Jump to content




Photo

Ektachrome 7252 as B&W


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Antonio Bunt

Antonio Bunt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 March 2016 - 05:17 PM

Hello, I have about 5 rolls of this film at the studio I work at.

We are wondering how can we process it as black & white negative. 

We have done it successfully with other stocks but we never had this one. 

Thanks!

Attached Images

  • ektachrome.jpg

  • 0




#2 Mike Durling

Mike Durling

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Director
  • Williamsburg, VA

Posted 05 March 2016 - 09:26 PM

We used to do short tests on ECO in B&W chemistry to evaluate lenses etc. Do a clip test to dial in your development time. It might be interesting to try E6 or C41 at room temperature with extended development time. 

 

Mike


  • 0

#3 Dirk DeJonghe

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

Posted 06 March 2016 - 01:41 AM

It would probably survive ECN2 process.Will be very fogged by now. The first developer in ECO3 process was Phenidone/hydroquinone based. D76 should work.
Edit: it won't survive ECN2 since it had a prehardener and neutraliser before the first developer. B&W developer is OK.
  • 0

#4 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 06 March 2016 - 05:53 AM

It would probably survive ECN2 process.Will be very fogged by now. The first developer in ECO3 process was Phenidone/hydroquinone based. D76 should work.

 

I can remember in late 1970s using it in India, and it suffered some heat-fogging even after 5 months.  A lovely emulsion though.


  • 0

#5 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 06 March 2016 - 06:43 AM

When fresh it was only 16asa I think with the amber filter or 25 without.  So now, if it's useable, the speed may be far slower. In those days it was very fine grain so it will be interesting to see if it still is.   Also it was low contrast (for printing) but had nice pastel colours as an original.


  • 0

#6 Dirk DeJonghe

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

Posted 06 March 2016 - 09:56 AM

There were only two ways to get the proper contrast from an ECO original. The first one was to print to Kodachrome print stock, not available except in the US and discontinued about when I started processing ECO in 1975 or so. The second most widely used method was to print to Internegative. If you needed to mix 7242 with ECO, it was customary to preflash the ME4 Ektachromes to match the ECO. 


  • 0

#7 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 06 March 2016 - 01:56 PM

There were only two ways to get the proper contrast from an ECO original. The first one was to print to Kodachrome print stock, not available except in the US and discontinued about when I started processing ECO in 1975 or so. The second most widely used method was to print to Internegative. If you needed to mix 7242 with ECO, it was customary to preflash the ME4 Ektachromes to match the ECO. 

I think my ECO was contact printed on to normal Ektachrome stock, not Kodachrome. No interneg. Also super-8 prints were optically done in pairs, presumably also Ektachrome. Yes, mixing in 7242 was a pain, but necessary sometimes to get extra speed. When Fuji brought in their much faster reversal stock this was a great help +  I recall it was less contrasty than 7242 and matched better depite more grain.


  • 0

#8 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 06 March 2016 - 02:24 PM

I just remembered... because of the heat fog I mentioned,  they managed to get a better contrast super-8 result from the 16mm answer print. 

Antonio, I reckon your old stock will be seriously fogged by now :( unless it's always been frozen


  • 0

#9 Antonio Bunt

Antonio Bunt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 March 2016 - 03:40 PM

Thank you all for the answers. My safest bet will be to test. I have no idea how the film was stored. Probably, if any, the resulting images will be weird and interesting.
BTW, we use a lot HC110 to process old film.
  • 0

#10 Mike Durling

Mike Durling

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Director
  • Williamsburg, VA

Posted 06 March 2016 - 04:33 PM

Thank you all for the answers. My safest bet will be to test. I have no idea how the film was stored. Probably, if any, the resulting images will be weird and interesting.
BTW, we use a lot HC110 to process old film.

 

 HC110 should work as well as anything for B&W.


  • 0

#11 Mike Durling

Mike Durling

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Director
  • Williamsburg, VA

Posted 06 March 2016 - 04:37 PM

There were only two ways to get the proper contrast from an ECO original. The first one was to print to Kodachrome print stock, not available except in the US and discontinued about when I started processing ECO in 1975 or so. The second most widely used method was to print to Internegative. If you needed to mix 7242 with ECO, it was customary to preflash the ME4 Ektachromes to match the ECO. 

 

There was definitely Ektachrome print stock. We shot a lot of ECO—7252. The lab struck reversal work print from each camera roll. My recollection was that short release print runs were made directly from the A-B original while beyond a certain number of prints it was more economical to print from an internegative. There was never a problem with print contrast with either method since ECO was a low contrast original. We had some older Kodachrome prints around, typically "master prints". These were great for transfers in later years.


  • 0

#12 Dirk DeJonghe

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

Posted 07 March 2016 - 01:07 AM

When I started the Ektachrome print stock was 7389, later 7399. Making prints from ECO onto this stocks gave reasonably soft images. Making prints from Kodachrome onto 7389/99 you ran into infrared absorption problems making the shadows reddish. To avoid these reddish shadows you needed to print onto Gevachrome 902 reversal stock or onto Internegative stock with preflashing.

I think the ECO stock would work very well in Super 8 today with a good scanner.


  • 0

#13 Mike Durling

Mike Durling

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Director
  • Williamsburg, VA

Posted 07 March 2016 - 10:18 AM

Interesting discussion though we've gone beyond the OP's question. Kodak's page http://motion.kodak....979/default.htm has a lot of information on various emulsions. They show a Kodachrome print stock that was made until 1981. By the time I started using ECO in 1979 I was told that prints from that stock were no longer available. They also list a 7390 high contrast print stock for 7252. I wish I had some prints so I could see what our labs were actually using. 

 

ECO scans beautifully. It would be a nice Super-8 stock if it was still made.


  • 0


Visual Products

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Pro 8mm

Zylight

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Pro 8mm

CineLab

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Zylight

Tai Audio

The Slider

Abel Cine