Bellini C-41 chemistry. Expensive and unusual. What do we know about it?

[Mikey Antonakakis]

 

[koraks]

@Mikey Antonakakis , thanks for posting the examples; I think the help. As you cal tell right away, the first and the last strips (rocket launch & kid in jacket) are underdeveloped. The second strip (mother pushing pram) looks normal. Note in particular the density of the edge marks and also their hue. This all looks like insufficient developer activity due to a temperature control issue, a mixing error or exhausted developer. Re-bleaching won't do much.

The reason why I requested photos of the negatives is also clear from these examples; as you can see, the scanner 'fixes' the lower density of the faulty negatives, making it appear if they're just a little grainy. But the real problem is that they're very low in density, especially in the magenta and cyan channels. The graininess is just an artefact that emerges as the scanning software boosts contrast.

 

[Mikey Antonakakis]

@Mikey Antonakakis , thanks for posting the examples; I think the help. As you cal tell right away, the first and the last strips (rocket launch & kid in jacket) are underdeveloped. The second strip (mother pushing pram) looks normal. Note in particular the density of the edge marks and also their hue. This all looks like insufficient developer activity due to a temperature control issue, a mixing error or exhausted developer. Re-bleaching won't do much.

The reason why I requested photos of the negatives is also clear from these examples; as you can see, the scanner 'fixes' the lower density of the faulty negatives, making it appear if they're just a little grainy. But the real problem is that they're very low in density, especially in the magenta and cyan channels. The graininess is just an artefact that emerges as the scanning software boosts contrast.

Thank you for the assessment, it sure seems like development issue to me now. I remember thinking as I pulled the roll out of the final rinse "hmm, density doesn't look terrible, but sure looks monotone..." So digitization noise makes sense. Maybe I will scan samples from both rolls again to check the histograms and see if I can get any process-control insight for my future reference.

My previously-stated notes for the Ektar development were mixed up with the second roll I used with Bellini kit, so here's what actually was done for the Ektar roll shown in the photos:

• First roll developed with freshly-opened and mixed Bellini kit, in a small Jobo tank
• Chemicals mixed per Bellini instructions (I used the 1L kit)
• Prewashed at ~38C for maybe 5 minutes, I intended 3min but something delayed me
• Developed at 38C for 3:15, agitating per Bellini instructions
• Bleached for 0:45 with continuous agitation (bleach at or slightly cooler than 38C)
• Rinsed with water briefly before Fix
• Fixed for 1:30 with continuous agitation (fixer at or slightly cooler than 38C)
• Rinsed for 3:00 with ~38C tap water
• Stabilizer as last rinse step before hanging to dry
• After drying, did a bath in Kodak FLO due to some streaks

As far as I know, the main issue I had with my development was too-long prewash. There's also a good chance I mistakenly targeted 102F instead of 38C (as mental carry-over from starting with Cinestill CS41 kit), but if so I imagine it wouldn't be the cause for my underdevelopment.

Regarding too-long prewash, I have done two rolls so far in the Bellini chemicals - the Ektar shown above (first roll), and a 120-format Portra 160 (second roll). I am not 100% sure it was the Ektar roll, but I remember that when I dumped the prewash water it was a dark shade of green, I was quite surprised. I also don't usually prewash, so wasn't sure what to expect.

The 120 Portra roll seems to have come out better, although I used a different scanner and lower 2400dpi (vs 4000) resolution for the 120 Portra roll the grain/noise looks much finer/nonexistent. I will take a similar light table shot of one of those negatives a little later.

 

[koraks]

Maybe I will scan samples from both rolls again to check the histograms and see if I can get any process-control insight for my future reference.

This could work, but I'd suggest the following:
* Scan using the slide/positive option and not as color negative. This bypasses all manner of color corrections and probably gives you the closest to a 'raw' scan.
* Keep a reference negative (known-good) on file and using a flatbed scanner, scan it along with a sample negative you want to assess. This way, you get both negatives in one scan and you can more accurately judge how they're different.

As far as I know, the main issue I had with my development was too-long prewash.

I wouldn't worry about that; it won't cause this kind of dramatic density loss.

There's also a good chance I mistakenly targeted 102F instead of 38C

102F is 38.9C and would have caused minor overdevelopment; in all likelihood, you wouldn't have noticed it.

So it seems there's yet another factor at work that you haven't identified yet. If you reuse your developer, I'd suggest fresh developer for your next run.

 

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Thanks again for the feedback @koraks!

• Yes, that's essentially my scanning workflow with both Epson Scan with V600 (4x5 and 120) and VueScan (Coolscan V ED for 35mm).
  • For Epson Scan/V600, I positive scan to TIF, set output to 0-255, and input black and white points based on max/min of the entire roll, keeping same settings for whole roll.
  • For VueScan/Coolscan, I positive scan to RAW DNG, setting same exposure for entire roll, checking histogram on every shot to ensure no clipping.
• I think the roll of Portra 400 with the "mom pushing baby" shot shown above is my best reference for now; I will use it. That said, as I examine other Portra 400 I have, this reference roll seems to have a more magenta base... I'll post an example
• For the Ektar roll in question, it was the first roll on the freshly-received and freshly-mixed kit, so I suppose if it's an issue with developer itself, I should just toss it. I was hoping to avoid the Fuji Hunt kit for now (it will require me to shoot more film! that's both good and expensive), but that's my next step. In the meantime I will shoot a test roll to try the Bellini kit once more.

Comparison negatives next, shot on mirrorless on light table, framing, exposure, etc. all identical. In Lightroom all white balanced to same spot on the PrintFile label and all +1.0 exposure. Large variation in actual scene color/contrast. Tried to include some exposed leader if I had it.

Lab-processed, EOS A2E:

Same Lab, within a week of above, EOS A2E:

Home-developed with freshly-mixed Cinestill CS-41 kit, developer per kit instructions, EOS A2E:

Home-developed, freshly-mixed Bellini Kit, Ektar 100 EOS A2E:

Home-developed, roll #2 of the Bellini kit a few days after Ektar 100, Bronica S2A metered with spotmeter and rough zone system:

 

[koraks]

I think the roll of Portra 400 with the "mom pushing baby" shot shown above is my best reference for now; I will use it. That said, as I examine other Portra 400 I have, this reference roll seems to have a more magenta base... I'll post an example

In the two 400-speed examples you posted, one is Gold and the other is Portra. Not sure if these are the examples you're also referring to in the quote above, but note that different C41 films also have different base colors. The difference is fairly subtle, but quite clear if you compare them side by side. Moreover, base density increases as film ages (esp. fast film) so that's a factor as well.

Home-developed with freshly-mixed Cinestill CS-41 kit

OK, that really doesn't look good.

I was hoping to avoid the Fuji Hunt kit for now (it will require me to shoot more film!

It lasts long if you store it away in glass bottles. On a per-liter basis, Fuji minilab chemistry will be cheaper, also lasts a long time when stored properly. It just takes long to get through it, but despite not shooting a truckload of color film, I still do it this way. Part of the reason is that I know I'm using a developer that's known to perform well, which removes some of the uncertainty from the process in case something goes wrong. And fortunately, not much goes wrong on this front!

 

[Mikey Antonakakis]

In the two 400-speed examples you posted, one is Gold and the other is Portra. Not sure if these are the examples you're also referring to in the quote above, but note that different C41 films also have different base colors. The difference is fairly subtle, but quite clear if you compare them side by side. Moreover, base density increases as film ages (esp. fast film) so that's a factor as well.

Only included the Gold as an extra data point for that lab and a little more context for my impromptu mirrorless scanning with newly-acquired cheap light table - maybe it doesn't indicate anything, but the markings on the film border look thinner on the Gold, maybe an irrelevant comparison.

OK, that really doesn't look good.

The actual photograph, or borders too? It was a fairly monotone scene, snow and gray sidewalk and light blue sky and blue snowsuit and tan/brown foliage. In any case, the CS-41 kit has already been dumped and I will not be ordering more.

Any feedback on the 120 Portra, since it was also done with the Bellini kit? Mom was wearing a bright salmon/pink jacket, otherwise the scene was pretty dull winter colors.

It lasts long if you store it away in glass bottles. On a per-liter basis, Fuji minilab chemistry will be cheaper, also lasts a long time when stored properly. It just takes long to get through it, but despite not shooting a truckload of color film, I still do it this way. Part of the reason is that I know I'm using a developer that's known to perform well, which removes some of the uncertainty from the process in case something goes wrong. And fortunately, not much goes wrong on this front!

I will give Bellini one more try with a test roll with decent scene contrast and more saturated colors, but my next kit will be Fuji. I already have plenty of argon on-hand (I do some welding) and 10mL glass "sample bottles" with rubber stoppers for dividing Developer Part C (per this process) are quite cheap, seems reasonable to get ~1 year out of the kit stored that way.

 

[brbo]

I will give Bellini one more try with a test roll with decent scene contrast and more saturated colors, but my next kit will be Fuji. I already have plenty of argon on-hand (I do some welding) and 10mL glass "sample bottles" with rubber stoppers for dividing Developer Part C (per this process) are quite cheap, seems reasonable to get ~1 year out of the kit stored that way.

I used to part every component of FujiHunt kit into 1l batches since sometimes it took me 2 years to go through the entire 5 liters. It was a lot of work.

Some people argued that mixig the entire 5l at once is even better in regards to the shelf life (I’m still not quite sold on this). Tested & tried and it works for me. Both methods can keep developer alive for more than 2 years. If one method can keep it alive substantially longer than the other… I’ll never know (and I don’t have an actual need to).

 

[koraks]

The actual photograph, or borders too?

The borders, too; the base is rather yellow. The photos are difficult to assess; they're snow scenes by the looks of it, so mostly neutral density.

Any feedback on the 120 Portra, since it was also done with the Bellini kit?

Hard to tell - if it scans OK, I wouldn't worry about it too much. In the end, that's what matters: whether the photos come out to your liking!

I already have plenty of argon on-hand (I do some welding) and 10mL glass "sample bottles" with rubber stoppers for dividing Developer Part C (per this process) are quite cheap, seems reasonable to get ~1 year out of the kit stored that way.

I prefer to mix it all up into working strength developer and then part out into glass bottles that are entirely full. The developer turns out to be very stable this way. I can echo @brbo's count of at least 2 years of shelf life this way. For me that's enough.

 

[bags27]

My experience is entirely hybrid, since I scan all negatives and never print optically. Thus there are enough variables in the scanning software and Lightroom adjustment, that I cannot notice the difference between 1st and last roll. In addition, I use various camera, lenses, and film in uncontrolled lighting condition. So there are multiple dimensions of additional variables.

Me, exactly! I'm just so delighted when I remember to use the developer before the blix that I'm amazed by most any result in C-41 or E-6 and correct in post.

 

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Hard to tell - if it scans OK, I wouldn't worry about it too much. In the end, that's what matters: whether the photos come out to your liking!

Definitely a lot of wiggle room in scanning, that's for sure! But I am working on adding a full analog fork into my current hybrid process, I've been getting a wet darkroom up and running (I restored an Omega D5500 and have been amassing other darkroom accessories at a rate that is alarming my wife). At this point I'm nearly kitted up for color printing, just need chemicals. I'm already doing B&W prints, and in the handful of quick sessions I've had so far have been more successful than anything I did last time I was in a wet darkroom, ~20 years ago in high school. So, hoping to get my color film developing dialed in.

Anyway, I appreciate all the help!

 

[Tina Kino]

Hello everybody and thank you for sharing your experiences with the Bellini C-41 kit!

Thought I'd add the new / updated technical data sheet from Bellini to this thread (attached below, and can also found here as of now)

..and also I have a question:
they do detail how to extend the dev times in that sheet (03:15 for rolls 1-3, 03:30 for rolls 4-6 etc.) - does that mean you should be developing three rolls at a time max?
Or how would you accomodate for this?

I'm asking, because I'd really like to do 4 rolls at once, as that would be a very good "fit" for a JOBO 1510 with a 1530 extension (allowing to process 4x35mm at once) - which would need 975ml using inversion..
I was thinking the fresh developer could probably handle four rolls instead of three (using the same 03:15), but of course I'd deviating from the recommended times further, down the line.. meaning, if I do four rolls at once, my third batch would already be roll 9-12 instead of 7-9.

How would you do the math in this 4-roll-per-batch scenario?
Start with, say, 3:20 - and do something like 3:40 for rolls 5-8, and 4:00 for rolls 9-12?

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

 

[BMbikerider]

I don't know if it is available everywhere yet but kits made by JOBO and more recently under the trade name of Kodak have become available in UK. The JOBO was good but because one of the chemicals 'went off' after an extraordinarily short time the kit had to be discarded. More recently because of the JOBO problem I have just tried the trade marked 'Kodak' version and so far have only processed one film with normal results. (except the grain seems to be finer, I don't know if it is my imagination or not!)

The 2.5l kit from 'Kodak' is marginally cheaper than the JOBO version by about £5 per kit. and a by a bigger margin cheaper than Bellini although I have not used that yet so cannot comment on the quality.

 

[koraks]

Thought I'd add the new / updated technical data sheet from Bellini to this thread (attached below, and can also found here as of now)

A very crucial detail is missing from the screenshot you posted - the footnote for the final rinse:

The "3 minute stabilizer" mentioned in the main table is misleading as one might interpret it as a 3-minute cycle without any changes of the water/stabilizer. The footnote clarifies that running water or a few changes of the stabilizer are actually required to properly wash the film.

I was thinking the fresh developer could probably handle four rolls instead of three (using the same 03:15)

Yes, that would be the case.

For subsequent rolls you can extend the time as the datasheet indicates. To a limited extent, you can compensate by developing longer although the results will never be identical to the first batch you process in the chemistry. How much to extend the times by is a sort of a guess because it also depends on the type of film processed.

 

[Tina Kino]

Thanks for the clarification @koraks

What times would you be using (if you were to develop 4 rolls a t a time), for rolls 1-4, 5-8, 9-12 (and 13-16, for that matter)?

 

[koraks]

For rolls 1-4 I'd stick with 3m15. For rolls 5-8 maybe something like 3m30s. Beyond that, I wouldn't go personally. Ca. 10 rolls per liter is in practice about the maximum useful capacity of C41 developer.

Keep in mind that as film developer gets used, you cannot entirely make up for the changes in developer composition by stretching development time. You will at the same time also affect the ratio of development between the different color layers, there will be changes to curve shape due to the buildup of halides, and you will see subtle effects on aspects like acutance, grain etc.

It's a bit like cake - cake is great on the first day. The second day it's already less tasty, but if you put some whipped cream on top, it's still nice. By the 3rd or 4th day, the best way forward is to feed it to the pigs/chickens out in the backyard. At what point you decide the cake is no longer good to eat is very subjective. Some will spit on it after only a day, others may find it's still OK (hey, I didn't throw up!) after a week. YMMV.

Given the cost of color film today and the time that goes into making the photos, I'd be hesitant to recommend overstretching C41 developer usage. Especially since it's still quite affordable.

 

[Tina Kino]

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate @koraks - it's appreciated!

 

[Kilgallb]

I'd agree with those who find the Cinestill temp control gear quite useful. I bought one initially to help with my Jobo... but have since converted to making it the primary temp control.

On my Jobo I turn off the heater and insert my Cinestill circulator temperature controller in a vacant bottle location.