Diluted c41 1+1

[Oxi]

Hello, I accidentally diluted tetenal dev 1+1 and I don't have more developer. Is there any chance that I can mix it somehow whit some chemistry from e6 to work properly? Or does it work even diluted?

 

[trendland]

Hello, I accidentally diluted tetenal dev 1+1 and I don't have more developer. Is there any chance that I can mix it somehow whit some chemistry from e6 to work properly? Or does it work even diluted?

I would not mix E6 chemicals with c41
in general.
As your problem is your actual dilution
(1+1) don't be afraid.
You just have a look to your tetenal
table and regard the times given
to several dilutions.
May be that it is now your best choise to mix your c41 developer in the dilution (should mentioned in your tetenal tables) as one - shot developer.

No problem at all I would say !

But notice the difference in developing
time in concern to your actual dilution.
Bon chance

 

[Oxi]

I
But notice the difference in developing
time in concern to your actual dilution.
Bon chance

So if I get it right, just develop it some time longer on 1+1 (500ml mixed developer + 500ml water) should be right?
I have some replenisher for c41 (it works), do you think I can somehow get right dilution with it?

 

[trendland]

Ähhhm - sorry.
Just have had a look in c41 chemistry
ROLLEI DIGIBASE.
There is no recomendation for dilution?
Whats that ? Many time charts to different temperatures - but no dillution
charts?

Look at your tetenal advicements - if there are no times to 1+1 dillution you are outside the c41 standard.

So I was wrong - sorry.

But what to do in this case?

1 ) just have to buy a new kit
2 ) start experiments with deluted tetenal c41 developer to your own risc
with films for experimental use.

In the 2. way you should use a
devellopment times with 2-3 minutes longer - but I could imagine you get
color crossings.

with regards

 

[trendland]

So if I get it right, just develop it some time longer on 1+1 (500ml mixed developer + 500ml water) should be right?
I have some replenisher for c41 (it works), do you think I can somehow get right dilution with it?

Well I you have replunisher to c41 developer (first make shure if it is realy
the right stuff)
It shall help to your dillution problem.
But notice - you have first find out the
rate to replenishment.
When you have time tables or replenishment rates I would handle your
C41 dillution as exausted 50%.
But you have to try out - and the correct
times should be longer as undiluted original tetenal developer.

Notice : DONT HAVE TO TRY OUT WITH YOUR FILM OF THE YEAR.

Bon chance - sure you find a way with
results not as bad as with a bad film lab.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Read this first. All may not be lost!

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

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

 

[Oxi]

Thank you for helping.
At the end I replenished developer, started it with old unusable film and then it was OK for 4 films, but second batch with 2x 120 films went somehow like Xprocess. Not bad, at least for experiment.

 

[dmr]

Kind of a related question here, as I just ordered a Cinestill C41 kit and I'm gonna try some home development, mainly 'cuz getting convenient and timely lab development is getting harder and harder.

One thing I would like to do is the one-shot development, where I mix just enough of each solution to do one roll and then discard it. This would be to avoid with the futzing around with storing used chemicals and hoping they are good for the next roll.

The tank I got needs 8 fl oz to cover 1 roll. The chemistry kit I have on order makes 1 qt of solution and they say it will do 8 rolls. (Yes, I know of people doing like 20-24 rolls with it.) Anyway, if I want to try one-shot it means I'll have to make a half-strength portion of each solution making about 8 ounces.

If I remember my chemistry, reaction time for such a half-strength solution would be 1.414 times that of the full strength solution. I also read somewhere (here?) that someone was actually diluting the C41 developer 9:1 (with a major increase of development time, of course) and getting good results.

Anybody see anything obviously wrong with one-time use of half-strength solutions if the steps in the process are simply 1.414 times what they would be for full strength solutions?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Color negative processing is unlike that for B&W. You cannot tinker with any portion of it whether it is dilution, temperature, chemicals, ... Doing so will result in bad results.

 

[dmr]

Color negative processing is unlike that for B&W. You cannot tinker with any portion of it whether it is dilution, temperature, chemicals, ... Doing so will result in bad results.

So? Tell me? Why then do some of the kits have fairly extensive charts for various dilutions and temperatures? Why do people report getting good results with things like extreme dilution and using solutions for three times the specified number of rolls.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am genuinely curious.

 

[Mr Bill]

So? Tell me? Why then do some of the kits have fairly extensive charts for various dilutions and temperatures? Why do people report getting good results with things like extreme dilution and using solutions for three times the specified number of rolls.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am genuinely curious.

Hi, it's mostly just a matter of what your quality standards are. If you go by the traditional processing standards for a commercial finisher then none of these "alternate" methods would go. On the other hand, if you would consider it a minor miracle if you could actually develop film and print an "acceptable" color print by yourself, then all sorts of variations are sort of ok.

I come from a background of pretty extensive lab experience, including (mass market) portrait work with optical printing. In my experience this is one of the most demanding situations for a film/paper combination - you have a full range of skin tones, from specular highlights to shadow, and this is where color crossover is most apparent. You can't cover this up or say that "this is how it's supposed to look," with, for example, "cold" (meaning bluish or cyan) tinged highlights in otherwise normal skin tones. But if it were an outdoor scene, where viewers don't know, for sure, what the exact colors are supposed to be, then you can get away with a lot. Or, if you are scanning the film, then it's possible to correct nearly anything, provided you have the skills and the time.

My take on this is that the people working way outside of the normal processing specs are 1) if printing optically, are either not very sophisticated with respect to "proper" color, or their subject matter is open to a lot of interpretation. Or 2) they are printing digitally and correcting the files.

If you are of a certain sort of technical bent, I can point you at (and explain) some control charts that demonstrate effects of developer dilution, etc.

Best of luck in your attempts.

 

[bvy]

So? Tell me? Why then do some of the kits have fairly extensive charts for various dilutions and temperatures? Why do people report getting good results with things like extreme dilution and using solutions for three times the specified number of rolls.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am genuinely curious.

Haven't we been down this road? "Good results" is very subjective. Yes, C-41 developer is very durable. You will certainly get "results" across a range of times and temperatures and even dilutions. And if you're slapping the negatives on your scanner and pressing play, the software working in the background will deliver reasonably good color and exposure. Because of this, manufacturers are happy to sell you kits that invite you to explore all of these shortcuts. Given the cost and inconvenience of lab processing and the number of color film users who are shooting rather casually (using toy cameras, expired film, etc.), these kits are quite popular.

Now suppose you've shot a wedding. The bride's dress has to be bleach white. But, uh-oh, now her skin is blue. How much time do you want to spend in Photoshop correcting these?

Now suppose you want to wet print. You've shot and processed Film X before and look at your notes. 70M+70Y gave you great prints in neutral daylight. But the Film X negative you have today gives you a terrible magenta cast at that same filtration. What's your time worth?

So it all depends what you're doing with the film. If your shooting is casual and you don't want to wet print, then the kits are probably fine. I do wet print, and I rely heavily on my notes. This is why I work as closely as possible to the standardized process (100F at 3:15) and why I don't push dozens of rolls through the same liter of developer (I actually process one shot). This saves me time and materials when it comes to dialing in the correct settings in the darkroom. In fact, for most of the color films I shoot, the correct filtrations fall across a pretty tight range.

 

[trendland]

So? Tell me? Why then do some of the kits have fairly extensive charts for various dilutions and temperatures? Why do people report getting good results with things like extreme dilution and using solutions for three times the specified number of rolls.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am genuinely curious.

I see the main reason in a inability of
some to afford a complete temperated
Jobo processor.
Just to try out the developement in color.
And it is not so easy to manage the temperature from original C-41 process
with a little drum many have in use to
bw developement.
So many kit manufacturers stated since
years : "No way with lower temperatures with C-41"
Rollei was first by braking this rule.
In comparison to lower temperatures and
other times a dillution debate began.

So let me say : You can use a comercial
lab within C-41 regulations and you get
a palette of quality from excellent to lousy.
The same is with home processing.
But with a little luck your results can be
better from the first developement
in comparison with worst results ever seen from a lab.
It is a chance to be superior.

with regards

 

[Gerald C Koch]

So? Tell me? Why then do some of the kits have fairly extensive charts for various dilutions and temperatures? Why do people report getting good results with things like extreme dilution and using solutions for three times the specified number of rolls.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am genuinely curious.

Because these kits are intended for amateurs who are often not concerned with color fidelity.

 

[Photo Engineer]

True C41 chemistry has one dilution, one temperature and one time sequence! There are absolutely no substitutes if you want good color, speed, sharpness, and grain. The same is true of E6. I have done many experiments while at EK with varying these parameters, and they all result in faults.

There is also one formula.

