First attempts at C-41 are very grainy

[thelawoffives]

Hello all -

I recently processed my first roll of C 41, and the results were very grainy. The film was expired (2008) Portra 160VC, and I used the 1 liter Unicolor kit. I had expected a relatively smooth image from that particular film, so I figured that it was something in my technique. Here is an example from my first roll:

135 Portra 160VC

After a few searches, I happened upon a few posts here that suggested a better agitation method, and stressed observing the proper times. My first go around was a bit shaky, so I used a slightly different agitation method, and I made sure my times were spot on. The second roll was a 120 roll of Portra 400VC, also expired, and seemed a bit more even, but still very grainy. This is a sample from a 120 roll of Portra 400VC:

120 Portra 400VC

My question is, what is my next step? Should I try a roll of fresh film first, to see if it is my technique, or is there a few obvious steps I can take to ferret out the problem? I know that the C 41 kit that I am using is not ideal, but I like the price while I am testing out shooting in color.

Any help is appreciated, and thanks for taking the time to read this.

 

[Rudeofus]

I would like to mention two things:
- Maybe due to the small viewing size (even when clicking on the image on flickr) I can't really see a whole lot of grain in these images. Since you scanned the negs with a scanner capable of very high resolution (effective 2000 dpi or so), you should post crops instead of heavily downscaled versions of your scan.
- Negative film, scanned with consumer or prosumer scanners, for some reasons never looks right. When I still worked with negative film, my results were sometimes much worse than what you posted, and I used fresh film. See here for a discussion of my scanning troubles with negative film. I switched to slide film as a result and the results were stunningly better right away. Folks who did RA4 claim that the resulting pics look so much better than anything a hybrid work flow could ever achieve.

Conclusion: Either go analog all the way or switch to slide film

 

[hrst]

AFAIK, Unicolor kit is a blix kit, instead of separate bleach and fix. This might also be a reason for graininess.

You get colors so wrong that you have either a severe scanning or developing issue. It will be hard to say which one. Try to scan negs "known to be good" with the same methods. Then if you can find that the problem is not in scanning, we can discuss the possible developing issues in more detail.

 

[markbarendt]

Is your temperature across the whole process close?

If not it may be reticulation, not grain.

 

[hrst]

Is your temperature across the whole process close?

If not it may be reticulation, not grain.

It's very difficult to produce reticulation or "microreticulation" in modern color films. Drifts of even 10 deg C or more are allowed by process specifications.

 

[thelawoffives]

Here are crops from the above images:

135 Portra 160VC detail
120 Portra 400VC detail

and here is a crop from a lab processed neg that I scanned using more-or-less the same process:

120 Fujicolor 400H detail

I have done quite a bit of scanning before and after the examples I posted (mostly monochrome), and the results are as expected. Also, the grain is visible when viewed directly using a lupe. Therefore, I am fairly confidant that I can rule out the scanner as the source of my problem.

The other thing that I did not mention before is that the grain appears between frames as well as in the images themselves. This is apparent in the second example.

As far as the blix vs separate bleach and fix, I understand these kits have a bad reputation, but has not been my understanding that the results are so uniformly bad as to expect super grainy negs and color that is totally screwy. I get that blix can produce poor-quality negatives, but are its detractors saying that it reliably produces total garbage, every time? If so, I am willing to believe that, but from what I had read, the $20 kit seemed like a good way to try the process on for the first time.

Thanks to everyone for the responses

 

[thelawoffives]

Is your temperature across the whole process close?

If not it may be reticulation, not grain.

After development, I temped the developer at 99F, after it had sat in its bottle for a minute or so while I started the blix step. I assumed that a 3-5 degree drop was OK, after reading various howtos on-line.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, the 400 looks better than the 160, but the format is different so who can tell unless they are at the same magnification.

OTOH, the defect in the 160 looks like a processing fault, perhaps Silver retention. IDK for sure. Try rebleaching, washing, fixing and stabilization. That might help. Or, reblix, wash and stabilze, whatever suits you.

Bad bleaching and fixing can give a neutral grain and increase in contrast. But, it appears as if there is more going on here.

PE

 

[thelawoffives]

Try rebleaching, washing, fixing and stabilization. That might help. Or, reblix, wash and stabilze, whatever suits you.
PE

To be clear, because I have never reprocessed any film, would I simply load the negs and do a full blix/wash/stabilizer step, using the kit-recommended times?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, repeat the tail end. You may want to extend the times in the solutions though.

PE

 

[thelawoffives]

OK - I repeated the last few steps of the process, adding time to each step (10 minutes total for blix, 2 minutes for stabilizer) and it worked like a charm. The grain is what I would expect for the films used, and the result looks much better than my first run-through. So, I have a few follow-up questions:

1) I blixed for 6.5 minutes the first time and 10 minutes the second time. As I process more rolls, should I combine the times, go with the second time, or something totally different? Is there a rule of thumb for this sort of thing? I am trying to avoid superstition-based assumptions about chemistry and processing times.

2) I have a bunch of the same expired Portra, and I will definitely use an extended blix step with those films, but what about any fresh film that I want to process? What I am really asking is: was my original problem more likely because of my water/technique/chemistry and therefore, do I need to adjust my times until I switch to a different chemistry, or was my problem more likely a result of the film? I know that I can figure this out experimentally, but I am in the process of trying to learn as much as I can from problems like this, so I would value any input on this.

3) I managed to damage the 120 negs when I re-hung it, because it was already cut for storage. To avoid having to deal with issues like this, is there a good set of steps that I should observe before I cut my film in order to determine if I should reprocess? I am new enough to film development that I don't have a firm grasp on what can be fixed and what can't. Even a good book rec would be great.

Thanks again everyone for all the help!

 

[markbarendt]

1) ...I am trying to avoid superstition-based assumptions about chemistry and processing times.

2) I have a bunch of the same expired Portra, and I will definitely use an extended blix step with those films, but what about any fresh film that I want to process? What I am really asking is: was my original problem more likely because of my water/technique/chemistry and therefore, do I need to adjust my times until I switch to a different chemistry, or was my problem more likely a result of the film?

Given your results so far I'd say you have found a base for your "new" times.

The developer's freshness and the time/temp/agitation regime during this step are critical, any change gives you a different result.

The rest of the steps "go to completion" so once you find your baseline extra time shouldn't hurt the film any.

is there a good set of steps that I should observe before I cut my film in order to determine if I should reprocess?

I can only answer for the chemicals I'm using (I use separate bleach and fix, a JOBO, and chemicals from mini-lab suppliers), but C-41 became very reliable once I figured out my system. That was true even using hand tanks.

You could put the tail of the film in the enlarger, once dry, to check.

 

[hrst]

OK - I repeated the last few steps of the process, adding time to each step (10 minutes total for blix, 2 minutes for stabilizer) and it worked like a charm. The grain is what I would expect for the films used, and the result looks much better than my first run-through.

This is a very good piece of information because this is a very concrete proof that blix kits can fail miserably which have been discussed and debated here every now and then.

So, simply put; Unicolor kit is faulty and it doesn't work. As you have seen, it may work somehow with much extended times. And, if reused, blix kit often needs a stop bath.

So, what is sold as "quick" "two-bath", is actually four baths (dev, stop, blix, stab) of the same or a longer total time than the actual four-bath chemistry (dev, bleach, fix, stab).

It would be nice if retailers would sell decent kits --- for example, the EXCELLENT Fujihunt 5 liter kit which seems to be available only in AG-Photographic in UK in the whole world! --- instead of these BS products :confused:.

 

[markbarendt]

I agree hrst,

I started with Trebla's 55FP475 kit bought from a minilab supply house which is great and it can do hundreds of rolls for under $100 delivered.

The other thing about the Trebla chems (and similarly Kodak's SM chems) is that, other than the developer, they are fast and the "normal" C-41 times are more than enough by a large margin.

 

[Anon Ymous]

...It would be nice if retailers would sell decent kits --- for example, the EXCELLENT Fujihunt 5 liter kit which seems to be available only in AG-Photographic in UK in the whole world! --- instead of these BS products :confused:.

Well, it's also available from another retailer, but the price is about 50% more.

 

[mrred]

This is a very good piece of information because this is a very concrete proof that blix kits can fail miserably which have been discussed and debated here every now and then.

So, simply put; Unicolor kit is faulty and it doesn't work. As you have seen, it may work somehow with much extended times. And, if reused, blix kit often needs a stop bath.

So, what is sold as "quick" "two-bath", is actually four baths (dev, stop, blix, stab) of the same or a longer total time than the actual four-bath chemistry (dev, bleach, fix, stab).

It would be nice if retailers would sell decent kits --- .... --- instead of these BS products :confused:.

I think your opinion seems a little extreme. I actively use the kits, and I find they work well. To say that the fail miserably or the kits are BS just discounts your opinions.

The only issues I have found arise when you use the kits beyond the stated capacity or shelf life, which I do. I process at room temp (motor base) which allows more temp stability and ad an extra fix step after 10 rolls processed (1l kit). The bleaching is a bit week and I did start using 10 minutes for this step long ago.


Would I use the Kodak or Fuji stuff? Sure, but these guys don't make it easy to get their stuff. The powders just come to my door.

 

[markbarendt]

IWould I use the Kodak or Fuji stuff? Sure, but these guys don't make it easy to get their stuff. The powders just come to my door.

http://www.pakor.com/products/TRELU...75_444-2648.cfm?CFID=4528934&CFTOKEN=59937629

 

[hrst]

I think your opinion seems a little extreme. I actively use the kits, and I find they work well. To say that the fail miserably or the kits are BS just discounts your opinions.

Well, what we have here is a concrete proof so it isn't a matter of "opinions" but facts. C-41 is a standard process that should not leave any silver or silver halides in processed film, and any product sold as "C-41 processing kit" should do it when its instructions are followed.

The results stated here are nothing but miserably failures in technical terms due to product error, and what's most important, not user error, I suppose. I may use quite a harsh words on these products, but that does not turn facts into "opinions".

It's not enough that the blix works for you. It should be reliable and should work with any film, always, by any user following the instructions. 99% reliability is a catastrophe in film business.

The reason why I'm so pissed is that these companies COULD make proper products very easily and could deliver those to the enthusiasts out there, just the same way they do now, but instead, they want to show off with their "R&D innovations" in a field where even both Kodak and Fuji didn't succeed well enough - combining bleach and fix for film with non-compromised results.

What I find is that they are wasting our precious time and materials. I find it quite important that the process works "transparently" and perfectly, because our images can sometimes be very important and valuable! It's always a huge turn-off for a hobbyist to see that the process is doing something unwanted to his/her hard work. At least they shouldn't label their process as C-41, or should warn about the possible problems. It's just like copy-protected CD's that aren't CD's anymore. They may work for you but not for everyone, and anyone has the right to get pissed about it.

Please understand. It's easy to say like you say when you haven't faced the problems. I have worked dozens of extra hours in darkroom to investigate the problems caused by faulty Tetenal RA-4 kits and reprint or reblix my images. I could have spent this time so much better.

 

[thelawoffives]

Given your results so far I'd say you have found a base for your "new" times.

Just to be clear, I should blix for 16.5 minutes, or for 10 minutes? And, is blixing (or bleaching and fixing in different steps) similar to fixing in b+w processes in that it is difficult to overdo it?

 

[thelawoffives]

So, simply put; Unicolor kit is faulty and it doesn't work. As you have seen, it may work somehow with much extended times.

First off, I don't want to imply that I think statements like this are wrong, but I do want to challenge it just a little bit. From the perspective of a beginner, who has developed just a few dozen rolls of b+w, and has no training outside of books and internet, cheap kits like these are invaluable. I think that in every enthusiast/hobby market, there will be cheap providers of materials that experienced users will dismiss as worthless, but are often the first thing that newbies get their hands on. I, for one, was in a position where I had a dozen or so rolls of expired color film that was given to me, and thought it might be fun to develop it myself. After a few hours of internet searches, I found that it was either going to be a) really expensive and difficult to get the materials and only available for large quantities of film or b) cheap and easy to do almost exactly the amount that I had. From my perspective, it was a no-brainer to drop twenty bucks on a kit that matched my needs almost perfectly. It has already taught me quite a bit and, hassle or no, has developed a few rolls of my film. I can think of quite a few use-cases in which cheap kits like this would be the only way to go, regardless of the downside.

I think that the problem is not the availability of poor-quality kits, but the lack of choice when it comes to chemistry geared toward the experienced home photographer. Personally, after my experience with the unicolor kit, I would like to try and get my hands on better chemistry, but I have to say that I would recommend this kit to a first-timer with no problem.

One final note, and I hope that this is taken with the respect that is intended. It is very tiring to read through threads that inevitably devolve into angry exchanges about the good and bad of a particular product or method. As a beginner, it is valuable to read this kind of discussion, but it is too common that certain magic words (like blix or yankee tank) will set off a series of "don't ever do it, here's why" posts that often get away from the central theme of the thread. It is always difficult to get good information when it is necessary to wade through invective to find it (APUG is a pretty friendly place, I have to say, compared to many other forums - I would never try a post like this on rec.gambling.poker!). Please remember that photography, more than most activities, is dependent on new people getting excited about the prospects of analog in order to ensure that films and chemistries are available in any kind of variety.

