C-41 2nd try!

[pbromaghin]

I just did my 2nd try at C-41 on Saturday, using the CatLabs chems for 2 rolls of 9-year expired 120 Portra 160vc. I am amazed at the results. There was a panic moment when the pouring cap wouldn't come off. Since I was re-using the chemicals I adjusted the time by 15 seconds, added another 30 seconds for the age of the film and then added another minute while I dashed out the the garage for the channel lock pliers to get the cap off to pour out the developer.

I don't know if it's the film, the time, or the scanner, but they came out a bit green. Here's the original along with one with less green and added blue, which I think would be easy enough with a dichroic head.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are on your way. Good start.

 

[bvy]

Scanning is a horrible way to judge the quality of your C-41 development. But if you must do it, I always suggest the following: Place a strip you developed alongside a similarly exposed frame from a commercially developed strip (ditch the scanning mask and place them directly on the scanner glass, assuming you're using a flatbed). Draw a marquee around frames from both strips. Scan as usual and compare. If only your frames have a cast, it's probably the development; if both yours and theirs have it, it's probably the scanner. (Note the "probablies" -- lots of variables at work here.)

ETA: Just noticed that you plan to print -- so the answer then becomes if you can get a well balanced print without having to dial in some extreme filtration, then you're development is good. Good luck!

 

[StoneNYC]

Scanning is a horrible way to judge the quality of your C-41 development. But if you must do it, I always suggest the following: Place a strip you developed alongside a similarly exposed frame from a commercially developed strip (ditch the scanning mask and place them directly on the scanner glass, assuming you're using a flatbed). Draw a marquee around frames from both strips. Scan as usual and compare. If only your frames have a cast, it's probably the development; if both yours and theirs have it, it's probably the scanner. (Note the "probablies" -- lots of variables at work here.)

ETA: Just noticed that you plan to print -- so the answer then becomes if you can get a well balanced print without having to dial in some extreme filtration, then you're development is good. Good luck!

The OP is also using 9 year old film, perhaps using fresh film will give you more insight into how good it works.

 

[bvy]

The OP is also using 9 year old film, perhaps using fresh film will give you more insight into how good it works.

Yes, I missed that.

 

[pbromaghin]

Ya, I bought 40 rolls (half 160 and 400) from a guy a couple years ago for a buck each, kept in the fridge in his studio. The first roll I took to a lab and it came back with a lot of fog and what looked to me like reticulation. So I figured to save the rest for playing around when I start home processing. This is the first done at home and honestly, I am pleased. If the rest come out like this one, I'll be happy. It's way better than I expected.

That one was from the Mamiys, here's a couple from the other roll, out of a 1948 Zeiss folder:

 

[StoneNYC]

Ya, I bought 40 rolls (half 160 and 400) from a guy a couple years ago for a buck each, kept in the fridge in his studio. The first roll I took to a lab and it came back with a lot of fog and what looked to me like reticulation. So I figured to save the rest for playing around when I start home processing. This is the first done at home and honestly, I am pleased. If the rest come out like this one, I'll be happy. It's way better than I expected.

That one was from the Mamiys, here's a couple from the other roll, out of a 1948 Zeiss folder:

View attachment 82564
View attachment 82565

Looks like a bad scan if you're seeing "reticulation" to me.

Perhaps as other said, a scanner isn't the best way to identify a problem with color negative film?

I ONLY scan, but I (almost) only shoot E-6 for color and then B&W film.

 

[pbromaghin]

Stone, sorry for being unclear, but the reticulation was several months ago. Not on these.. I really can't believe how good these negatives are. I was expecting them to be completely messed up because of how bad those first ones were.

 

[pbromaghin]

For one thing, I no longer have any fear of C-41 processing. The temperature thing is a pain, but it isn't all that hard to work with if you have the right equipment. I'll tell you, it was real intimidating before I did it for the first time, but now there is nothing to it.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, sorry for being unclear, but the reticulation was several months ago. Not on these.. I really can't believe how good these negatives are. I was expecting them to be completely messed up because of how bad those first ones were.

I think I'm just seeing the small web version, the colors are great, sorry about the confusion.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Well done! It's a great feeling to develop colour film at home. (Unless you splash yourself with the chems, then it stings

There will usually be some colour cast when scanning colour negatives. Portra is usually a bit blueish for me. But I even get that from the lab.

If you spend some time on the scanner settings and do some tweaking in PS or LR, it should look just right.

 

[pbromaghin]

The opening shot is off my back deck, looking just a little bit left of due north, part of the view that made us buy this house. In the last 10 years I have taken this shot in every kind of lighting and weather condition with any combination of lens and format. This one seems to be the best one yet. To the left are the Rocky Mountains. There are many, many pics left to be taken here.