C-41 processing for neophytes

[Terry Christian]

No prob, dpn. Just see my earlier comment about the ability to buy stabilizer/final rinse separately. And I've tried adding Photo-Flo to stabilizer in the past, too, but got greasy spots on my film (undissolved Photo-Flo, which wiped off easily with a sponge).

 

[bvy]

You can mix it in small batches using a portion of each part of the solution in question such as Developer, Bleach, Fix or Stab/Final Rinse.

You can use each solution one time and dump or you can use them several times by increasing the development times according to the chart on the Kodak web site. (This is a good exercise for the student! )

I suggest that you use a 1 - 2% Acetic Acid stop after the development step for uniformity, and I suggest a prewet.

Maybe you've covered this, PE (I can't imagine there's anything you haven't covered here at least once) but does the prewet require a further increase in development time? I might run up to ten rolls with my Rollei/Digibase mini kit. With prewetting I imagine the developer becomes pretty diluted after several rolls. I actually haven't been prewetting (for better or worse) and of course I lose some developer with each run. It becomes a little more exhausted with each run, but not diluted.

Thoughts? Am I splitting hairs?

 

[Photo Engineer]

A prewet does dilute the developer. Since I toss mine, IDK what the change in times would be. Sorry.

PE

 

[macandal]

A prewet does dilute the developer. Since I toss mine, IDK what the change in times would be. Sorry.

PE

You only use your chemistry once?

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is the safest way, especially when I do a lot of film at one time! I use 1L in a large Jobo tank and do 12 or more 4x5 sheets or 4 120 rolls or more in one session. I use Kodak chemistry.

And, the prewet is more important than anything else I can suggest. See the big test on this here on APUG.

PE

 

[bvy]

Would you say prewetting is more important in terms of maintaining temperature or "conditioning" the film?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Absolutely. Read the long thread on this here on APUG for more info.

PE

 

[bvy]

I'm going to do some "dry runs," then, with a prewet/presoak/prewash and see how it goes (even though I haven't noticed any problems without it). I use a small Paterson tank and water bath, in which I preheat the tank. My biggest concern with prewetting is developer dilution, as I reuse the developer for up to ten rolls, consistent with the manufacturer's recommendation (it's the R/D mini kit). I just got a fresh batch of chemicals; let's see what happens.

Thanks, PE.

 

[macandal]

Okay, I'm trying to understand the different kinds of Kodak chemistry there are. I can spot LORR, RA, SM and one that I call "regular" because there isn't an initial (like SM) differentiating it. So, you can't say C41 Kodak chemsitry is C41 Kodak chemistry and combine the solutions, right? So, you can't use LORR Developer and then use SM Bleach, right? So because I'm only occassionally developing color I decided that I would use the SM kind. My question is, since I think that Stabilizer and Final Rinse are not the same thing (do I have that right?), SM only uses final rinse and not stabilizer?

Please help me understand this.

Thanks.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rather than repeat about 3 pages of explanation, please see my long post on stabilizers vs final rinses.

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

Dead Link Removed


(self-link)

I read your link, even though I've done a fair amount of C41 back in the day. One thing struck me - the primary problem you mention with bleach-fix (I remember when "blix" was a Unicolor term and others always just called it "bleach-fix") seems to be that it starts to deteriorate as soon as mixed, but is fine fresh. This could explain why I never had problems with it. I always mixed just enough for use right before use, and used it one shot, or if re-used I did it immediately. I always waited until I had enough film for the chemistry capacity I needed for my tank. In other words, before I got the Jobo, my stainless tank needed 8 oz. to process a roll of 35mm, and the capacity of 8 oz was said to be, IIRC, three rolls of 36x so I'd wait until I had three rolls to do it and run it all one after the other, as quick as I could dry the reels and tank. With the Jobo it uses even less so I'd just run a roll at need and discard the solutions. I knew even then that bleach and fix had more capacity than the developer, but I got it all in a kit (to make 1 gallon in those days) so if I only used the developer as specified but saved the bleach or blix I'd be up to my armpits in the latter anyway.

 

[polyglot]

I read your link, even though I've done a fair amount of C41 back in the day. One thing struck me - the primary problem you mention with bleach-fix (I remember when "blix" was a Unicolor term and others always just called it "bleach-fix") seems to be that it starts to deteriorate as soon as mixed, but is fine fresh. This could explain why I never had problems with it. I always mixed just enough for use right before use, and used it one shot, or if re-used I did it immediately. I always waited until I had enough film for the chemistry capacity I needed for my tank. In other words, before I got the Jobo, my stainless tank needed 8 oz. to process a roll of 35mm, and the capacity of 8 oz was said to be, IIRC, three rolls of 36x so I'd wait until I had three rolls to do it and run it all one after the other, as quick as I could dry the reels and tank. With the Jobo it uses even less so I'd just run a roll at need and discard the solutions. I knew even then that bleach and fix had more capacity than the developer, but I got it all in a kit (to make 1 gallon in those days) so if I only used the developer as specified but saved the bleach or blix I'd be up to my armpits in the latter anyway.

Being up to your armpits in bleach+fix would be good (figuratively) since the developer is by far the cheaper part. You could at that point buy just some developer and start using it with your old blix stocks.

I've used up two of the Fuji 5L kits now, which means I have 5L each of unopened bleach and fix which I'm about to start using with Rollei dev.

 

[Roger Cole]

Those were the days BI "Before Internet" and if it wasn't in the print catalog or the ads in back of the magazines I didn't know where to get it.

 

[macandal]

Rather than repeat about 3 pages of explanation, please see my long post on stabilizers vs final rinses.

PE

PE, it's not that I don't appreciate your opinion, I do. Even with little experience in photography as I have I can tell that you do know what you're talking about. However, because of my limited experience, sometimes those who know a lot can confuse, with their extensive wealth of knowledge, those of us who know very little.

That said, I did read your post on Ss vs FRs. I think the article you're referring to is the one found on Polyglot's very informative site on Dead Link Removed. At the bottom of that article, he's posted a link, (there was a url link here which no longer exists), which takes one to the post on this site. Well, if that's the one, I did read it, and, based on that post, this is how I would answer my question:

All my film is post 2000. How do I know this? Because I don't buy expired film from stores and I don't buy from individuals (who are most likely to have old film because they hoarded large amounts of a film they liked back when that film was available). Therefore, because all my film is "modern," it doesn't need formalin (I think). Since it doesn't need formalin, I can go ahead and buy Final Rinse.​

That's it. That's how I would answer my question based on your post.

I will worry about stabilizer when I start developing E6, at which point I won't even worry about trying to find the right stabilizer. I will simply make my own by mixing Photo Flo 200 and formalin in the proportions provided on your post.

Am I right?

And thank you so much PE (and Polyglot, and all others who contribute) for sharing all your knowledge with us.

 

[macandal]

PE, it's not that I don't...

Oh, I did not read the responses. I only read your, PE's, initial post.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mario, you are right. Use Photo Flo 200 + Formalin and you will be OK.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Mario, you are right. Use Photo Flo 200 + Formalin and you will be OK.

PE

Can I assume this can be done months after?

I've always used the Arista 3 bath kits for E-6 and only recently understood that its POSSIBLE that kit doesn't contain a stabilizer component, do you happen to know?

(I know this is a C-41 thread but the last poster mentioned it)

So is this the same stabilizer? As in could I also just use photos flow and the other component just mentioned.

I'm going to call the company directly and ask them but I doubt the sales people will know.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[macandal]

Mario, you are right. Use Photo Flo 200 + Formalin and you will be OK.

PE

Well then, no, I'm wrong. I said that because I only use "current/modern" film, then I don't need to worry about formalin and I can go ahead and use Final Rinse (which has no formalin in its formula).

Your response implies that even with modern film, I need the combination Photo Flo 200 and formalin--not final rinse.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sory Mario, but I misunderstood.

All color films can use the Photo Flo 200 + Formalin route, but modern C41 films can use the new Final Rinse. The reason I continue to mention the Formalin stabilizer is that in some places, the final rinse is not available or, OTOH, Formalin is banned. So, that is my answer.

E6 films of all type and age require some sort of Formalin treatment. The 3 bath kids do not supply it. You can treat films that need it after the fact, but not too much after the fact. IDK what the time period is.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Sory Mario, but I misunderstood.

All color films can use the Photo Flo 200 + Formalin route, but modern C41 films can use the new Final Rinse. The reason I continue to mention the Formalin stabilizer is that in some places, the final rinse is not available or, OTOH, Formalin is banned. So, that is my answer.

E6 films of all type and age require some sort of Formalin treatment. The 3 bath kids do not supply it. You can treat films that need it after the fact, but not too much after the fact. IDK what the time period is.

PE

:/ well it's been 3 months since my Grand Canyon trip :/

Thanks for the info.

Is Photo Flo 200 different then standard wetting agents?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

:/ well it's been 3 months since my Grand Canyon trip :/

Thanks for the info.

Is Photo Flo 200 different then standard wetting agents?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Photo Flo 200 is the standard Kodak wetting agent intended for people like us.

Photo Flo 600 is the Kodak alternative - it is intended for high volume commercial use, and special precautions should be used when handling it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

matt is right. Here is more info. Photo Flo 600 contains Ethylene Glycol which is a poison. But, it is diluted 1:600. However, Photo Flo 200 is diluted 1:200 and contains Propylene Glycol which is non-toxic.

So, there it is, your choice.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

matt is right. Here is more info. Photo Flo 600 contains Ethylene Glycol which is a poison. But, it is diluted 1:600. However, Photo Flo 200 is diluted 1:200 and contains Propylene Glycol which is non-toxic.

So, there it is, your choice.

PE

Thanks Matt and PE, sounds like I'll stick with the 200 then, but I have to check, I bought cheapo wetting agent which I'm still using up, but I also bought a 500ml bottle of kodak wetting agent from my local store who begged me to buy it half off because no one buys the chemistry on his shelf and he's trying to get rid of it all haha, hope that's not the commercial stuff... lol

 

[polyglot]

Nothing hugely dangerous with the -600, just don't drink it or snort it. Ethylene Glycol is far less hazardous than most toners for example: it's toxic but doesn't bioaccumulate. Most antifreezes contain the same stuff.

 

[StoneNYC]

Nothing hugely dangerous with the -600, just don't drink it or snort it. Ethylene Glycol is far less hazardous than most toners for example: it's toxic but doesn't bioaccumulate. Most antifreezes contain the same stuff.

LOL that's like saying, well toxic waste isn't really that poisonous compared to the atomic core at a power plant... Haha


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk