film that a first set-up (kits by the box) can develop. I know you have these numbers, John.
  • 0

#6 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 31 January 2006 - 01:32 PM

I ran a 16mm, B&W, reversal processor when I was in college. So, I am aware of carry-over and replenishment. I'm looking for the actual chemical costs per foot of 35mm. Or, I am looking for the total real estate of film that a first set-up (kits by the box) can develop. I know you have these numbers, John.


I run a both RA-4 and C-41 machinery, which are slightly different, but the costs are about equivalent from what I've heard from people I know who work with ECN-2 and B&W cine. You're looking at 5-20 cents per foot depending on what kind of equipment you use. If you cut corners, you'll get a lower price per foot, but you'll run into all the problems associated with replenishment consistancy. I'd figure you can get 10c per foot with good quality. What sort of equipment are you using? Do you have the equipment and to store, transport, cool, and replenish several gallons of chemistry? Another variable that one really can't calculate is the ammount of volume that you have. If the chemistry is sitting in a tank for a few months with only intermittent use, you are going to spend quite a bit just in making sure the stuff is up to spec on a daily basis, which is what I do. YOu will get slight color shifts with ECN-2 if you just dump it back into the tank without some sort of replenishment to account for evaporation and the slight ammount of oxidation you'll get with even the best floating-lid tanks.

Regards.

Karl Borowski
  • 0

#7 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 31 January 2006 - 06:19 PM

Hey Karl,

Thanks. That's the info I was looking for. So, with process discipline, you think 5 cents per foot is reasonable? I was thinking of snatching the drive mechanisms, pumps, valves and what-not out of a junked E 6 machine and building a new processor. I have another Q. Do you think PVC will survive the chemicals in an ECN2 process? If so, I'll make my tanks out of large diameter PVC pipe. I'll weld up a water jacket frame out of 1" square stock and wall it with galvanized sheet metal.

Yea, I know. This is over the top. I'm just crazy enough to try it.

Thanks,
Paul
  • 0

#8 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 31 January 2006 - 06:20 PM

Say, can you replenish while it's processing or do you have to wait for the tank to be empty of film, then for the batch to be well mixed and then run again ?

Professional continuous-run processing machines have the replenisher feeding into the solution all the time film is running through. The replenisher rate is calculated to exactly keep up with the number of feet of film being processed.

Solutions are constantly circulated and agitated, and film runs through continuously, so the incoming replenisher is thoroughly mixed in immediately.

The Kodak H24 manual link that John supplied shows things like the recommended (starting point) replenisher rate - which happens to be 900ml/100ft (35mm) for developer replenisher solution, and different numbers for different solutions. You can easily tie that back to the dilution instructions in the kit chemistry to establish the chemical costs per foot that you seem to be asking about.

Also as John points out, the actual machine conditions can vary the required replenisher rate, so what you work out will just be a first approximation.
  • 0

#9 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 31 January 2006 - 06:23 PM

Dominic, thanks again for your documented reply ! :)
  • 0

#10 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 31 January 2006 - 08:45 PM

Hey Karl,

Thanks. That's the info I was looking for. So, with process discipline, you think 5 cents per foot is reasonable? I was thinking of snatching the drive mechanisms, pumps, valves and what-not out of a junked E 6 machine and building a new processor. I have another Q. Do you think PVC will survive the chemicals in an ECN2 process? If so, I'll make my tanks out of large diameter PVC pipe. I'll weld up a water jacket frame out of 1" square stock and wall it with galvanized sheet metal.

Yea, I know. This is over the top. I'm just crazy enough to try it.

