Fuji Hunt C41 X-Press kit in replenishment method?

I'm preparing to get a new C41 kit and I'd like to make sure about something before I commit to the idea.

I've been using the 5L Fuji Hunt C41 kits for 4 years now, with the widely shared method where you mix the whole 5L of developer and split it into absolutely full 1L bottles. This way one kit would last me for around 2 years and I've done it twice. The first time it worked great, I've had good results even with the very last roll, two years after the initial mix. However the second time it went a bit worse, with the last batches I'm noticing some poor results, mostly visible in very underdeveloped shadows. The unused developer before I opened the last bottle was starting to get a bit brown so I suspect it suffered from oxidation - not enough to render it unusable, but enough to affect the results too much even for my not very strict amateur standards. This made me think of doing something different with my next kit - storing the unused developer in a wine bag, which is highly recommended by the people who do this.

But when looking for the alternatives, I noticed that the new Kodak branded C41 kit can supposedly be used in the replenishment method with no additional chems - just mixing the whole thing, having let's say 1L as the working solution in the bottle, and using the rest as a replenisher. I was under the impression that usually the replenisher would be a separate, dedicated solution but this is the official manufacturer suggestion so it should, in theory, be a good one. Now my question is, would this method work with the Fuji Hunt kit as well? And if so, could I do this for around two years assuming I could store the "replenisher" part free of any oxygen in a wine bag? I don't shoot that much (averaging maybe 40-50 rolls per year) so the longevity and the economy that comes with it is very important to me.

This doesn’t make much sense.

Firstly, you can’t replenish a working solution with working solution (self replenishment) without at least some degree of drifting. Cinestill will let you believe that all kinds of shortcuts will work, but they assume that end- users are very relaxed about results.

Secondly, replenisher in your case will be exactly the same as the working solution. If you can’t reliably store working solution without oxidation you won’t be able to reliably store “replenisher” either.

brbo said:

Firstly, you can’t replenish a working solution with working solution (self replenishment) without at least some degree of drifting. Cinestill will let you believe that all kinds of shortcuts will work, but they assume that end- users are very relaxed about results.

Click to expand...

Right, it did sound weird to me in the Kodak suggestions and I wasn't sure if that was supposed to be some secret method I wasn't aware of.

As @brbo highlighted, a replenisher is different from a developer. We've discussed this in a few other, recent threads on this forum; you may want to do a search. The conclusion is that if you replenish with a working strength developer, the results will always be adrift pretty much all of the time.

Your present way of working is in my view sensible and economical. Provided you use appropriate bottled with properly fitting caps, the chemistry should keep well for a long time. About 2 years sounds right, at least in my experience. 1 year should generally be possible.

koraks said:

As @brbo highlighted, a replenisher is different from a developer. We've discussed this in a few other, recent threads on this forum; you may want to do a search. The conclusion is that if you replenish with a working strength developer, the results will always be adrift pretty much all of the time.

Click to expand...

I am also interested in OP's question. I have seen the threads you talk about. I have also seen the notes on the Kodak kit / Cinestill / PSI website about the replenishment system that uses the same stock solution as replenisher. I understand the concept that it's inevitable that the developer will steadily drift, though presumably approaching some form of steady state asymptotically.

What I wish I knew is "how much" drift one can expect from this replenishment system. I realize this is to an extent a subjective question, and nobody has done a side-by-side comparison. So I am left wondering if this is an issue that will likely ruin the first few rolls, or an issue that only the most discerning eyes will even notice. My baseline plan is to use it one-shot since that's the safe option, and it's what you and others have recommended, but the idea of more than doubling the number of rolls from 20 to 40-50 is tempting.

I have confirmed this with Cinestill, while they say it will work, I am not very convinced, neither they are. Their main customers are digitising those negatives, so they can recover more. If you wet printing, then things are a bit more strict.

"
Hi Faith,

Alex from CineStill here. Thank you for reaching out about your interest in the 2.5L Kodak C-41 Kit. The Kodak kits are able to be used one-shot or replenished and do not require any adjustment to times for rolls previously processed. If you use the chemistry one-shot, simply pour the chemistry into your tank using the solution needed by your developing tank and dispose after usage.

We are currently working on some updates to the instructions that more clearly spell out how to replenish the chemistry. In the meantime, I can provide some basic tips:

The user mixes the chemical concentrates in the kit to make 2.5L total of each chemical, and then decides how much of each chemical they want to divide into a working tank solution and a replenisher solution. One such way to do this is to have 1000mL of working solution and 1500mL of replenisher solution.

The replenishment rate for the Developer, Bleach, Fixer, and Final Rinse is ~40mL/roll. After each processing session you will first pour ~40mL/roll of Developer, Bleach, Fixer, and Final Rinse replenisher solution into the corresponding working solution’s storage bottle, then top it off with the working tank solution that was just used to process the film, discarding the excess/overflow chemistry (~40mL/roll) according to your local regulations.

As you can see, you will start to use up replenisher solutions until you don't have any left. At which point you can mix up more chemistry by purchasing another 2.5L or 5L kit. You can theoretically keep replenishing indefinitely; this is what film processing labs do. It's a good idea to conduct regular Snip Tests to determine if the chemistry is still active. Doing so only takes a few minutes, and in our opinion is worth it to avoid getting a blank roll due to exhausted Developer.

I hope that helps! Let us know if you have any other questions, and have a great rest of your day.

Sincerely,

Alex Sandoval | CineStill Support "

I have splitted Fuji Hunt kit into 500ml bottles and have frozen them. They seem working just fine like this.

dcy said:

What I wish I knew is "how much" drift one can expect from this replenishment system.

Click to expand...

That's of course a good question and one I don't have a hard & fast answer to. At a conceptual level, there are two 'evils' between which we could choose (or even compromise):

1: Use a regular working-strength developer as the starting point. In this case, the first roll(s) developed will be on spec. Later rolls, after replenishment with the regular developer (kept separately), activity will drop. It may also fluctuate as the developer is used depending on the replenishment regime and batch size. You will basically have an activity level that trends down and then settles at a stable, but consistently too-low level.

2: Use a replenisher as the starting point. The effect will be the opposite as in (1): initial roll(s) developed will come out overdeveloped. As the developer is seasoned, activity reduces and may drift into spec. Replenishment can then keep it there.

Approach #2 would in principle result in a stable process that will yield on-spec development once everything is settled in. But the same product will consistently result in (grossly) overdeveloped negatives if it's used one-shot, as many people do.

This doesn't answer your question how far the results will be off-spec. The only way to find out, is to try it out. It's not very difficult to do, but it takes some time and a modest investment in materials.

I don't doubt that in any case, it's possible to walk away with decent images if the film is scanned and the files are digitally corrected/optimized for color balance and contrast. In optical printing, things will of course be more difficult to get right, but here, too, there are ways to get close(r) to a somewhat normal result even if the chemistry is out of whack.

It's in the end all a matter of what you expect, what you're prepared to tolerate and how exacting you are.

koraks said:

1: Use a regular working-strength developer as the starting point. In this case, the first roll(s) developed will be on spec. Later rolls, after replenishment with the regular developer (kept separately), activity will drop. It may also fluctuate as the developer is used depending on the replenishment regime and batch size. You will basically have an activity level that trends down and then settles at a stable, but consistently too-low level.

2: Use a replenisher as the starting point. The effect will be the opposite as in (1): initial roll(s) developed will come out overdeveloped. As the developer is seasoned, activity reduces and may drift into spec. Replenishment can then keep it there.

Approach #2 would in principle result in a stable process that will yield on-spec development once everything is settled in. But the same product will consistently result in (grossly) overdeveloped negatives if it's used one-shot, as many people do.

Click to expand...

I sure hope their approach is closer to #1 because that's what the product instructions tell you to do. The replenishment variant is a relatively hard to find "oh, and you can also try this...".

FWIW, the 40 ml/roll of suggested replenisher is moderately large.
Some of the functionality of this new approach to replenishment may come from that - dumping/discarding considerably more byproducts after each roll than would have been the case with the traditional Flexicolor chemicals.
See the recommendations for replenishment in table 2.2 of Z-131: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/z131-2003.pdf
Depending on the film, I read those recommendations as being less than 10 ml for each 135-36 roll.
Which means that with this new approach you will enjoy much poorer economy than would have been enjoyed in the past with commercial volumes and the older Flexicolor chemicals.
But it also means that with this new approach the working strength solution is being replenished/refreshed about 4 times more actively than what was common in the past.

dcy said:

I sure hope their approach is closer to #1 because that's what the product instructions tell you to do. The replenishment variant is a relatively hard to find "oh, and you can also try this...".

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed.

Cinestill is speaking baloney. Clearly these guys are trying to make it simple. It's OK to do things half-assed. Amateur photography has embraced "good enuf" since the beginning.

Regular "tank solution" developer is more dilute and has higher bromide content than replenisher.

If you look at the old Z-131 "Using Kodak Flexicolor Chemicals" manual you will see how to do it by the book.

One thing that I have come to understand is that without control strips, process monitoring and control, for me, one shot is the way to go.

I use a Jobo. Everything is consistent. A good old Stainless steel tank and a water bath works great too.

I would be more inclined to stick with what you know works.

I would never dabble in the replenishment method of color chemistry. The OP stated he was successful with storing 5ml, which is about a gallon and a quart, for 2 years. The second time he tried it, it didnt't work out so well. So lets say he can use that method once pear yer and get away with it, with his present one-shot method.. What it the cost of a new 5 liter kit one per year? Maybe 2 or 3 weeks worth of what he pays for property taxes on his house? Or a trip to the grocery store for a week? Replenishment is for labs, or VERY frequent amateurs. The point being, color film work leaves you wide open for color shifts with no explanation as to why, even under consistent ideal conditions.. Expenses, put in context make a clear-cut case for one-shot. Just because you can do somethig doesn't mean you should.

mshchem said:

One thing that I have come to understand is that without control strips, process monitoring and control, for me, one shot is the way to go.

Click to expand...

With the Kodak 2.5 L kit, the one-shot method you suggested in another thread ("4 rolls in 500 mL then toss") works out to less than half the cost of what I've been spending when sending film to the lab.

I ordered the Kodak kit today. I'm going to use it one-shot at least until I feel that I got the hang of it. But I might try their replenishment method in the future. Or I might instead switch to the 5 L kit and get better economy that way.

dcy said:

Or I might instead switch to the 5 L kit and get better economy that way.

Click to expand...

If you can get minilab chemistry and you're OK with a larger batch size, you can cut the per-roll cost significantly.

Replenishment in principle can work, even in a home setting. The tricky bit is having a way to detect it if things start to run out of spec. Control strips can be difficult or expensive to get hold of, and they mostly make sense if you also have a color densitometer. Then there's the issue of interpreting the outcomes. Here's a fairly recent thread on that topic: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/interpreting-c-41-control-strip-results.198691/
I personally don't find it worth the hassle & risk to try replenish my C41 developer. I do replenish the bleach since there's not a whole lot that can go wrong there. Both the developer and fixer I use one shot. I use minilab chemistry and don't worry about the cost per roll; it's low enough to not be a factor of any concern.

koraks said:

If you can get minilab chemistry and you're OK with a larger batch size, you can cut the per-roll cost significantly.

Replenishment in principle can work, even in a home setting. The tricky bit is having a way to detect it if things start to run out of spec. Control strips can be difficult or expensive to get hold of, and they mostly make sense if you also have a color densitometer. Then there's the issue of interpreting the outcomes. Here's a fairly recent thread on that topic: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/interpreting-c-41-control-strip-results.198691/
I personally don't find it worth the hassle & risk to try replenish my C41 developer. I do replenish the bleach since there's not a whole lot that can go wrong there. Both the developer and fixer I use one shot. I use minilab chemistry and don't worry about the cost per roll; it's low enough to not be a factor of any concern.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, I tried to compute how much by-product one would end up with following CineStill's replenishment guide:

• 500 mL solution
• After every roll you toss out 40 mL and replace it with 40 mL of fresh developer.
• 40 / 500 = 8%.

Imagine a toy model where, after each roll, you add the by-products of 1 roll and remove 8% of whatever is in solution and otherwise everything is perfect. The result is:

(1) After 4 rolls you already have the equivalent of 3.5 rolls of by-product.

(2) The by-products accumulate asymptotically toward the equivalent of 11.5 rolls of by-product.

Contrast with @mshchem 's approach ("4 rolls per 500 mL then toss") where you never use a solution with more than 3 rolls of by-product.

Yeah... I'm definitely going to stick to one-shot. If I want more economy I'll move to larger kits.

That's a nice way of making a paper napkin guesstimate of what would happen!

MattKing said:

See the recommendations for replenishment in table 2.2 of Z-131: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/z131-2003.pdf
Depending on the film, I read those recommendations as being less than 10 ml for each 135-36 roll.

Click to expand...

Matt, you're misreading. That table, for continuous machines, is for linear feet of film, not rolls. So it's suggesting 10 ml per linear foot of "135" film. Since a roll of 135-36 is something like 5 to 5.5 feet long, this means it needs roughly 50 to 55 ml per roll. (For the case of LORR replenisher only about half that amount is needed.)

For individual rolls (not continuous processing) its easier to go to table 2-4, which gives replenisher rates per 135-36 rolls. These are 52.1 ml for standard replenisher (or 26.1 ml for LORR replenisher).

FWIW Kodak LORR replenisher represents about the lowest spec rate possible, at least for a legitimate professional quality result. Cuz, the replenisher needs to dilute byproducts, such as bromide, back to the original spec concentration for the tank-solution. And for the "average exposed" 135-36 roll it should take roughly 26 ml of dilution.

mshchem said:

Cinestill is speaking baloney. Clearly these guys are trying to make it simple. It's OK to do things half-assed. Amateur photography has embraced "good enuf" since the beginning.

Click to expand...

I fully agree, but I would have tried to say it more gently.

Regarding the "good enuf" thing, this is also done in the professional world. Except that the quality level is substantially higher than in the "average" amateur world.

Mr Bill said:

Matt, you're misreading. That table, for continuous machines, is for linear feet of film, not rolls.

Click to expand...

Much appreciated @Mr Bill - I was reading it as if it was for ml/square foot or ml/square meters.

Mr Bill said:

I fully agree, but I would have tried to say it more gently.

Regarding the "good enuf" thing, this is also done in the professional world. Except that the quality level is substantially higher than in the "average" amateur world.

Click to expand...

Yep, good enuf is fine. There's no one left who's trying to make a living shooting film.