I really hope that this was not taken as an attack on a particular point of view. I feel that it is important to provide the perspective of at least one newbie who is fully hooked and glad that there is a thriving community of people still interested in what is one of the coolest damn activities ever conceived.

-Bill

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bill;

As a newbie to C41 processing, your first comment was a complaint which has been made all too often here and even by some quite experienced workers. Many of them simply choose to disbelieve the answers.

I hold the only patent that discloses an actual Blix formula that works for C41 or E6 films (AFAIK), and I know how hard it is to get it to work and why it was not turned into a product. I also know the results from using bad Blix with film. I know the problems inherent in making a single part liquid Blix as well. Even so, people continue to use these products with complaint after complaint surfacing here.

Now, I don't disupute or argue with your post, but I do wish to point out that previous threads here should have served as a warning to you if you read them. You don't have to, to try a Blix, but afterwards, you might want to consider the forewarnings given in the other threads. Here, you have demonstrated the proof, as it were, of all of those warnings.

Bad Blix, or indeed, any Blix used with C41 or E6 films exhausts rapidly, requires much longer times, and if not done properly leads to grainy negatives and degraded colors and contrast. With E6 films, it can lead to dicolored highlights as well. Most manufacturers seem to consider film Blixes to be just good enough. They have never done an exhaustive test of their products.

So, when you start a new project, remember that we are trying to give good advice here and that the majority of the "negative" comments on some chemistries are true given their number and reasoning.

Best wishes in your future work.

PE

 

[hrst]

Bill,

Well, if you are okay with the product in question, then it's fine. As PE usually saids, use what works for you. Don't take an offence.

But I find this response funny, because this particular problem was the "central theme" of the thread, and really the heart of the whole problem! Because the problem was due to a problematic product, discussing the problem inevitably has to involve the product evaluation. If you don't want this part to be discussed, then I cannot see much more regarding this issue.

But yes, you can overcome the problem at some extent by using a longer blix time, and even better, dividing the blix in two parts where the first part does "most" of the job and the second one does the rest. For example, use 5 mins + 10 mins. If you are going to reuse the chemicals, extend the times even more and use a stop bath AND a quick wash after the developer, for example:
Dev 3:15
Stop 0:20
Wash 0:20
Blix1 5:00
Blix2 10:00
Final wash 5:00 (water change at least 7...8 times)
Final rinse / stabilizer 1:00...2:00

The good thing indeed in these kits is the availability. The funny part is that these kit could be separate bleach-and-fix kits with no extra price and with the same availability, if the manufacturer's weren't "playing with us" so to say. Or they could be quick (RA type) kits with 1-minute bleach and 2-minute fix, which is impossible with blix. This was my point, but well, speculating too much with "woulds" and "coulds" won't help in the end.

 

[michaelbsc]

http://www.pakor.com/products/TRELU...75_444-2648.cfm?CFID=4528934&CFTOKEN=59937629

OK, I looked at the Pakor chems, and since I really don't know what I"m doing with C41 yet, I'm still confused. The datasheet I found isn't particularly helpful other than it's for minilabs.

Is this a separate bleach/fix kit? Seems to be counting the bottles. Is this a repackaging of Fuji/Hunt chemicals? Or an equivalent from alternate sources?

 

[hrst]

Is this a separate bleach/fix kit? Seems to be counting the bottles. Is this a repackaging of Fuji/Hunt chemicals? Or an equivalent from alternate sources?

AFAIK, it's separate bleach+fix and not a repackaged from Fuji but made by Trebla, which, AFAIK, is a well-known producer of high-quality photochemistry.

Further, C-41RA means quick bleach and fix, 1:00 + 2:00 IIRC, but anyways much faster than 6'30+6'30.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[michaelbsc]

AFAIK, it's separate bleach+fix and not a repackaged from Fuji but made by Trebla, which, AFAIK, is a well-known producer of high-quality photochemistry.

Further, C-41RA means quick bleach and fix, 1:00 + 2:00 IIRC, but anyways much faster than 6'30+6'30.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If my processor does the standard C41 Bleach and Fix at the six minute times, will the C-41RA rapid Bleach and Fix over do? Or is this just "to completion" and the extra time won't matter?