Thanks,
Paul


You're not crazy. I'm working on converting a B&W still film processor to do B&W MP. I'm also considering converting an old KIS film processor to do ECN-2 so I can offer the same service that RGB color labs used to do. I really can't tell you if 5c/ft. is going to be attainable unless you were to give me more specific specs for your machine. For instance, I'd have to know dimensions, the ammount of film you are planning to run through DAILY, the size of the kits you are planning on using etc. You would have to run a large ammount of film through on a daily basis for you to get at or even near to 5c/ft. Also, even sitting idle, the chemistry needs to be replenished daily. It's like this RA-4 processor I have. Once you power the thing up, it will go through a certain ammount of water even when it is not running paper through it. The same is true of photographic chemistry. Once you mix it, you have to maintain it (unless you are in a vacuum). Some people will actually use nitrogen to evacuate all the air from their tanks when they aren't full of chemistry to try to minimize any sort of oxidation. Please give me some further information and I'll see if I can give you a better estimate. The 5-20c figure is just a guestimate based on what I've seen with C-41 and what the guys I know in the cine business tell me of ECN-2. C-41 and ECN-2 (you are talking about ECN-2, corrrect?) are different animals. I have a machine designed for minilab use. It has small tanks, and actually runs a reel of film from tank to tank with a mechanical arm. Continuous feed machines generally need much higher film volume in order to be as economical to maintain. At the same time, I have it on good authority that you can run ECN-2 and ECP through the same bath with a few small alterations between the two, so if you are making prints or dailies this can up your volume. My friend Martin Baumgarten of Plattsburgh Photographic Services does this stuff in hand-loaded tanks. He's the real expert on DIY movie processing out there. Get in touch with him or with a lab that does ECN-2. Trust me, lab technicians will chat for HOURS about this stuff if you call up and ask. It's their love's labor, so really not a surprise. Anyway, you can contact Martin at Super8mm@{SPAMSUCKS}aol.com. Remove the obvious insertion

Regards.

Karl Borowski

Edited by FilmIs4Ever, 31 January 2006 - 08:50 PM.

  • 0

#11 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 01 February 2006 - 03:49 PM

I have it on good authority that you can run ECN-2 and ECP through the same bath with a few small alterations between the two, so if you are making prints or dailies this can up your volume.


The activity of the ECN-2 and ECP-2D developers is VERY different, and they use different developing agents (CD-3 and CD-2 respectively). Print in the ECN-2 process will be very low in contrast. Negative in the ECP-2D process will have very high contrast (and be ruined with dirt from the unremoved rem-jet :unsure: ). And both will have considerable contrast and speed mismatch, since they were not designed for the wrong process.
  • 0

#12 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 02 February 2006 - 03:05 PM

The activity of the ECN-2 and ECP-2D developers is VERY different, and they use different developing agents (CD-3 and CD-2 respectively). Print in the ECN-2 process will be very low in contrast. Negative in the ECP-2D process will have very high contrast (and be ruined with dirt from the unremoved rem-jet :unsure: ). And both will have considerable contrast and speed mismatch, since they were not designed for the wrong process.


I did not mean that the two are identical. While the developers are different, the rest of the process is almost entirely compatible. The model I've heard of has either an ECP-2D developer or a modified ECN-2 developer (using Citrazinic acid to boost contrast and a few other added compounds). Also, unlike mixing completely different processes, like E-6 and ECN-2, simply washing the developer tanks between running an ECN-2 and an ECP batch would minimize any chemical crossover (toiletbowl cleaner is good for this, taking care to wash all residue out completely with water after cleaning the tank). Further, differences between the two processes could be further minimized by altering exposure of the print stock so as to make it more compatible with the standard ECN-2 developer. The only factor that would then need to be adjusted would be contrast.

Regards.

~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#13 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 02 February 2006 - 09:42 PM

Karl: You're on your own. :rolleyes: Most commercial labs closely follow the Kodak process specifications because their clients' reputations depend on consistency in processing.
  • 0

#14 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 02 February 2006 - 10:35 PM

It's one thing if a commercial lab running tens of thousands of feet of film per day is using a process that isn't within specs from foot to foot. It is another matter ENTIRELY for a hobbyist building a machine from scratch and processing only his own film tweaking one machine so that it can do two different chemical processes in order to make maximal use of FORTY LITER KITS. Otherwise, you are left with liters and liters of very expensive Kodak-made drain cleaner. :ph34r:

~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#15 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 03 February 2006 - 11:38 PM

Hello again,

Who supplies ECN2 chemicals? I haven't found anyone on google searches other than Kodak.
  • 0

#16 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 04 February 2006 - 11:36 AM

You can mix them from scratch (Kodak has publications with the proper chemical formulas, although the formulas are very complicated) or you can buy them from Kodak, in 40L kits. I'm not sure if Fuji has it's own cop-off version of ECN-2; they have a satellite company called Fuji-Hunt in NJ that makes chemicals for the US market. In any case they will have the same exact chemical formulas as Kodak, just as CN-56 is chemically identical to C-41. Personally, I'd go with Kodak over Fuji-Hunt. While as John says, the results won't be exactly to spec, swapping the developer between ECN-2 and ECP and using the rest of the chemicals from the ECN-2 kit can yield very good results as long as you are careful to thoroughly clean the developer tank between runs of negatives and prints. What is your primary application of this machine? Are you working alone or is this for a local film coop or a college? In any case, make sure to do at least 1000 feet worth of test film (or more) before offering this service to others. I see no reason why, with proper testing and some time and effort on your part, that you can't get results as good as (or better) than a commercial lab. Do you know how to plot curves, balance them, and adjust pH? Make sure you have a good densitometer that does transmission, or find a local one hour photo lab that has one. ECN-2 is just as demanding as C-41 or E6 chemistry is in this regard. Further, results need to be consistant throughout the entire roll, so proper replenishment is essential. Watch films from the '60s and '70s and you can see soft pulsation in skies and light areas of the frame because processing consistancy wasn't as good as it is with current methods. Hope this helps.

Regards.

Karl Borowski
  • 0

#17 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 04 February 2006 - 02:40 PM

Do not forget to clean up after processing. These chemicals don't belong in the drain. They need to be collected and disposed of by qualified companies.

You will be suprised to learn that this proper chemical disposal costs more than the original ingredients in some cases. Depending on location it could be extremely costly if caught dumping chemical solutions.
  • 0

#18 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 04 February 2006 - 02:57 PM

Karl, thanks for great info,

What's the best way to remove the remjet backing? Will it come off with just water jets or does it require some form of physical contact? Would a series of sponges do the job? What about a soft centrifugal roller from a squeege works?
  • 0

#19 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 13 February 2006 - 12:10 AM

Karl, thanks for great info,

What's the best way to remove the remjet backing? Will it come off with just water jets or does it require some form of physical contact? Would a series of sponges do the job? What about a soft centrifugal roller from a squeege works?


The Kodak H-24 ECN-2 processing specifications include a high salt alkaline prebath to soften the rem-jet (but leave it on the film in the tank), then a directed water wash-off (to remove most of the rem-jet and not have the particles get back on the film), and finally buffing with more water wash off (to remove the residual binder).

Doing it by hand (in total darkness) will likely remove most of it, but it is difficult to not have some particles get attached to the film as your sponges/buffers load, and some gets pushed through the perfs.
  • 0

#20 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 20 February 2006 - 10:08 AM

Do not forget to clean up after processing. These chemicals don't belong in the drain. They need to be collected and disposed of by qualified companies.

You will be suprised to learn that this proper chemical disposal costs more than the original ingredients in some cases. Depending on location it could be extremely costly if caught dumping chemical solutions.


Dirk: for better or for worse, here in the states, the only part of color chemistry that they're worried a lot about is the silver. It's hard to believe that silver is considered a toxin, especially in ion form, where it poses only a very mild toxicity. With the monetary value of silver, it only makes sense to replenish it anyway. The only other thing that the EPA seems to be concerned about in processing chemistry (at least in my area) is the ferricyanide which can decompose into toxic cyanide with enough heat. However, the heat of processing is not great enough to start that chemical reaction.

Regards.

Karl Borowski
  • 0


Willys Widgets

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

The Slider

CineLab

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport