Developing film in Ektacolor RA chemistry

[mabman]

A question: in (there was a url link here which no longer exists) the differences between Ektacolor RA and C-41 chemistries are discussed.

In it, PE mentions that it is technically possible to develop paper in C-41, and the reverse (film in Ektacolor RA, although there will be bleaching issues with the RA bleach not being strong enough), but with the active developer being different it will look odd.

However, I can't find any examples of what film looks like after being developed in Ektacolor RA - anybody have any?

(This question comes about because I see a local photo store is now stocking Ektacolor RA chems, but not C-41. I happen to have a decent amount of inexpensive C-41 film kicking around, and this might be an interesting experiment, but I'd like to see what others have done first if possible.)

 

[mabman]

Interesting - do you remove the remjet backing first?

 

[Steve Smith]

PE mentions that it is technically possible to develop paper in C-41, and the reverse (film in Ektacolor RA, although there will be bleaching issues with the RA bleach not being strong enough), but with the active developer being different it will look odd.

The only time I tried colour processing was in 1984 using a Patterson two bath kit. I think it was called '2CR'.

This was intended to be used for both film and paper.

My film processing came out o.k. but my attempts at colour printing put me off for another 24 years. Perhaps it's time to try again.




Steve.

 

[CRhymer]

Hello Cruzingoose,

What sort of tank/system do you use. The pre-soak/removal solutions I have used leave little bits of rem-jet everywhere, unless I hang and wipe down the film first. Not practical on a 50 or 100 foot roll.

Cheers,
Clarence

 

[Photo Engineer]

Elsewhere I posted the hue shifts expected when using CD-3 vs CD-4. I've also mentioned the changes in sharpness and grain when film is misprocessed in color paper developer.

I doubt if you have done critical comparisons of correctly processed film with misprocessed film, but I think you will be surprised at what you see.

Also, what Clarence says is correct, that is that you run the risk of having rem-jet stuck in the film emulsion and all over the surface when you do ECN processing without a rem-jet removal step and wipedown.

Color emulsions are not B&W emulsions. There are 9 of them in C41 films and they react badly to improper processing and can give bumps and crossover all over the place, worse edge effects, higher grain and reduced color quality. You do what you wish, but I am giving advanced warning of the possible consequences.

Maybe the reason people have not posted many results is that they don't do it, but OTOH, maybe the results are not good enough to post. On a single sample basis though, you might be satisfied. IDK.

PE

 

[Tom Kershaw]

My film processing came out o.k. but my attempts at colour printing put me off for another 24 years. Perhaps it's time to try again.

Steve,

The Fuji X-Press RA4 kit from Firstcall Photographic is good value for a 5 litre kit at around £25.

Tom.

 

[wogster]

Elsewhere I posted the hue shifts expected when using CD-3 vs CD-4. I've also mentioned the changes in sharpness and grain when film is misprocessed in color paper developer.

I doubt if you have done critical comparisons of correctly processed film with misprocessed film, but I think you will be surprised at what you see.

Also, what Clarence says is correct, that is that you run the risk of having rem-jet stuck in the film emulsion and all over the surface when you do ECN processing without a rem-jet removal step and wipedown.

Color emulsions are not B&W emulsions. There are 9 of them in C41 films and they react badly to improper processing and can give bumps and crossover all over the place, worse edge effects, higher grain and reduced color quality. You do what you wish, but I am giving advanced warning of the possible consequences.

Maybe the reason people have not posted many results is that they don't do it, but OTOH, maybe the results are not good enough to post. On a single sample basis though, you might be satisfied. IDK.

PE

Dumb question but: I know there are several different colour developers, is there a list somewhere of what they are and what the different ones are? I've heard of CD3, CD4, CD6, I will assume there is CD1, CD2 and CD5 as well.....

 

[Photo Engineer]

There are all of the ones you list Paul as well as color developers used by other companies such as Agfa and Ansco to name two. Of course, CD1 and CD2 are no longer used by any Kodak process AFAIK. They were discontinued due to toxicity, stability and solubility. CD5 was not commercialized, and I have forgotten all of the details. The only ones in common use are CD3, CD4 and CD6. Of course, they have internal acronyms that are different than these to make them more descriptive. CD-6 within Kodak is known as D-106-J, that means that it is a developer of the 106 type family and is the "Jth" developer or 10th in that family. There is also a D-106-R which was also tested among others. CD-3 is known as D-109-B or a developer of the 109 family and the "Bth" or second in its class.

They are all related, and are among the most non-toxic, soluable and stable of all of the series.

The basically only differ in one grouping on the nitrogen so they are named as N-ethyl, N-(something) etc. The Etc is an organic group common to all 3 and the (something) is what differs. In CD3 it is Methane-Sulfonamido-Ethyl, In CD4 it is Hydroxy-Ethyl, and in CD6 it is Methoxy-Ethyl-.

I'm sure that this does not help. Lets just say that these changes change the activity and hue of the dyes quite dramatically. CD-4 is the most active, the most polar and makes the dullest dyes unless the couplers are carefully chosen. CD-6 is in between in activity and makes dyes very much like CD-3 but with a bit better dye stability, particularly dark keeping. CD-4 has the worst dye stabilty, again unless you choose the best coupler for a match.

This is an argument I have had with those who make prints with CD-4 developers. Pat Dignan and I had a discussion back nearly 20 years ago. He advocated the use of CD-4 developers for color paper to get rapid development or to use lower temperature. I pointed out to him that you could suffer more than a 50% hit in dye stability and a serious degradation in color saturation due to the mismatch in developer and coupler.

A color product is not like a B&W product in that both the couplers and developing agent must be carefully matched for all things to come together correctly at the end.

PE

 

[wogster]

There are all of the ones you list Paul as well as color developers used by other companies such as Agfa and Ansco to name two. Of course, CD1 and CD2 are no longer used by any Kodak process AFAIK. They were discontinued due to toxicity, stability and solubility. CD5 was not commercialized, and I have forgotten all of the details. The only ones in common use are CD3, CD4 and CD6. Of course, they have internal acronyms that are different than these to make them more descriptive. CD-6 within Kodak is known as D-106-J, that means that it is a developer of the 106 type family and is the "Jth" developer or 10th in that family. There is also a D-106-R which was also tested among others. CD-3 is known as D-109-B or a developer of the 109 family and the "Bth" or second in its class.

They are all related, and are among the most non-toxic, soluable and stable of all of the series.

The basically only differ in one grouping on the nitrogen so they are named as N-ethyl, N-(something) etc. The Etc is an organic group common to all 3 and the (something) is what differs. In CD3 it is Methane-Sulfonamido-Ethyl, In CD4 it is Hydroxy-Ethyl, and in CD6 it is Methoxy-Ethyl-.

I'm sure that this does not help. Lets just say that these changes change the activity and hue of the dyes quite dramatically. CD-4 is the most active, the most polar and makes the dullest dyes unless the couplers are carefully chosen. CD-6 is in between in activity and makes dyes very much like CD-3 but with a bit better dye stability, particularly dark keeping. CD-4 has the worst dye stabilty, again unless you choose the best coupler for a match.

This is an argument I have had with those who make prints with CD-4 developers. Pat Dignan and I had a discussion back nearly 20 years ago. He advocated the use of CD-4 developers for color paper to get rapid development or to use lower temperature. I pointed out to him that you could suffer more than a 50% hit in dye stability and a serious degradation in color saturation due to the mismatch in developer and coupler.

A color product is not like a B&W product in that both the couplers and developing agent must be carefully matched for all things to come together correctly at the end.

PE

I see from some research that CD-4 is used for C41 and E6, so I guess that's a film developer and that CD-3 would be a paper developer, so is CD-6 for K14?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ummm, no, CD-4 is not used for E6. CD-3 is used for E6 last I heard.

CD-6 was intended for all 3 systems IIRC, but the Pavelle-Ansco lawsuit cancelled plans so it ended up only in K-14. I had formulated several CD-6 developers, and still have a bottle of it on the shelf in my DR.

PE

 

[wogster]

Ummm, no, CD-4 is not used for E6. CD-3 is used for E6 last I heard.

CD-6 was intended for all 3 systems IIRC, but the Pavelle-Ansco lawsuit cancelled plans so it ended up only in K-14. I had formulated several CD-6 developers, and still have a bottle of it on the shelf in my DR.

PE

Gotta love the Internet for it's truth and accuracy

 

[Photo Engineer]

Having fun is fun! I love to experiment myself, as you well know here on APUG. So I have no argument with that. As you point out, overall quality is lacking and therefore your process may not be suitable for everyone.

PE

 

[nickandre]

I accidentally tried to process paper in a liter of my C41 developer and it didn't develop at all. So regular Ektacolor developer processes ECN2 Films? What is the time you use?