Comments on stand developing, stabilzers and blixes for films

[Photo Engineer]

The title pretty much says it all.

I get quite a bit of e-mail and PMs on these 3 subjects. I love trying to help, but I wanted you all to know about these items.

1. Stand development: This probably generates more than its share of mail due to streaks and other defects and the person wants help. I'm glad to give it as always, but... Stand development is hard to master and tricky. It is not for everyone. And, at this remote distance, I usually cannot diagnose problems and give good accurate advice except to say "it looks like bromide drag" or some such. If you use stand development, be prepared for problems.

2. Stabilzers: There are 2 generations of color film stabilzers. One type contains formalin and can be used with all color films. The other has no formalin, is more modern, and can be used only with modern color films. The E6 process has formalin in it in the pre-bleach and therefore cross processing E6 films in C41 using a modern stabilzer may result in very poor image stability. This pretty much summarizes it. Non-Kodak or Non-Fuji chemistry may or may not be suitable. (see below)

3. Color film blixes: Many people use blixes for color films. At Kodak, our R&D proved that only one blix removed all silver metal from the image properly. All other blixes left some residual silver metal in the film resulting in changes to sharpness, grain and color reproduction. The problem is that the Iron complex is too dilute in a blix after mixing with the hypo and therefore does not do its job properly. Also, stability of the blix goes way down because it is a mixture of an oxidant and a reductant. Yeah, I know how to make a blix for color film, but no, there is none out there that really works! The most useful blix is a combination of a powder part and a liquid part.

So, keep the notes coming if you wish, but if it is in regard to one of the above, please keep my comments in mind before you write or post. These seem to be coming up over and over again. So, I thought a summary might be useful.

PE

 

[pentaxuser]

PE Certainly is a good summary of what you have said previously on Colour film blixes. Just as a matter interest what was the one blix that removed all silver and why did it never make it to the marketplace?

I think you are saying that you could produce such a blix. If so have you ever considered selling it directly or via some stockists? The reason I mention this is that Speedibrews products in the U.K. are made by a man called Michael Maunder who sells via Silverprint. As I undestand it he literally make up his "brews" periodically and Silverprint sells them on to the consumer. I suspect it is like a paying hobby for Mr Maunder.

The problem, I suppose, may be if the blix was liquid in terms of transport. Well it would be if the buyers were overseas but if it were powders to be mixed then there might be a demand from a lot of countries.

pentaxuser

 

[Photo Engineer]

The blix was in the patent. It is 200 ml/l 60% Ferric Ammonium EDTA, 10 g/l Ammonium Sulfite, 10 g/L Ammonium EDTA and 200 g/l of Ammonium Thiocyanate at pH 6.5.

There you have it! It was 1/2 liquid and 1/2 solid.

PE

 

[Steve Sherman]

The title pretty much says it all.

I get quite a bit of e-mail and PMs on these 3 subjects. I love trying to help, but I wanted you all to know about these items.

1. Stand development: This probably generates more than its share of mail due to streaks and other defects and the person wants help. I'm glad to give it as always, but... Stand development is hard to master and tricky. It is not for everyone. And, at this remote distance, I usually cannot diagnose problems and give good accurate advice except to say "it looks like bromide drag" or some such. If you use stand development, be prepared for problems.


PE

Stand Development, by that do you mean a generalization referring to "Reduced Agitation Development" or in fact the literal definition, agitate once and let stand for X number of time?

My sole form of film development since 2004 has been Reduced Agitation Dev. My process has evolved from a "Stand" type methodology to a double agitation cycle with three "Stand" intervals.

By in large increasing the number of agitation cycles has cured the mysterious "artifacts" in the single agitation method.

The process is not so much based in chemistry as it is in the particular technique used to reduced the film.

By decreasing the amount of solution, thereby exhausting the developer quicker I have been able to realize as much "edge effect" and micro contrast increase that I would image anyone would ever need.

For what it's worth, my experience!

 

[Photo Engineer]

By in large increasing the number of agitation cycles has cured the mysterious "artifacts" in the single agitation method.

The process is not so much based in chemistry as it is in the particular technique used to reduced the film.


For what it's worth, my experience!

I think that this makes my point for me.

You had to find your "sweet spot" and do a lot of work to get there!

Need I say more?

PE