MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Have you tried Kodak Vision 3 250D ?
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:20 pm
Post subject: Have you tried Kodak Vision 3 250D ?
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:20 pm
Post subject: Have you tried Kodak Vision 3 250D ?
Reply
It's not C-41 but ECN2. It does need a previous developing bath to remove the anti-halo layer, but gives an outstanding dynamic range of about 16Ev with no grain... Local people are getting mad with it. Very useful on backlit situations (very common here with the strong sunlight we suffer most of the year).

A colleague, (Kowska) tells on his site how to prepare the previous bath (and then use C-41 afterwards).

You can find resulting samples from Kowska here:


One of his samples:



Regards.
Jes

Last edited by Jesito on Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:16 pm; edited 1 time in total


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:26 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:26 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I did try once , never more my jobo tank was all over with graphite... it was very hard to clean it


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:45 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:45 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Attila wrote:
I did try once , never more my jobo tank was all over with graphite... it was very hard to clean it


Our local colleagues don't use Jobo's, they develop straight on a tank, I'll comment on this there.

What about the results?. Do you keep samples?.

Thanks,
Jes.


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Jesito wrote:
Attila wrote:
I did try once , never more my jobo tank was all over with graphite... it was very hard to clean it


Our local colleagues don't use Jobo's, they develop straight on a tank, I'll comment on this there.

What about the results?. Do you keep samples?.

Thanks,
Jes.


Result was disaster I did throw out 3 rolls.


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
yes this remjet layer on ECN2 film is a huge problem. so you say, there is a way how to remove it at home DIY? I can have lots of Kodak Vision for nearly funny price (around 1€/roll), but never bought it because if this issue


Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:29 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:29 am
Post subject:
Reply
I like the example, Jes, thanks for sharing it.


Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:22 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:22 am
Post subject:
Reply
The results on his blog are amazing ...well worth the effort I think in using his pre-soak bath. We have this strong light as well.. Laughing


Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:07 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:07 am
Post subject:
Reply
I've done a lot of work with Kodak Vision2 films in BW, but when I tried it in C41 I had poor results. I will check this info about the pre-bath out, if it works then I'll be delighted as I have a lot of this film and as you say, it has massive dynamic range with very little grain.


Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:49 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:49 pm
Post subject:
Reply
This is the pre-bath used by Kowska to remove the anti-halo layer:


Borax.......................20gr
Sodium Sulphate.....100gr
Sodium Hydroxide.......1gr

Water to complete one litre.

According his notes, a two minutes bath at the same temperature that the other chemicals, and then the standard C-41 process.

I'm really interested in this processs.
I cannot try this by myself because space constraints at home. (I currently live in a really small flat in a very nice area next to the sea, but too small to have even a temporary setup).

But if someone tries it and succeeds, I would think on setting up a small lab somewhere.

Please, keep posting. This film looks really promising.

Jes.


Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I saw his log finally typically all made in bright light and little lighter than normal, I see nothing extra what you can't do with C41 and no pain with graphite. How to remove remjet well is key figure, I failed.


Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:01 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:01 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Jes, I have lots of 250D, 500T and 100T so I can always send you some rolls to try out.

I will try to find those ingredients to make the pre-bath as I've always know that this ECN-2 film was capable of stunning results in C-41, Flickr has a load of examples of this. But I couldn't figure out how they got around the remjet problem, if you don't fully remove it before the developer step, some particles of it inevitably end up stuck in the soft emulsion causes unsightly spotting.

I put a roll of Vision2 film through my local minilab (disguised in a C41 canister Wink ) and the results were not so good, so I knew the key was successful removal of the remjet. In ECN-2 processing machines it is done with water jets.


Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:22 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:22 pm
Post subject:
Reply
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Jes, I have lots of 250D, 500T and 100T so I can always send you some rolls to try out.

I will try to find those ingredients to make the pre-bath as I've always know that this ECN-2 film was capable of stunning results in C-41, Flickr has a load of examples of this. But I couldn't figure out how they got around the remjet problem, if you don't fully remove it before the developer step, some particles of it inevitably end up stuck in the soft emulsion causes unsightly spotting.

I put a roll of Vision2 film through my local minilab (disguised in a C41 canister Wink ) and the results were not so good, so I knew the key was successful removal of the remjet. In ECN-2 processing machines it is done with water jets.


Ian,
Is the same process for all those films?. I'm afraid I was wrong and what Kowska tried is the Vision 3, not 2.



It's clear that the Vision 3 250D it's clearly ECN2 process, as it is on the Vision 2: http://www.foto-r3.com/files/5217_kodak.pdf

It seems Vision 3 is an improved film over Vision 2.


Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Hi Jes

Yes, the Vision films all use the ECN-2 process, whether it is Vision, Vison 2 or Vision 3. 3 is improved over 2, but 2 is still excellent, the movie film is one generation ahead of the still film in technology, so the Vision 2 is the same technology as the Portra and Ektra pro films. The Vision 3 is next generation and we haven't seen that technology in the stills market yet, maybe we never will now Kodak have hit the hard times.


Post
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:03 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:03 am
Post subject:
Reply
I thought some of the Vision films used ECP-2, not ECN-2.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1