Diluted C41 Tested

OK, but one overriding factor here: You did not use the same chemistry that I used. I ALWAYS use Kodak. You used Fuji. Now, whether or not that makes the difference I do not know, but I do find that the Kodak does dilute well. I have no ideal how well the Fuji can be diluted and perform excellently.

Nor am I trying to make excuses here. In fact, I will try to present something corroborating my experiences, yet again. Just please be patient. I don't have the great abilities that you all seem to have with flipping at a moment's notice between analog and digital.

If, in fact, I am proven wrong, I will admit that, but I do not think that that is going to be the case. The problem is in the switch between analog and digital. Even if I bring a print to FedEx Copy Store to scan, the scan ALWAYS looks differently from my print. So, I am at a bit of a loss here. Maybe I can MAIL (POST) a print or two to someone who knows what he is doing. But, in any event, please be PATIENT. - David Lyga

It's quite possible that Kodak and Fuji chemistry will behave differently at high dilutions. After all, they're highly unlikely to have been tested for that scenario by the manufacturers. One species of developer may fare better than another.
Around here, Fuji is by far more easier to get than Kodak, which can be obtained, but is relatively (insanely) expensive.

This is the central quagmire: PRICE AND AVAILABILITY. But I will stay with this until reason prevails. In the USA, and ONLY in the USA, these chemicals are readily available online, although the last time I bought the Kodak Dev / Repl 25 US Gallon size was maybe eight years ago. I believe that the price was USD 140. That, folks, is for over 94 Liters, or MY WAY, 940 Liters of working solution. To most foreigners, that is pure fantasy, I know.

I do not know how well the Fuji dilutes, but, again, if underdeveloped, either develop longer or at a somewhat stronger mixture. But, I will die defending these KODAK dilutions. One of the most basic things I have learned throughout my over 50 years in the darkroom is this: manufacturers consistently make amends for the sloppy processing that they KNOW amateurs will engage in. Ilford makes a developer called ID-11 which is virtually identical fo Kodak's D-76. Yet ... Ilford freely recommends diluting ID-11 at 1 + 3 while KODAK defies diluting more than 1 + 1, and then at this 'outrageous' dilution cautions you to develop longer if processing a full 36 exp roll in a small tank in order to make up for the 'using up' of the developer.. David Lyga does not mind diluting either of those developers at 1 + 5 and has nothing but excellent negatives to show for his efforts. Of course, at that intense dilution, adding a bit of carbonate will make development times more comfortable.

The point I am getting at is this: People are utterly terrified at deviating from the manufacturer's laws. I have learned, with commonsense restraints, to readily defy them. One is 'supposed to use' a full 5 mL of Rodinal per 36 exposure roll. I say that half of that is fully adequate for high quality negatives. Again, I do not 'add space' for the sloppiness that manufacturers are afraid that I will engage in. I am rigorous with my measurements so that I can annul the 'sloppiness' factor. But, yes, 2.5 mL of Rodinal really IS sufficient for processing one 36 exp roll of B&W film in a working solution of 250 mL. And, even at that dilution, you are not going to get 'compromising effects' which hamper highlight separation. Yes, that 100x dilution WILL WORK JUST AS WELL. You will be developing either LONGER or at a HIGHER TEMP (I use the ambient 80 F) but the negatives will be just as good. - David Lyga

This is the kind of question that comes from someone who's never made an RA-4 print, and only processed a bit more than a dozen rolls of C-41 film, most of them fifteen years ago: given that the 1+9 developer is under contrast, could the underdevelopment account for the crossover that's making balancing the color impossible to fully correct? In other words, could most of the problems with 1+9 color dev be solved by developing, say, 11 or 12 minutes instead of 10?

Sure, 12 minutes seems like a lot -- approaching four times the usual C-41 time -- but most of us also process black and white, and it's not at all unusual for a diluted developer to take more than ten minutes to do the job (especially on faster films like Tri-X or HP5+) -- in some cases, even when the stock solution of the same developer has a time close to that of standard C-41 (compare HC-110 Dilution B to Dilution G, for instance, or XTOL stock vs. merely 1+2).

Really, don't you think that precisely 3.25 minutes is a bit hard to get exactly right each time? I think that a longer time is better. This morning I processed four negatives but, just to try it out, I processed them for 9 minutes instead of the 8. They have slight degree of more contrast, but still very usable. I cannot speak for others' water, thermometers, or other exactness, but, really, how many of you get 3.25 minutes with utter precision as well as the precise temp?

In my experience, Donald, underdevelopment just makes the hues less bold and imparts a general veil which looks low contrast. A bit too much development makes the colors really stand out, differentiated but when shot on a sunny day with dark shadows, those shadows just might crossover. I really think that that is all that there is to it.

