Does anyone experience an occasional cyan or green color cast (correctible in printing) on the borders of Fuji negatives processed in Kodak chemicals? Is the C-41 process truly identical between Fuji and Kodak? Thanks. - David Lyga.
cyan, green cast on negative borders with Fuji
-
A
- Thread starter David Lyga
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 9 Rolls FUJI Fujifilm SUPERIA PREMIUM 400 27 exp 3 pro packs
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8 AI'd
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale DAHLE 552 (20-inch) Trimmer
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Leica M2 Camera ("Body Button", No Self-Timer Type) CLA'D
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Agfa Super Isolette CLA'd Medium Format 6x6
- Started by Oldwino
Forum statistics
My local mini-lab uses Fuji chems but successfully develops both Fuji and Kodak films. I imagine that the Fuji chems are essentially the same as those used in home developing. I have developed both Kodak and Fuji films in Tetenal and Speedibrews chemicals without problems. I'd be amazed if Fuji and Kodak chems aren't capable of properly developing any C41 films, given that other C41 chemical makers can do both.
Otherwise mini-labs using Kodak chems would be warning Fuji film users that they might be getting a cyan/ green cast and might be turning away a large portion of potential customers.
I think that something else is at work here, giving you the problem you describe
pentaxuser
Otherwise mini-labs using Kodak chems would be warning Fuji film users that they might be getting a cyan/ green cast and might be turning away a large portion of potential customers.
I think that something else is at work here, giving you the problem you describe
pentaxuser
Never seen that, and I use that combination a lot. But I'm not sure I understand your question. If it's correctable in printing are you sure it's not just that the Fuji film requires a different starting filter setup than the Kodak film? Can you show an example, or elaborate a bit?
OP
OP
I am talking about the nonexposed area of the film, between frames and near sprocket holes. Sometimes the Fuji is a beautiful orange (as it should be) and other times I get sickly green. I have checked all other potential problems like contamination. The Kodak is ALWAYS orange but only sometimes the Fuji is orange. I think that there is a slight difference between Fuji chems and Kodak chems. Something about my C-41 is borderline deficient with Fuji films. - David Lyga
I get markedly different film base colours with some fuji films in my home brew c-41, than with agfa or kodak films. More to magental; Cyan is a new one for me.
As you note, the difference can be accomodated by (sometimes radically) changing the filter pack from what you may be more familiar with.
As you note, the difference can be accomodated by (sometimes radically) changing the filter pack from what you may be more familiar with.
OP
OP
OK now I will hang myself and state that I use RA4 dev to process negatives. The REASON I did not state that up front was because sometimes the Fuji negs look great on their borders. So, I am not absolutely wrong here. I have processed color negatives for years this way with no problems. There has to be a slight deviation in chemicals with Fuji processing. I just wanted some feedback. And, yes, I will reiterate, sometimes the Fuji borders are orange and the image is beautiful. - David Lyga.
Do the colors ever bleed into the image area? Are the stains ever between the frames? What type of reels do you use? Could it be contamination from them?
Also, why not use Kodak C41 developer? It's cheap and readily available.
Also, why not use Kodak C41 developer? It's cheap and readily available.
The C41 and E6 chemistry is cross licensed between Fuji and Kodak. They are identical in functionality.
Green marks can be either safelight fog or stress marks due to kinking of the film. Splashes of some chemicals can also cause this.
PE
Green marks can be either safelight fog or stress marks due to kinking of the film. Splashes of some chemicals can also cause this.
PE
OP
OP
Folks, I have developed film since I was 14 (1964) and by far this is the most maddening problem I have ever had. If I always got bad negs I would simply chalk it up to my stupidity with using processes that I had no right to expect to work. But, just a few days ago: SAME RA4 dev stock, SAME film stock, SAME everything. Honestly, sometimes I think solutions depend upon the moon phase (like my Italian grandmother said that the wine (that she and my grandfather made), depends upon!)
Seriously, there is no safelight (ultra conservative here with darkroom) and the evenness of the stain precludes kink marks or 'splashes'. It is even as can be. I have checked everything and am just about to state, without equivocation, that this developer solution has a mind of its own (and I am agnostic to boot!) Maybe, just maybe, science goes only so far.
The stain (for the past two days) is green, slightly darker than the beautiful orange mask would have imparted. It HAS to be a slight fogging, like a contamination. NOBODY is cleaner than I am in the darkroom. But nothing has changed with the solutions for the past week and during the past week I was getting knock-out, beautiful negs (sometimes the neg is more 'beautiful' than the print because of the delicacy of the tones). Now, an ugly green stain, still printable but the fun in doing that has been deleted. (True, others have worse problems than complaining about stuff like this).
Now that I have bared my soul (and beared my soul, also) I want to thank all for at least trying to understand this dilemma. And, again, there are more important things to complain about, for sure. - David Lyga.
Seriously, there is no safelight (ultra conservative here with darkroom) and the evenness of the stain precludes kink marks or 'splashes'. It is even as can be. I have checked everything and am just about to state, without equivocation, that this developer solution has a mind of its own (and I am agnostic to boot!) Maybe, just maybe, science goes only so far.
The stain (for the past two days) is green, slightly darker than the beautiful orange mask would have imparted. It HAS to be a slight fogging, like a contamination. NOBODY is cleaner than I am in the darkroom. But nothing has changed with the solutions for the past week and during the past week I was getting knock-out, beautiful negs (sometimes the neg is more 'beautiful' than the print because of the delicacy of the tones). Now, an ugly green stain, still printable but the fun in doing that has been deleted. (True, others have worse problems than complaining about stuff like this).
Now that I have bared my soul (and beared my soul, also) I want to thank all for at least trying to understand this dilemma. And, again, there are more important things to complain about, for sure. - David Lyga.
Could be an issue in the film. Send a few rolls out for lab development and see if it's still there.
Can you post a straight scan of the negative as a negative or positive image?
PE
PE
How about you use the correct developer instead of paper developer? I realise that it "sometimes" works, but it may be that it works with only certain times or temps or whatever, and that you're on the borderline of what works with that chemistry.
OP
OP
Sorry to say this but I have no computer and the scan would simply show a perfect negative, except that it had a completely even green cast in the unexposed areas, throughout, instead of a light orange cast in the unexposed areas. It's that simple.
Polyglot, on a theoretical basis your chiding is warranted ... but for 12 years I have done as I do and with no problems. At least give me credit for the 'track record'. No, I believe it is with the film or developer (?), itself, and since it comes from a 100 ft bulk roll (Fuji Super G +, ISO 100) no lab will accept a bulk loaded roll to process. But only three days previously I processed it in the SAME chemicals and procedure and the negs were great. It cannot be the film because, at room temp, it cannot go bad in two days. But thanks to all. My problems are of my own making.
Last night I made a print from the film exposed in tungsten light with no filter on the camera. That would necessitate much yellow in the enlarger. My final pack was 205Y and 105M. The print was fully acceptable and included a grey scale and color swash. I just wish that that light green fog' on the unexposed areas was not there. This was absolutely not light fog. I will also say that there is a light, oily deposit (easily cleaned off) after the processing on the film. I remember someone once complaining about a tar buildup with the RA4 developer. Don't know the details. - David Lyga
Polyglot, on a theoretical basis your chiding is warranted ... but for 12 years I have done as I do and with no problems. At least give me credit for the 'track record'. No, I believe it is with the film or developer (?), itself, and since it comes from a 100 ft bulk roll (Fuji Super G +, ISO 100) no lab will accept a bulk loaded roll to process. But only three days previously I processed it in the SAME chemicals and procedure and the negs were great. It cannot be the film because, at room temp, it cannot go bad in two days. But thanks to all. My problems are of my own making.
Last night I made a print from the film exposed in tungsten light with no filter on the camera. That would necessitate much yellow in the enlarger. My final pack was 205Y and 105M. The print was fully acceptable and included a grey scale and color swash. I just wish that that light green fog' on the unexposed areas was not there. This was absolutely not light fog. I will also say that there is a light, oily deposit (easily cleaned off) after the processing on the film. I remember someone once complaining about a tar buildup with the RA4 developer. Don't know the details. - David Lyga
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |