C41 - white milky streaks bugging the hell out of me

foc

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
2,527
Location
Sligo, Ireland
Format
35mm
Does anyone have a list of ingredients in the Tetenal "stabiliser" or a photo of the back of the bottle?
I did a quick search of the Tetenal website and Google and all I found was this.

https://tetenal.com/media/53/b7/32/1605265115/102230_102221 GA Colortec_C-41.pdf

I notice in the "deviations in results" notes the following.
Milky streaks and surfaces after drying. Insufficient bleaching, insufficient moistening of film. Follow-up treatment in bleach-fixer necessary.

I find this a little misleading as insufficient bleaching will cause retained silver which looks different than a milk streak. Retained silver will make the negative dense looking and if viewed from the emulsion side and tilted towards the light, you can see the image on the negative faintly like a positive.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,658
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
http://www.beauphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/SafetyDataSheets.pdf
Page 40:
CAS 2634-33-5 & CAS 100-97-0, both <0.1%.
CAS 2634-33-5 is apparently the biocide, while 100-97-0 may be used here in its role as a source of formaldehyde, especially if the stabilizer is used immediately after BLIX (which is acidic), without intermediate wash. But it may also be present as a preservative in its own right, I don't know.

Both are white solids when not in solution and could be the constituents of the streaks we're seeing here. I'd expect this to be primarily a problem if the stabilizer is mixed too strongly instead of at its prescribed dilution.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,041
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm

Yes I feel it is a reasonable assumption that "stabiliser" is just Tetenal's word for "final rinse" If I recall the Digibase kits use the same word Maybe it is simply a different nomenclature Bear in mind that the makers of Tetenal and that of Digibase are Germany based and stabiliser is the word that conveys the correct meaning. It does to me as well and I'm a Brit

So now we turn to your bullet point 5 and we appear to arrive at a point of contention, namely we have a statement from foc whose background suggests a lot of experience with C41 processing, that C41 films made after the year 2000 no longer require a bactericide so presumably something in films from that date means that they are not liable to be eaten by bugs?

I think I recall in one of our other interminable Photrio threads in which PE, the late Ron Mowrey participated, said something to this effect but I may be wrong

So in summary: Is "final rinse"/stabiliser needed any longer and if so, why, assuming that my assumption about what PE said is correct?

The easiest solution for the OP would be to not bother with final rinse/stabiliser unless it performs a function that cannot be replicated by any other means

pentaxuser
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,041
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
koraks said:
No, they don't require a formaldehyde stabilizer for good dye stability. That's a different issue.
Click to expand...
Thanks, so they require, let's call it final rinse, for what reason that water and/or wetting agent cannot deliver?

pentaxuser
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,658
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
A biocide/fungicide that keeps mold at bay. Apparently b&w film is less susceptible to it due to the presence of silver, which is a good preservative. Processed color film of course has no silver left in it.

Good storage conditions would reduce/eliminate the need for a biocide/fungicide.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,041
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
koraks said:
A biocide/fungicide that keeps mold at bay.
Click to expand...
Thanks I wonder if the differences in what may be our different languages are at fault here. As far as I understand it what you refer to as biocide/fungicide is referred to by another as bactericide. In other words all of it come under the general term of bacteria which is harmful to the film It is this that foc says is no longer required for films made after 2000. If he is correct and as far as I remember PE a former C41 expert from Kodak also said that film after a certain date no longer requires treatment for fungicide, then it would seem that stabiliser/final rinse is no longer required for this purpose.

This is why I suggested that the OP's best solution may be to simply stop using it and use distilled water or even his tap water which is particularly good in his part of the U.K. and maybe just a hint of photo-flo which other makers refer to as wetting agent

Thanks

pentaxuser
 

mnemosyne

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
759
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
If my memory serves me right, the "original", pre-2000 stabilizers (formaldehyde) were necessary for both the long term chemical stability of the dyes (by triggering some kind of chemical reaction) as well as the stability in a microbiological sense (keeping bugs from munching away at the gelatine etc). The post-2000 final rinse only needs to address the microbiological part, as the manufacturers found a way of (speaking completely unscientifically ...) integrating the "formaldehyd" part into the emulsion, although using formaldehyde, should one wish so, does not hurt. This is how I remember member Photo Engineer explaining the whole thing. A search should turn up at least one, if not several threads in which PE elaborates this in more detail. I miss him.

Based on that I would agree that final bath can be probably skipped (or replaced with a common film surfactant) without too much risk as long as the films will be stored in a dry and cool environment.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,658
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
No, not entirely. The pre-2000 story about stabilizers is that the dyes requires formaline to preserve their chemical stability as otherwise they would fade. That's a different issue to microbiological issues that films are still susceptible to. So you have microbiological degradation that requires a preservative, and there is the issue of chemical stability in old pre-2000 films that require an actual stabilizer. Hopefully this helps to distinguish between the two.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,041
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Thank, koraks I now understand. I had as nmemosysne has also mentioned not recalled correctly all that PE had to say about the function of stabiliser. There were, in fact, two functions required of the stabiliser used on films pre 2000 and now there is one only, namely the fungicide and while dry storage conditions may be enough to prevent the arrival of fungus spores a slim chance remains that without m modern final rinse/ stabiliser as issued with kits nowadays fungus spores may attack

So back to our OP's problem, it would be safe to say that no stabiliser need be applied immediately but should he discover that not using it solves his problem then he may want to think about using another maker's stabiliser and/or finding out if there is an issue with Tetenal stabiliser in general or his one in particular.

pentaxuser
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,658
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Yes, agree with that. I have quite often processed films without a stabilizer for testing purposes. For negatives I want to keep around I use a highly dilute formalin solution which is conveniently both a stabilizer and a preservative/antifungal treatment. But it's obviously not a healthy substance.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,344
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

laingsoft

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2020
Messages
184
Location
Edmonton
Format
35mm
Are you using filtered/distilled water when you make your stabilizer? Stabilizers include fungicides, compounds to reduce the surface tension of the water, and some mild chelating agents, but not enough to significantly soften water.

During times when the weather is warmer and the secondary streams start to melt (as it has been unseasonably warm this year), the mineral content and bacterial content of the water increases substantially, many municipalities increase the amount of chlorine added in order to help combat the bacteria. These will form white precipitates when you evaporate the water out.

Even a simple pour-through water filter should help. If it doesn't, you may want to buy some distilled or de-ionized water from the store.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,041
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
laingsoft said:
, you may want to buy some distilled or de-ionized water from the store.
Click to expand...
He said he uses de-ionised water for the chemistry but even if he didn't the water in Glasgow like that for the whole of Scotland is incredibly soft anyway

pentaxuser
 

laingsoft

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2020
Messages
184
Location
Edmonton
Format
35mm
pentaxuser said:
He said he uses de-ionised water for the chemistry but even if he didn't the water in Glasgow like that for the whole of Scotland is incredibly soft anyway

pentaxuser
Click to expand...
Interesting, those are certainly water spots though. There has to be some sort of mineral contaminant somewhere along the line.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,041
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
MacLureo said:
Thanks for the suggestion! I’ll try that next time I develop and report back. Shouldn’t be too long.
Click to expand...
MacLureo, yes please let us know how it goes and when you do tell us where you got the Kodak Final Rinse. That's a good price for it and it might be very useful for others to know where to get separate Final Rinse when so much C41 stuff in the U.K. at least seems only to be sold in kits or if separate only sold in quite large quantities

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…