C-41 processing fault, need advice

[mtjade2007]

I have been processing C-41 films for years so I think I normally would know what to do if my processing went wrong. However, I encountered a processing fault recently that I really don't have a clue. It has repeated on several rolls of film that I finally spent some effort looking seriously into the problem. But after many processing runs the problem simply keep repeating and I still don't have a clue. This kind of fault simply never occurred to me before. I use a JOBO ATL processor. I might make a mistake her there sometimes. But this is consistently happening so I know it is most like an issue with the chemicals.

The symptom is quite simple. My scans of the film all came out lack of darkness on all dark parts. It's not the negative being over exposed or over developed. I found that my negatives all look very yellowish including the blank unexposed (transparent) part. Visual comparison of the problematic negatives and previously known good ones clearly shows that the problematic negatives shows a yellowish (also orange) cast. Here is a sample scan of a Kodak 160VC shot straight out of my scanner. The scanner is in default setup. There is no post processing to the scan either..

Please do note that the film is a long expired one. However, the films I processed recently all have this symptom. I must conclude that it isn't the film is bad. I am more inclined to believe it is the chemicals that is at fault but which chemical? The developer? The bleach or the fixer what is bad in the chemical that leads to a yellowish cast on the negatives? Of course I could still be wrong to bark at the wrong tree. If you think it is not the chemical please do advise as well. Thanks a lot.

 

[mtjade2007]

After a quick and simple auto level adjustment in Photoshop it results in this here.

 

[John Salim]

I wonder if the developer's getting contaminated somewhere ?

John S

 

[koraks]

@mtjade2007 I'm sorry and I'm sympathetic to your situation, but it's very hard to conclude anything based on experiments with long-expired film. I understand what you say about visual comparison of the negatives, but even so, which are the good ones? For all I know, your recent negatives may be the proper ones and the old ones suffered from high b+f. The levels-adjusted scan looks fine; the initial scan looks bad. All this shows is how impossible it is to say anything on the basis of scans.

Maybe if you're more specific about materials used, post some photographs of the negatives, including the comparison between your old and recent ones, things will start to become a little more clear.

Have you tried re-bleaching and re-fixing the negatives you feel that are not right, in freshly mixed chemistry? Development problems are uncorrectable, but retained silver can usually be bleached and fixed out in a second round.

 

[Mr Bill]

Have you tried re-bleaching and re-fixing the negatives you feel that are not right, in freshly mixed chemistry?

Yep, this is often a good place to start, especially with an unknown problem. Even with the current "used" chemicals it can probably determine if a problem exists or not. The idea being that a good bleach and fix should remove essentially all silver from the film. So if you re-treat the film, and there is ANY change, the assumption is that the original bleach and fix were somehow not good enough. If there is NO change then most likely the bleach and fix are at least adequate.

Here's something you might try, given that you see a visual difference in the D-min (clear film). Clip off a short piece of unexposed film and try bleaching and fixing it (should be ok to do it in the light). Then compare with the normal processed film. With the developer removed as a factor this might tell you something. Or maybe not. But... it's a fairly quick and easy test, so maybe worth doing?

Ps, the ideal way to do the re-bleaching and fixing test is to take a junk negative and cut in half. Keep half as a reference; treat the other half. To compare, butt the two pieces back together and view on a light table, or whatever. (Obviously you would like to have areas of a similar tone that you slice through.)

 

[mtjade2007]

Thanks for the quick response, Koraks. I initially thought the same that my expired film was showing its age. But after many rolls of different expired film came out with almost the same outcome I can not convince myself to blame the films any more because I have shot and processed the films all the time. I know them well and have to say It's unlikely they would all fail at the same time with a same symptom like blowing off a candle and the entire room turned dark.

Sorry that I did not disclose much of the processing details. here it comes:

Processor is a Jobo ATL-2300. It's temperature control was right-on, processing time 3'15" development, 4' bleaching with RA bleach, 2' wash then 6' fixing. I do not reuse the developer.
It isn't silver retention. I tried re-nleaching and re-fixing with no improvement.
I tried wet pre-warm and dry prewarm and the result had no difference.
The ATL-2300 can repeat the processing precisely consistent. I concluded that the processor wasn't the cause.

The most likely cause is the chemicals, especially the developer, that I used. They were all old and it's easy to blame them for any problem ever occurs. But I have used them over and over with satisfactory results. I suddenly had the problem by a surprise. What I hope to hear from the people here is if it is the developer, bleach or the fixer and why to cause this problem. Has anyone come across this before?

I know if I replace all my old chemicals it is likely to fix the problem. But I would really like to know what hass exactly gone wrong and why. also it is unlikely I can find a source of Kodak C-41 chemicals in the US right now. I hope I am not at a point of switching off film photography and go digital. I do have a digital system that I am not using on hand.

