First C41 dev: mistake; remedy?

[bernard_L]

After reading several users commenting how C41 was easy, I bought a 0.5 litre Compard kit from Maco-direct.

First roll was a "given film" in a "given compact zoom P&S", that I shot to show some appreciation to the donator. Not used to pre-soak, and possibly under stress, I made the mistake to pour the 300cc of Dev into the Paterson tank before pouring out the 300cc of tempering water. Dilution 1+1 in the tank. So I just doubled the dev time at the actual temperature (30°C) . Color images for sure, impossible to be more precise, since the film (Superia 200) had been stored for an unspecified time in unspecified conditions.
At the end of dev, poured Paterson tank (300+300) into a 1 litre brown glass bottle, plus the 200cc that remained in the original Compard 500cc container. So now the initial 500cc of dev is diluted to a total volume of 800cc. Decided I should extend the dev time x1.6.
Colors (after s******g) look OK, but I had no reference, and the film was probably old. Really old.

Second roll. Took some Portra 160 from my fridge. A few shots around the house, plus one of a gray card. Process; Forgot (stress, again) to extend the dev time x1.6. S**n with Vuescan. Black point on film base; white point on gray card, lock manual settings (this means no auto contrast; no auto white balance, etc). Results look fully OK to me.



Now, to the point with my question:
Is it appropriate to extend the dev time in proportion to the dilution? I have the impression, from the look of the negatives, that this might be too large a correction. Advice based on actual experience would be welcome. Down-the-nose advice, as "throw out your kit, buy another one, and be more careful next time" is not welcome.
This thread addresses the same issue, but in a milder form: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/over-diluted-c-41-rollei.170023/
Maybe David Lyga https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...to-be-apprised-of-my-c-41-methodology.142128/ would chime in?

I intend to measure the R density (M status) of the gray card image on film #2 and compare with the data at the top of page 3 of https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4051_portra_160.pdf; will post results as an update soon.

Third roll, this time with dev time x1.6 is now drying. Left-aside film, no gray card calibration on this one.

 

[pentaxuser]

It looks as if you do not do RA4 prints but use the hybrid system so we may never see what a RA4 print could look like with this dilution but if you are a hybrid user then you appear to have made pictures that look pretty good to me and to add to the bargain you can now save yourself some money by continuing to use the same dilution.

I suspect that if you had asked what the consequences would be of making this kind of a mistake few if any would have suggested that the prints would be OK

Maybe on what is supposed to be a pure analogue forum people need to say that they are hybrid users so the answers as to the consequences of a "mistake" can be appropriately tailored.

It doesn't look as if you have not done much in terms of scanning manipulation so maybe the negs will produce a similar darkroom print to what you have shown but I'll leave that to those who know both analogue and hybrid methods sufficiently well to make informed comments

As far as I can tell you seemed to have accidentally taken what has to be described as a "real liberty" with the development process and have still produced workable prints. It kind of throws into perspective the need to be sure that things like temperature is accurate to 0.2C, short of which the consequences are dire

I look forward to others' comments

pentaxuser

 

[Mick Fagan]

It would seem that you have essentially push processed to account for your dilution and it looks as though you have gotten away with it; well done.

As I do not know your developing time at 30ºC I cannot work out whether or not you have pushed the film by 1 or 2 stops; which may or may not be relevant.

Standard process is 3'15" with a 1 stop push 3'45" and a 2 stop push 4'15" at 37.7ºC.

If, as you say, "your negs look a bit well done" (if I am reading that right) then your combination of dilution and extended time could be right enough for you to get an electronic version of your negative looking good. If you were to print your negatives in a darkroom it may be another story.

In general, genuine C41 chemistry from Kodak, will process 8 135 x 36 exposure films per litre. I am unaware of the processing capacity of your chemistry, but your dilution may have impaired its processing capacity.

Pictures of your negatives alongside a known correctly developed set of negatives may give a clearer picture of whether or not your developing has been close enough to normal processing. Regardless, your results are pretty good.

I would think a 1 stop push, because of your dilution so to speak, could be a help; maybe.

Mick.

 

[bernard_L]

Update.
First a "direct view of the films # 1, 2, 3.

Recap:

1. Outdated Superia 200. Accidental dilution 1+1; Dev time x2. Since the film was outdated by unknown amount, not much can be found from this film strip.
   
2. Fridge-kept Portra 160. Inherited dilution 1+0.6. Dev time x1 (forgot to extend).
   
3. Fridge-kept Superia 200. Inherited dilution 1+0.6. Dev time x1.6

For film #2, I measured the R density. Something seems wrong with the M status filter wheel of my s*****r, so I measured in A status. Being so far off from nominal, that is probably irrelevant. Anyway, I measured R density on a a frame where I shot a gray card full frame with a MjuII (auto exp), so exposure should be close enough to Href, at least for me clueless amateur; interestingly I measure 0.85, exactly the nominal value in the datasheet for Portra160 https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4051_portra_160.pdf even though the dev time was not extended.
On the other hand, film #3 where i extended the dev time by the dilution factor looks overcooked on the snapshot above, even without bringing out fancy measuring equipment.
So it looks like, for 1+.6 dilution, the correction of dev time is much closer to 1 than the naive 1.6. Going back to David Lyga's thread https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...to-be-apprised-of-my-c-41-methodology.142128/ he dilutes (wrt the nominal working dlution)

a whopping 1 + 9. Yes that is a WORKING developer that is TEN TIMES as diluted as the mixture that Kodak recommends!

and yet his dev time is definitely NOT 10x nominal:


Notes on the Compard kit.

1. I paid 22.50€ for a "ready-to-use 3x500ml" kit , that claims a capacity of 14 films. We'll see. I don't shoot that much color, probably will be stale before it is exhausted.
   
2. It works for me, as shown by the good results with the Portra 160 test.
   
3. Separate bleach and fix. Supposed to be good.
   
4. Packaging. The good: it is in "softpacks", that I guess thermalize better than PE bottles and might be engineered as a gas barrier. The bad: the opening (through which one must pour back chemicals) is small; the leaflet says I need a funnel with 8-10mm, my funnel is slightly less than 8mm and barely enters the opening. What were they thinking?
5. In the leaflet, after Fix, there is an extra step "recommended": Stabilizer. Then why is that stabilizer not included in the kit? looks bad to me.
   
6. Temperature flexibility. The good: process times are given at several temperatures ranging from the official 37.8°C down to 20°C. Plus a "Rapid" 45°C. For me the times at 37.8 are too short to be realized reliably (and things cool down too fast), and 20°C might be too far from nominal that crossover might be a risk. So, I aim for 30-32°C, measure the actual temp after 4min dev, use a graph to interpolate and define the actual time (7-8min). Plus the extension for dilution. The bad: the leaflet states: "information based on intensive tests and experiences of many users... No responsibility..." What! Just like the Massive Dev Chart??
   
7. I see no mention of final wash. ??? Just to be safe I do the Ilford sequence 5+10+15.

@ petaxuser, Mick Fagan, thank you for your positive comments; Note that the best dev so far, #2, was not pushed at all; diluted dev and time not extended.

 

[pentaxuser]

Bernard, I am no expert at reading negatives and I cannot find a way of magnifying each strip but it looks as if the film 2 is by far the winner. It looks pretty much as I'd expect "normal" negatives to look like si should be printable in a darkroom and all of this achieved with a dilution of 1+0.6, the time for an undiluted developer and at about 6 degrees C below what is the recommended dev time below which crossover is a real risk

Amazing

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

No.2 looks quite alright at first glance. #3 looks like what I get from my 10-15 years expired Superia 200 (cold stored); a lot of fog, but otherwise OK. No.1 looks pretty hopeless all around, but you got OK scans, so what gives.

You're looking for recommendations and I've got only one: don't stop scanning and in fact invest even more time in digital post processing. As you're apparently not very interested in producing printable negatives, I wouldn't bother too much with experimentation with processing parameters. As long as you get something your scanner can still make sense of, you'll be fine.

 

[bernard_L]

pentaxuser, koraks, thank you for comments.
so far my take-home is:

• 30°C is OK with the appropriate time
  
• do not extend time by the dilution factor; maybe I'll settle on +10%

As you're apparently not very interested in producing printable negatives, I wouldn't bother too much with experimentation with processing parameters. As long as you get something your scanner can still make sense of, you'll be fine.

I don't really intend to experiment a lot; what happened so far was mostly the results of dumb mistakes in my first attempts. I'd rather spend time doing B&W darkroom prints. IMO, the parameter space of color adjustments is too large for fiddling to succeed, that is why I prefer the situation of roll #2, where the basic adjustments deliver near-final files. Hmmm... remember not to digress, we are in the analog forum.

Finally, a few images from roll #3. Shot with Nikon Lite Touch AF600 on Superia200. A little tweaking initially (lack of gray card frame) but then all digitized with fixed settings. So, to my eyes at least, even the severely over-cooked roll #3 is usable.

 

[ruilourosa]

ctrl-z

 

[bernard_L]

ctrl-z

This gentleman

says mixing cannot be undone, and he can prove it.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Bernard, having a bleach and fixer bath is really good. The bleach will have around twice the capacity of the fixer and is the most expensive part of the C41 process.

Once you have a bleach and fixer combined, both work against each other and reduce the life of the bath, so a separate bath for each is really fantastic.

Stabiliser is the last thing you do, then you hang the film up to dry. Do not wash after stabiliser.

You should be able to make your own stabiliser using formaldehyde, it is what I did and if I am going to mix some more C41 I would do it, but I'm supposing current available stabiliser is more environmentally friendly.

Interesting information with regard to that kit, thanks for that. Not sure if it is easily available in Australia; where in the world are you?

Mick.