Experiments With Fuji Eterna RDI

Once upon a time, I got myself a few rolls of obscure motion picture film stock. With “a few rolls”, I mean 8 rolls of 609 meters (2000 feet) each. That is 4876.8 meters (3.03 miles) when laid out end-to-end. Imagine that. What a waste of money. With “obscure”, I mean Fuji Eterna RDI and Fuji Eterna CI. Both of these films are meant to be used for creating intermediate copies of motion picture film that was shot on location. It is not meant to be taken out and be shot in normal daylight, but to be processed in some presumably very expensive machines in some kind of lab. So why did I shell out money for those rolls? Simple: I had a hunch that this film might be usable for stills photography.

You may have noticed the lack of ISO speed information in the names of the film stock. I did not find any ISO speed on the internet or in spec sheets, either. For the film stock that I have experimented with for this entry, it isn’t unexpected at all: Fuji Eterna RDI is a “digital intermediate” film stock that is usually exposed by an Arrilaser. Thus, the spec sheets speak about wavelengths and laser strength instead of ISO speeds. This leads us to the “experiments”: Figuring out what ISO speeds to use with RDI on location in a normal 35mm camera.

I started off with a set of exposures in a controlled lighting situation. I used the ISO setting of the camera and changed that through the range that is supported by the camera. After development, I could see on the film strip that the first faint images were starting to appear at around ISO 50. I scanned the film with the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 and confirmed that the first usable image actually was at ISO 6. Unfortunately, that was the end of the exposure set, as this was the lowest ISO that the camera (Nikon F6) supported.

I decided to give it another go, using the exposure compensation setting on the camera. The images you see in this entry are from this round, with the camera set to ISO 6 and going from 0 to +5 stops of additional exposure. The lens was initially set to f/8 for maximum sharpness.  Given that ISO 6 is already a stretch in daylight at f/8, exposure times reached 20+ seconds quickly, forcing me to open the lens up further. That, and the long exposure times, lead to the loss in sharpness in the higher range of additional stops.

The images were scanned as is in VueScan and converted to in DxO PhotoLab. The only conversions made were an inversion of the tone RGB tone curve, exposure correction by 2 stops (the same I would do to other film stock), and white balance to the bottom right square of the color chart.

Looking at the results of this experiment, I think I will shoot Fuji Eterna RDI at ISO 6 or ISO 3 (I.e. ISO 6 + 1 stop).


Amendment: I have taken Fuji Eterna RDI out for a “real world” shoot by now (picture will be shown in a future blog post). I noticed a strong, yellow color cast in the images, which I found hard to correct in post-processing in DxO PhotoLab 3 and Skylum Luminar 4. Only a few images looked good-ish right from the start. They all had a somewhat brighter scene in common, and I was able to improve them somewhat in post. With that hint in mind, I went back to the scans for this post and did a re-edit:

  • Center the histogram.
  • Level out the luminance histogram.
  • Look at the R, G, and B histograms.

As the scene in these test images is mostly white with some black from the color chart, it was easy to spot which exposures exhibited color casts, and by how much. The “real world” pictures were shot at ISO 3. For a new test in the real world, I would at least go down to ISO 1.5. Maybe even ISO 0.75.


Experiments With Fuji Eterna 400T

It has been a while since I got into analog photography, and ever since I did, I was watching prices for interesting film stock slowly rise into the regions of ridiculousness. With some 36 exposure 35mm rolls easily exceeding the 10€ mark, taking a picture feels a bit like engraving the image into a gold plate with a platinum chisel. Analog photography has never been a cheap endeavor, given that there is some finality to the consumption of a roll of film. Compared to the ephemeral storage of digital images on a flash storage medium at least. But there is a point in everybody’s budget when taking a picture moves from carefree joy to conservative worry. Of course the budgetary disadvantage of an analog, chemical, and ultimately final medium forces us to think twice about taking a picture. As a photographer of any denomination, be it, learner, a hobbyist, or even an individual with an aspiration to enter the realm of professionalism, it can help us overcome the snapshooters barrier of inadequate framing and composition. But if the constraints are getting too strict, it may make us risk-averse. In my mind, the allure of analog photography lies in the experimentalism of the medium, in collaboration with the temporal disconnect between the click of the shutter and the final image reaching the eye of the beholder. Making the wall between the intention and the press of the shutter insurmountable feels detrimental to the said allure.


What is left to do in this world of rising prices then, you ask? Buy in bulk. It does sound simple. And it pretty much is: All you need is a bulk roll of the film stock you want, a way to stuff it into the usual film cartridge, and a little bit of patience. With the one-time investment of a film loader for 35mm film, you will be able to refill those cartridges from 30.5m bulk film rolls. Those are enough for something around 15-20 rolls of film, I reckon. (That is a guess at 36 exposures per roll, not a scientifically proven number.) At a cost of 60-80€ per roll, this is much cheaper than buying pre-filled rolls. Especially, if you already have a lot of empty cartridges lying around. If you are willing to experiment with expired and/or exotic (from the perspective of a still-frame shooter) film, you can get even better deals. 


This brings us to Fuji Eterna 400T. As a discontinued cinematic film stock that is available in bulk, it ticks all the boxes that make the life of an analog photographer exciting (when it comes to film stock, that is): Given that it has been discontinued for a while now, you can only get expired material. This does not make it cheap, but it costs less than fresh bulk film. I think I paid something around 45€ for the 30.5m roll. As it is a cinematic film stock, it usually would be developed in chemicals for the ECN-2 process. I only have chemicals for B&W, C41 (color negative), and E6 (color positive) at home, which means I have to cross-process (i.e. use chemicals from the wrong process). Cinematic film stock features an extra layer (called “Remjet”) made of carbon and some type of glue that is meant to protect the film from static discharge. Static discharge can happen when the film is unrolled quickly from its spindle, and it results in bright spots and possibly lightning-like structures on the undeveloped material. The Remjet layer needs to be removed before cross-processing the negatives. According to some sources on the internet, one heaped tablespoon of baking soda dissolved in 1 liter of hot (I used around 60°C, as that is what came out of the tap) water for about 30 seconds should do the trick.


I tried developing Fuji Eterna 400T once before, but the results were unusable. The roll that came out of development was nearly blank, with only some faint hints of images visible. This time I wanted to avoid messing up the film that I exposed to my surroundings through the lens of my camera. Thus I decided to be scientific: Fill a few rolls with enough film for about 10 exposures, set up a scene that can be photographed in a repeatable fashion, and shoot the same set of different exposures a couple of times. I ended up taking pictures of my Canadian plush moose with exposures equalling ISO 6 to ISO 3200 for 5 times. 3 times more than I needed, as it turned out. The range of exposures should be helpful to decide at what ISO the expired film stock should be rated for decent results. All that was left, was to develop the rolls one by one. I started with B&W chemicals (Adox Adonal for the developer, Adox Adofix as the fixer, 8 minutes developing time, 2 minutes fixing) to see how well the process for Remjet removal worked, and if I could get some images out of the roll that way. I think that went surprisingly well.

The set of images above is a collage of all the exposures with their respective ISO values. They have been scanned as B&W negatives at 4000dpi with “Color balance” set to “Neutral” in VueScan. For the comparison, the resulting images have been processed with Graphics Magick, scaling each image down to 2048x1352 and then combining them into one large montage. Even at that size, the film grain is well visible at higher ISO values. That may be caused by the developer because Rodinal (which Adonal is based on) is known for a grainy, high contrast image. Another culprit may be the development time, which was a wild guess and might have pushed the result by a few stops, increasing grain. Blurriness should be attributed to camera shake during long exposure times. For this experiment, I prefer the results at ISO 200 +/- 1 stop.

I read somewhere on the world wide web that B&W developed color negatives should be scanned with the color negative mode of the scanner. This is what I did in the montage above. The settings were 4000dpi with “Color balance” set to “Neutral” in VueScan. Processing in Graphics Magick was the same as before. And again I prefer the results at ISO 200 +/- 1 stop. 

Spurred on by the success of B&W development, I cross-processed a second roll with C41 chemicals. It worked like a charm. The montage above was scanned at 4000dpi in color mode with “Color balance” set to “Neutral” in VueScan. After scanning, I used DxO PhotoLab to “fix” white balance to the best of my abilities. Processing in Graphics Magick was the same as before. Film grain is noticeably less prominent with the C41 process. To me, it looks like the results at ISO 400 +/- 1 stop are reasonably well exposed, which supports the suspicion that the B&W development was pushing it a bit (pun intended).


So here we have it: My experiments with Fuji Eterna 400T were surprisingly successful, and I got a reasonable idea of what ISO value to rate it at. Cinematic film stock is usable as an alternative to the usual still photography film stock. With a bit of digging, you will find that there are some companies nowadays that remove the Remjet layer from old Kodak Vision cinematic film stock and sell it under a different brand. Expired film, if stored correctly, works well, too: Given that Fuji Eterna 400T is a film stock rated at ISO400, and that I prefer the results at around ISO 400, it seems like it did not even drift off from the factory rating at all.


What is not covered here: This experiment says nothing about the quality of a picture that you may get out of cinematic film stock when shot in the real world. Fuji Eterna 400T is tungsten balanced, which may cause color casts when shot in daylight. Cross-processing may introduce its own kind of color casts and may result in more grain than processing with the correct set of chemicals. After my success with the experiment, I processed three more rolls that were shot under normal daylight conditions. (This will be material for another blog post.) Those show that what I just mentioned are real concerns that someone who uses cinematic film stock needs to be mentally prepared for. If this does not deter you, film stock like Fuji Eterna 400T can lead to some affordable and surprising bit of fun, though.






5 Frames - Saarbrücken With A Zorki 4

It turns out my eloquence, compared to the length of my post TODO list, is rather limited. Often I am out of ideas for filler text long before the end of a post is reached. In the past, I have tried to provide at least one line of text between the images of my “5 Frames” posts, but I feel like my lack of creativity is a hindrance. So from now on, I will use a different format: 1 title image, a little bit of context info, and then the remaining 4 images. Thus without further ado:


Tegernsee With A Hasselblad

On a sunny day at the beginning of 2020, I did another trip to the Tegernsee with my trusty Hasselblad 503cx in my backpack.

I had a roll of Ilford HP4+ loaded and walked through the lovely town of Rottach-Egern.

The main goal in Rottach-Egern was to feast on a delicious piece of steak, and to enjoy the weather and the landscape.

There is nothing else to convey, so this post will be on the short side.

Please enjoy these 5 frames that I am quite happy with, as they seem to capture the mood of the day decently.


Panorama 135

Shooting panorama photos has always been tempting to me. I have had my eyes on a Fuji GX617 for a long time, but I never could convince myself that it would be worth spending the necessary money. I considered other panoramic cameras, but none felt as exciting as the prospect of a high-quality medium format 6x17 camera.

For example, there is the Hasselblad XPan, which offers a 24mm x 65mm panoramic frame. A beautifully made camera (as far as I can tell from the pictures on the product page). But that camera is (used) as expensive as the Fuji, and compared to the near 60mm x 170mm the frame is tiny.

Another problem with the cost of those cameras and my urge to own one is my drive and spare time that I have available for getting my behind out into the wild to take pictures. And I have a lot of other cameras that want to be fed with rolls of film.

Speaking of other cameras: I do have a couple of cameras that would be suitable for panoramic photography if they are used together with smaller film sizes. A strip of medium format film in an 8”x10” film holder could give a frame of 61mm x 250mm, which would even make the Fuji GX617 look like it is coming in short a bit. The problem with this is mobility: A 8”x10” large format camera needs a tripod and the camera, lenses and film holders consume a lot of luggage space. It is tedious to lug around. And if you put in all that effort, why not directly use 8”x10” sheets of the film?

A 6x9 medium format camera, on the other hand, is quite easy to transport. You can get decent pictures, even when shooting handheld. And there are adapters that enable the use of 135 film. These adapters can be found cheaply on “the bay” from individuals that 3D print them. I acquired two sets of them. That way I could directly transfer the exposed film into another (previously empty) 135 film cartridge. (Note: 120 film usually is transferred from one spool to another when advancing frame by frame, while 135 film is spooled back into the original cartridge when all frames are exposed.)

I took a Voigtländer Bessa 6x9 and loaded the 135 film with the adapter. It is a simple camera with only a viewfinder and no rangefinder. Advancing film is done by rotating a knob. When used with 120 film, the frame numbering on the backing paper of the film is shown through a small window. This does not work with the 135 film, as it does not have said backing paper. I had to guess how far to advance, and I guessed with way more safety buffer than was necessary. With a better guess, I probably would have gotten about 10 frames onto the film (instead of 7).

While I usually use my Nikon CoolScan LS-9000 ED, a (nearly) 35mm (including sprockets) x 90mm frame does not fit into the mask of the 135 film holder. Luckily, I recently acquired a Howtek Scanmaster D4500 with scanning 8”x10” sheet film in mind. That gave me the freedom to scan the whole frame (including sprockets, which was never an option with the Nikon CoolScan). Unfortunately, dust is the mortal enemy of any drum-scanned image, and my apartment is a paradise for dust.


5 Frames - Eibsee With A Leica M6

This is the fourth post in a series of duplications. It is the companion post to ”6 Frames - Eibsee With The Fuji GW690 III”, where I told you the story of a medium format camera that got dragged around a little lake at the foot of a tall mountain. But that story was incomplete until now. It is a story not just about a medium format camera, but about a 35mm camera, too.

As I already mentioned in ”5 Frames - Zugspitze With A Leica M6”, I went out with both the Fuji GW690 III and the Leica M6. The M6 was paired with a Zeiss ZM 21mm Biogon f/2.8 lens and fed with a couple rolls of Kodak Pro Image 100.

The lake is the Eibsee at the foot of the Zugspitze, the highest mountain in the German Alps. And this is as far as I will go with the description of the trip. Following: A little bit of photography philosophy.

Claim: Photography is best enjoyed with patience. Observation: The more time I invest into photography, the more I enjoy it.

With this, I do not aim at the time one may invest into the process alone, but also the time invested into waiting before looking at the results. For digital photography, the time between laying eyes on a scene for the first time and having a look at the result is way too short for my taste. It goes “Ah, that looks pretty!”, *click*, a quick look at the tiny display at the back of the camera and the subsequent disappointment that it does not look exactly like what your eyes can see, often resulting in the picture going to the bin.

Only when I had enough time to forget the beauty of the scene am I able to enjoy the pictures that I had framed so long ago. Photos age better than the memory of the past. And with that memory lost in time, I am finally able to look at the images with a sense of pride and joy.

Using Format