No, twelve minutes is not a pain in the butt, like 3.25 minutes is. But, for me, that timing would be far too much. Again, I cannot speak for other brands of chemicals. Maybe my Kodak chemicals are called "developer / REPLENISHER" for a good reason.

Here are the negs I processed this morning. (I shot the negs with my cheap digital camera, so the shot is lousy.) I have neither the software nor knowledge to pretty them up, but you can get an idea. If you need yet more and more proof it would be better for you to heed with others say rather than what I say. Makes life simpler. - David Lyga

I used Kodak developer in my tests. The curves were so wonky, I can't see extending development times would help. It never helps with low temperature processing tests, using normal dilutions, to improve the curves. It is all because of the delicate nature of the mult-layer C-41 film and diffusion-critical process. The closer you get to the standard development, the better the results.

But what is most important is what is acceptable to you.

Donald Qualls said:

could the underdevelopment account for the crossover that's making balancing the color impossible to fully correct?

Click to expand...

Probably not, no.

I fully don't care whether my experiments are deemed 'justified'. I am happy for this thread because the issue of such deviation is finally being vetted and explored. This is only a good thing because all of us are thinking "outside of the box"; new insights are being brought forth. - David Lyga

A quick question about diluted developer and color shift/crossover Could this be corrected by adjusting the pH of the developer to somehow compensate for the color shift/crossover?

alanrockwood said:

A quick question about diluted developer and color shift/crossover Could this be corrected by adjusting the pH of the developer to somehow compensate for the color shift/crossover?

Click to expand...

My unscientific mind says "no". I do not see how pH would be a crossover determinant here. To me, pH merely changes development time, especially with B&W, but, again, although I had initially recommended adding carbonate to the C-41 developer, I do not NOW recommend doing that. It did not make a difference.- David Lyga

Concerning the pH vs. crossover question: I really don't know. On a related matter, I did some experimentation with ECN-2 film in ECN-2 developer and then printed onto RA4 paper, where I varied the pH and also the development time in order to keep contrast constant. I witnessed an absolute shift in color balance, but crossover did not seem to change appreciably. There may have been a minor difference in crossover, but it was difficult to see because the crossover in absolute terms is pretty huge when printing ECN2 film onto RA4 paper, so any difference due to pH variation might have been lost in the margins. So based on this rather doubtful evidence, I'd lean towards agreeing with David in that pH alone will probably not fix the crossover problem here.

Also, I did measure the pH of the diluted 1+9 developer immediately after running my test strip through it. It measured around 9.80, but this is a somewhat doubtful figure as the measurement was taken after development and while the solution was still warm (around 30C). Fuji specifies around 10.05 for the developer in its intended dilution at 20C, suggesting that the pH drift due to dilution is not all that great. Which makes sense as it's likely buffered quite well.

Wow Koraks, that is a very good test, much better that my crude photos, now regarding the:

koraks said:

The massive yellow/blue shift is the first thing that becomes apparent.

Click to expand...

I simply can't see it, of course I see some differences in color but nothing that I would consider a "deal breaker".

The great thing about this thread is that we are finally testing and posting result about using C-41 diluted instead of just saying that it doesn't work or that color shifts will hunt you while you sleep
My conclusion is that C-41 diluted does have some color shift but is still good enough for "amateur" eyes, specially if you do hybrid workflow you go for it. Of course if you are a pro that needs perfect colors this is not for you (any way for a close to 100% perfect C-41 better take your film to a good mini lab as the temps and times of C-41 where designed for automated machine processing, not hobbyist with paterson tanks)

Rafael Saffirio said:

I simply can't see it, of course I see some differences in color but nothing that I would consider a "deal breaker".

Click to expand...

The blue/yellow shift doesn't have to be a deal breaker as it can be filtered away during printing, more or less. It's very apparent; just look at the first image I posted (with the 4 strips) and compare the 2nd and 3rd strips to the 1st and 4th. If I correct the print for the C41 benchmark, the 1+9 strip comes out blue (2nd strip). If I correct for the 1+9 strip, the benchmark strip comes out yellow (3rd strip). I hope this clarifies it!

Rafael Saffirio said:

any way for a close to 100% perfect C-41 better take your film to a good mini lab as the temps and times of C-41 where designed for automated machine processing, not hobbyist with paterson tanks

Click to expand...

