Jump to content


Photo

EKTACHROME 7242


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 21 May 2007 - 01:14 AM

I just bought this on ebay, to shoot some tests on cross process, any comments?

I read that is meant for intermediate use to prepare color prints, well film is film and I want to restart my research on cross process to use this technique on my next project.

Anyhow any opinions or comments are well appreciated


BEst
  • 0

#2 Dominic Case

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

Posted 21 May 2007 - 09:17 AM

As you say, 7242 is intermediate stock, designed for duplication. However it requires the standard ECN2 process, same as for camera negative, so you won't be cross-processing.

It is extremely fine grained.
Consequently it is extremely slow - start testing at around an EI of 10.
It has a gamma (contrast) of 1 : that is double the contrast of original negative.
It is designed to be exposed from a negative image (ornage masked) lit by tungsten. So treat it as having a colour temperature balance of around 2,000K
Its emulsion layers are optimised to reproduce colour from film emulsion dyes, not from real life. So colour reproduction will be imperfect.

Apart from that it's pretty normal :P but it should give you some interesting results if you can manage your way through all of its differences.

Have fun. Your are on your own as far as results are concerned though.
  • 0

#3 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 May 2007 - 11:25 AM

Hi Dominic - I think you missed the word "Ektachrome" before 7242 in the header.

Martin if this is Ektachrome 7242 it is very old color reversal stock - dating back to the seventies at least.

(I don't know how long it was continued after 7240/VNF effective replaced it in - what 1978, 1979 ?)

-Sam
  • 0

#4 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 21 May 2007 - 06:29 PM

unholy poop haaha the 70's welll I was expeting to cross process anyway, might us well do it with anykind of stock

sam do you have anyinfo on this stock


thanks

ps thanks dominic ( the info was well learned even do I don't think this is the same stock

Attached Images

  • 4676_1.JPG

  • 0

#5 Dominic Case

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

Posted 21 May 2007 - 06:52 PM

Hi Dominic - I think you missed the word "Ektachrome" before 7242 in the header.

Ha! I thought Ektachrome at first, then read

I read that is meant for intermediate use

in Martin's enquiry, so got misled. 7242 Ektachrome is SO old that Kodak have recycled the number for an entirely different product.

I was expeting to cross process anyway, might us well do it with anykind of stock

Unfortunately, 7242 (the Ektachrome one) was designed to go through the ME4 process which was discontinued many years ago (in favour of the VNF process that Sam mentioned). The process started with a pre-hardener bath, without which the emulsion will soften and fall off in the developer. Later types of emulsion didn't need this. I know you want to cross-process, but the modern (well, since 1974) negative process ECN2 does not have a prehardener stage.

In other words, I doubt if any lab will touch your 7242.
  • 0

#6 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 21 May 2007 - 10:00 PM

poop, really?
  • 0

#7 David Venhaus

David Venhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Other
  • Wiseburn, CA

Posted 22 May 2007 - 02:19 AM

I really doubt the emulsion would stay on the film, going through a machine processor. I cross processed some Ektachrome 7241(which is very similar to your 7242, they both were released the same year, 1966, both ME-4 process, only the 7241 is balanced for daylight) in regular temperature (36 degrees C) C-41 chemicals in a spiral tank and the emulsion stayed on, barely, but was very reticulated. Example below - close up of film frame.

Posted Image

I also developed some in 20 degree C black and white chemicals, in a spiral tank and the emulsion did not reticulate but was still soft compared to other non- ME4 process films, so I don't think it would make it safely through a b/w machine processor, either.
  • 0

#8 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 23 May 2007 - 08:12 PM

You would think that someone from Kodak (besides John) would actually check these boards out from time to time to give us some official answers.
  • 0

#9 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 May 2007 - 08:59 PM

Dominic, I don't know the procedures for changing chemicals in a MP lab but is there any chance he could send it to a lab and ask them to try it right before they were going to replace their chemicals, so nobody loses if it screws things up?
  • 0

#10 Richardson Leao

Richardson Leao
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Other
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 23 May 2007 - 09:23 PM

Hi Martin, i had the same experience as Will but a pre bath with paraformaldehide would help to avoid reticulation. In any case, you'll have to process in a tank not in a continuous processing machine.

C41 at room temp also works reasonably. If you want I can dig out some pre-hardening formula.
  • 0

#11 Charles MacDonald

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

Posted 23 May 2007 - 09:38 PM

You would think that someone from Kodak (besides John) would actually check these boards out from time to time to give us some official answers.

I am sure the official answer would be something like "are you out of your....?"

The official recomendation are always what WILL work well. anything off to the side they really don't feel comfortable commenting on. I am sure that the lab guys do try cross processing, and so on, but I would guess thay stopped playing with ME4 long before the current e-6 or ECN-2 processes came out. they may have tried ME4 film in VNF process and visa versa.
  • 0

#12 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 24 May 2007 - 02:22 PM

I am sure that the lab guys do try cross processing, and so on, but I would guess thay stopped playing with ME4 long before the current e-6 or ECN-2 processes came out. they may have tried ME4 film in VNF process and visa versa.


ME-4 hung around longer than Kodak wanted it to because the US Government, the single biggest ME-4 user,
took forever to update it's processors to VNF.

VNF, E-6 & ECN-2 run at a higher temperture than ME-4. The EF emulsion will melt off the base.

This batch is so old there's a chance that it's too shrunken to even be used as dummy loads or scratch tests.
  • 0

#13 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 25 May 2007 - 11:52 AM

Man they totally trick me I should of contact it you guys first

I was thinking to use it as a dummy load or a test roll, but by LEo's info it might be to mess up!!!
how can I check if the load isn't shrunk?


Also

Richardson I will love to have those C-41 pre-hardening formula.


Thanks everyone, I will check how it comes and see if it works


BEst
  • 0

#14 Clive Tobin

Clive Tobin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Spokane Valley, WA, USA

Posted 25 May 2007 - 09:12 PM

...This batch is so old there's a chance that it's too shrunken to even be used as dummy loads or scratch tests....


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the potential aging shrinkage of triacetate base film was only 0.2% which should go through most cameras just fine.
  • 0

#15 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 26 May 2007 - 12:18 PM

I have no idea Clive, but if you are right you have given me a little sunshine of info with this stock or old ones

I hope that made sense hehehe
  • 0

#16 Charles MacDonald

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

Posted 26 May 2007 - 07:38 PM

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the potential aging shrinkage of triacetate base film was only 0.2% which should go through most cameras just fine.

I have some "ebay find" old acetate that was in a sealed can, and the good old Vinigar problem showed up. (one roll of Per-war unused Kodachome in a black can that says "return to Kodak in this can" {I guess before the antitrust case- it was made I belive for the USA market} that someone had labeled "leader" comes to mind.) VS is "enhanced" by being sealed up.
  • 0

#17 Dominic Case

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

Posted 27 May 2007 - 07:34 PM

Dominic, I don't know the procedures for changing chemicals in a MP lab but is there any chance he could send it to a lab and ask them to try it right before they were going to replace their chemicals, so nobody loses if it screws things up?

Labs don't "change chemicals" as such. As film runs through a process, the solutions are constantly replenished so that they stay in an absolute equilibrium, so as to give consistent processing results from the first foot of film to the last. Ther is no point at which the solution is "exhausted" as it would become in a batch process in a tank of the sort you might process in at home.

So it is very rare that you'd find a time that the lab was in a position to run a test before dumping chemicals. And in any case, I could tell you without any testing that if you run 7242 through a VNF or a ECN2 process, the emulsion will soften and some will fall off -into the solution, onto the rollers, through the pipes. And then it wouldn't just be a case of wrecked film, you'd have a clogged up processor that would require considerable more cleaning out than would otherwise have been the case.

You would think that someone from Kodak (besides John) would actually check these boards out from time to time to give us some official answers.

There are people other than Kodak staff who know what they are talking about and who DO frequently look at this list :rolleyes: .

And if you really want reliable information you can always ring the lab you intend to use, or the supplier whose stock you intend to buy . .etc.

Really, this stuff isn't last year's stock - it is probably 30 years old. Even if you could process it, it is likely to be seriously age-fogged.
  • 0

#18 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 27 May 2007 - 07:39 PM

There are people other than Kodak staff who know what they are talking about and who DO frequently look at this list :rolleyes: .


They may look, but they don't post very often. How about a Fuji person as well?
  • 0

#19 Damien Bhatti

Damien Bhatti
  • Sustaining Members
  • 213 posts
  • Student
  • UK

Posted 28 May 2007 - 07:35 AM

Posted Image


Looks incredible!
  • 0

#20 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 30 May 2007 - 04:21 PM

The process started with a pre-hardener bath, without which the emulsion will soften and fall off in the developer. Later types of emulsion didn't need this. I know you want to cross-process, but the modern (well, since 1974) negative process ECN2 does not have a prehardener stage.


I have seen EF film go through a processor mistakenly labeled as VNF.If it skips the prehardener, that emulsion will come right off the film and gum up the machine so badly,the entire chemistry will have to be dumped.You'll have one pissed off processing tech on your hands,the lab will probably not want to do business with you again.At least that's what I saw at the lab I worked at years ago.

Rocky Mountain Films may process it,they specialize in defunct emulsions but they charge serious $$$$$$.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

CineLab

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

CineTape

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Opal

CineLab

CineTape

Glidecam

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery