Dignan NCF-41 Divided Color Negative Developer

[Claire Senft]

Claire Senft submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Dignan NCF-41 Divided Color Negative Developer

In the NOV/DEC 1995 issure of Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques
Patrick Dignan wrote an article on a divided color negative developer. Everything in this article comes from that source.

Patrick Dignan, sadly now deceased, was a pioneer in the formulation of color chemistry for the home darkroom worker in the United States. As such he had earned the respect of an extensive following of home darkroom workers in compounding their own color chemistry. This article is the result of work...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Sean]

Comments from the previous system:

By titrisol - 05:10 PM, 07-13-2005 Rating: None
Is this for C41 films???

Shouldn;t this be in the recipes section?
By Tom Hoskinson - 08:40 PM, 07-17-2005 Rating: None
Yes, this is for developing C41 films.

Yes, this should be posted in the Apug Chemical Recipes.

I have used an earlier incarnation of Dignan's Divided Color Negative Developer and it worked fine. As I recall, it was the same recipe as the one Claire posted and I used it at 75 deg. F. I got the recipe and the CD-4 directly from Pat Dignan.

 

[srs5694]

FWIW, I've used this formula with variable results. It sometimes works quite well, yielding good density and color. Sometimes, though, it produces poor results -- most often taking the form of thin (low-density) negatives. I haven't figured out exactly what the problem is, although I think it's at least partly a matter of the brand and type of film. (The two worst rolls I ever pulled from the tank when using this developer were both Ilford XP2 Super. Fuji and Ferrania films usually seem to do well.) This is a pity, really, since the (claimed) long shelf life and 75F operation are both great features. Elsewhere on APUG, Photo Engineer has posted reasons why divided developers may not work optimally when emulsions change, so perhaps it's not surprising that a developer designed for the films of over a decade ago isn't working well with today's films.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This formula was never really suitable for C41 films. It was probably tested with one film over 10 years ago and gave usable results, but it cannot hope to compare with the 'real' developer from Fuji or Kodak.

It lacks one ingredient I can see, right off the bat, and has an ingredient that can harm proper imaging.

I doubt if anyone should use this for valuable pictures.

PE

 

[Discpad]

Kodak Flexicolor developer is $26.95 for a 5 gallon kit: I mix 2.5 gallons at a time, use what I need, and freeze the rest.

 

[dslater]

Kodak Flexicolor developer is $26.95 for a 5 gallon kit: I mix 2.5 gallons at a time, use what I need, and freeze the rest.

Interesting - I too mix up partial batches of flexicolor - I wasn't aware you could freeze it - do you mean you freeze the remaining working solution, or the stock solutions remaining in the bottles? How long will it last like this and how many freeze/thaw cycles can it go through? Are there any caveats to doing this?

Thanks,

Dan

 

[Discpad]

I keep about a gallon to a gallon & half of working tank soultion at room temperature; and defrost 1 liter soda bottles of replenisher of C-41 developer.

I also do the same for E6 color developer and; depending on my forecast volume for the month, E6 first dev.

Interesting - I too mix up partial batches of flexicolor - I wasn't aware you could freeze it - do you mean you freeze the remaining working solution, or the stock solutions remaining in the bottles? How long will it last like this and how many freeze/thaw cycles can it go through? Are there any caveats to doing this?

Thanks,

Dan

 

[Murray Kelly]

Resurecting a 'very' old thread I am intrigued by PE's comment that something important is missing from Dignan's formula. Is it Hydroxylamine Sulphate?

What function does this have in C-41 developer and if one should be so bold as to add it to the Dignan formula, would it go into the 1st or 2nd bath or maybe both?

I am not in the professional business and therefore can accept 'acceptible' results and the idea of a home brew appeals greatly. Amazing what color correction in PS can do to slightly 'off' CN negatives! From the local lab, that is. Haven't done any myself, yet.

Could Ron explain further?

Murray
Brisbane, Oz

This formula was never really suitable for C41 films. It was probably tested with one film over 10 years ago and gave usable results, but it cannot hope to compare with the 'real' developer from Fuji or Kodak.

It lacks one ingredient I can see, right off the bat, and has an ingredient that can harm proper imaging.

I doubt if anyone should use this for valuable pictures.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

There are actually two ingredients missing. I missed one. In any event, the method and temperatures are not usable for all films due to thickness variations among the various films and the diffusion problems that creates.

Hydroxyl Amine Sulfate is a powerful developer preservative. Leaving it out will have some effect, but I can't tell as I have not tested this developer.

I have tested other 2 part developers and processing at low temperatures and I argued this point with Pat Dignan many years ago. He and I exchanged quite a few notes many years ago.

PE

 

[Murray Kelly]

OK. Accepted. What is the other ingredient omitted? Apart from the Hydroxylamine Sulphate? The film thickness can be a problem w B&W 2 baths. Agreed.

Some seem quite happy with the 2 bath. I am using a bunch of Fuji 200 here.

The question still applies - would I be better advised to add it to bath 1 or not? (or bath 2?) From your comment it sounds a bit of a non-issue in a 2 bath. (going by other's experience) I want to get out of the 1-hour lab loop as it it takes 1 1/2 hours to get there with 110 film. The only game in town!

Any pointers to your online exchanges?

I really DO appreciate your input.

Murray

There are actually two ingredients missing. I missed one. In any event, the method and temperatures are not usable for all films due to thickness variations among the various films and the diffusion problems that creates.

Hydroxyl Amine Sulfate is a powerful developer preservative. Leaving it out will have some effect, but I can't tell as I have not tested this developer.

I have tested other 2 part developers and processing at low temperatures and I argued this point with Pat Dignan many years ago. He and I exchanged quite a few notes many years ago.

PE

 

[Murray Kelly]

If you are uncomfortable discussing this on line please don't hesitate to PM me.
Murray

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, since I have not used this developer formulation, I have no suggestion as to where to put the HAS, nor do I have any suggestion as to how to change the pH.

As for the formula itself, due to the fact that it is quite different than the actual formula, I can't tell you where to put the missing ingredient and how much to use. The actual formula does not use benzotriazole in any form, and it can harm C41 image formation, while KI is used to moderate the image formation control of the Iodide in the emulsions and the DIR coupler release.

So, as a result, the contrast and color quality will be off as will be the edge effects. IDK which way I can only say that it will vary with each film type you use.

PE

 

[Murray Kelly]

OK - no benzo-triazole. Got that.
You did say something was missing.
What? Do I have to drag it out of you?

Murray

 

[Photo Engineer]

Murray;

I said KI was missing in the post above and HAS, and that BTAZ was not to be used. That is it. I have not used this formula and I have nothing further that would be useful to add.

PE

 

[Murray Kelly]

PE - did you exchange on this forum or are there pointers to the discussions? I missed the reference to KI - it was 2am here. Mid morning for you guys. It's all starting to fall into place.
TU

Murray

 

[Photo Engineer]

Murray;

Look in my post #9 above where I refer to KI. I don't have the specific concentration, nor would I hazard a guess because this formula is too alien to me. I wouldn't use it myself.

There are references on APUG to the exact non-split formula with KI.

PE

 

[srs5694]

I am not in the professional business and therefore can accept 'acceptible' results and the idea of a home brew appeals greatly.

If you're mainly interested in the developer because it's a home-brew formula, there are others that are likely to work better, such as: one, two, (there was a url link here which no longer exists) I've used both the Dignan formula and #1 in that list, and I get much better results from formula #1. I seem to recall reading something to suggest that #2 and/or #3 are closer to Kodak's "real" C-41, but as I'm satisfied with #1, that's what I'm continuing to use. I like the idea of the long shelf life and room temperature processing of NCF-41, but in my experience it just doesn't work reliably -- some rolls come out looking good, but others are far too thin, often with weird color shifts that are difficult to correct even digitally. If you want to experiment, of course, I won't discourage you, but if you want something that just plain works, I'd steer clear of NCF-41.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Three is more accurate and two cannot be reached.

PE

 

[srs5694]

The link to two I posted earlier works for me. Either it was temporarily down or there's some route-specific problem blocking it for you but not for me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I can reach it now.

Two and Three are the same formula but vary in using different hydroxyl amine types. No reall difference in result, but rather in keeping.

PE

 

[Athiril]

I know this is old, but this keeps coming up in my search results and I've been intrigued.

HAS should not be needed as a preservative though? Unless it performs any other function in a developer other than to preserve it?

My reasoning is that Flexicolor Developer replenisher comes in 3 parts, part C contains the CD-4 in an acidic pH and no HAS and has a really long shelf life - longer than mixed solution, part B contains the HAS. So my thought is its not needed in an acidic pH condition (such as Bath A in the recipe).

 

[Photo Engineer]

I am dubious about any divided developer. It relies on the swell of the film to imbibe the correct amount of developing agent for action in part B. This amount will vary with hardness, and with the amount of gelatin coated (thickness). So, the actual formula and conditions will not be correct with every film and may be way out of date with current films.

Note the pH of part A. It is only slightly acidic. This may not be enough to stabilize the CD-4 for long term keeping, but in any event, the HAS is not in the developer portion of the C41 kit IIRC.

Pat and I talked a lot about this back in the days he was writing. He lived near here and we talked on the phone and exchanged letters.

PE

 

[Athiril]

Is the film thickness (coated gelatin) related to the contrast of the film? I mean rather than influencing contrast, is it decided that higher contrast films will have a thinner/thicker coating?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thickness and contrast are generally not related. It has more to do with design for a given purpose and in some cases coating restraints.

PE

 

[boswald]

I tried this years ago, and it seemed the fewer layers in the film, the less crossover. So some very
sophisticated films with several layers, like some Kodak, would have much thinner layers to avoid
transmission problems. More layers, more different speeds, harder to co-ordinate,more crossover.
It might be tweakable for consistent results with a two-layer mono film. I have heard that the new
Ektar is only three layers, but fine grain means thinner layers, so there we are again. I might be
more inclined to separate RA-4, but making trouble early in the process is big trouble later.