avose55
Allowing Ads
In principle, the frequency of agitation is fine, but "inverting once" might be a bit gentle. The essence of agitation is that it's, well, agitated. So it shouldn't be too gentle. If your single inversion is rather brisk, that's fine. If it's more akin to handling a two-day old kitten, it may be too subtle.The tank was be agitated for the first 30 seconds continuously inside the water bath, and then inverted once every 15 seconds.
If you hear that bubbly sound that rushing water makes when it goes very fast and mixes with air, that's too fast. You want to avoid surge marks.
I invert the tank fairly quickly with a half turn which takes about a second to complete. Maybe it is too gentle? But I do hear the solution moving through the film reels.In principle, the frequency of agitation is fine, but "inverting once" might be a bit gentle. The essence of agitation is that it's, well, agitated. So it shouldn't be too gentle. If your single inversion is rather brisk, that's fine. If it's more akin to handling a two-day old kitten, it may be too subtle.
semi-stand development
The color of the base and overall color of the negatives is far more red than how Portra is supposed to look. Either the white balance of the digital photo of the negatives is extremely far off course, or there's a serious problem with how that film was processed. I suspect it's the latter. Is this a small 'boutique' lab or a large commercial outfit? Do you know how they process their film?Lab developed negatives:
These look more normal, but there is an odd shift towards blue. I do see some signs of light leak problems, potentially in the camera:Home developed negatives:
I snapped these with my phone this morning before heading out to work, so it’s safe to assume the white balance is causing the lab developed Portra to look far more red than normal. All of my Portra negatives are a slightly deeper color than Kodak Gold 200 for example, which is a lighter orange. It’s a small local lab which I believe uses a noritsu with the standard c41 process.The color of the base and overall color of the negatives is far more red than how Portra is supposed to look. Either the white balance of the digital photo of the negatives is extremely far off course, or there's a serious problem with how that film was processed. I suspect it's the latter. Is this a small 'boutique' lab or a large commercial outfit? Do you know how they process their film?
I’m shooting with an Olympus OM-2n which I’ve never had any signs of light leaks from since replacing the seals about a year ago.My first guess is that this is a camera-related light leak. What kind of camera did you use for this film?
I haven’t looked into it yet. I just started out so figured it was best to stick to the kit instructions but after reading through a bunch of threads here, I’m going to add one.In your C41 process, do you use a stop bath?
Are you referring to lab-developed Portra and Gold? Can you show them side by side, please?All of my Portra negatives are a slightly deeper color than Kodak Gold 200 for example, which is a lighter orange.
Yes the Porta 400 has a deeper base color than Gold 200 developed by the same lab. Both scan perfectly so I have a hard time believing that they were processed incorrectly, it must be something with the iPhone photo processing. I’ll scan a couple examples as positives and post later on.Are you referring to lab-developed Portra and Gold? Can you show them side by side, please?
Referring to the Gold 200 rolls, the interesting bit is that his home-processed roll has a lower d-min than the lab-processed film:I wonder could the difference in the orange mask colour between home and lab, be caused by under fixing?
Yeah it's pretty bad. This batch of chemicals was used to develop the Gold first, then a roll of Ultramax (which came out somewhere in between the Gold and Portra quality wise), and then finally the roll of Portra.I agree that the Portra roll is basically FUBAR. There's almost no color information in it. IDK what went wrong there; my first thought would be a major problem with e.g. chemical contamination, fogging to light etc. Was this the same chemistry (as in, the exact same batch) that you used for the Gold? Did you first develop the Gold in that batch of chemistry and then the Portra, or the other way around? If it was first the Gold and then the Portra, my guess would be that there's a contamination problem in your process.
Can you describe exactly how you handle your chemistry, please? From initial mixing all the way to present.
If I don't keep the faucet running it's probably about 6-8 changes of waterassuming it involves at least one or two changes of water
8) measure specified amount of Blix part 1 using a glass graduated cylinder and pour into a 1000ml pitcher
9) measure specified amount of CD part 2 using a glass graduated cylinder and pour into a 1000ml pitcher
Presume you mean BX Part 2 in item 9.
99.96% of these problems are some form of user error; the trick is to figure out what went wrong here exactly.a bad batch of concentrate?
Did your developer smell of ammonia, even if only a tiny bit?
Yes, I would say so; at the very least you know you're starting with a situation that should in principle work.It sounds like my best bet would be to order new concentrates and start from scratch.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?