Diluted C41 Tested

Rafael Saffirio · Jun 11, 2020

Hi.
I did a test of the "David Lyga Method" of processing C-41 in diluted developer. For this I used fresh Kodak ColorPlus 200 the developer was Arista C-41 Liquid Kit mixed the same day processed in paterson tank at 38-39 C then I scanned everything in Nikon LS-1000 (I know, I know very very ancient scanner) with VueScan saved has DNG raw, converted in PS 6.0 same settings for everything (except one, more on that later) the I measured the color in a 11x11 px average and did some graphs.

Here are the numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1io1UzuFPE7GuurgCrqZyvHYpW7JNBEpEP4K96PljhVo/edit?usp=sharing

I did tree test:

Normal process by the Arista Kit instruction
C-41 Developer Stock with separate bleach and fix
C-41 Developer diluted 1+9 plus the addition of 1gr of sodium carbonate monohydrate

Developer and bleach at 38-39C everything else at room around 20

Process	Time
Developer	3:30 / 8:00
Stop	0:30
Clear	1:00
Wash	1:00
Bleach	3:00
Wash	1:00
Clear	1:00
Fix	3:00
Wash	3:00
Stab	1:00

Fixer is Ilford Rapid 1+4
Clearing bath: 500 ml water, Sodium sulfite, anhydrous, 15 g, Sodium metabisulfite, 5 g
Bleach: 350 ml water, Potassium Ferricyanide 28g, Potassium Bromide 7g

This is a quick side by side

From left to right: C41 normal Blix, C41 Bleach Fix, C41 Diluted white balance on mid gray, C41 Diluted, same white balance as C41 normal.

I don't know if I will use the diluted method because I prefer to reuse the developer and increase the time, but is good to know that it works

As you can see there are color shift to the blue in the diluted form, but in PS and scanning is quite easy to correct, and I believe in RA-4 printing also is possible I will test that and post the results.

The Raw scans:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/122Gj6vVT3co-vKoikhnXube8LtEnDBRg/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H2vNjXy4MaKLrQuKI_gvNhTVRsXgbmx5/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c8G6Y8caugmeEZbPmK_NlqWFfFAM1Wzn/view?usp=sharing

David Lyga · Jun 11, 2020

David Lyga breaks the rules when he feels that that is warranted. PE (Ron Mowrey) had an entirely different outlook on chemistry: he went by the book like a preacher goes by the Bible. His was the sanest way, backed-up by science.

When I used to post my experiments with color negative development there was an amazingly loud silence which emanated from Mr Mowrey and persisted throughout my experimental diatribes. The dilemma with me was that I did not want to look as if I was upstarting that sage (How could I possibly do that?) but did not wish to refrain from what I needed to say about my experiments, either. The silence was destroying my ear drums.

Shortly before his death, he paid a very warm compliment to me on photrio. To me, this was a great gift which I will always remember about this 'human Kodak photo lab" of a person. In a sense, he "told" me, through inference, that I also had value out there. Whether or not I really do becomes an exercise in conjecture, but it does prove this, with eminence: Maturity, mental maturity, allows for deviations in this life, and, there is more than one reason as to why the highest realms of science and mathematics are necessarily accompanied by philosophy and art.

Mowrey's contributions to this world did not end with science. - David Lyga

Rudeofus · Jun 11, 2020

Very interesting data point! Would you call this "shift to blue" and overall color shift, or is there some color cross over? Both can be corrected in digital post, but the former can also be corrected during optical enlargement.

Rafael Saffirio · Jun 11, 2020

Rudeofus said:
overall color shift, or is there some color cross over

mmm I don't know exactly what is and how to recognize a "cross over" I just see it "more blue"

David Lyga · Jun 11, 2020

NOTA BENE: 1 + 9 is 'rough'. It is extreme, Do not be afraid of attempting other dilutions (1+6 or 1+8 for example). Under NO conditions dilute MORE than 1+ 9. Or ... you might try the 1+9 and developing for a longer time: 9 minutes or 10 minutes at the 100 F. There is a perception out there that the world will come to an end if one deviates from either Eastman Kodak or, (please laugh) David Lyga. - David Lyga

MattKing · Jun 11, 2020

Rafael Saffirio said:
mmm I don't know exactly what is and how to recognize a "cross over" I just see it "more blue"

If you look at something that is illuminated in such a way that parts of it are a highlight, parts of it are a mid-tone and parts of it are in shadow, you can usually see crosover.
If Human faces are a great example - highlight on the forehead with midtones transitioning to shadows as you go from cheek to the shadowed part of the neck.
If you have crossover problems, the forehead might, for example, appear yellow, while the midtone appears natural and the shadowed neck appears blue.

Rafael Saffirio · Jun 11, 2020

In that case I don't think is crossover becausse if you see the graphs the C41 1+9 without white balance correction has more blue an less red in more or less the same way in every color

Here is the middle gray (Blue: By the book, Red: 1+9, Yellow: 1+9 white balance, Green C41 Bleach, Fix)

Rudeofus · Jun 11, 2020

If your analysis is correct, your negs processed in C-41 CD 1+9 can be optically enlarged just like regularly processed negs, just with slightly different filtration - this is excellent news!

It also confirms David's claim about the same thing, quite contrary to all the jeers and smugness he had to endure.

mohmad khatab · Jun 11, 2020

david lyga'
david lyga'
david lyga'
david lyga'

You need fresh films
We in Egypt are addicted to expired negatives.
Fresh films have become as though they were strands of Satan in our culture.

pentaxuser · Jun 11, 2020

Avery interesting experiment. It looks to my eyes as if the first two methods which are Arista blix and then bleach fix are almost identical except for the rectangle that crosses the two columns and the brown squares above where differentiation between the shades of the brown squares are better in the bleach fix than blix but the rectangle in the bleach fix looks more towards the red.

What are the rectangle and brown squares meant to be against the Kodak standard?

I am not at all sure what the white balance involves - is this a scanning matter and this irrelevant to an enlarger made print? However can I assume that the clearly blue coloured Kodak test strip is what will be the result of using David Lyga's method but given that the 4 graphs appear to show no colour crossover then turning such negatives into RA4 prints under an enlarger simply requires a correction of the Y dial by increasing it to correct what will be a Y cast on the print?

If my logic so far isn't flawed then is it possible to work out from the Kodak control strip how much that correction might be?

Thanks

pentaxuser .

Rafael Saffirio · Jun 11, 2020

pentaxuser said:
I am not at all sure what the white balance involves - is this a scanning matter and this irrelevant to an enlarger made print?

The white balance in digital is where you decide to put white is like a using a filter por using tugsten film in daylight.

I'm pretty sure it can be adjusted with CP filters in the enlarger, I will start one of this days doing RA-4 and when I get good prints I will print this negatives and post the results.

pentaxuser · Jun 11, 2020

Rafael Saffirio said:
The white balance in digital is where you decide to put white is like a using a filter por using tugsten film in daylight.

I'm pretty sure it can be adjusted with CP filters in the enlarger, I will start one of this days doing RA-4 and when I get good prints I will print this negatives and post the results.

Thanks for the reply and I look forward to your prints. I'd need to read David Lyga's thread again but while the dilution is excellent in terms of saving on the developer my worry would be for the longevity of the developer once it is opened. In my case and with my volume of processing, saving on chemicals is not a saving if David's method falls foul of the problem of extending the longevity of the developer to match its more economical use if it leads to its "death" before it can be used

pentaxuser

Rudeofus · Jun 11, 2020

There should not be much of a difference in shelf life. In both cases (regular C-41 and David's modification) you keep the concentrates. David mixes his dilute soup fresh from concentrates and uses it single shot, therefore he effectively gets the shelf life of opened concentrate bottles.

pentaxuser · Jun 11, 2020

Rudeofus said:
There should not be much of a difference in shelf life. In both cases (regular C-41 and David's modification) you keep the concentrates. David mixes his dilute soup fresh from concentrates and uses it single shot, therefore he effectively gets the shelf life of opened concentrate bottles.

Yes I appreciate that but my concern is that using much less developer means that presumably you open the concentrate and use less so an opened bottle is opened more often and lasts a lot longer which affects life? If a normal bottle has a life of a month and I can develop enough film to use the bottle within a month from when it is first opened at the maker's dilution then fine but if I extend it "full to empty" time to say 6 times as long then I have exceeded its stated shelf life of an opened concentrate bottle

pentaxuser

David Lyga · Jun 11, 2020

The developer can be mixed as per the manufacturer. This undiluted developer can be kept indefinitely (more jeers and nay says, please) by making certain that this developer is kept air-tight. When you are ready to develop, then you dilute, and don't you even fantasize about using the same dilution over again.

I have always used PET plastic bottles for air-tight storage. In fact, the ONLY time I would NEVER use PET plastic is in the case of PART C of Kodak's RA4 developer / replenisher. That stuff is SO ALKALINE that within a few days, the walls of the bottle become soft and easily break. But that is for paper, not what we are talking about with C-41 developer. I speak for nothing other than the Kodak stuff, but, as I suspected, other manufacturers' developers can be likewise diluted.

Some of these bottles can be slightly squeezed to let out air (Pepsi 16 fl oz size). But one can always use glass marbles to take up the slack. This is a bit cumbersome, but to answer this question once and for all, the "great" David Lyga says that the developer kept in this way (i.e., mixed as per manufacturer) will last virtually forever if kept air-tight.

One trivial point: kept for years and years this way, PET plastic allows a tiny, tiny amount of evaporation, so maybe one fluid ounce per (???) every couple of years might occur. But, what I said about 'forever' is largely true. - David Lyga

David Lyga · Jun 11, 2020

The easiest way is to mix as per manufacturer, then use that as your stock solution. However, if you insist upon mixing directly from Kodak's concentrate, the data follows:

For example, the 25 US gallon size (12.5 US gallons x 2) is: KF-12 1532753
Part A = 3784 mL x 2 = 7568 mL
Part B = 445 mL x 2 = 890 mL
Part C = 473 mL x 2 = 946 mL (NOTE: of the concentrates, ONLY Part C must be kept air-tight)

First, note that, metrically, 25 US gallons = 94,625 mL.

So, this data translates into this in order to mix one liter of "manufacturer strength" developer:

800 mL water + 80 mL A + 9.4 mL B + 10 mL C in WTM 1000 mL.

Don't complain to me about not being able to measure 9.4 mL because I will tell you to mix as per manufacturer first, then dilute when you process film. - David Lyga

Rafael Saffirio · Jun 11, 2020

pentaxuser said:
my worry would be for the longevity of the developer once it is opened

Some years ago I used a 4 years old unicolor kit (4 years diluted, not in powder) and the results where just fine. stored under the sink in guess what? PET bottles! squished to leave no air.

Here is my post with some photos

https://www.flickr.com/groups/25284563@N00/discuss/72157633172029540/

David Lyga · Jun 11, 2020

Rafael Saffirio said:
Some years ago I used a 4 years old unicolor kit (4 years diluted, not in powder) and the results where just fine. stored under the sink in guess what? PET bottles! squished to leave no air.

Here is my post with some photos

https://www.flickr.com/groups/25284563@N00/discuss/72157633172029540/

Don't you know that it is considered sacrilege to agree with David Lyga???

