Has anyone tried this yet? BelliniFoto Monopart C41 Kit

[twelvetone12]

I think what OP is saying is don't wash after stab, which we can all agree is not good. My doubts are if washing before the stab brings any advantage with this kit. I wait for Bellini to reply.

 

[RPC]

In any event I believe the Kodak method to be superior.

 

[TonyB65]

Kodak invented the C-41 process, and their official process uses a water wash after the fixer followed by a stabilizer or final rinse which certainly isn't detrimental to the film or they wouldn't do it, don't you think? You can bet they have done longevity tests, and have stuck with this method over others. What testing has BelliniFoto done?

Ford created the first mass produced car, I'm pretty sure no-one would choose to drive a Model T now though would they. I'm also pretty sure the Model T didn't have an ABS braking system or air-bags, but most cars have them fitted as standard now. Just because something was done one way doesn't mean it always has to be done that way, developing processes, chemistry, films etc all evolve and become more refined. I'm guessing that it isn't in the interests of a company whose sole business is creating photographic chemicals to lie about how their products work, in fact I'd bet it's very much in their interests to be innovative and produce compelling products, otherwise they won't survive in that market. Check them out, they seem to know what they're doing from what I can ascertain.

http://www.bellinifoto.it/en/azienda.php

 

[TonyB65]

In any event I believe the Kodak method to be superior.

Based on? it's Kodak? the company itself didn't survive, only the name did, they weren't good enough to adapt to the modern world, they weren't able to innovate, they had to rely on someone else buying them out.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have not read this entire thread, but know it is pretty much wrong in the idea of omitting the wash.

Kodak says that a wash can be left out, but generally these processes are for throw away negatives intended for digital scanning. Remember, if you take film in now, it is not returned in most cases. Instead, you get a DVD. This process is washless and the stabilizer is intended to "clear" the film for this. If you use a wash, the stabilizer acts to preserve the image. So, it is an option.

Unwashed film can go bad!

PE

 

[TonyB65]

I have not read this entire thread, but know it is pretty much wrong in the idea of omitting the wash.

Kodak says that a wash can be left out, but generally these processes are for throw away negatives intended for digital scanning. Remember, if you take film in now, it is not returned in most cases. Instead, you get a DVD. This process is washless and the stabilizer is intended to "clear" the film for this. If you use a wash, the stabilizer acts to preserve the image. So, it is an option.

Unwashed film can go bad!

PE

It's not unwashed, the wash and stab are combined, maybe you should take it up with Bellini whose business is Photographic chemicals for video and stills production, I'm pretty sure they'll have professional chemists working for them.

 

[AgX]

-) nobody questioned Bellini's expertise. Actually they have been recommended by us in the past

-) "washless" is standard term in the photochemical industry describing certain special-C-41 processes where after fixing the film is washed in a bath containing a special compound. This washing step is shorter and different from the one in standard-C-41

-) in amateur processing there is no need for deviation from the standard procress

 

[TonyB65]

-) nobody questioned Bellini's expertise. Actually they have been recommended by us in the past

-) "washless" is standard term in the photochemical industry describing certain special-C-41 processes where after fixing the film is washed in a bath containing a special compound. This washing step is shorter and different from the one in standard-C-41

-) in amateur processing there is no need for deviation from the standard procress

Do feel free to question the expertise of a Company with nearly thirty years of experience producing chemistry for the stills and video industry, I'm sure they'd welcome the expert input from anonymous on the internet. To be honest, it's not a tough decision for me to follow their instructions for chemistry they produce as opposed to the undiscovered chemistry experts posting on an internet forum.

 

[bvy]

Do feel free to question the expertise of a Company with nearly thirty years of experience producing chemistry for the stills and video industry, I'm sure they'd welcome the expert input from anonymous on the internet. To be honest, it's not a tough decision for me to follow their instructions for chemistry they produce as opposed to the undiscovered chemistry experts posting on an internet forum.

You seem to be putting a lot of faith in these anonymous experts. We have a non-anonymous one right here who has already weighed in on the subject. If your main interest is scanning and your negatives are disposable, then a kit like this is probably fine. If you want negatives that will last a long time, then a kit like this is highly suspect for reasons you chose to ignore. And unless I missed it, your experts are silent on that subject.

Let the buyer beware.

 

[TonyB65]

You seem to be putting a lot of faith in these anonymous experts. We have a non-anonymous one right here who has already weighed in on the subject. If your main interest is scanning and your negatives are disposable, then a kit like this is probably fine. If you want negatives that will last a long time, then a kit like this is highly suspect for reasons you chose to ignore. And unless I missed it, your experts are silent on that subject.

Let the buyer beware.

I'd hardly call a chemical production company with 30 years experience, that has a stand at Photokina, "anonymous" compared to actual anonymous on the internet. Of course, if you can produce any kind of fact based evidence in the form of peer reviewed white papers to substantiate your theory I'll happily ask Bellini for comment. Since my journey into film development I've learned that there is an awful of bad and conflicting advice from experts on the internet, it's very difficult to establish what is actual fact and what is just urban myth. I've found that putting my faith in companies that actually produce products as their business yields far more reliable results than what Fred Bloggs on the internet told me.

 

[twelvetone12]

Well, PE is not "Fred Bloggs", he is an actual retired engineer from Kodak that worked many years on developing these color processes. I personally value his opinion (and time and effort he puts replying us) greatly.
In any case I wrote to Bellini asking for their stance on the subject, I will post the reply.

EDIT: darn autocorrect

 

[bvy]

I'd hardly call a chemical production company with 30 years experience, that has a stand at Photokina, "anonymous" compared to actual anonymous on the internet. Of course, if you can produce any kind of fact based evidence in the form of peer reviewed white papers to substantiate your theory I'll happily ask Bellini for comment.

I have no theory, nothing to prove, and nothing to sell. The manufacturer makes no claim that the negatives processed using their kit are archival. Let's hear why you think they are.

 

[TonyB65]

Well, PE is not "Fred Bloggs", he is an actual retired engineer from Kodak that worked many years on developing these color processes. I personally value his opinion (and time and effort he puts replying us) greatly.
In any case I wrote to Bellini asking for their stance on the subject, I will post the reply.

EDIT: darn autocorrect

That maybe so, but it doesn't mean he's right. I tend to think a Company whose sole business is the production of Photographic chemicals who have been successful for the last 30 years know what they're talking about. When did Kodak last produce new developing chemistry?

 

[RPC]

Based on? it's Kodak? the company itself didn't survive, only the name did, they weren't good enough to adapt to the modern world, they weren't able to innovate, they had to rely on someone else buying them out.

Based on 30+ years of using and reading about the C-41 process, and noticing that some negatives I had done at minilabs have developed color problems over the years while anything I had processed by Kodak shows no signs of degradation. Some of the reading was done here at Photrio, posts by none other than PE above who worked at Kodak for years working with, among other things, the C-41 process.

There are companies out there who make C-41 processes that use a bleach-fix instead of a separate bleach and fix, and some who advocate low temperature C-41 processing, both of which has been known in the industry to produce inferior negatives, yet they still produce them, things Kodak and Fuji never did. Just because BelliniFoto does things a different way doesn't mean it is a good way. Lacking any meaningful test results or other evidence I would always trust and use the official process for best quality. One may chose to accept lesser quality, but one should be forewarned!

 

[TonyB65]

I have no theory, nothing to prove, and nothing to sell. The manufacturer makes no claim that the negatives processed using their kit are archival. Let's hear why you think they are.

I asked first, if you can't answer then just say so instead of trying to avoid the question.

 

[bvy]

I asked first, if you can't answer then just say so instead of trying to avoid the question.

I just stated the question -- the only one of interest here. You can play word games with the others. Have a nice day.

 

[TonyB65]

Based on 30+ years of using and reading about the C-41 process, and noticing that some negatives I had done at minilabs have developed color problems over the years while anything I had processed by Kodak shows no signs of degradation. Some of the reading was done here at Photrio, posts by none other than PE above who worked at Kodak for years working with, among other things, the C-41 process.

There are companies out there who make C-41 processes that use a bleach-fix instead of a separate bleach and fix, and some who advocate low temperature C-41 processing, both of which has been known in the industry to produce inferior negatives, yet they still produce them, things Kodak and Fuji never did. Just because BelliniFoto does things a different way doesn't mean it is a good way. Lacking any meaningful test results or other evidence I would always trust and use the official process for best quality. One may chose to accept lesser quality, but one should be forewarned!

I think I can summarise that as "hearsay", I'm open to the fact that it may be correct, but I'm also open to the fact that Bellini know what they're doing, considering I've never heard any complaints about their process, in fact quite the opposite. I've certainly never seen any evidence that negatives produced using their process have any issues.I can't tell you how many times I've read that how vigorously you agitate your negatives during Dev affects the size of grain yet I've seen a test that proves the complete opposite.

 

[RPC]

I think I can summarise that as "hearsay", I'm open to the fact that it may be correct, but I'm also open to the fact that Bellini know what they're doing, considering I've never heard any complaints about their process, in fact quite the opposite. I've certainly never seen any evidence that negatives produced using their process have any issues.I can't tell you how many times I've read that how vigorously you agitate your negatives during Dev affects the size of grain yet I've seen a test that proves the complete opposite.

Okay, you can interpret things said anyway you want, and use it if you want. But you have been warned.

 

[TonyB65]

I just stated the question -- the only one of interest here. You can play word games with the others. Have a nice day.

I'll take that as a "I have no answer" then.

 

[AgX]

There are companies out there who make C-41 processes that use a bleach-fix instead of a separate bleach and fix, and some who advocate low temperature C-41 processing, both of which has been known in the industry to produce inferior negatives, yet they still produce them, things Kodak and Fuji never did!

Not quite right.
Fuji for instance explicitely refer to these washless special special processes and give processing tables for their products, but nevertheless refer to them as special. At the moment, at least in Europe, they even only offer a stabilizer for the specialized processes! No standard final rinse.
This seems in line what Bellini are offering.

There are a variety of C-41 processes and processors.
And meanwhile only the Minilab processes seem to be cared for.

 

[bestbefore1978]

I use the Bellini C-41 kit in a Filmomat processor.
Due to the fact that my chemicals were contaminated by carryover in the machine (see here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/c41-processing-where-did-i-go-wrong.155460/) I now use a standard C-41 process with this kit, and add wash steps after each bath, with seemingly no ill effect.

From discussion with PE and others in the above thread, and with Nik & Trick it looks like this is a Rapid Access c41 kit with stronger bleach and fix as used in minlabs (hence the short bleach and fix times)

However I use longer bleach & fix times to ensure going to completion:

No pre-wash
Developer 3.15
acetic acid stop 10 sec (as not going straight to acid bleach bath)
wash 1 min
Bleach 4 min
wash 1 min
Fixer 4 min
5 mins water wash
Stabiliser step with 3 changes of bath as suggested.

This has given me great negatives with no crossover or density problems with the 7 films I have run so far

 

[pentaxuser]

I applaud Twelvetone12's practical approach. The reply from Bellini to Twelvetone12 may help clarify matters. Before we end up having the kind of saloon fight seen in the Tom Mix silents it might be worth waiting for that reply

pentaxuser

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'll take that as a "I have no answer" then.

I do have an answer however. I know both the chemistry of the film and the process, and I know chemistry itself. I can say that a so called washless process courts disaster. Is there anyone here that would process B&W prints with no wash? Just dunk in some toner or in some wash aid several times and dry! Yeah, that's going to work just fine. Your film is loaded with salts and when you dry it with no wash having been performed, where are the salts going to go? They are retarded from crystallization for a time, but eventually, crystals begin to form, along with a brown stain. BTDT.

AAMOF, a plain old chemical similar to Fosamax, the drug for retarding osteoporosis can be used to complex every metal salt and render the film "colorless" with only a normal Dmin. Yep. However, what about the salts in the long run. Well, my research project on this subject was stopped with the comment "no one would want to have unwashed film", but that was then (~ '76) and this is now. Oh, and even back then, my process had a wash in it just to be safe.

Do you want to handle negatives (even by the edges) that contain CD4, Diethy Hydroxylamine Oxalate, Hypo, Silver halide salts, and a host of other things such as Ferric PDTA and Ammonium Thiocyanate? That will be left in the film, even with "washes" in the stabilizer. This is because the ionic influences of the stabilizer will inhibit outward diffusion of the junk you don't want.

So, have fun and ignore my nearly 60 years in photography, 32 of them in Kodak R&D, and degrees in chemistry. I would love to be around in about 10 or so years to see your expression and hear you yell.

PE

 

[RPC]

Not quite right.
Fuji for instance explicitely refer to these washless special special processes and give processing tables for their products, but nevertheless refer to them as special. At the moment, at least in Europe, they even only offer a stabilizer for the specialized processes! No standard final rinse.
This seems in line what Bellini are offering.

There are a variety of C-41 processes and processors.
And meanwhile only the Minilab processes seem to be cared for.

But note that In my comment you refer to about Kodak and Fuji I referred only to bleach, fixes, and low temperature processing, and not a washless process. Okay, when used it is a special process for a specific purpose but not the official, standard process.

 

[TonyB65]

I do have an answer however. I know both the chemistry of the film and the process, and I know chemistry itself. I can say that a so called washless process courts disaster. Is there anyone here that would process B&W prints with no wash? Just dunk in some toner or in some wash aid several times and dry! Yeah, that's going to work just fine. Your film is loaded with salts and when you dry it with no wash having been performed, where are the salts going to go? They are retarded from crystallization for a time, but eventually, crystals begin to form, along with a brown stain. BTDT.

AAMOF, a plain old chemical similar to Fosamax, the drug for retarding osteoporosis can be used to complex every metal salt and render the film "colorless" with only a normal Dmin. Yep. However, what about the salts in the long run. Well, my research project on this subject was stopped with the comment "no one would want to have unwashed film", but that was then (~ '76) and this is now. Oh, and even back then, my process had a wash in it just to be safe.

Do you want to handle negatives (even by the edges) that contain CD4, Diethy Hydroxylamine Oxalate, Hypo, Silver halide salts, and a host of other things such as Ferric PDTA and Ammonium Thiocyanate? That will be left in the film, even with "washes" in the stabilizer. This is because the ionic influences of the stabilizer will inhibit outward diffusion of the junk you don't want.

So, have fun and ignore my nearly 60 years in photography, 32 of them in Kodak R&D, and degrees in chemistry. I would love to be around in about 10 or so years to see your expression and hear you yell.

PE

You don't know exactly what they've used in their chemistry or what their process actually is, you haven't analysed it, nothing, yet apparently you're an expert on it, like some others here. Considering Bellini have been successful in the last 30 years, producing chemicals for both the film and stills industry, and there are no complaints about any of their products that I've seen, I'm not exactly sweating anything. The film isn't unwashed, the stab wash is the wash, and you do not know how they've developed that process to be effective. Taking advice from you would be like taking advice from a Audi engineer in the 80's on their latest model, I mean what could possibly go wrong. Taking advice from experts in any field only works if they're current, and as I've found out many times, self professed experts on the internet are ten a penny, and very regularly give bad advice. You may be right, but you may also be very wrong, but as Bellini have been trading for 30 years and I've never seen anyone complaining about their negatives having used Bellini products the weight of evidence is on the latter.