a bit short of C-41 blix

[Wayne]

I have 12.5 ml of blix and need 15. Can I blix longer and get the same results?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Probably not.

 

[Rudeofus]

I can not imagine a scenario where 12.5, or 15 ml of any BLIX concentrate does anything useful with a whole roll/sheet of film. Is this a typo?

Assuming you use normal amounts:

1. reusing BLIX is recommended by most kit makers, and reuse also dilutes BLIX through liquid carryover. If you use this batch of BLIX single shot, some extra dilution likely won't hurt.
2. If you have neutral rapid fixer for B&W film at your disposal, you could dilute your BLIX with neutral rapid fixer 1+4 working solution instead of water.
   
3. If you have a scanner+software with separate IR channel, you can check whether BLIXing is complete. In my experience you should reach >=90% IR transparency if BLIXing is complete. If you discover that BLIXing is incomplete, you can reBLIX at a later point in time, i.e. once you received the new kit.

 

[Wayne]

sorry, I meant oz not ml. I don't have any film that small. I do have some rapid fix I could dilute it with.

I don't have a seperate IR channel scanner as far as I know, or if I do I don't know how to use it. I have an Epson 4990

 

[Rudeofus]

If I interpret your last statement correctly, you have 350 ml instead of 420 ml BLIX, and this will not cover an 120 spindle to the top. Here is the most risk free procedure for properly BLIXing your negs, which fully satisfies the kit manufacturers intentions:

1. mix 350ml/12.5 fl.oz BLIX
2. BLIX your negs according to specs, no wash
   
3. Then turn around the spindle in your film tank
4. BLIX again according to specs
5. now wash thoroughly and then STAB

BLIX is a process which runs to completion, therefore it doesn't matter if the center of your film roll is BLIXed twice. Don't wash between first and second BLIX cycle, lest you unnecessarily dilute your BLIX.

 

[Wayne]

Wouldn't I have to do a stop bath too, for that top end of the roll that isn't getting blixed the first time through?

 

[Rudeofus]

Wouldn't I have to do a stop bath too, for that top end of the roll that isn't getting blixed the first time through?

A stop bath between CD and BLIX is recommended anyway, but yes, under those circumstances a stop bath is even more recommended.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, you would need a stop, and in any event you should not be using a blix with film.

PE

 

[sfaber17]

1. If you have a scanner+software with separate IR channel, you can check whether BLIXing is complete. In my experience you should reach >=90% IR transparency if BLIXing is complete. If you discover that BLIXing is incomplete, you can reBLIX at a later point in time, i.e. once you received the new kit.

I was thinking a scanner with ICE would be nice to measure retained silver, but don't know of any software that will give you a density reading of the IR channel, do you?

 

[Wayne]

Yes, you would need a stop, and in any event you should not be using a blix with film.

PE

I know. I plan to wean myself off powdered blix kits after this batch, but I don't foresee myself using enough color film in the near future to justify buying Flexicolor right now.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Flexicolor bleach keeps just about forever! Same thing for the final rinse.

The fix keeps like fix.

PE

 

[Rudeofus]

The fix keeps like fix.

And you could use TF-5, which you get in very reasonable batch sizes, as excellent substitute for Flexicolor fixer.

 

[Wayne]

Can't afford it now unless my (there was a url link here which no longer exists)does real well. I haven't had a paycheck in months and may not have another one until August.

 

[Rudeofus]

I was thinking a scanner with ICE would be nice to measure retained silver, but don't know of any software that will give you a density reading of the IR channel, do you?

Let's hope the APUG gods won't "execute great vengeance upon me with furious rebukes; and we shall know that this is the APUG, which shall lay its vengeance upon me”, when I casually mention that vuescan gives you IR density information in the curves display. About 90% IR transmission was about the best I could achieve with my bleaches.

 

[MattKing]

Let's hope the APUG gods won't "execute great vengeance upon me with furious rebukes; and we shall know that this is the APUG, which shall lay its vengeance upon me”, when I casually mention that vuescan gives you IR density information in the curves display. About 90% IR transmission was about the best I could achieve with my bleaches.

This is a totally acceptable subject for APUG. The APUG gods will smile on you for this post, because talking about using equipment and software for these purposes isn't in any way anti-APUG.

The warning may flash up, because it wants you to check whether the post is off-topic, but you can be confident that it is APUG friendly.