David Lyga · Jun 11, 2020

mohmad khatab said:
david lyga'
david lyga'
david lyga'
david lyga'

You need fresh films
We in Egypt are addicted to expired negatives.
Fresh films have become as though they were strands of Satan in our culture.

mohmad, You are my guiding light. Forever. - David Lyga

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jun 11, 2020

Rudeofus said:
It also confirms David's claim about the same thing, quite contrary to all the jeers and smugness he had to endure.

@David Lyga's method for developing C41 film in B&W chemistry also works fine in my experience. It gives much better results than the naive method of developing colour film in Rodinal or HC-110.

halfaman · Jun 12, 2020

I find negative color film and process to be very flexible.

One of the first times I develop C-41 I managed to disengaged the tank cap from my Jobo CPE2 after one minute or so of development pouring out all the chemistry. I washed and closed the tank, prepared quickly developer again with hot water at unknown temperature, and finished the development swirling the tank in my hands for an arbitrary time. Negative came out perfect to my eyes.

There is people out there that reuse the developer up to crazy rates (16 rolls with 250 ml) without compensating time and they still get good negatives perfectly usable.

I am very well prepared to believe David Lyga's method works....

koraks · Jun 12, 2020

Rafael Saffirio said:
View attachment 248155

The third column shows a few noteworthy things, I think:
* There seems to be a relatively high saturation in the magenta patch, but low saturation in the cyan patch, compared to the two strips on the left.
* There appears to be a distinct difference in granularity, although this may be related to...
*...the large difference in gamma/contrast, suggesting that the development time was indeed inadequate for this dilution
* In the black, grey & white patches at the top there seems to be a crossover issue that is more pronounced in the 3rd column (1+9 developer) than in the reference to the left
The above is of course within the limitations of the digitization process which will involve some intepretation steps that are difficult to control for, although the 4th column does indeed suggest a very severe color shift. Such shifts in my experience are always associated with more minor (or sometimes more major) crossover effects, causing problems with what looks like color temperature differences between shadows and highlights and problems with purity of colors.

The difference between the blix and bleach+fix strips suggests there may be an issue with incomplete bleaching or fixing in the separate approach. I'd suggest prolonging both bleach and fix times to e.g. 6 minutes instead of 3. 3 minutes is perfectly adequate, but assuming that rapid access chemistry is used. I'm not sure about the Arista kit in this respect, and particularly the bleach speed if it is used outside of its intended application (not combining it with the fix part may result in a different pH, which in bleaches is known to severely affect activity). Another compounding issue may be the use of an acid fix, which can result in dyes remaining in their leuco state. I'd recommend a neutral fix instead, although I've tried acid fixes in a few instances and noted little to no problems in this department.

Please note the above is not a disqualification of this approach. I'm just trying to interpret what is presented here. It's an interesting approach for sure and more importantly, I think it's very valuable that attempts are made at a somewhat structured comparison between different approaches.

mohmad khatab · Jun 12, 2020

David Lyga said:
mohmad, You are my guiding light. Forever. - David Lyga

Oh my God ...!!!!

David Lyga · Jun 12, 2020

halfaman said:
I find negative color film and process to be very flexible.

One of the first times I develop C-41 I managed to disengaged the tank cap from my Jobo CPE2 after one minute or so of development pouring out all the chemistry. I washed and closed the tank, prepared quickly developer again with hot water at unknown temperature, and finished the development swirling the tank in my hands for an arbitrary time. Negative came out perfect to my eyes.

There is people out there that reuse the developer up to crazy rates (16 rolls with 250 ml) without compensating time and they still get good negatives perfectly usable.

I am very well prepared to believe David Lyga's method works....

halfaman makes a very valid point here, in that this C-41 is flexible. There is an obsession out there which posits otherwise and that rigidity is dead wrong. If you develop longer, you get results which give more contrast. Remember, that with color the needed contrast is usually taken over by hue differentiation. With B&W, the 'light contrast' is needed more.

This is why I stress not to be bound by my directions and to try freely with 1+9 to develop for 9 or even 10 minutes if you are getting under developed negatives, although 8 minutes at 1+9 should be adequate, but do not feel afraid to do a bit more. OR ... you could dilute a bit less, like 1+8 or 1+7 and retain the 8 minute time. But, I did use 8 minutes and 1+9 and got entirely acceptable results.

The PROCESS IS FLEXIBLE. My longtime advice is to TEST, USING ONE OR TWO FRAMES ONLY. Film is expensive; there is NO REASON to TEST WHOLE ROLLS. Use common sense.

Finally, I think that I am going to offer a bit of a correction. Subsequent to my 2016 post, I tried NOT using any carbonate and got the same result. So you need NOT use any carbonate.

Overriding point here: The manufacturer's recommended dilution is FAR MORE POTENT THAN WE ARE LEAD TO BELIEVE. I think that my 'one shot' procedure is BETTER than re-using and re-using and re-using the 'recommended' manufacturer's strong mixture. WITH MY WAY, the chemicals are ALWAYS FRESH. That speaks mightily in terms of consistency. - David Lyga

David Lyga · Jun 12, 2020

koraks said:
The third column shows a few noteworthy things, I think:
* There seems to be a relatively high saturation in the magenta patch, but low saturation in the cyan patch, compared to the two strips on the left.
* There appears to be a distinct difference in granularity, although this may be related to...
*...the large difference in gamma/contrast, suggesting that the development time was indeed inadequate for this dilution
* In the black, grey & white patches at the top there seems to be a crossover issue that is more pronounced in the 3rd column (1+9 developer) than in the reference to the left
The above is of course within the limitations of the digitization process which will involve some intepretation steps that are difficult to control for, although the 4th column does indeed suggest a very severe color shift. Such shifts in my experience are always associated with more minor (or sometimes more major) crossover effects, causing problems with what looks like color temperature differences between shadows and highlights and problems with purity of colors.

The difference between the blix and bleach+fix strips suggests there may be an issue with incomplete bleaching or fixing in the separate approach. I'd suggest prolonging both bleach and fix times to e.g. 6 minutes instead of 3. 3 minutes is perfectly adequate, but assuming that rapid access chemistry is used. I'm not sure about the Arista kit in this respect, and particularly the bleach speed if it is used outside of its intended application (not combining it with the fix part may result in a different pH, which in bleaches is known to severely affect activity). Another compounding issue may be the use of an acid fix, which can result in dyes remaining in their leuco state. I'd recommend a neutral fix instead, although I've tried acid fixes in a few instances and noted little to no problems in this department.

Please note the above is not a disqualification of this approach. I'm just trying to interpret what is presented here. It's an interesting approach for sure and more importantly, I think it's very valuable that attempts are made at a somewhat structured comparison between different approaches.

This is not only well said, but appropriately said. Folks, I am not a lab with a technical level of perfection. The negatives I developed printed with beautiful colors. I do not have the technical equipment to prove crossover deviations. But, tell me, how many of you are able to make RA4 prints which satisfy lab perfection with regard to hue value and intensity?

Try this: take a picture of a color swash ONLY, but underexpose by two or three stops. Then give DOUBLE the development time for that negative. You will end up with colors that are exquisite in saturation ... but if you had done that with a normal, sunny scene, with deep shadows, you would have ended up with a mess. Again, C-41, like B+W, is flexible. It lends itself well towards artistic flexibility. - David Lyga

Diluted C41 Tested

Rafael Saffirio

David Lyga

Rudeofus

Rafael Saffirio

David Lyga

MattKing

Moderator

Rafael Saffirio

Rudeofus

mohmad khatab

pentaxuser

Rafael Saffirio

pentaxuser

Rudeofus

pentaxuser

David Lyga

David Lyga

Rafael Saffirio

David Lyga

David Lyga

Raghu Kuvempunagar

halfaman

koraks

Moderator

mohmad khatab

David Lyga

David Lyga

Diluted C41 Tested

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency