Search the Community

More traditional forms of tampering with ones negative in the processing stage include over or under-developing your film, doing a bleach-bypass, or having the film cross processed. Cross processing refers to using a different form of chemical solution and/or pipeline to develop one specific kind of film. I have recently been researching different ways to manipulate the resulting negative in the processing stage, and one idea that had never crossed my mind until now was using the ECN-1 method of development on ECN-2 film. From what I have read, both methods use the exact same chemicals with the same general workflow, only differing in the length of time and temperature used in part A of the process. Wikipedia says that ECN-1... "...involved development at approximately 25 °C for around 7–9 minutes". Firstly, has anyone here ever tried developing ECN-2 film with the ECN-1 processing method? And if so, to what results? Secondly, would anyone be able to gage what this temperature and development time difference would have on the resulting film in terms of resolution, density, dynamic range, contrast, grain, and color? Would ECN-2 film's emulsion even come off with this method, or would that be another potential problem introduced by this workflow?Would the result even be predictable, or is this method so old and unexplored with the new VISION3 stocks that results will end up without a clear pattern of cause and effect? If most people on this page advise me against developing ECN-2 film with the ECN-1 solution then I probably won't take this experiment much further. But I would love to hear your favorite method of cross processing ECN-2 film and what kind of results it ends up having on each VISION3 stock as I am interested in learning more about it. Thank you!

As some of you know already, I have been experimenting with several rolls of Eastman Color Negative 7254 ECN-1 stock from 1973 and 1972. First I used it in a still camera and developed it as B&W as no chemicals for ECN-1 are available anymore, later I created an adapted process that actually gave me quite nice color results, one such photo was actually recently picked by a photo gallery in my home town Graz and is shown here for the next few months, you can also see it on filmcurl.com if you like. But all these photos still required quite long exposure times. Few months back I was finally able to shoot it in my Krasnogorsk at 24fps as a motion picture stock with only around 1/60s of exposure. Check out the few first test shots I developed some months back and had sent off for scanning: https://vimeo.com/301944378 More to follow soon when I get time for it!

After having successfully developed 1972 and 1973 Eastman Color Negative 7254 (ECN-1!) at home over the last few months which I shot in my Krasnogorsk (developed even in color, with an adpated C-41 process!) I was able to find a can of 400ft of its predecessor, 5251. Both films are of course ECN-1 still and I bought them purely for experimentation and for the fun of finding out how much of an usable image I can get from these with different processes. The can of 5251 I just received today however really confuses me, maybe some of you already have some ideas, before I investigate it more myself. I did not shoot any and did not devlop anything yet (will do that on the weekend), but I opened the can in my darkroom and looked at the film with infrared goggles (I use these often, they do not even fog new and fast film, so definately won't affect ISO 50 film that I assume by now has around ISO 1 or less). Anyhow, the tape around the can did not look like Kodak originally put it there like that and sure enough, the film inside was wrapped in a sheet of a newspaper, haha. This one was from 1963, so maybe that's when this film was bought, in case I can develop it successfully, the edge codes will tell me more... The film looked really clean at least with the IR goggles, not sticky and did not smell. I cut off a short piece and looked at this in normal room light and here is what confuses me: It has negative sprocket holes as expected, but it is creme-white (instead of orange, or brown or black, or any other color I've ever seen on negatives in any stage) and also already shows edge printings that appear to either be feet numbers or any other codes used to indentify which machines made the strip in Kodak's factories. What is going on here? First I thought it might be the seller just sold me white leader film that turned creme-white over time, but wouldn't that have positive sprocket holes? Or this is a strip of an already developed negative, which is why I can see the edge codes already, but why would anyone put it back in the can and tape it? Then I thought maybe 5251 did not have any remjet yet and also no orange masks yet, which is why it is neither orange, brown, black or such. But how come I would already be able to read edge codes before developing anything?! And if it was just fogged a lot over time, shouldn't the negative be very dark, for sure not creme-white! I guess I have to eventually spool through more of the film in the dark and look for clues and also just shoot and develop it in a few days from now, but still this all seems very strange.

I've been looking for some time to find any more detailed information on how ECN-1 film was developed. And yes, I am actually talking about ECN-1, not the current ECN-2. The only reference I found being mentioned so far was "Hanson, Wesley T. Jr. "Color Negative and Color Positive Film for Motion Picture Use." Journal of the SMPTE, March 1952, Volume 58, pages 223–238." Unfortunately my existing IEEE access does not include this paper and I cannot find this paper elsewhere nor any other one with any more details than what Wikipedia and similar sites say, like "develop at approximately 25°C for around 7–9 minutes", that's it, no other steps are mentioned. Aren't there any public notes on this, for ECN-2 for example all steps are available in written form to everyone? Does anyone have any notes on the actual process, steps, temperatures and times? This would be very interesting for me to read!