C41 in RA4 chemistry cross-processing

[jm94]

has anyone tried this? i was curious to see what would happen, i think i need to extend the blix times because paper blix is much weaker...

my first attempt produces negatives with a very dense base, nearly impossable to print from... i was thinking i need to blix it for longer, any suggestions as to what i should do next? i look foward to getting some freaky but cool results

 

[Bob-D659]

Simple to test, put a strip back in some blix for 5 min and see what develops.

 

[Athiril]

Develop some C-41 film in Rodinal 1+25 + ~5g of table salt per 300ml (non-iodised) at 20c for ~8 minutes, stop, wash, fix, wash, bleach (not blix), wash, expose to light, then run it through a colour developer, bleach and fix from there.

Also don't overexpose with the above method, but you can underexpose.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The C41 developer was designed for a high speed high Iodide emulsion and the RA4 developer was designed for a slow speed fine grained emulsion. Therefore, they will perform poorly if products are cross processed using these chemistries and materials. In addition, C41 uses CD4 and RA4 uses CD3 for the color developing agent which causes additional problems.

C41 requires a different chemical bleach and fix, but a blix is barely adequate. Even longer times will not fix this problem! C41 also requires a final rinse for best stability.

PE

 

[RPC]

Developing RA-4 paper in C-41 chemistry is can also be done, with better results. I tried it once and the colors didn't seem that far off but may give you an effect you like. And more to experiment with.

RPC

 

[Athiril]

The C41 developer was designed for a high speed high Iodide emulsion and the RA4 developer was designed for a slow speed fine grained emulsion. Therefore, they will perform poorly if products are cross processed using these chemistries and materials. In addition, C41 uses CD4 and RA4 uses CD3 for the color developing agent which causes additional problems.

C41 requires a different chemical bleach and fix, but a blix is barely adequate. Even longer times will not fix this problem! C41 also requires a final rinse for best stability.

PE

On that note, movie film looks absolutely terrible in C-41.. dMax was good, fine, normal, but dMin was barely separated from dMax (on the neg), it's not old/fogged film either, 5201 50D.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, movie films were designed to work with CD3 and still films to work with CD4. Otherwise the developers are quite similar. The difference in activity of the developing agents will cause quite a difference in development and fog.

As for color papers, the Iodide and Bromide in the film developers will affect the paper, as it was designed for a developer without them.

PE

 

[hpulley]

Interesting. Would this make RA-4 a better choice for C-22 films than room temperature C-41?

 

[Photo Engineer]

All films require the presence of KI and NaBr to control development. In addition, the C-22 films required Benzyl Alcohol. So, the use of RA4 is possible if the developer is doctored a bit with some chemicals. A pH adjustment would be needed as well.

PE

 

[hpulley]

Thanks. If I have some old C-22 to rescue I'll give it a try.

 

[cmacd123]

Sorry to resurect an old thread, But I was wondering about once again trying to play with some colour. Way back in the stone age, I would use a Jobo CPE to do C-41 with various aftermarket chems, then after one use I would mix in some Benzyl Alcohol and dilue the chemicals 1+1 with water and develop colur prints with the OLD EP2? colour paper. I found this out from an Old newsletter published by a chap named Dale Neville.

I recall the paper time was similar to that published for the official chemistry, and I actually have one of the prints framed in my front hall so the fade is somewhat under control. Would the same basic approach, less the benzyl work with modern papers? What time/temperature to try? (I would probably be using the JOBO brand 1 Liter dry kit as that is the one I can get most easily these days as getting stuff shipped from the US is tricky.)