Hmm, we'll have to disagree here, I'm afraid. I do admit that I use a jobo processor, but a paterson setup with a sous-vide cooker would work quite OK as well. Results, with 'official' chemistry, are pretty much the same as what I get from the big Fuji lab that I can send my work to - although at a fraction of the cost, and within a few hours instead of a few days or even weeks. You can get perfect colors right at home!

koraks said:

Results, with 'official' chemistry, are pretty much the same as what I get from the big Fuji lab that I can send my work to - although at a fraction of the cost, and within a few hours instead of a few days or even weeks. You can get perfect colors right at home!

Click to expand...

I'll confirm that my $32 sous vide machine has been the bargain of the year -- fill a tub with water, set the machine and drop the chemical bottles I'll need into it, come back in a while. If I get the water close to temperature when I fill the tub, "a while" might be as little as 15-20 minutes for the actual chemicals to warm. I do have to unplug the sous vide while I load my film, due to its operating lights, but I can easily live with that, since it takes almost no time to get back to equilibrium after 5-10 minutes to load a couple rolls.

Rafael Saffirio said:

The great thing about this thread is that we are finally testing and posting result about using C-41 diluted instead of just saying that it doesn't work or that color shifts will hunt you while you sleep

Click to expand...

Some time ago, in another thread a member, Greg Davis, ran control strips that showed this process was quite out of spec. This would be a deal breaker for some but not necessarily others. To my knowledge, no one has said this process doesn't work, or not to use it, only given warnings that not being even close to the standard process, and due to the critical nature of the C-41 process, was very likely to have uncorrectible problems and tests have born this out.

Time and time again on threads and in videos I see people showing room or low temperature C-41 processes, or other altered processes are shown, where it is said that the process works great with no problems (in their view), with no warning that it is not the standard process and may not give proper results. Then those in the know come along and give appropriate warning about it, for everyone's benefit, and often only get admonished for doing so instead of thanks.

As has been repeated before by the same people giving those warnings, it is up to the users to decide what works for them. Some may not care whether results meet spec or not, but it may be very important to others. We warners are only doing what we feel is in the best interest of the photographic community based on knowledge and experience, not trying to rain on anyone's parade.

Rafael Saffirio said:

...any way for a close to 100% perfect C-41 better take your film to a good mini lab as the temps and times of C-41 where designed for automated machine processing, not hobbyist with paterson tanks)

Click to expand...

Lab quality results can be easily achieved at home using nothing more than a small tank and water bath. I have confirmed this with my densitometer. In fact I quit using labs years ago and started developing my own after having less than perfect results from labs and learning about the critical nature of the C-41 process. I have not regretted it.

Rafael Saffirio said:

The great thing about this thread is that we are finally testing and posting result about using C-41 diluted is that it doesn't work or that color shifts will hunt you while you sleep

Click to expand...

I'm a little torn about whether this sort of testing is a good thing or not. On the one hand people are exploring and finding out how things work. On the other hand it seems to be mostly one-sided testing of off-spec methods, not comparing results to those of a "proper" process. The results seem to be largely evaluated in terms of "it looks good to me" or "I'm satisfied/happy with the results." Or if anything is wrong, "I can fix it digitally." I think this can be misleading to casual readers who have little to no experience doing these things, and in the absence of dissenting opinion may see this as strong evidence that all is true.

I personally have some pretty extensive experience with both the C-41 and RA-4 (paper) processes obtained while working for a large studio chain outfit. We were pretty finicky about our materials, testing pretty extensively. When a new paper, or film, was being brought onto the market, and we were considering its use, we'd start a testing sequence. There's a brief rundown in the link below.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/posts/2192714/

For those not reading the link, we shot a variety of subjects - different complexions and hair colors - with different-colored fabrics and a color test chart, and did this over a wide exposure range. Then we optically printed the film - almost always a Kodak professional portrait film onto an appropriate professional paper. From the "normal" exposure we made a "best" color-balanced print, then every other test image was hand-balanced to match colors on the skin tones. Then the images were compared, including versus the actual color chart and an assortment of the actual fabrics (such comparisons must be done under a "proper" light with full-spectrum, such as you get with daylight).

Since our business was portraits, skin tone reproduction was a main priority, so we especially looked for color crosses there, including when both dark and light complexions were in the same image, and at different exposure levels. With Portra 160 it was possible to do this such that both a one-stop underexposed and a four-stop overexposed negative could be printed as a very nearly dead match to the reference print. And our test fabrics, strong red, green, and blue, plus a couple pastels, could be laid next to the actual print and be close enough to believe they could be the same thing (of course this match would not hold up under various different light sources).

I present this as an example of what can be done with a "proper" process and certain professional materials.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I have NO experience with a diluted C-41 developer, nor off-spec temperatures, etc., so I can't say for sure what the results would be. But having worked with this sort of thing for a lot of years, and seeing how finicky things can be, it is MY GUESS that there is almost no chance that a highly diluted developer would be able to match this performance.

