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

[Steven Lee]

Quick update: I just developed 4 rolls, 6 sheets and a control strip using the Bellini C-41 developer. The rolls are still drying. They look great to my eye. I ran the control strip through the densitometer and all values are within control limits. The only problem with it is the price. $30 for 1L does not make any sense. Even in a rotary processor it's only good for 8 rolls (I develop one-shot). I only bought it because I still had some Flexicolor fixer and bleach sitting around.

 

[koraks]

I have some doubts about the stability of a one-part C41 developer concentrate - although it's not really that concentrated. It's a bit of a dilemma, because in my experience, a working strength C41 developer is very stable for at least a year in a tightly sealed glass bottle. However, in a concentrated form, the same mix is apparently not stable (apart from solubility limit issues resulting in crystallization). Here's what Ron Mowrey once told me:

HAS and CD4 should be in different parts if you are making concentrate because if mixed together the solution is too weak. It must be concentrated and acidic. When diluted HAS and CD4 are compatible. [...] The stock solution that Kodak makes is made stable by being so concentrated, by being packed under nitrogen, and being very acidic in the presence of Sulfur Dioxide. It is not wise to mix in the HAS with this part. It is mixed elsewhere for good reason.

This of course poses the question at which point (as concentration goes up) the stability of a working strength developer is lost. Is the Bellini 1+3 (roughly) concentration still stable? Or not quite? I don't know, but given Ron's quote above, I'm cautious.

 

[pentaxuser]

"I got full 16 roll capacity out of the kit, and the quality is consistent from first roll to last roll. I did adjust color developer time according to the instructions" - blee 1996

Even in a rotary processor it's only good for 8 rolls (I develop one-shot)- Steven Lee

That's a striking difference I wonder how this comes about? I can only assume that it is connected to the adjustment of the colour developer time?

Did you use the same developer for more than one film, blee 1996?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[blee1996]

"I got full 16 roll capacity out of the kit, and the quality is consistent from first roll to last roll. I did adjust color developer time according to the instructions" - blee 1996

Even in a rotary processor it's only good for 8 rolls (I develop one-shot)- Steven Lee

That's a striking difference I wonder how this comes about? I can only assume that it is connected to the adjustment of the colour developer time?

Did you use the same developer for more than one film, blee 1996?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I am mixing 1L working solution and reuse them. I stored color chemicals in aluminum foiled wine bags, which are both air and light tight. I use Paterson system 4 tanks that use 1L chemical, can develop either two rolls of 120 or 3 rolls of 135. I extend color developer time according to Bellini instructions, once 4/8/12 rolls have been developed in the same 1L chemicals. Thus I get 16 rolls capacity.

Steven Lee is doing one-shot development, and he does not reuse chemicals. This way, depending on his tank size, he gets less roll capacity.

 

[MattKing]

I use Paterson system 4 tanks that use 1L chemical

Those tanks haven't been available new for around 35 years. Are you by chance using the current Paterson Super System 4 tanks?
I'm not sure that the tank type is critical to the issues here, but it can't hurt to be sure.

 

[Steven Lee]

This of course poses the question at which point (as concentration goes up) the stability of a working strength developer is lost. Is the Bellini 1+3 (roughly) concentration still stable? Or not quite? I don't know, but given Ron's quote above, I'm cautious.

One thing I noticed about the Bellini C-41 developer is that the bottle had no air in it. Absolutely zero. You could turn it upside down and there'd be no bubbles. That's very different from how Flexicolor chemistry is packaged where all 3 bottles are only about 80% full.

 

[Steven Lee]

Those tanks haven't been available new for around 35 years. Are you by chance using the current Paterson Super System 4 tanks?
I'm not sure that the tank type is critical to the issues here, but it can't hurt to be sure.

Here's what I have. I bought it new but haven't used for a couple of years. IIRC it holds 1L. @pentaxuser I do not reuse the developer, that's why I can't get 16 rolls out of 1L.

 

[blee1996]

Those tanks haven't been available new for around 35 years. Are you by chance using the current Paterson Super System 4 tanks?
I'm not sure that the tank type is critical to the issues here, but it can't hurt to be sure.

Yes I have the current "Paterson Super System 4 tanks", which I bought from B&H within last 5 years.

 

[blee1996]

And since my earlier post, I have cracked open another box of Bellini C41 kit, and poured myself a 1L working solution.

And 4 rolls of C41 film are now drying: including one roll of Aerocolor 100 (Kodak 2460) respooled by Reflx Labs. Will be fun to compare with Ektar 100 shot at the same place and on the same day. Different camera and lenses though.

 

[MattKing]

Here's what I have. I bought it new but haven't used for a couple of years. IIRC it holds 1L. @pentaxuser I do not reuse the developer, that's why I can't get 16 rolls out of 1L.

Yep - that is the current version - the Super System 4. The only possible relevance I can think of respecting the differences between the two tanks is that the current tanks tend to permit a larger amount of air space above the film and fluid.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am mixing 1L working solution and reuse them. I stored color chemicals in aluminum foiled wine bags, which are both air and light tight. I use Paterson system 4 tanks that use 1L chemical, can develop either two rolls of 120 or 3 rolls of 135. I extend color developer time according to Bellini instructions, once 4/8/12 rolls have been developed in the same 1L chemicals. Thus I get 16 rolls capacity.

Steven Lee is doing one-shot development, and he does not reuse chemicals. This way, depending on his tank size, he gets less roll capacity.

Thanks, if this delivers the same quality over the 16 rolls this seems to be the way to go. I assume that an alternative to what you do would be to mix the whole 1L, use what is needed for say 1X135 in a Jobo tank meant for only 1 film so 140ml of developer and decant it back into the 1l stock each time until 16 films have been developed according to the extended time table?

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

Thanks, if this delivers the same quality over the 16 rolls this seems to be the way to go.

It shouldn't in theory. Reusing developer lowers its activity and forces you to increase the development time to compensate. But the time for C-41 must be exactly 3:15 otherwise there will be density/curve mismatch between CMY exposures. Both Fuji Negacolor Technical Bulletin and Kodak Z-131 mention this in the process troubleshooting section.

Consumer-level kits routinely recommend reusing anyway. My understanding is that the assumption that quality requirements are low, and the resulting color issues can be corrected during scanning.

Full disclosure: I have not compared control strip readings after the 1st and 16th roll, I have only read Fuji + Kodak datasheets cover to cover (more than once) and sharing my conclusions.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Full disclosure: I have not compared control strip readings after the 1st and 16th roll, I have only read Fuji + Kodak datasheets cover to cover (more than once) and sharing my conclusions.

Well, perhaps you could try reusing developer once and see what happens. I mean, you have the means to do so, gear and control strips. I'd expect to have some crossover, but it might be tolerable.

 

[lamerko]

And 4 rolls of C41 film are now drying: including one roll of Aerocolor 100 (Kodak 2460) respooled by Reflx Labs. Will be fun to compare with Ektar 100 shot at the same place and on the same day. Different camera and lenses though.

I will also be interested in the comparison with the 2460

 

[koraks]

I will also be interested in the comparison with the 2460

Yes, me too! It's a candidate for color 4x5 and I understand Reflx are working on bringing this to the market very soon, so any clues on how it actually performs would be welcome.

 

[pentaxuser]

So it sounds like the "difference of opinion" issue that arises each time someone or some producer of C41 chemicals says to re-use developer with extra time as does Bellini in this case. The user then reports consistent quality and others are equally insistent that this isn't possible.

My thoughts: Either the user is lucky for reasons no-one seems able to state in terms of why it works sometimes or the user's judgement is lacking in that changes have occurred but haven't been seen by the user nor presumably by the audience who normally get to view the prints

My initial reaction is that over 16 films even someone whose judgement may not be as good as experienced users should surely notice some change?

Presumably such an extended time process works OK for b&w as Ilford mentions the use of it for several of their developers but the differences are so marginal in the case of b&w compared to colour negatives that 100% of viewers or as near as damn it would not see any difference?

Finally the problem usually cited as the "intractable one", namely colour crossover, can be corrected via a hybrid process but cannot via an optical one? So "hybriders" can risk this extended time process and "cure" the crossover if it happens but not darkroom optical printers?

Does that sum it up?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[blee1996]

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.

 

[koraks]

Presumably such an extended time process works OK for b&w as Ilford mentions the use of it for several of their developers but the differences are so marginal in the case of b&w compared to colour negatives that 100% of viewers or as near as damn it would not see any difference?

Yes, and with color films, the differences would also be unnoticeable to many, because indeed...:

Finally the problem usually cited as the "intractable one", namely colour crossover, can be corrected via a hybrid process but cannot via an optical one? So "hybriders" can risk this extended time process and "cure" the crossover if it happens but not darkroom optical printers?

This is certainly the case. And to an extent, crossover can be dealt with in optical printing in a few ways that can make it less of a problem:
* Pre/post flashing to alter highlight color balance
* Supplemental masking
* Most importantly: embracing the crossover as a desirable feat of analog unpredictability.

As to the technical aspects of reuse of chemicals: I personally don't see ways to make this perform as consistently as properly replenished (high volume context) or one-shot use of chemistry (low volume context). The reason for this is that when reusing the developer, one can account for the reduced activity by extending development time, but this does not entirely account for the differences in color balance that result from halide buildup. Further problems arise from the small amount of sulfite being oxidized, and this in particular has a pronounced effect on dye formation - the effect will be counter to the reduced activity due to halide accumulation and developer oxidation, but again, this cannot be assumed to be equal across the color channels.

The effects of this are summed up quite well in Kodak's Z131 pub, especially page 5-32 which deals with developer replenishment issues. Note that not only overall density buildup is affected in an underreplenished developer (this, we can compensate for with extended development), but the color balance also is affected, with a pronounced difference between low and high densities (i.e. crossover).

In my mind, the main reason why people 'get away' with reusing non-replenished developer is because they simply don't notice the problems, and one might argue that they're not really problems for them. It all boils down to how strict one sets their criteria, and that's ultimately an entirely personal choice.

 

[Anon Ymous]

In my mind, the main reason why people 'get away' with reusing non-replenished developer is because they simply don't notice the problems, ...

That's very true. I have been scratch mixing E6 and I habitually include a colour checker frame with my 135 films. This will reveal crossover and colour casts present that are far more difficult to spot in a normal frame.

 

[Richard Man]

FWIW, I bought 6x 5L from UniquePhoto earlier this year and I do not notice any worse blue. I don't use control strip, but I only do one shot and scan and post process.

 

[twelvetone12]

I've always abused the Bellini kits by doing more rolls than the stated capacity, the first being my "important" stuff and the rest whatever I had in the queue that i could afford to lose. Sincerely I never noted any difference between the first and last ones at the naked eye, but I also never did any real testing nor control strips. I'm pretty sure in that case the crossover would show up.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, and with color films, the differences would also be unnoticeable to many, because indeed...:


This is certainly the case. And to an extent, crossover can be dealt with in optical printing in a few ways that can make it less of a problem:
* Pre/post flashing to alter highlight color balance
* Supplemental masking
* Most importantly: embracing the crossover as a desirable feat of analog unpredictability.



In my mind, the main reason why people 'get away' with reusing non-replenished developer is because they simply don't notice the problems, and one might argue that they're not really problems for them.

Yes that captures the essence of what the problem is or isn't depending on whether a problem is perceived or not perceived which leads on to the "philosophical" debate of whether a problem exists at all if it cannot be seen by almost all the viewers

It certainly suggests to me that an attempt to use the Bellini re-use and extend the time is worth an attempt at least. I suppose I get "exercised" by statements that define success or disaster in black and white terms on what may be very fine margins.



pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

which leads on to the "philosophical" debate of whether a problem exists at all if it cannot be seen by almost all the viewers

Yes, I think ultimately this is really what it boils down to. It also explains why the issue proces to be so persistent. There's just no definitive answer.

 

[Steven Lee]

Well... I can offer one practical reason for better consistency: easier digital workflow. I like saving Photoshop adjustment layers and re-applying them across rolls of the same emulsion. Back when I was using labs, this practice wasn't working as well because the labs in my areas weren't consistent. Once I switched to one-shot at-home C-41 processing, digital color balancing has gotten more predictable and straightforward. But again, this wouldn't apply to a typical NLP user where everything happens semi-magically.

 

[blee1996]

My first test of Aerocolor 100 vs Ektar 100, processed at the same time with fresh Bellini C41 1L chemistry

Kodak Aerocolor (2460) compared to Ektar 100 in 120

Recently I tried one roll of Aerocolor 100 (re-spooled 2460 by Reflx Labs) alongside Ektar 100. I'm a total amateur and there is no systematic controls. This is just one data point from a novice user, instead of a scientific bench test. Location: a local ranch Exposure: it was glorious NorCal...

www.photrio.com