RETO’s Amber T800

     

If you might recall, back in 2023 there was a lot of online drama because Cinestill registered their 800T as a trademark (which is crazy, because Kodak had an earlier version of Eastman Vision II 800T). The fallout from that was that other companies that were reselling remjet-removed 500T simply renamed their films as T800. So there, Cinestill!  My opinion is that Cinestill was most likely angling to protect what they felt was their process, and in fact, nobody else was a challenge until China-based companies started their own remjet-removal and marketed their lines of Eastman Vision III cine films as C-41 compatible and challenged Cinestill’s monopoly.  

I picked up two rolls of RETO Amber T800 back in mid-April from Amazon because I had some Amazon Prime rewards points to spend.  I loaded one roll into my Minolta X7A, and finally finished the roll at the end of August.  I developed the roll in my ECN-2 kit from Ultrafine Online.

Amber T800 is the same film as the Cinestill 800T, that is Eastman Vision III 500T with the remjet removed. It’s been argued that by removing the remjet, the film “gains” more sensitivity, and should be shot at ISO 800.  It could just be that 500T has good latitude, so 2/3 of a stop increase is not a big deal.  In any case, I set my ISO to 800.  The one thing about the RETO film is that it is sold in a 27-exposure roll.  That makes it slightly less expensive than the Cinestill film, but it’s also fewer exposures.  I prefer 36 exposure rolls most of the time.  Also remember that because of the remjet removal, the film has problems with halation, and point light sources will be red-tinged.  Another caveat - this is a Tungsten-balanced film, made for artificial lighting.  If you shoot it in daylight, you ought to use an 85B color correction filter to avoid the bluish overcast of the images.  However, you can shoot it without a filter and fix the scans in post-processing.

I shot the T800 in a variety of situations, and overall, it performed as I expected. As you can see from the images that follow, there are instances of halation.  I did not encounter any remaining remjet on the film, so that was a plus.  All of the negatives were scanned on my Epson V700.

The photograph of the Nikon D80 in sunlight really shows how crazy that reddish-hued halation can be, as well as the interior shot at Highland Brewery and the white lights on the ceiling.  That's not really a look that I appreciate, which I is why I am not a Cinestill fan, or of the cine films without the remjet. I can develop my remjet-backed film in ECN-2 process just fine. Of course, not everyone can do that, so you'll have to decide if you like the look or not.

Now that Kodak has reformulated their cine stocks to be sold without any remjet, I look forward to seeing what will be available in the coming year. I still have 200 feet of Vision III 250D to use, and that is a gorgeous color film, processed in ECN-2.  

One Roll Review - Reflx Lab 200T

I was recently contacted by Reflx Lab to see if I’d like to try out their 200T 35mm film, and of course, I said yes.  There are so many new rebranded films turning up now, that it’s getting hard to keep track of them.  In 2022, I reviewed their 400D ECN-2 film which was Eastman Vision 3 250D with the remjet layer already removed, so that it could be processed in any lab offering C-41 service.  That was “early days” for Reflx Lab, and I pointed out a few minor defects in the emulsion on the rolls, as well as light piping at the beginning.  Otherwise, I still liked what I saw.  

Unless you have been in a cave or the middle of the Amazon forest for the past few years, you know that the Cinestill brand has been selling Kodak ECN-2 films with the remjet removed, and in their branding, advertised every ECN-2 film with a raised ISO, supposedly because the remjet removal raised the sensitivity.  I think that’s just marketing bullshit, but it created a unique niche that until recently, had been occupied only by them.  So, in late 2023, when other resellers started selling the same exact films with the remjet removed, Cinestill took aggressive action because they’d been granted a trademark status on 800T.  While it was certainly wrong for them to claim 800T as a trademark, it opened a whole lot of ill will towards Cinestill, and much of it was deserved.  So, in the aftermath, other brands have come up with unique ways to advertise their remjet-removed Vision 3 films.  That’s where Reflx Lab comes in with their 200T film in this review.

The Reflx Lab  200T box uses a stylized T that looks like a lamp bulb.  Ingenious!  The  other thing about this film is that it really is a 200 ISO Tungsten-balanced film.  It’s Kodak Vision 3 200T, but with the remjet layer already removed so that it can be safely developed at your local lab.

A couple of things about the remjet layer that you should know by now.  First, it acts as an antihalation layer, and second, it acts as an antistatic layer and third, it sort of lubricates and avoids scratches as the the film travels through the movie camera.  That’s significant, because cine film moves far faster through a movie camera than a 35mm still camera.  Without the remjet in a still camera, the only real problem will be from the removal of the antihalation properties.  That means you’ll be more likely to see “blooming” from point light sources or backlit scenes.  In a color film, it’s going to result in reddish tints from the halation.  Some photographers love the effect, especially in shooting night scenes.  I’m most familiar with the halation in b&w films, and it can be a good thing in the right circumstances.  So, it’s just something that you should be aware of, if you choose to shoot any ECN-2 film that’s had the remjet pre-removed.

I put a roll of the 200T in my Nikon N75, and shot the roll within a couple of days in early January.  After I shot the first few frames, I remembered to attach an 85 filter to compensate for shooting in daylight with the Tungsten-balanced film.  The film cassette is DX-coded, so if you are using a camera that requires a DX code (such as the N75), you will be just fine using the Reflex Lab film.  I only had a few shots indoors, and I took off the 85 filter for those.  After I finished the roll, it was processed by my local lab in Asheville- Ball Photo.

The Reflx Lab 200T film scanned easily in my Epson V700, and the results are very good overall. However, as you will see below, backlighting and point light sources cause halation with reddish blooming.  

a little blue-ish, no #85 filter

that light poking between the boards, and it was not sunny

great color rendition

You can really see the halation with the light peeping
between those boards!

a very well-rendered scene

those spotlights...

Comparing this film with my experience from 2022, shows a very improved process from Reflx Lab.  There was no light piping at the beginning/end of the roll, no strange artifacts, and no residual remjet.  In fact, the film is as good as any C-41 film that I have used - however, as I stated earlier, halation needs to be taken into consideration when planning your shots.  I’ve only shot one roll so far, and I’ll shoot another roll in the evening sometime to see how well the Tungsten-balanced film looks indoors with good lighting, and also with neon signs.

There are many choices now that other companies have figured out how to remove the remjet layer from ECN-2 films before packaging them for the consumer. You can send your money to Cinestill,  Reflx Lab, or to Reto, and try these films for yourself.  Personally, I like the Reflx Lab films, and they are now found on the shelves in brick and mortar photo stores.  That’s good news for the consumer, and there are more choices than ever.  However, if you like the DIY approach, there’s no shame in buying regular ECN-2 films and doing the remjet removal as part of your developing process.  You’ll certainly avoid the halation problem, and also save a bit of money as well.  

Overall, yes, I like the Reflx Lab 200T, and I am looking forward to shooting more of it.  Maybe I’ll even try some “800T,” but without the Cinestill branding.

2023 - Another great year for film users

Millbrook Diner, Kodak Aerocolor.

Here it is, almost the end of December, and it’s a good time to review some events of 2023, both good and bad, that involve film-based photography.  In the digital world, it’s all about mirrorless wonders from Nikon, Canon, Leica, Fuji, etc., but over here in film land, we rarely get new film cameras, so we get excited by new film stocks, right?  Of course, there was the announcement by Ricoh/Pentax about a new film camera project, and we will have to wait to see where that goes. The release of the Polaroid I-2 advanced instant camera was met with enthusiasm by many, and jeers by a few. I’m never going back to any instant cameras, but if I was looking for  one, the I-2 certainly has all the bells and whistles that makes it stand out apart from any others currently on the market.  

I can’t really get excited by any of the simple-use cameras that arrived in 2023.  I get that they are designed to attract a different segment of the market, and anything new and shiny that takes 35mm film is at least better than nothing at all.  The Kodak Ektar H35N doesn’t do it for me, as I’ve had my fling with GOOD half-frame cameras, and I’m not about to use another one.  But if you are looking to maximize your picture-taking on a single roll of film, the H-35N could be a good choice for you.  Take a look at Dave Mihaly’s YouTube videos and make your decision from them.  Yes, I have done a lot of photography with cheap plastic cameras, and I have my favorites.  But, I don’t need to buy any of these “new” plastic cameras currently being sold.  

That brings me to Lomography, which as long been the home of the plastic fantastic (and not necessarily cheap).  Some models that were out of stock are now back in production, such as the Lomo Kino (at $60, a bargain), and the Spinner 360 (less than $50).  Say what you want, but Lomo has been innovative, interesting, and has been a big booster for analog photography.  

I’m sure there have been some interesting introductions of other film cameras this year, and I apologize for not covering some of the boutique offerings in the pinhole and large-format world.  As the saying goes, “if you know, you know.”

FILMS

The year started out with the stock of color films being low, and price hikes had a lot of folks bitching about that. I get it, and for some people, finding that they’d spent over $15 for a roll of film, $30 for processing and prints or scans, it was a bridge too far.  It wasn’t the best for anyone wanting to get started, especially with their $50 simple-use camera, and getting back a bunch of underexposed shots.  For us old-timers (since I’m not a 30-something YouTuber - I’m twice their age, so I’m probably a film dinosaur) film prices haven’t been the limiting factor in the avocation.  But  yes, color film was definitely more expensive in the beginning of the year than at the end, when Kodak and Lomography were discounting their 120 film stocks.  

The rising prices and scarcity of C-41 films definitely drove up the interest in using ECN-2 films, especially from sellers that were removing the remjet so that the films could be developed by any C-41 lab.  That lead us to the Cinestill 800T shit show, and enough has already been said about that on social media, YouTube, and blogs.  My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Cinestill was improperly granted a license to trademark 800T.  Second, they don’t want competition from sellers like Reflx Labs in China.  Third, we all want a bargain, so vote with your wallet.  Rem-jet removed films such as Amber (from RETO), Reflx Labs, and others are definitely cheaper than the Cinestill versions — and they are the same emulsions. 

Lomography’s introduction of Lomochrome Color ’92 added another unique film stock to an already interesting array of films.  I reviewed that film (https://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2023/08/one-roll-review-lomochrome-color-92.html) in August.  With Metropolis, Turquoise, and Purple, you can do some fun stuff.  Lomochrome Purple in particular, gives results somewhat akin to a color IR film.  

The winner for the least-hyped color film is Kodak Aerocolor, which is being repackaged under various names, such as Elektra 100, Santa Color 100, Reflx Lab Pro 100, and Karmir 160.  Aerocolor is a fine-grained aerial photography film with great latitude, and a lot of people are just discovering it.  If Kodak/Alaris could get their shit together, they’d be offering Aerocolor  as a Kodak product in 35mm and 120.  Instead, they have siloed the different divisions and that’s to their detriment.  

 

The winner for the most-hyped color film is obviously Harman Phoenix.  I’ve never seen a film rollout like this one, and love it or hate it, Phoenix is a unique emulsion. Lens caps off to Harman for their foray into the world of color.  I’ve shot one roll so far, and I’ll wait for a day with light clouds and no bright sun for the next one.   

I believe that the Kentmere Pan 100 and 400 are two of the least-expensive b&w films out there, and in my experience, give outstanding results.  I’ve used them for years, when they were only sold as Ultrafine Extreme by Photo Warehouse, in California. Now, in their own branding, the Kentmere films are an excellent value in 35mm and 120.

Reflx Lab in China has been doing a great job with their branding and selling of various film stocks, and their recent introductions of several ECN-2 films with the remjet removed so that they can be developed as C-41 is a great thing.  In my local camera store - Ball Photo, in Asheville, I’m seeing more variety of films than ever before.  Sure, some of them are just rebranded stocks, but if that gets someone to try one out, all the better.

The Film Photography Project just keeps rolling along with their films for still and cine cameras.  Their catalogue of FPP-branded film stocks is impressive, and while it’s the place to go for the unusual, they also sell the major brands at the best prices.  

Another very positive development (the photo puns write themselves) is the production of Kodak-branded photochemistry coming back to the USA.  Photo Systems, Inc. in Dexter, MI which used to be known as Unicolor, will be producing Kodak-branded photo chemistry.  I toured that facility a number of years ago, and it looks like Dexter, MI will be seeing ever more semi-trucks coming and going from that factory.  In case anyone forgets, Kingsport, TN is the home of Eastman Chemical, which used to make photo chemistry there.  That’s about an hour from my home.

Deaths (certainly not comprehensive)

The permanence of great photography is exemplified by Elliot Erwitt, who died at the age of 95. His images have appeared in various books and monographs.  He left us with many indelible images of the every-day that were never ordinary.  https://www.elliotterwitt.com/

John Fielder, a well-known photographer of the natural scenes in Colorado, died at 73. 

https://www.cpr.org/2023/08/13/john-fielder-photographer-colorado-outdoors-died-at-73-years-old/

Frank Borman, astronaut, died in November, at the age of  95 - took the first photograph on the Apollo 8 mission of the earth from the moon - that image is lesser known than the one taken by William Anders - Earth Rise- which inspired a consciousness  of Earth being our home, alone in the cosmos.  Those Hasselblad cameras were instrumental in the Apollo program, and the quality of the images from them are unsurpassed, especially when you consider the environment in which they were used.

Frank Borman's photo

Larry Fink, well-known for his photography in Greenwich Village, and chronicling the Beat generation, died at 72.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9M2aQAFT0

Lawrence McFarland, photographer and educator, died at 81.  Known for his landscapes, he was a respected professor of photography at the University of Texas, Austin. https://www.lawrencemcfarlandphoto.com/home

John Benton-Harris, photographer/visual sociologist, died at 83.  An American in the UK, he was renowned for his photo essays of the British people. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/oct/23/john-benton-harris-obituary

Helen Marcus, a noted photographer of the famous in New York, died at 97. Her career started late - at age 50.  Her black and white portraits of famous writers such as Tom Wolfe and Toni Morrison are iconic.  https://www.shelf-awareness.com/issue.html?issue=4601#m61893

Georgia M. Coxe, died at 92.  She was known both for her poetry and her photography, which in my mind, is an ideal combination. https://provincetownindependent.org/obituaries/2023/09/20/poet-and-photographer-georgia-coxe-dies-at-92/

North Carolinian photographer, Bruce Roberts, died at 93.  He pioneered the use of 35mm in newspaper reportage, and photographed a LOT of North Carolina for Southern Living and Our State magazines.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Roberts_(photographer)

Cary Wolinsky, who often photographed for National Geographic magazine, died at 75. He was an astute photographer whose creativity with the camera is well-known. https://thephotosociety.org/cary-wolinsky-1948-2023/

Lisl Steiner, a photojournalist, documentarian, and film-maker, died t 95.  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/18/arts/lisl-steiner-dead.html

There are a lot of photographers that have lived into their 90s, so I guess there’s hope for me yet.

What else to say about 2023?  I published 4 zines, which was pretty good. All of them were well-received.  I shot well over 100 rolls of film, developed most of it myself.  The nascent Asheville Camera Club published a zine, and is now meeting monthly. For once, I am just a participant, not an organizer.   I didn’t go on any lengthy road trips, which I hope to make up for in 2024.  However, I did pretty well with trips to Michigan, Ohio, New York, and South Carolina.

I hope 2024 goes well for everyone (well, almost everyone - democracy has to survive). 

How did 2023 work out for you?

Exploring ECN-2 Films

Over the past decade, as color film (C-41 and E-6) choices became more limited, I have seen a lot more attention paid to those cinema film emulsions offered by Kodak and Fujifilm. Yes, we still-film shooters have been putting cine-film in our cameras for quite a while. If you have used Kodak Double-X or Eastman 5222 film, it's a b&w ISO 200 negative film made for cinema.  At one time, the only way to get small quantities of it was to buy the unused "film ends" from an outfit in New York. Small quantities typically were about 70-200 ft, and the price was pretty cheap. As more people started using it, it became popular enough for resellers (such as the FPP, Cinestill, and Ultrafine) to buy the big reels of fresh 5222 and re-spool into 35mm cassettes and market them. I still don't understand why Kodak has not offered the 5222 as a still film. It's an excellent b&w emulsion with great latitude and is very pushable. There are other b&w emulsions that are made for cine use, but that's another story. 

Note that the C-41 still film has rectangular sprockets, while 
cine-films have rounded sprocket ends. The same holds true for
B&W cine-films vs. still camera films.

However, cinema color films are what this post is about. The use of color cine film in 35mm cameras goes back into the late 1970s, when Seattle Film Works sold their cheap color negative film that “only they could process.” Touted as the SWF-XL process, it was actually ECN-2, which uses slightly different chemicals than C-41, and also involved the removal of the black remjet layer (more about this later). The film was surplus cine film stock, and could have been made by several companies, as we were not told anything other than it was Seattle Film Works film, ISO 400 or 200. Due to the remjet coating, ordinary photo labs would not accept the film, because it would contaminate their chemistry. I'll link here to the Wikipedia article on SFW, and you can read more about their business and its demise.  I did use SFW in the mid-90s for a while, and they offered both prints and slides from the same roll of film. The slides were not very good, as they were copied from the negatives, and faded after about 10 years.  Lesson learned.  However, properly exposed fresh SFW film produced excellent negatives.  Don't judge a film from 30-year rolls that sat who knows where. The FPP has a podcast episode that discusses the SFW film.

A bunch of expired SFW films. Image by Michael Raso, 2021

So, you found some old rolls of the Seattle Film Works in a box? Who knows how they have been stored for the past 30+ years?  I'd say use the film for testing if a camera is advancing the film properly. Yes, you could develop them in the home-brew ECN-2, but why waste your time?  If you do decide to shoot them, rate at ISO 50 and maybe you'll get something.  With any long-expired color film, you will get color shifts and loss of sensitivity. Be aware that by the mid-1990s, Seattle Film Works switched to regular C-41 films (and still with the SFW-XL process on the label), and if they have Photoworks labeling, then they are definitely C-41, and not ECN-2. So, at minimum, the film will be 20 years old. You can probably get a good idea of what type of film you find in those SFW cassettes merely by looking at the sprockets.  ECN-2 films are cine-films and their sprocket holes are rounded, whereas C-41 films have rectangular sprocket holes. Also, if the cassettes are labeled as manufactured in Germany, they are most likely Agfa C-41 films.

NEW INFO!  - (04/21/21) I just found a packet of information dated 1987 from SFW that lists the films.  They are as follows - 

• SFW 6231 - 100 ASA - European (Agfa?)
• SFW 6251 - 200 ASA - European (Agfa?)
• SFW 5247 - 200 ASA - Eastman Kodak Motion Picture Film
• SFW 6271 - 400 ASA - European (Agfa?)
• SFW 5294 - 640 ASA - Eastman Kodak Motion Picture Film

What's the big deal about color cine films?

Kodak is the only producer of color cine-films, and many movies in the past several decades have been made on their Vision3 (https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/products/camera-films) series of films.  The big deal is that these films have good latitude, excellent color rendering, are optimized for particular types of lighting, and are available in ISO ratings of 50-500. Fujifilm produced its Eterna line of cine- films, which are now discontinued, like so much of Fujifilms' analog business. 

The big problem with any of these cine ECN-2 films is that all have a remjet layer on the base side of the film. The remjet coating protects the film against light-piping, halation, and static buildup on the film as it moves through the cine camera. Kodachrome also had a remjet layer, and it was both a cine and a still film. The remjet is mostly carbon, and if you process the film without removing it, you'll have an awful mess in your chemistry and the film won't look so great, either.  Commercial cine film labs have machines with 30 PSI water nozzles and roller-like scrubbers that remove the remjet before it gets run through the developing process, and there are also chemicals involved that introduce a mild base that dissolves the bonding agents in the remjet, making its removal easier.  

So, while there are some fantastic color cine-films that could be shot with still cameras, you can't just reload them into a 35mm film cassette and then take them to a C-41 lab.  If you relabel the film as C-41 and it gets processed, you will be persona non grata forever for ruining their chemistry and contaminating their processor with carbon residue.  DON'T DO THAT!  You can develop the film at home, or send to a lab (listed below) that will handle ECN-2 films.

MAIL-ORDER LABS THAT WILL ACCEPT ECN-2 FILM:

• BLUE MOON CAMERA & MACHINE -https://www.bluemooncamera.com
• THE CAMERA SHOP - http://www.thecamerashop.com/
• OLD SCHOOL PHOTO LAB - https://oldschoolphotolab.com/
• BOUTIQUE PHOTO LAB - https://boutiquefilmlab.com/

IMPORTANT

The removal of the remjet is actually fairly simple, and doing this method as a "pre-wash" before any developing will remove 99.9% of the remjet, with the remaining easily removed physically when you hang up the film to dry. Here's the procedure:

Dissolve 1 heaping tablespoon of Sodium bicarbonate in 500ml of water at 100°F (38°C).  Pour into the developing tank with the film inside. Start shaking the tank vigorously (like a cocktail shaker), and be prepared to "burp" the gas escaping every few seconds. Do this for about 30 seconds, and pour out the foamy black water. Refill the tank with water at the same temperature, and shake vigorously again for 30 sec.  Pour and repeat until the water that drains out is clear.  There may also be a tint in the wash water from the dyes in the film – it may be green, pinkish, yellow, or purple. Now, you can proceed with the developing process, either C-41 or ECN-2.  Many people have developed the color cine-film in C-41 with satisfactory results, and processed C-41 films in ECN-2 with good results. However, I think that because the color-cine film was designed for ECN-2 processing, that's the better option, if you can do it.

ECN-2 kits have only recently become commercially  available for hobbyist development.  Previously, one had to sequester the chemicals necessary for the process and mix them.  Here are the ingredients that you will need if you wish to mix them yourself:

ECN-2 Developer - to make 1 liter

• Sodium Carbonate - 25.6 grams
• Sodium Bicarbonate - 2.8 grams
• Sodium Sulfite - 2 grams
• Potassium Bromide - 1.4 grams
• CD3 Color Developer - 4 grams

ECN-2 Bleach - to make 1 liter

• Potassium Ferricyanide - 40 grams
• Potassium Bromide - 29 grams

Dissolve the mixtures for each in 800 ml of 110°F water and then add water to make 1 liter.  Label  the containers very distinctly, as you don't want to bleach your film before developing it!

The ECN-2 development process is as follows:

AFTER the Sodium bicarbonate pre-wash, 

1. ECN-2 Developer for 3 min at 106°F 

2. Stop using an acid stop bath or a water stop, for 1 minute (100°F)

3. Wash using the Ilford method (which is pouring water into the tank and shaking for 30 seconds) (100°F)

4. ECN-2 Bleach for 3 min at about 100°F

5. Wash again, Ilford method (around 100°F)

6. Fix using any fixer** for 5 min  (100°F)-(I keep a separate 1 liter of fixer just for this process, as I don't want to contaminate the fixer that I use for other films)

7. Wash (Ilford method) 4 times (80°-100°F)

Note that you should agitate the develop, bleach, and fix steps every 30 seconds for best results.

8. Remove the film and hang to dry - I wipe down the back of the film with a Photowipe until there is no longer any carbon residue - usually 3 passes with the wipe.  DO NOT wipe the emulsion side.

**To make 1 liter of non-hardening fixer, you’ll need the following:

• 800 ml of water at 125°F
• 240 grams Sodium Thiosulfate
• 30 grams Sodium Sulfite 
• Mix, and add water to make 1 liter.

Using this method has produced excellent scans from the ECN-2 films that I have developed.  

There is some disagreement among hobbyist practitioners about the use of the sodium bicarbonate pre-wash.  I have tried not using it, and using just water alone will not remove as much carbon, and I ended up with more remjet on the film to remove physically after development, and more crap in the developing chemicals (which were C-41). It makes sense to remove as much of the remjet as possible BEFORE development to reduce the contamination of your developing chemicals. The kit from Ultrafine includes a reusable alkaline pre-bath.

SOURCES for ECN-2 Developing Kits:

• Film Photography Project: The FPP ECN-2 kit also includes a packet of fixer, which is a great addition. 
• Conspiracy of Cartographers Etsy Store: 
• Ultrafine Online:  This kit comes with a pre-bath to assist in removing the remjet, and very precise instructions. It’s the same Kodak recipe as given above, just like the FPP and CoC kits.
• Freestyle Photo:  I have not tried this kit. 
• Cinestill sells a modified ECN-2 kit, but I have not tried it and cannot comment on its results

Color (ECN-2) Cine Films 

I admit to not having tried all of the color cine-films that are available.  While you can find the Fujifilm examples for sale on ebay, be aware that these are discontinued films, and are not going to be fresh. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try them, but be aware of the age factor.  In addition, many of these 35mm films may be available in 16mm, should you want to load your own 16mm still cameras, such as the Minolta 16. 

FUJIFILM 

1. F64D - A low-speed daylight balanced film with fine grain, high sharpness and saturated colors. 
2. ETERNA 500- This appears to be a high speed film suitable for Tungsten lighting.
3. ETERNA 250D - A fine-grained daylight-balanced film with lovely, rich colors.
4. REALA 500D - Contains Fujifilm's "4th color layer" 

There are other cine-films that were manufactured by Fujifilm, but since all are discontinued, I'll just refer you to to this chart.

KODAK

All of the Vision3 films listed are in current production.

VISION3 50D - The finest-grained color film by Kodak. While the 50D is a slow-speed film, it's great for most outdoors shooting, and of course, with a tripod, there's no problem for longer exposures.  I like the colors and the highlight detail, as well as the contrast. 

VISION3 250D - I love the look of this film.  It has such lovely color rendition and reminds me of Kodachrome.  It's fine-grained, and it's nothing like the old 35mm C-41 standby, Gold 200.  If Kodak could produce this film for still photographers (i.e., without remjet), it would be really popular.  I have only processed it with ECN-2, so I don't know how different the colors would be in C-41. 

VISION3 200T - I have not used this film. It's for Tungsten lighting, so indoors would be ideal, especially with incandescent bulbs.  However, if you are using color-temperature adjustable LED light panels, you should set them to 3200K to mimic the Tungsten lighting, which also applies to the 500T below. 

VISION3 500T -This is an excellent high-speed film that has good shadow detail, fine-grained, and looks great under Tungsten lighting.  Of course, you can use it in daylight with a No. 85 filter, or just shoot it and color correct the scans.  This is the same film that Cinestill sells as 800T. There is no native 800 ISO cine film.  In essence, Cinestill is telling you to push the film 2/3 of a stop, which is not a lot.  However, pushing the film higher may not result in the best results. I think that some people coming from digital to film see the higher speed ratings much as they see changing the ISO on a digital camera. However, if a film's native ISO is X, then the most reliable results as found by the manufacturer is at X, not X + 500.  So, proceed at your own risk, and be aware that your results may vary.

other ECN-2 Kodak films

Eastman Kodak EXR 5244 is a color intermediate film sold by Ultrafine Online.  They list the ISO as 1.  The film was introduced in the 1990s, and is discontinued.  It’s reported to have saturated colors, and I have a roll that I have yet to shoot. With such a low ISO, it’s certainly going to be tripod city, and in lots of light.  The 1999 literature from Kodak states:

“EASTMAN EXR Color Intermediate Film 2244 (35 mm and 65 mm ESTAR), 5244 (35 mm and 65 mm acetate), and 7244 (16 mm acetate) is intended for making color master positives from EASTMAN Color Negative Camera Films, and for making color duplicate negatives from those master positives. You can also use EASTMAN EXR Color Intermediate Film for preparing color duplicate negatives from black-and-white silver separation positives. It contains an integral mask similar to the mask in Eastman color negative films but is more red in color. It has excellent image structure, tonal scale, and reproduction contrast near unity when recommended printing and processing procedures are followed. It features micro-fine grain, high sharpness and high resolving power.”

Certainly an interesting film to try out! You will find other expired ECN-2 EXR and Vision2 films if you trawl eBay and Etsy.  

My Experience with ECN-2

Shooting with these films certainly gives me more emulsions to try out, and I have not been disappointed in my results, whether they were processed in C-41 or ECN-2 chemistry.  I recently tried a roll of the Fujifilm F64D that I rated at ISO 50.  The results were fantastic, as the examples will show.  It's very fine-grained, and the colors pop.  I also acquired some rolls of the Fujifilm ETERNA 250D,  and it too, has wonderful color. The remjet of the Eterna 250D comes off much quicker than the Kodak films, and I do not suggest putting a normal C-41 film together into the same developing tank if you are developing  multiple rolls in one tank.  My result ended up with lots of carbon on the C-41 emulsion, making it look like a snowstorm on the scans. I want to reiterate that the Fujifilm cine stocks are now only available via eBay and Etsy sellers, and are not in current production.

The Kodak Vision3 films are beautiful, with excellent colors, and it's a shame that Kodak doesn't make them available as still films.  You can buy any of them from the Film Photography Project Store in 24 exposure rolls and 100 ft spools..  Cinestill sells the 50D and 800T (really 500T) Vision3 films in 36 exposure rolls, but the remjet has been removed, so they can be processed by any lab.  That alone makes them quite desirable for those wanting to use a local film lab. The two Cinestill-branded films are also available in 120, which is a nice option. Ultrafine Online also sells fresh Vision3 films and some of the expired ECN-2 films, including 100 ft rolls. So long as you home-process the films or send to a lab that will take ECN-2 films, these color cine film stocks offer more avenues to explore. 

My ECN-2 developing kits came from three sources – a home-brew kit from August Kelm five years ago, and my recent kits are from Conspiracy of Cartographers on Etsy, and a kit from Ultrafine.  The kits are based on the Kodak formulas. Some of my ECN-2 film was developed in the FPP C-41 1-liter kit, and I will indicate the developing chemistry in the image descriptions.  I also recommend that you use the Kodak-based ECN-2 kits  soon after mixing, as they may not have the shelf-life of mixed C-41 chemistry. My experience is that after a month, the films that go through the process are underdeveloped with “thin negatives”.  However, they did scan in pretty well with adjustments in the scans. The ECN-2 kits should yield 10 - 12 rolls per liter of chemistry, if used within 1 month.  It’s definitely cheaper than sending your film out to a lab!  

Vision3 50D Examples

Marquette, 2016, Nikon FG, dev. in C-41

Ann Arbor, 2016, Nikon FG, dev. in C-41

Ann Arbor, 2016, Nikon FG, dev. in C-41

Ann Arbor, 2019, Yashica FX-7, dev. in ECN-2

Asheville, 2020, Nikon N80, dev. in ECN-2

Ann Arbor, 2019, Yashica FX-7, dev. in ECN-2

Vision3 250D

Chimney Rock, 2021, Canon 7, dev. in ECN-2

Asheville, 2021, Canon 7, dev. in ECN-2

Asheville, 2021, Canon 7, dev. in ECN-2

Pittsburgh, 2018, Nikon FM, ECN-2 dev.

Pittsburgh, 2018, Nikon FM, ECN-2 dev.

Weaverville, 2021, Nikkormat FT2, ECN-2 dev.

Vision3 500T

Mansfield, OH, 2017, Pentax K1000, ECN-2 dev.

New Jersey, 2019 Canon T-60, ECN-2 dev.

Ann Arbor, 2017, Pentax K1000, ECN-2

Toledo Zoo, 2017, Pentax K1000, ECN-2

Fujifilm F64D

Asheville, 2019, Ricoh XR-M, ECN-2 dev.

Asheville, 2019, Ricoh XR-M, ECN-2 dev.

Fujifilm Eterna 250D

Dillsboro, NC, 2021, Spotmatic F, ECN-2 dev.

Biltmore, 2021, Spotmatic F, ECN-2 dev.

Burnsville, NC, 2021, Spotmatic F, ECN-2 dev.

Burnsville, NC, 2021, Spotmatic F, ECN-2 dev.

The minuses of working with ECN-2 films

First and foremost is the remjet issue.  You need to completely remove all traces from the back of the film, otherwise, you'll see white areas or spots on your scans.  You may only notice the residue after scanning.  I find it easy to lay the strip of film emulsion side down on the LED light pad and then use a dry microfiber cloth or Photowipe to remove the remaining carbon residue on the base of the film.  It's easy to fix a few spots with a healing or cloning tool in your editing software, but large areas will show up as white blotches unless you have done a thorough job of remjet removal. Here is a good example of a bad job of remjet removal:

Second is not contaminating your chemistry.  Let's say that you want to develop some C-41 films in the ECN-2 chemistry.  You really want to reduce the number of free carbon particles in your chemistry, so an alkaline pre-bath of your ECN-2 films will drastically reduce the amount of gunk that ends up in your chemistry.  So, yeah, remjet is still the thing.  If you only use the chemistry for ECN-2 or only C-41 films, it will probably be less of a problem. I developed a roll of the Eterna 250D  and a roll of Kodak Color Plus 200 (C-41 film) together in aged ECN-2 chemistry.  Not only were the negatives thin, but the Kodak 200 had picked up carbon from the Fujifilm 250D remjet. It looks like a snowstorm on the scan - and almost like an effect you would pay extra for.

look at all the white spots.  Kodak Color Plus 200.

However, despite these little problems, I remain enthused about the ECN-2 films. The colors are glorious, and the fine-grained emulsions have no peer in C-41 films. Definitely give them a try.  The FPP Store and Ultrafine Online are the best places to get your hands on these films as well as the developing kits.