Anyway this is my view of the sort of testing that would be useful for someone doing portrait work. And it would ideally be compared to an optimum process. Without such a side-by-side comparison it's easy to be fooled about how good one's results are. As an example, perhaps the off-spec test processes might exceed the best quality available circa 1970s, where it would have been seen as a minor miracle. But today the reference standard is much higher. If one is not comparing the test system directly against a current hi-quality reference, it's hard to know where it fits in.

Ps, as a note, we did various sensitometric tests and color chart evaluations, etc., but found these not adequate to predict performance with portrait subjects. There are too many color variations - mixes of film layer combinations that may interact with each other. So we always included "real world" type testing, based on what we made our living at.

I shall now bow out of this thread

And I will bow to you, as well, Mr Bill. What you said needed to be said. You were not definitive in saying that my procedure was wrong, but you appropriately said to exercise due caution.

Again, I will re-iterate: this thread yields something which is rarely allowed to come to fruition: an honest parlay about things that, heretofore, were considered salacious or degenerate to utter. Rather than discredit without cause solely because it is against 'proper procedure', these honest opinions have, and give, merit to these forums because they keep delving into the essence of the procedure and give each opinion its proper showtime.

Each post holds new data, new inferences, new output. Certainly, if anything outrageous manifests, that trite verbiage will be properly and duly knocked downward and, most importantly of all, confirmed reasons will be forthcoming in order to justify that downward thrust. - David Lyga

To a very amateur eye like mine your negs certainly don't look as if there is much wrong with them. Here's a thought. If you cannot do RA4 prints from these and post them, ask for a volunteer preferably a sceptic to do a few 5x7 RA4 prints return them along with the negs. Your second volunteer needs to be non sceptic i.e. not a believer necessarily, just someone who hasn't formed an opinion yet. That person does 5x7s of the same negs and then returns them to you

You then post them for all to see

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

To a very amateur eye like mine your negs certainly don't look as if there is much wrong with them. Here's a thought. If you cannot do RA4 prints from these and post them, ask for a volunteer preferably a sceptic to do a few 5x7 RA4 prints return them along with the negs. Your second volunteer needs to be non sceptic i.e. not a believer necessarily, just someone who hasn't formed an opinion yet. That person does 5x7s of the same negs and then returns them to you

You then post them for all to see

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Don't jump the gun. I am attempting prints as we speak. Then I will ask someone (anywhere on planet earth) who has the ability to scan properly, to post online. Pentaxuser, are you available? If so, send me an address to post the prints and negatives to.

Or koraks, or Rafael? Or? .....Decide among yourselves

Sure, no problem at all. Let me know if you want me to scan them for you. I'm in Europe.

David Lyga said:

Don't jump the gun. I am attempting prints as we speak. Then I will ask someone (anywhere on planet earth) who has the ability to scan properly, to post online. Pentaxuser, are you available? If so, send me an address to post the prints and negatives to.

Or koraks, or Rafael? Or? .....Decide among yourselves

Click to expand...

Sorry, David, what's a scanner? OK I do know but they are virtually a closed book to me. Other than a very primitive scanner on my HP printer for which I only need to know to press the scan button and it does the rest I know diddly squat about them

Nice offer by koraks and he is much better equipped in certainly knowledge terms and probably in scanning terms as well

pentaxuser

koraks, it is.

Send me an address. Even if you are in Siberia. Or the Arctic. Or Timbuktu. Or Philadelphia (heaven forbid!). - David Lyga

I just sent the photos. Warning: just sending four 6 X 8 photos across the Atlantic costs $14.50 the cheapest way and it takes a whopping 16 days to get to Europe. Before I sent the photos, I shot them with my very cheap digital camera so you will know what to expect.


I processed the negatives in 1 + 9 Kodak C41 for 9 minutes at 100 F. I processed the prints at 1 + 9 Kodak RA4 and developed for three minutes just to be certain to get full development. Nothing is a winner here, but you will see that the photos are halfway decent. Next time I had better shut my mouth. - David Lyga

David now I have understood your requirements which is a decent scan only and not printing and given the cost and time of sending them to Europe surely there must be someone here on Photrio in the U.S. who knows enough about scanning prints accurately to do it instead?

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

David now I have understood your requirements which is a decent scan only and not printing and given the cost and time of sending them to Europe surely there must be someone here on Photrio in the U.S. who knows enough about scanning prints accurately to do it instead?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Carrier pigeons have offered to take them across the Atlantic. They told me that, due to COVID 19, it will take 16 days (daze?) to reach the destination where there is a peanut awaiting them. - David Lyga