Dignan 2-bath color negative process, modification 1

[pentaxuser]

Alan, I take it that these latest 4 have these been developed by your Dignan process and that these are scans of the negatives Are they "straight" scans i.e. were these negatives to be darkroom printed then they'd have the same pink cast on them?

What I wonder is : Can this caste be removed with colour filtration under an enlarger or is this the crossover that koraks refers to which can be changed but only at the expense of other parts of the print

I appreciate that if you are a hybrid worker then darkroom prints are not your problem or even if you are a darkroom printer this is not a problem if the pink cast is wanted. In my case I was a darkroom RA4 printer and still want to be should the situation on price and C41 film scarcity return to what I'd term normality and in this case I'd want to reduce the cast to close to zero but fear that this may introduce other changes that are even worse

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Johnson]

I did a brief search for it; I see it's mostly offered in 12 exposure rolls, in a white box with pink/red hearts, is that it?
Does it have any edge markings that tell us something what film this might be? I understand it's probably something 250D, so I wonder if it isn't 'simply' Vision3 250D The edge markings should make this clear if it's the case.

The various Vision 3 films in cassettes seem to come and go on UK ebay. Search for Kodak 5207. The latest "My Heart" is just labelled ISO 200, I don't know what that is, it has no Kodak number on it.

 

[koraks]

So, no edge markings on the film itself? Are the sprocket holes and film thickness the same as that of Vision3, or are they different? If they're different, they might be reconfectioning e.g. unperf 70mm film into 35mm film by slitting it and sprocket holing it.

Sounds like a lot of work, but I don't put it past the Chinese to give it a go. Those guys sure work long hours if there's any money to be made.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Alan, I take it that these latest 4 have these been developed by your Dignan process and that these are scans of the negatives Are they "straight" scans i.e. were these negatives to be darkroom printed then they'd have the same pink cast on them?

What I wonder is : Can this caste be removed with colour filtration under an enlarger or is this the crossover that koraks refers to which can be changed but only at the expense of other parts of the print?

pentaxuser

My bad, I was looking down at the pavement to get a satisfactory grey and did not notice the pink cast. It should be OK to remove with filtration but the other parts of the print will differ from C41.
The Dignan process provides all the right colors but not necessarily in the right places.

 

[pentaxuser]

My bad, I was looking down at the pavement to get a satisfactory grey and did not notice the pink cast. It should be OK to remove with filtration but the other parts of the print will differ from C41.
The Dignan process provides all the right colors but not necessarily in the right places.

Thanks Alan It's the old story again. Most of the other colours look right or so close as to being OK especially the kiosk and ice cream van. The shadow area under the empty table is a different colour from the rest of the pavement but I had to look again carefully. I didn't really notice it much first time around

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

The Dignan process provides all the right colors but not necessarily in the right places

I like that

 

[Alan Johnson]

So, no edge markings on the film itself? Are the sprocket holes and film thickness the same as that of Vision3, or are they different? If they're different, they might be reconfectioning e.g. unperf 70mm film into 35mm film by slitting it and sprocket holing it.

Sounds like a lot of work, but I don't put it past the Chinese to give it a go. Those guys sure work long hours if there's any money to be made.

I think it is authentic Kodak 5207 as marked on the box but know nothing of edge marking, attached

 

[koraks]

Sorry, I missed that the box markings of this particular film were actually 5207; I thought you meant a lot of 5207 is being offered in general.

Yeah, that looks like Kodak Vision edge markings and sprocket holes alright.

Maybe, one day, I'll give it another go. Maybe...one day...

 

[sasah zib]

@Alan Johnson // I do not know if you print in darkroom .. perhaps film to scan.
In a much earlier thread about the Dignan formula a reference was noted, but not much was followed up about a Godowsky patent.

patent US3869288 by Leopold Godowsky in 1973

an extract: "

An inactive developer bath was prepared from 12 grams of diethyl-p-tolylenediamine hydrochloride, 16 grams of sodium sulfite and water to make up a volume of one liter. A sodium bisulfite solution was added to this solution by titration until the pH of the solution was lowered to 6.5. Camera-exposed Eastman Color Posi tive No. 5385 film was then immersed in this developer solution for about 2 minutes to insure complete perva sion of the solution throughout the film emulsion lay ers. The thus-treated film, after removal of excess sur face developer solution, was then immersed, without agitation, in a strongly alkaline developer-activating so lution composed of 80 grams of sodium carbonate, 6.8 grams of sodium bromide, 1.8 gram of a gelatin hardner purchased on the market as "Eastman Gel Hardner' and sufficient water to form one liter. The film was left in this second bath for 6 minutes, then was rinsed with tap water and thereafter processed conventionally by bleaching, fixing and washing. The resulting film, com pared to identical film exposed under identical condi tions but developed by conventional commercial prac tice, was more clear and was characterized by improve ment in color fidelity and brightness. In further examples of the practice of the invention, the same exposed film, with the same immersion in the aforesaid developer and removal of excess developer solution on its surface, was treated with the aforesaid developeractivating solution by spraying the solution against the emulsion side of the film for 8 minutes in one test, and for 10 minutes in another test. The prod ucts of both tests were comparable in color fidelity and brightness to that of the first-mentioned example. The density of the film subjected to the 10 minute spray was, as would be expected, a little greater than that which was exposed to only the 8 minute spray. No no ticeable change in color balance was apparent.

