Half chemistry, double processing time, what happens?

Hi folks,

I'm thinking about some ways i to cut down on the costs of my 4x5 experiments.

I know i could just shoot a roll of 35mm or 120, but in a sense it's not cheaper unless i wait to burn through the whole roll.

But my preferred modus operandi is to just shoot a couple of 4x5, develop that, and check the results.

I'm maybe going to play around with cutting 4x5 sheets in half or thirds, although i anticipate this being a little tricky in the dark.

I also thought there might be a way to cut down on cost of chemicals but thining down the dilution and processing longer.

So that brings me to my question: are there any general rules of thumb about this? Is it a complete no-no? I'm guessing that half the chemical dilution with double the processing time will not = the same result? Will it be horrible? Or just less good? Other thoughts?

I'm particularly interested in this with regard to E-6 chemistry.

Cheers!

You can do it, sure. The problem is that you have to run tests to see the results -- but you need to do that anyway, even when you don't dilute.

xkaes said:

You can do it, sure. The problem is that you have to run tests to see the results -- but you need to do that anyway, even when you don't dilute.

Click to expand...

It's the colour forum, so I assume he talks about colour films nad chemicals. In this case, dilution is a bad idea. You will certainly get an image, you will certainly need to extend development time and experiment, but you will also certainly get crossover and worse results.

Oh no don't dilute E6

If you care about colour response, you won't want to do this.

@Dazzer123 How much do you shoot? Developing a couple of sheets at a time suggests that your shooting volume is low. In that case your primary concern should be the longevity of chemicals, not their capacity. But if I am mistaken, then you should be looking at chemistry minimums/capacity instead of dilution. In other words, you should look into development methods (tanks & agitation) that allow you to get away the smallest volume of chemistry per sheet.

So you're all saying there's no leeway in terms of the dilution / processing time equation?

@Steven Lee, i'm in testing mode right now, so thinking of ways to keep the costs down when you want to take one or two shots, then develop to see what you have.

As i understand it the limiting factors are the type of chemistry you're using and the size of your developing tank. I've been using a Stearman tank and Cinestill CS6. The Cinestill is one shot developer and Stearman requires 500ml of diluted developer.
So even to do one sheet, you need to blow 500ml.

Are there 4x5 tanks that get away with using less than the Stearman?

Is all E-6 chemistry (Bellini, Fuji Hunt etc) also one shot developer?

It terms of chemical longevity, i have the choise to prepare only as much as i need within a given time frame, right? Or do the chemicals have a short lifespan after the bottle is open but have not yet been diluted with water?
(actually, i don't even know if you need to dilute all E-6 chemistry like you do with Cinestill, perhaps not?)

What is the general lifespan of unopened chemicals, if one wanted to stock up bit, considering the flakiness / uncertainty of supply?

Anyone have any suggestions of how to develop only a portion of a 4x5 frame? Cutting, special film holders, other solutions?

Dazzer123 said:

Is it a complete no-no?

Click to expand...

For the first developer, it's definitely a "no-no" in big, bold, capital, red letters. With a ring of flashing lights around them, too.

For the other steps you may be able to kludge something with dilute chemistry if you extend processing times. Essentially, all other steps are supposed to go to completion, so as long as you process long enough, you should be able to get away with a higher dilution. How much exactly? I don't know. Will diluting the color developer produce different results in terms of color balance, adjacency effects etc? Probably, yes, but will it be actually visible, or bother you...? I dunno...

Dazzer123 said:

thinking of ways to keep the costs down

Click to expand...

If you want to keep cost down, shoot digital or shoot a smaller format.
A single sheet of 4x5" Ektachrome costs, what €20 or so? Trying to save a little on processing chemistry by diluting it doesn't make any sense. It's like buying a Ferrari and then asking around if it's OK to let it run on waste oil from the fryer and if the tires can be replaced by bicycle tires. It'll still be a Ferrari...

Dazzer123 said:

Is all E-6 chemistry (Bellini, Fuji Hunt etc) also one shot developer?

Click to expand...

Fuji chemistry is essentially all designed to be replenished. I imagine the small 'hobby' kits are sold with the idea that they will be used one shot, but Fuji has always been in the volume business and that means they optimize their chemistry to work in a robust way in large volume settings. This means replenishment, but this also means high throughput. It's not something you're going to achieve at home.

In a home setting, what you could do is break it down into each step and then figure out for each step how to do it in an economic way.

The first developer is critical in every way, so there's not much you can do about that.
The color developer is less critical than the FD, but it won't live forever. You may be able to make it last pretty long by storing in a tightly capped bottle without any air (glass, entirely full), and kept in the dark. I'd not take too many chances with it, though.
Baths like fogging, bleach, pre-bleach etc. tend to have good longevity and capacity, but it depends on the exact composition of what you've got. If and how they can be diluted, used beyond stated capacity, replaced with stuff from other kits or DIY-ed, really depends. I suppose a good PDTA C41 bleach will work for E6 as well.
Fixer is basically a pretty standard chemical and any old C41 fixer should work just fine for E6.
Stabilizer can be DIY-ed by just adding a few drops of formalin and optionally some Photoflo to demineralized water.

All this means you have to work out for the brand(s) of chemistry you intend to use how they work (the MSDS and lots of Googling will get you pretty far), what their mechanisms of degradation are, how deviations will affect the final outcome and what the options for stretching, diluting, preserving etc. are.

Maybe @Rudeofus can offer some suggestions or rectifications on the above in terms of stretching, preserving & diluting chemistry.
But really, it's slide film...there's no fudge factor in it.

If I read this correctly, then you want flawless results, this is not some batch of expired film where curves are off anyway, yes? @koraks has already suggested, that penny pinching isn't rational in light of current prices for E-6 film, but let's assume for a second that these 4x5" boxes were obtained cheaply, possibly used but still more or less fresh, so how can people save money on processing?

• Yes, you are correct, you only mix as much chemistry as you need at a given time. Concentrates last much longer than working solutions. You can even extend their shelf life if you use protective gas after the bottles have been opened.
• Tetenal's E-6 instructions give dev time numbers for reused chemistry, these are especially useful for FD and CD step. You have to use a mixed working solution within 2 weeks, so plan accordingly. What you'll do is this: you run a second batch of film through your chems and inspect the results. If slides from second run come out too dark, extend dev time. Once the overall contrast is correct, plan for adjustments for the second run to mitigate off colors. There is a cheat sheet out there for this. With enough runs you will know, how to make the second run yield results like the first. Once you have this, you can move towards a third run.
• BLIX goes bad rather quickly, so think about converting your BLIX chemistry to separate bleach and fixer. A typical E-6 bleach made this was lasts for dozens of rolls per liter and can be kept for months. Used fixer can be replaced cheaply with any neutral rapid fixer.

I guess I'm going to go against what most are saying here.

When I was processing things one shot ( most because I was not processing often enough to get good use out of mixed chemistry ), I worked out new dilutions and times to process C41 and E6.

I went about it deciding what was a target number of rolls I wanted to get out of a kit.. Say that was 12 rolls ( say a 1 liter kit ), if one of the components was 250ml, 250/12=20.8ml, I would mix that with water to make what ever volume I needed for the tank. This gets sticky because how well or even if it will work depends on the tank you are using. For a 35mm roll for example, my Jobo only needs 140ml for a roll, I don't think this would work as well for a tank that needs say 500ml.

Here is a sample using a Bellini E6 kit. I used an FD times of 11:15 and 9:00, I doubled the rest of the times. It did take several rolls to dial in what I think worked well for me. I never finished tweaking the Bellini kit, was well dialed in with Tetenal ). I found that mixing 500ml at a time, I could adequately use up the chemistry before it went bad ( 4 months or so ), so I stopped doing the one shot..

It's not impossible and all depends on what are acceptable results to you.

@Joel_L that reminds me a bit of an approach used by some to dilute C41 developer 1+10 or so. I was sent some negatives by a person who did this so I could scan and print, and thus evaluate the results. The negatives showed significant crossover problems among others. To date, I've not yet seen convincing results of this approach; I've also run the experiment myself and the results were not good at all.

Maybe E6 is different, maybe with the dilutions you're using the effects aren't too bad...but in my mind, it's tricky business when working with film that costs €20 for each trip of the shutter.

Lots of people scan their film, and regardless of what some say, digital post can fix many processing errors.

Joel_L said:

It's not impossible and all depends on what are acceptable results to you.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I said in post #2 -- "You can do it, sure. The problem is that you have to run tests to see the results -- but you need to do that anyway, even when you don't dilute."

Dilution is possible, but you need to run tests. How much dilution? That's what your tests will tell you. A little dilution will not be problem. A lot of dilution will be. That's what tests are for!!!!!

koraks said:

@Joel_L that reminds me a bit of an approach used by some to dilute C41 developer 1+10 or so. I was sent some negatives by a person who did this so I could scan and print, and thus evaluate the results. The negatives showed significant crossover problems among others. To date, I've not yet seen convincing results of this approach; I've also run the experiment myself and the results were not good at all.

Maybe E6 is different, maybe with the dilutions you're using the effects aren't too bad...but in my mind, it's tricky business when working with film that costs €20 for each trip of the shutter.

Click to expand...

I also did this with C41, with C41 film, I never had an issue, at least to me, I know you are able to point out things I miss. With Vision film my results were more inconsistent. Even now using a proper mix, results are mixed, Though I do seem to be having fewer problems.

Well, it goes to show that what works for one person may not work for the next. I also agree with @Rudeofus on this that a lot can be fixed in digital post production. There's also nothing inherently wrong with that, IMO.

If the point of these experiments is to nail down a process by which you intend to make images then it's counterproductive to change any part of the process temporarily as a cost savings measure.

If you make a change to save some money it will cost you in time and materials spent on experimentation, then when you are done experimenting with your cheaper process you will have to experiment again with the normal process when you return to it, costing further time and materials.

Better to bite the bullet and work out the issues once and for all.

But what's the fun in that???

I have not and would not double the development times and halve the chemicals. It is not work the risk since my photographs and yours, by projection, are and should be too valuable to a risky process. Yes, some have successfully made variations as noted in posts above, but I would not take the risks.