 

[sfaber17]

that vuescan gives you IR density information in the curves display. About 90% IR transmission was about the best I could achieve with my bleaches.

Thanks a lot Rudi, I'll check it out.

 

[Wayne]

I developed the roll by blixing it twice, inverting the reel after the first blix. It seems to have worked fine, though I haven't been able to get Vuesc*n working on my sca*ning computer.

Something weird happened that is unrelated to my blix volume. About 3 frames in from one end of the 120 roll, there is a band of greater density running across just one frame (long side to long side). My best guess is it's some sort of an agitation effect from where that frame was (possibly) next to the end of the fim in the reel. Its roughly the right distance from the end of the roll to have been in such a position, but I've never noticed it happening before now. I think I may have agittated a bit more than usual

 

[Wayne]

I developed the roll by blixing it twice, inverting the reel after the first blix. It seems to have worked fine, though I haven't been able to get Vuesc*n working on my sca*ning computer.

Something weird happened that is unrelated to my blix volume. About 3 frames in from one end of the 120 roll, there is a band of greater density running across just one frame (long side to long side). My best guess is it's some sort of an agitation effect from where that frame was (possibly) next to the end of the fim in the reel. Its roughly the right distance from the end of the roll to have been in such a position, but I've never noticed it happening before now. I think I may have agittated a bit more than usual

This wasn't phrased as a question, but it is: has anyone had this kind of effect with increased density caused by being adjacent the end of the roll? if that's what it is, I don't think it would be limited to color film

 

[Rudeofus]

I have not had this happen, but would like to note a few things:

• When film is on its spindle, the inside pointing side is the gelatin side
• When you put this film onto the developing spool, that gelatin side also points to the inside
• I would therefore consider it unlikely that the end of your roll somehow obscured access to the gelatin and thereby prevented development in that region

 

[Wayne]

I was speculating more that it set up an intensified flow along that innermost end of the roll, affecting the nextmost outer turn of film which as you point out is facing it. But this surely isn't a novel idea, I just can't think of what else might have caused it.

 

[Kirks518]

This wasn't phrased as a question, but it is: has anyone had this kind of effect with increased density caused by being adjacent the end of the roll? if that's what it is, I don't think it would be limited to color film

When I first started developing (120 and 35mm), I was noticing the 'band' across the frame that I determined was adjacent to the end of the roll. The very end edge of the roll is the first frame, which is wound the tightest on the take up spool, and I noticed it curves towards the layer below it on the reel. I believe this causes some obstruction to the flow of developer during development and agitation, so I came up with two ways to avoid this, and both work equally as well as the other.

1) If I remember, I'll feed the roll onto the reel 'up side down', ie, against the curl of the film. It makes it just a bit more difficult to get the film started on the reel, but not much. I never seem to remember this though, so I usually do the second option.

2) When I get to the end of the roll, and I'm peeling the backing paper tape off the film, I bend the last 1/8" of the film in the opposite direction of the natural curl. Very easy, and I haven't had that 'line' ever since.

 

[Rudeofus]

Can you give us some indication what this "band of greater density" really looks like? Is it higher in contrast than surrounding parts, or just higher in density? How wide is it? Is it uniform, or stronger/weaker towards the edges of film? Does it also affect base density? Does it affect all color layers the same way?

 

[Wayne]

I haven't tried to print or scan that frame since it's ruined, so I can't say much at this point. It's a narrow band of higher density about 6 mm wide and doesn't extend outside the frame so it doesn't affect the base density. Its 8.5 inches from the end of the roll, which would place it pretty near the end if it was the first end to go in (which I don't know for sure). To the naked eye it appears denser at the center of the band and fades either side of that.

 

[Rudeofus]

In my experience film can have all kinds of curl when it is dry, but once it is fully soaked with water it is usually quite saggy. Therefore any effect of strong film curl would have to happen rather at the begin of your dev cycle. One part of your film pressing against the other, or restricting flow through some other means could only lead to less development, i.e. lower density.

If all my theories are bad and that restricted flow would somehow lead to density boost as observed by Wayne, then a simple prewash with tempered water should solve this issue for future rolls.

PS: on the slim chance that the extra density is not dye, but retained silver: have you tried reblixing that one film strip?

 

[Photo Engineer]

If it does not extend outside of the frame, it might be a camera problem. Usually, process problems are indifferent to frame size or shape.

PE