Here is a shot of a strip of normal and another strip of a bad blank neg that shows the color difference. The left is a normal one and right is the bad one.

 

[mtjade2007]

Yep, this is often a good place to start, especially with an unknown problem. Even with the current "used" chemicals it can probably determine if a problem exists or not. The idea being that a good bleach and fix should remove essentially all silver from the film. So if you re-treat the film, and there is ANY change, the assumption is that the original bleach and fix were somehow not good enough. If there is NO change then most likely the bleach and fix are at least adequate.

Here's something you might try, given that you see a visual difference in the D-min (clear film). Clip off a short piece of unexposed film and try bleaching and fixing it (should be ok to do it in the light). Then compare with the normal processed film. With the developer removed as a factor this might tell you something. Or maybe not. But... it's a fairly quick and easy test, so maybe worth doing?

Ps, the ideal way to do the re-bleaching and fixing test is to take a junk negative and cut in half. Keep half as a reference; treat the other half. To compare, butt the two pieces back together and view on a light table, or whatever. (Obviously you would like to have areas of a similar tone that you slice through.)

Thanks for the suggestion, Bill. I will give it a re-bleaching and re-fixing and see if this time it shows a difference. I have seen what silver retention looks like on a negative before. I don't see it on my recently developed films though.

 

[mtjade2007]

I just tested my scanner and it works just fine for my films that scanned good before.

 

[mtjade2007]

Two days ago I processed a roll of 135 film (expired Kodak 400UC). The film wasn't very old although expired. I shot this film last year and it came out great. This time I screwed up. When I mixed my LORR developer replenisher, started and water I forgot to add CD-4. So it was a c-41 developer with no CD-4 in it. The entire roll of fim came out blank. It shows a distinct yellowish cast. It is a cast that I have never seem before. It clealy tells me something in addition to missing the CD-4 has gone wrong.

 

[mtjade2007]

It is, however, kind of interesting that despite the scan came out with obvious problems. A simple and quick Photoshop level or curve adjustment in less than 10 seconds rendered an image that looks like what it should be or close to what it should be, as if no image data was ever lost in the scanned image. Here is an example.

 

[Romanko]

You can get some control strips, process them and use Kodak process control to troubleshoot the problem. Be prepared that the recommended solution for your problem would be to "discard old chemistry and mix a new batch" which we pretty much know already.
If you have more expired 160VC you can have it processed by a good lab and use the negatives as a reference.

 

[mshchem]

Too many variables for my feeble mind.

• Fresh film
• Fresh store bought chemistry
• Make contact prints RA4
• No automatic chemistry dosing

This is what I would do. I only shoot Portra and Ektar, fresh still chase my tail.

 

[koraks]

Here is a shot of a strip of normal and another strip of a bad blank neg that shows the color difference.

Left is FUJI NPS160. Right is ... Portra 160 VC? Not NPS160 in any case. The former is heavily expired; the latter likely too if it's one of the Portra VC's
I'm not surprised they're different.

I know if I replace all my old chemicals it is likely to fix the problem.

Using fresh film will also help.

I'm not sure what you expect, but it looks like you're using a variety of very heavily expired film and very expired chemistry that you add your own CD4 to in the hopes of getting it back up to spec. The fact that you get scannable negatives is a decent outcome. I'd be happy with that.

If you want consistent results, start with consistent materials. Take it from there. Sorry, there's little else I can suggest.

 

[mtjade2007]

I believe I have found the root cause of the problem. It is the CD-4 that I acquired last Fall. All the problems I ran into started at about that time. I adjusted the amount of CD-4 last night in my probably condemned developer and problem solved or at least significantly improved. A roll of heavily expired Konica VX-100 came out last night showed a full density spectrum from head to toe. That's exactly what I have been missing. I will develop more film to be 100% certain that the CD-4 was the problem.

Thanks to everyone's advice. I will look further into why the new and the old (very old) stock CD-4 are so different. I guess anything that's old is supposed to be condemned. But in this case the old stock is actually better. Will report back when I am able to figure out the quantitative difference between the old and the new.

By the way, based on my experience of use long expired films may still deserve a seat in this forum.

 

[lamerko]

Is it possible you got CD-3 instead of CD-4?

 

[mtjade2007]

Is it possible you got CD-3 instead of CD-4?

No. It seems to work fine now so it is impossible it is CD-3. I increased the amount to CD-4 then it worked.

 

[koraks]

the new and the old (very old) stock CD-4

Can you post photos of both chemicals?

CD-4 should be a virtually white powder (as shown left in photo below). In the past, I have bought material that was clearly very impure and came as a tan/grey granulate (right):

(However, truth be told, they appear to work virtually identically and I never observed a difference in activity).

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I have been processing C-41 films for years so I think I normally would know what to do if my processing went wrong. However, I encountered a processing fault recently that I really don't have a clue. It has repeated on several rolls of film that I finally spent some effort looking seriously into the problem. But after many processing runs the problem simply keep repeating and I still don't have a clue. This kind of fault simply never occurred to me before. I use a JOBO ATL processor. I might make a mistake her there sometimes. But this is consistently happening so I know it is most like an issue with the chemicals.

The symptom is quite simple. My scans of the film all came out lack of darkness on all dark parts. It's not the negative being over exposed or over developed. I found that my negatives all look very yellowish including the blank unexposed (transparent) part. Visual comparison of the problematic negatives and previously known good ones clearly shows that the problematic negatives shows a yellowish (also orange) cast. Here is a sample scan of a Kodak 160VC shot straight out of my scanner. The scanner is in default setup. There is no post processing to the scan either..

Please do note that the film is a long expired one. However, the films I processed recently all have this symptom. I must conclude that it isn't the film is bad. I am more inclined to believe it is the chemicals that is at fault but which chemical? The developer? The bleach or the fixer what is bad in the chemical that leads to a yellowish cast on the negatives? Of course I could still be wrong to bark at the wrong tree. If you think it is not the chemical please do advise as well. Thanks a lot.

Which brand the chemistry is?

 

[mtjade2007]

Koraks, my new CD-4 looks whitish like yours too. I can only say they look alike. The picture's density can make them look alike or different. I don't have the old stock any more. I used up all in last Fall. It was darker than my new one but not as dark as yours in the right picture.

I will need to shoot more film to experiment with various quantity of CD-4 to validate my finding. I stick to 5 grams for every liter of replenisher with no problems for years. I was surprised that my recent processing issue got significantly improved by just increasing the CD-4 quantity. I know I need to validate further my finding. I will need to shoot some film then get back to process it. Will need some time. Thanks.

 

[mtjade2007]

Which brand the chemistry is?

I don't think I should disclose it just yet. Even if I can validate my finding I probably will not disclose it either as long as it still works. The purity of CD-4 can vary from one manufacturer to another. I think there are many of them in China. The one I got is probably one my supplier (a retail seller) got from one of them. Don't want to blame the seller.

 

[pbromaghin]

This film is at minimum 13 years old. What the flaming hootey-hoo do you expect?

 

[koraks]

my new CD-4 looks whitish like yours too. I can only say they look alike. The picture's density can make them look alike or different.

Indeed. There's a complication though. CD3 and CD4 are not all that dissimilar, depending on purity.

Left: CD3. Right: CD4.

I was surprised that my recent processing issue got significantly improved by just increasing the CD-4 quantity.

By how much did you increase the color developer addition?
Note that CD3 is much less active than CD4. It's possible/plausible you are now using CD3 and that's why you're running into these weird issues. Sounds like someone may have mislabeled a bag.

 

[mtjade2007]

Hum... Mine's color is in between the two. I just looked at the label on the container and it is CD-4 for sure. I added about 0.5 to 1 gram to originally 2.5 gram for mixing half a liter of developer. I immediately noticed the negative came out not as yellowish as before. Then a quick scan of one shot came out with full density form head to toe. That's a huge change so I had to believe the mystery was no more. Of course further precise clarification is still needed.

 

[koraks]

Mine's color is in between the two.

Like you said before, it's difficult to judge. Frankly, if you posted a photo of your powder I wouldn't be able to accurately say which of my two samples it's closer to. That's just not possible unless both photos are taken under the same, controlled conditions.
And even then...you'd have no way to accurately judge based on color alone whether your powder is CD3 or CD4.

I just looked at the label on the container and it is CD-4 for sure.

There's always the possibility of someone sticking the wrong label on a container. These things happen.

It's of course also possible that your previous batch was not CD4; IDK what the relative activity of e.g. CD2 is compared to CD4, but it's possible you previously used CD2, got used to the results and now find that with actual CD4 the results are different.

The fact that you have to increase the developer content by 20-30% suggests that you're using a different developing agent. The difference cannot be explained by the newer stuff being partly oxidized and therefore less active, as it would be dark purple brown if up to one third had oxidized. All this suggests that it's two different materials you're comparing to each other.

 

[mtjade2007]

Question: what will happen if too much CD-4 is present, such as 10% or 20% more, in the developer? I think under development will occur if CD-4 quantity is less than required. But you keep on hearing people reuse the developer over and over without ill effects. It seems it shouldn't matter if the CD-4 is gradually consumed in repeated reuse. That seems too good to be true.