PE

 

[trendland]

True C41 chemistry has one dilution, one temperature and one time sequence! There are absolutely no substitutes if you want good color, speed, sharpness, and grain. The same is true of E6. I have done many experiments while at EK with varying these parameters, and they all result in faults.

There is also one formula.

PE

Yes PE. I know this and I respect this point of view, because it is indeed not a kind of view - but rather the simple true.
Therfore (for me) I make a diference between C-41 specifications (the standard C-41 process) and everything different from this - also with E6.
As alternative processes.
Forgive me the comparison pls. - but
I personaly match it with the engine of a sports car. You may have enough horse
power with such cars but to some it is with pure performance.They went to special garages with special mechanics
to get much more power. They lost all their guarantees - and the car need more
fuel.The reliability of the engine is much less, the brakes are not made to such kind of speed and the sheriff is waiting
for these cars on a highway.
But with old cars - when the engine is
not working any more? Glad to have a special mechanic.Glad to have more speed than before.Beware of the sheriff of cause!
So I see this theme with any alternate developer method with expired films or as experimental use with cheap films.
Never with very new Films (and expensive E6 or C41 ...Portras, Ektars) .

with regards

PS: Don't worry PE. you are not meant by
the sheriff within this comparatively from
obove.
But perhaps sometimes with the special
mechanic who knows how to get additional horse power by tuning engines
and on own risc - of cause.

 

[trendland]

So? Tell me? Why then do some of the kits have fairly extensive charts for various dilutions and temperatures? Why do people report getting good results with things like extreme dilution and using solutions for three times the specified number of rolls.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am genuinely curious.

Sorry - dmr I forget to say most home
developer kits are C-41 of cause. But this standard was build from Kodak.Agfa and Fuji where forced to forget their own (little simular processes from behind)
processes because Kodak was a leader.
To some years they have there own names but their processes were absolut
simular by regulations of Kodak.
Kodak also spent a lot of money and work to make sure all labs over the world (exept eastern block countrys)
could manage their standard proper.
The kid to make sure to get real E6 is the
7Bath kit from Kodak.Fuji hunt is nearly the same.
With c-41 kids the diskussion began with
the number of baths.
Some say a 3 bath kit is ever no real C-41 (Blix) I would not use a blix bath from other reasons.

But let me short complete I stated to
Rollei : The recomandation to use other
temperatures as give from C-41 meant
definitively a process out of REACH C 41.
The same is with dillution of cause.
But today all labs offered on the one
hand C41 from its best - since many years back to the days Kodak made this
standard.
One the other side some labs failed with
their chemistry, temperatures etc. only
sometimes of cause.
So we can say : "Last monday the lab in my neighborhood was itself outside c-41
in total ( with bad results ) in comparision to such results you may have a chance to be better at once.
With lot of experience you may be better
with good chemistry than most of bad labs.
So as it is with bw .

with regards

 

[Murray Kelly]

I, for one have had terrible prints back from the local lab and I wouldn't be alone. My home baked C41 would now beat those ones hollow but I am absolutely sure it wouldn't meet the Kodak standards either. I am happy tho - I get great satisfaction from doing it myself.
It must have been a real hassle for other manufacturers to come up with non-patent infringing dyes etc to make the results exactly match Kodacolor II. It might have been a different world if one of the others had become the de-facto standard to beat.

 

[trendland]

I, for one have had terrible prints back from the local lab and I wouldn't be alone. My home baked C41 would now beat those ones hollow but I am absolutely sure it wouldn't meet the Kodak standards either. I am happy tho - I get great satisfaction from doing it myself.
It must have been a real hassle for other manufacturers to come up with non-patent infringing dyes etc to make the results exactly match Kodacolor II. It might have been a different world if one of the others had become the de-facto standard to beat.

It is a personal experience wich may be different to each other.
For example : With the background of a perfect lab (mostly expensive labs) you can get great results.
I know one of such guys from perfect labs. He is the director of his lab and he
personaly worked in the lab with his
employees.
Proffessional with different problems asked him to manage any enlargements one can imagine.Also unexperienced young students of photography are his clients and the Grandma from Backerstreet give her films to this lab.
I am not often there.
Other kind of labs you can just forget.
IF you have some experience in darkroom you can simple top the quality of lousy labs.
To top the quality of excellent labs is a question of the perspektive.
Some say so - but it is also a question to long live of self developed films.
Engagements are not so the problem.
Because you can reproduce them after years.

with regards