• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Best c41 home development chemicals

Filmfan101

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 24, 2024
Messages
55
Location
London
Format
Medium Format
Hi, I’ve been developing C41 at home in a manual tank for about a year and a half, I’ve used the Bellini c41 kit and the Adox c41 kit but keep getting inconsistent results with both in different ways. What are people’s thoughts on best chemicals for home C41 dev. I’m in the UK so will need to be available here.

Thanks

P.s @koraks i imagine you’ll have some good input cheers.
 
In what respect are the results "inconsistent"?

Assuming your chemicals are in date, not over-used or poorly stored, and you are following the instructions to the letter (especially Colour Dev time and temperature), and are doing exactly the same procedure every time, I don't understand why the results should be inconsistent. In my experience, these kits (Bellini and Adox) give excellent results ... every time. So there's something amiss with your processing regimen, I think.
 
I started developing color film at home about 2 years ago. I now do E6 as well and have pretty consistent results. I tried the Cinestill, Bellini, Adox and Flic film C41 kits before finally just settling in on the Arista 1Gal kit. At first I was worried about chemical degradation as I mix up about 500ml per month to develop 6-8 rolls of film with. Im on my second kit and have had very consistent results with quality. First kit was used for almost 8 months and comparing the negatives between the first and last batch I really can't tell a difference. It is also very economical to use if you buy the full gallon and just mix out 500-1000ml at a time. Hope this helps!
 
Filmfan101 said:
P.s @koraks i imagine you’ll have some good input cheers.
Click to expand...
If you're looking for advice, first show us your results, which you think are inconsistent. Don't post finished scans, but photos of the negatives against a light background (preferably a white wall). These can be photos taken with your phone. Thanks to the white wall, the automatic WB on the phone won't go crazy.

The Bellini C41 kit and the Adox C41 kit are among the best kits. Adox C-41 is a 100% replacement for the legendary Tetenal Colortec C-41. Bellini uses chemicals in their kits that they produce for professional labs. There's no way the results would be inconsistent due to these chemicals.

I haven't seen your results, but are you sure you're maintaining a constant temperature while 3.15 min developing ?
 

We're just shooting in the dark unless you provide a lot more details:

What film?
What kind of tank and reels?
What method of agitation? Inversion, rotation, continuous?
What kind of temperature control?
 

Once mixed and partially used, C-41 developer has a shelf life of about 2 weeks in a full bottle.

Check temperature etc.

Are the negatives inconsistent or are you struggling with scanning?
 
I’m developing in a jobo 1520 tank (120 film) using hand agitation, if people can let me know their processes when using the Bellini and Adox kits that’d be handy, I’ve been following instructions that come with the kits.
 
I have been using the Cinestill 1 Liter Developing kit for a few years. It really isn't any different than most of the others but all I have to do is call Blue Moon Camera and they can get a couple of kits to me pretty quickly.

I don't even mix my color chemicals until I have 10 rolls waiting to be developed and then I develop them 5 rolls at a time in my Jobo tank, usually in two, or at most four days. After that I am done and dispose of the chemicals. I could probably get more films through but I know after a few years of use that I can get very consistent developing by doing it this way.

No muss, no fuss. I am done in a couple of days and I don't have to worry about the results. That is what I like.
 
Filmfan101 said:
I’m developing in a jobo 1520 tank (120 film) using hand agitation, if people can let me know their processes when using the Bellini and Adox kits that’d be handy, I’ve been following instructions that come with the kits.
Click to expand...

How are you controlling the temperature (to +/- 0.5C)? And exactly what agitation, given the Col Dev time is only 3min15sec? Are you re-using solutions? If so, how long between films, and how many films in total per litre (or 500ml)?

In my opinion, it all about the details. They are important, and every time you process you should be doing exactly the same as last time, unless you are deliberately pulling or pushing the Col Dev.

As others have said, both the Bellini and Adox kits are excellent ... if used in date.
 
Filmfan101 said:
P.s @koraks i imagine you’ll have some good input cheers.
Click to expand...
I agree with the others that in order to solve problems, it helps to understand them first.
AFAIk there's nothing about the chemistry you use that is inherently problematic; either should work fine. So odds are that it's a process parameter that's not under control, and switching chemistry will be a hit & miss (likely the latter) guess.
 
I have an old Jobo machine. The rotation no longer works but the heater maintains temp pretty consistently so I rotate the tank by hand. I have several different tanks. Usually for color I use my Multi-Tank 5 which requires 640 ml of solution. I do the normal 3m15s for the first five films and then increase the time to 3m45s for the second 5 rolls. Seems to work out ok. For the seond tank of 5 films I mix the used developer with remaining unused and take the 640 ml out of the mix. As I remember the directions say to increase the time after the first two rolls but since I am doing 5 rolls at a time I increase the time for the second tank of 5 rolls.
 
Any of the "standard" variants, with separate bleach and fixer is good in my opinion. These are mostly professinal line chemistries repackaged and starters added- I personally have used Fuji Hunt Film X-press, because the size is good for my requirements, and it is very eaisily available here in Lithuania. As far as I know, also the Bellini products are excellent. The only issue for me is that they are only available in 1 liter size, which is too small for me. Also, using professional chemistry, such as Fuji Hunt´s Environeg, is also a possibility.

For now, I use Fuji Hunt´s Film X´press kit for C41
For RA-4, I use Fuji Hunt Enviroprint 160 MP and Bleach Fix 108 AC
For E6, my choice is the Jobo kit.
 
All I will say here is, please for your own sake do not use simple Blix kits. Use only kits that utilise separate bleach and fixer stages.
Cyan dye formation will be absolutely hampered without proper time in bleach, as is coming out of the colour developer it is very clear and forms its final coloured state in the bleach.
 
BurntOutElectronics said:
Cyan dye formation will be absolutely hampered without proper time in bleach, as is coming out of the colour developer it is very clear and forms its final coloured state in the bleach.
Click to expand...

You may be confusing the pH-dependent color of the dye with the formation of the dye as such. The dye is really formed in the developing step, not the bleach step. pH of subsequent steps can/will affect the hue strength of the dyes, but the dyes do not chemically change after they've been formed as a result of the color coupler linking with the oxidized functional developer group.
A simple diagnostic to disprove your statement is the fact that bleach-bypass processed film has well-formed cyan dye. Overall saturation is less (across all color channels0 due to the presence of metallic silver, which acts like a bit of black paint mixed in with a color paint, which will reduce saturation (and increase density).
 

Evidence? The Tetenal/Adox C41 kit has Blix, and I've never seen any evidence that this gives inferior results. Sure, there a lot of opinions out there both ways, but where are the facts? (I've always used this kit, never had any problems, but I have not critically and objectively compared it to the full process kits.)
 

Yes dyes are pH sensitive, but their formation is also oxidation sensitive! I would not describe bleach bypassed film as having "well formed" cyan dyes. So much so that pro labs back in the day would handle beach bypass with caution and actually duplicate the negs and bleach bypass that rather than the originals.

What I am referring to here is leuco cyan dyes, that are formed in development and are converted with further oxidation in bleach. Both cyan dyes and leuco cyan dyes will be present after colour developer resulting in a weak non linear density that is only corrected for in a proper period in oxidised bleach.
Such oxidation is rushed to completion and often isn't in blix configurations. This results in muddy optical prints which I have experienced first hand.

Also, blix raises the likelihood of residual silver being left also resulting in further image issues. Blix is not a stable mixture, and being used beyond a one shot should be cautioned. I would not recommend it at all.

This is all well documented here on this website and others, Ron himself has written lots about it over time.
I suggest you do further research.
 
BurntOutElectronics said:
What I am referring to here is leuco cyan dyes
Click to expand...

Exactly; those are just completely formed dyes, but in a leuco state due to pH. Note that on modern C41 and ECN2 films, all dyes revert to a completely colored state in a simple water wash. Bleach is NOT required for the dyes to form, obtain their color etc.

BurntOutElectronics said:
This is all well documented here on this website and others, Ron himself has written lots about it over time.
Click to expand...
Yes, you may have to revisit those materials.
You may be confused by mention of this issue in relation to really old film types (pre 1980s).
 
Last edited:

There used to be dyes, which needed an oxidation step to reach their dye state, they were more or less transparent without this step. These dyes needed a strong bleach to become actual dyes.

pH is a different matter, it determines, whether a dye (which is often a weak acid or base) is deprotonated or not, and only in one state it has the correct hue. This property is the reason, why the last concentrated bath (either BLIX or fixer) have to have pH within spec.

One must not mix these two up. Leuco dyes are a thing of the past, any film from the last few decades will have dye couplers and resulting dyes without that issue. The pH theme, of course, persists.
 
Rudeofus said:
This property is the reason, why the last concentrated bath (either BLIX or fixer) have to have pH within spec.
Click to expand...

I always learned it that way. But I've also always wondered how that would work, since a non-concentrated bath (i.e. water) would negate whatever happens in the last concentrated bath, at least pH-wise. Indeed, in practice, if you wash C41 film (or modern ECN2 Vision3 film for that matter), it colors up nicely, even if it was just run through an acidic bath.
 

The rule may have been made for fast moving labs, where not too much time was spent in wash water. I have observed this when working with my pH meter: it shows some pH whatever say 10, and then I rinse the probe with a stream of fresh deionized water seemingly forever and pH remains up, not at 10, but above 8 for sure.
 
BurntOutElectronics said:
Can you cite any technical publications that back such a claim?
Click to expand...
You can infer it e.g. from Rogers (2007) "The chemistry of Photography: From Classical to Digital Technologies", p68-69:


You can infer some more from Longoni et al. (2004) Chromogenic dyes in motion picture films at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries: a multi-technique comparative study, although it discusses the related issue of cyan dye fading into leuco state in a tired bleach:

Chromogenic dyes in motion picture films at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries: a multi-technique comparative study

The cyan, magenta and yellow dyes in a series of four chromogenic motion picture films, dating from the late 20th and early 21st centuries, were chara…
www.sciencedirect.com
While that publication discusses motion picture film, the overall scope of the 2-electron story is kind of broad to begin with, encompassing both film & paper, and since it relates so closely to economics (silver load), it's safe to assume that in this sense what applies to MP film also applies to stills film.

Furthermore, Longoni et al. refer to (among others) Bergthaller (a series of 3 publications) Couplers in colour photography—chemistry and function (Parts 1, 2 and 3); from the abstract of part 1 (2002):
The benefits resulting from almost exclusive use of two-equivalent couplers are pointed out.
Click to expand...
So that would be a nice place to start reading if you can access the relevant Imaging Science Journal issue (vol 50., issue 3).

Then there's bound to be some patent applications in the period ca. 1975-1990, but I frankly didn't probe it because it's too labor intensive.
 

I would be extremely hesitant to compare intricacies of ECN to C41. Using couplers that require more silver for a given density is of far more concern for motion than it is for still photography. it's absolutely an economies of scale issue at that point.
Vision3 500T uses 5.5g of Ag per square meter. whilst I don't have data for a c41 stock I would not be surprised if on average they used more silver to achieve the intended purpose. Different dye sets, different colour developer. Just because it's ideal to use less silver if possible doesn't mean they can. stock to stock silver amounts vary wildy for far more reasons than just couplers utilised.

You're correct in pointing out the issue of dyes being converted back to a leuco state in bleach being fixed, but it absolutely doesn't mean the opposite can't still be an issue.

I'd be far more inclined to follow the words of the man who invented C-41 blix and hated it rather than some citing that seems largely unrelated.

Point is, I wouldn't advise the use of blix because of leuco dye risk, silver retention risk and overall chemical instability and resulting shelf life. Labs check for silver retention once or twice daily and they don't use blix! if kodak supplies bleach and fix to labs there is probably multiple reasons for it.
Risk doesn't mean certainty, but why involve risk at all if its simple to avoid?
 
You can believe whatever you choose to believe; as a friend of mine says sometimes, "we live in a post truth society."
BurntOutElectronics said:
I would be extremely hesitant to compare intricacies of ECN to C41.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. It's well-known and also confirmed by Kodak engineers that these product lines share technological commonalities. The argument that economics would be of lesser importance for C41 is quite frankly just bizarre; no company would sacrifice profitability for...well, no reason at all.

I'd be far more inclined to follow the words of the man who invented C-41 blix and hated it rather than some citing that seems largely unrelated.
Click to expand...
That's quite dismissive w.r.t. that latter comment, and as to the former, you are probably referring to Ron Mowrey who was one of the people who engineered modern versions of the RA4 blix. to the best of my knowledge he never did any commercial work on a C41 blix since Kodak never released such a product, but I don't doubt he did some experimentation in that field. At the same time, we also know for a fact that plenty of people are perfectly happy with the performance of C41 blix they use at home for their amateur CN processing. I can't argue with something that works for something, even if I would have theoretical grounds for believing there's a better alternative. Much of the time, 'good enough' is perfectly acceptable.

BurntOutElectronics said:
I wouldn't advise the use of blix because of leuco dye risk
Click to expand...
That's odd because a few posts back that's exactly what you did.

Look, I think you're just trying to wiggle your way into adhering to some kind of belief you prefer to hang on to. That's fine, but it's not the basis for a constructive or useful discussion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register