-



certainly the example use of PS to demonstrate a color error says much about the use of PS for alteration of 'error' --
all 3 common types of CC error. No chance of correcting, using curves only, of "undercut" -- something no longer experienced.

by the way (to those knowing/talking 'bout DIR), review p.190 of Tani's Photographic Science, -- looks like a solution is [drawn similar ] with simple F1 silver masking.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Thanks Sasah,
This appears to be the same Godowsky b1900 who jointly invented the Kodachrome process, production started1935-6.
His patent mentions 6-12 g developer pH<7, 2min, followed by alkali pH 10.3-11.5 , 6min. This is of course very similar to the formula of Dignan, 1995. However he only claims [claim 1] treatment of the emulsion with a spray of small droplets of alkali for development. Maybe at age 73 he hoped to sell the idea to his former employers Kodak, IDK. I believe that a year before his patent Kodak were heavily involved in the establishment of the C-41 process but they would have noted the existence of this patent and it seems quite possible that Dignan would also have known of it.

 

[Alan Johnson]

More care in editing gives a result with grain and crossover characteristic of this process:

 

[Alan Johnson]

Some of the "My Heart " film is Kodak Vision 3 5207 250d repackaged in either China, EU or UK .
This is not to be put through labs C-41 process as the remjet will ruin the chems.

For my first roll in sunshine it was only needed to use "correct color cast" tool.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Two more problems with Post 1 processing:
(1) Streamers from the sprocket holes when agitating every 3 min in part B.
I will change the agitation to every 1min and the total time to 6min.
(2) A sponge dripped in dilute photoflo was used to wipe off the remaining remjet after processing.
Any residue that got on to the emulsion side was wiped off with a microfiber cloth after this.

This is " My Heart" film advertised as ISO 200, it turned out to be the same as before, Kodak Vision 5207.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Agitation in the B bath was changed to 2 inversions every minute and the total time changed to 6 min.
This seems to have fixed the problem of streamers from the sprocket holes.
There was no color correction on these 3 pics after scanning.

Kodak 5207 film + Dignan process = inexpensive color film photography if OK to cope with the remjet.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Since the modified Dignan process used here at about 38C runs at higher temperature than the original Dignan process I tried reducing the times.
Times tried at about 38C were 3 min for remjet, Part A, Bleach and Fix ,with 2 inversions at 30s intervals. The Part B was given 5 min with 2 inversions per minute.
This speeds up the whole process and so far no adverse effects were noted. These scans were corrected with the remove color cast tool.

My remjet prebath is 3 tblsp washing soda/L + 1 tblspn baking soda/L, 38C, after processing wipe the non emulsion side 5x with a sponge dipped in dilute photoflo followed by wipe 2x with a microfibre cloth dipped in dilute photoflo. This for Kodak Vision 5207 film.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The modified Dignan process is not too good for dull day landscapes as the color cast in the the sky is hard to remove.
This for 2014 dated expired 200 ISO film [Agfa?] @ EI=100.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Magenta twilight with Kodak Vision 3:

 

[Alan Johnson]

Dignan Process works OK with 250 ISO Kodak Vision 5207 used in a P&S camera that defaults to EI=100.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I made a fresh batch of the developer Part A, post 1,and stored it in a glass bottle under inert gas for four months before use for the first time.
At about 38C:
Part A 3 min, 2 inversions every 30s
Part B 5 min, 2 inversions every minute, wash 2x
Bleach 3min, 2 inversions every 30s, wash 2x
Fix 3 min 2 inversions every 30s, wash, cooling in stages to room temp.
Photoflo.
It was used on some out of date 2003 Jessops SHR 100 ( =Agfa) exposed at EI =100.
After using "remove color cast" I cannot see much evidence of incorrect colors here:

 

[lamerko]

Too much color noise from the scan. Is the film density too high?

 

[Alan Johnson]

Good spot.
The color noise may come from the out of date film, it shows eg on another pic on this film brand:



There is much less color noise on my Vision 3 5207 and Ektar pics.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Dignan Process solution part A is still OK after 4months.
Colors OK to my eye with simple "remove color cast".

 

[Alan Johnson]

Quite good colors with the scanner on auto with Kodak Vision 250D 5207:

 

[Alan Johnson]

Kodak Ektar developed by the Dignan process was used for some pics of the Isle of Wight UK.
With the Plustek 8100 set to 7100 dpi, Kodak, Ektar, this was the default scan with the scanner set to auto, after using the remove color cast tool:



I am not qualified to detect color crossover but the pic is useable for me.

 

[koraks]

I am not qualified to detect color crossover but the pic is useable for me.

All I can say is that the colors look unrealistic to me and far from what Ektar is capable of. Moreover there are very apparent magenta patches in the frame, especially along the left and right edges. As always, the general precautions when judging colors from an uncalibrated color negative scan without absolute reference apply here as well. Whatever we're looking at, we'll never know whether it's due to something with the actual negatives or related to the scanning and color correction procedures.

Of course, the final bit of your quoted text is what matters the most; if this works for you, then simply ignore what I or others think of it and continue having fun.