Stills shoot on Film stock

[Carl Nenzen Loven]

Hi everyone,

 

Like several people here, I bet you end up with white a bit of shortends after each shoot. Shortends that barely can make it to the next project.

 

And when I do I keep it and respool it into some old 35mm canisters for shooting stills for my hobby.

 

Problem is, I have used Little Film Lab in Menlo park to develop the film. While they may be great people, their C-41 process of doing it tends to ruin the colours a little. The vision3 I shoot for moving image looksa lot better.

 

And recently I have acquired some Vision3 65mm to be used with my medium format.

 

Problem is, I am looking for a new place to develop these to get the best colours.

 

Does any lab let you develop this low amounts? What if I send it in on a core, does it help?

 

C

[Satsuki Murashige]

Well, Robert Houllahan here runs Cinelab in Massachusetts. If he can't do it, I doubt anyone else can.

 

How does the lab you are using now deal with the Remjet anti-halation backing on the Vision 3 filmstock? I'm sure you are aware that if you simply send motion picture stock intended for the ECN2 process through a C41 developer that you will pollute the developer and anyone else's film going though at the same time.

 

This is the major problem with using a still photo lab for developing normal motion picture stock and why it is so difficult to find someone to do it properly. Your best bet would probably be to either develop them yourself or to at least do a pre-wash to remove the Remjet before sending to the lab for C41 developing, similar to what Cinestill does.

[Carl Nenzen Loven]

Well Little Film Lab has specific C-41 order you do. For REMJET film. Problem is their chems get bad fast, and I rather have a lab do the ECN-2 to get a cleaner negative.

 

I'll reach out to Robert.

 

C

[Satsuki Murashige]

So they have a dedicated C41 processing line for motion picture stock?

[Carl Nenzen Loven]

Indeed they do.

 

https://www.littlefilmlab.com/services/

[Mark Dunn]

Presumably their "chems get bad" because they're full of remjet.

[Carl Nenzen Loven]

Presumably their "chems get bad" because they're full of remjet.

 

I didn't really know how to express it the best way on the phone.

 

This is their quote

 

“Vision 3 films are intended for processing in ECN-2 processing, but experimentally people found that they produce decent (to great) negatives when cross processed in C41 chemistry. Our Remjet process at Little Film Lab uses C41 chemistry combined with a manual remjet removal step. ”

 

I am not sure how many times they use it to do this. Hence why I rather find someone that will do it in ECN-2 just straight away.

 

C

[Heikki Repo]

C41 and ECN-2 aren't the same. C41 uses as color developer CD-4, while ECN-2 uses CD-3. ECN-2 film processed in C41 has the contrast and colors a bit off and its color dyes won't be as stable (= your processed film will age faster). That's probably the reason why your moving images -- processed with correct chemicals -- look better.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Heikki Repo

[Carl Nenzen Loven]

C41 and ECN-2 aren't the same. C41 uses as color developer CD-4, while ECN-2 uses CD-3. ECN-2 film processed in C41 has the contrast and colors a bit off and its color dyes won't be as stable (= your processed film will age faster). That's probably the reason why your moving images -- processed with correct chemicals -- look better.

 

No, I know they aren't the same.

 

But thank you for telling me though. Now I can actually express why they are not :)

 

Still the question remains, where would one develop this?

 

C