How much do you get out of Kodak Flexicolor?

[mgoddard]

I have, recently -- just haven't shot any yet (it was all 120, and I mostly carry 35mm cameras even though I prefer medium format -- a matter of size/weight and faster lenses).

FWIW, all my XP2 Super is fresh dated -- but of course that says nothing about color balance/crossover that might come from exhausting developer.

Any updates? I picked up an order of Flexicolor chemistry from Unique over the weekend and plan on replenishing the developer as you've been doing. Did you ever end up developing some fresh/less-expired film?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Any updates? I picked up an order of Flexicolor chemistry from Unique over the weekend and plan on replenishing the developer as you've been doing. Did you ever end up developing some fresh/less-expired film?

I haven't done any more color since that last post, but I've got three rolls of 35mm C-41 (two expired Superia, one in-date XP2 Super) and a roll of Kodacolor II that I plan to stand develop at room temp (I don't have a proper stabilizer, but I can get one if there are images on it worth bothering). I'll do a leader test before I commit the film, of course.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, new updates. First, my color developer is still fine, say one 120 roll of long-expired Portra 400NC, two 135-24 and one 135-12 of similarly expired Superia X-Tra 400, and one 135-36 of in-date XP2 Super. All the negatives look fine, except for the ones that are obviously underexposed and the ones that got light-struck because I couldn't tell if my Weltini was fully rewound (takes a long time with a knob, and the camera makes little noises as it goes). In other words, counting the 12 exposure as half, that makes about fifteen rolls over more than ten weeks (mixed tank solution 20 September), and it looks more and more like I'll be able to test the keeping qualities of Flexiclor Color Developer Starter LORR -- by not needing it again any time soon. I'll most likely mix fresh bleach and fixer before my next batch, though; sixteen rolls per liter is the advertised capacity, and while these rolls cleared up nicely, the chemicals aren't so expensive as to push them to their limits.

FWIW, I've been agitating with the swizzle stick (six nice long turn-and-back cycles in ten seconds is one agitation cycle), on the hypothesis that this will minimize oxidation of the developer.

In other, um, developments -- I found a good reason not to squeeze the air out of PET beverage bottles used to store chemistry: the plastic will develop holes at the creases and corners thus formed (he says, while mopping up a cup or so of replenisher). My replenishers will now be blanketed with butane (which I have on hand for a torch lighter that I carry as a survival tool) rather than the bottles squeezed.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Predictability is the whole point of replenishment. If you're using the Kodak recommended amounts and controlling temperature properly, you'll get the same development every time. And volume seems to matter little; I don't process a lot of film, by the standards of professionals and amateurs with deeper pockets. The five rolls I processed on Sunday were three weeks or so of shooting, plus one that was shot in August and hadn't been processed yet. With my backlog essentially caught up, I'm down to a roll or two per week -- but my tank solution bottle is full to the top, I've got enough replenisher concentrate to last a year or more at my usage rate, and enough starter to start over a dozen times if needed.

 

[Donald Qualls]

if I wanted 100% identical results (maybe for scientific purposes?) I'd be doing 100% fresh, stock Xtol. I replenish for economic reasons.

If I wanted absolutely perfect reliability, I'd be more inclined to mix my own developer with deionized water, using a milligram scale to measure the components -- and purchase ingredients in large enough quantity to get the entire experiment/project done with a single batch. Never know what Kodak's contractor might have changed between lot numbers of Xtol -- intentionally or negligently.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Haha, you're on another level, man. I struggle remembering which beaker I used for developer-vs-fixer last weekend

Well, I started learning this stuff as a kid -- must have read the Ansel Adams trilogy five times before high school. If I could have found a c-note at the right time, I'd have owned a Speed Graphic in 1979 instead of 2005. Likely would have had a very different life if I had.

 

[Rowreidr]

Update: Since last post, Nov 10, chems sat unused for 8 weeks, then a developing spree over last two weeks, so current tally is 24 rolls at week 14. Test strips before #12 and after #24, look similar enough for my non professional standards. My current test run is over. I have 6 rolls to cross process and did not want to contaminate the working solutions, so I ended up pouring 500cc from each and then topping each of the working solutions with 500cc of fresh replenisher.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Mine also sat unused for about a month, but (pending scans) the negatives I processed on Sunday look fine -- and a leader test has the fixer still clearing B&W film in under fifteen seconds, so I'm letting the bleach and fixer run longer (currently at 16 rolls). I'm near the bottom of the first liter of replenisher, although I lost three or four rolls worth at 25-30 ml per roll (if not more) when the PET bottle developed a hole where it was creased from squeezing the air out.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Allow me to respectfully disagree, as nothing beats a freshly mixed developer for predictability. I believe the whole point of replenishment is economy, and that's why LORR was developed later to allow for even smaller replenishment quantities. Moreover, predictability gets more challenging when replenishing infrequently, which is why (I think) you're doing your current testing, as I've been following this thread from the beginning. My reasoning is primarily based on what's in Z-131, I am not an experienced mini-lab owner as some of you guys are here.

I replenish Xtol continuously, and I do see small variations in its activity. I suspect its' a combination of several factors. Namely:

• Time between development sessions
• Insufficient size of the working batch bottle
• Exposure and speed of recently developed films
• Fresh vs older replenisher

The variations are negligible though, but again - if I wanted 100% identical results (maybe for scientific purposes?) I'd be doing 100% fresh, stock Xtol. I replenish for economic reasons.

ill second this. I don’t replenish my C-41 developer, and I process *a lot* of film. I also run control strips, and frankly, mixing up a batch of stock developer, then using that to make working solution with the Flexicolor starter has been absolutely predictable and reliable. I know exactly what it’ll do, and can verify it with the control strip. I suspect a lot of variation that people are seeing is actually down to trying to run with too little developer per roll of film. C-41 is not immune to minimum amount of developer per roll requirements. I used to try to squeeze as much as possible out of the developer, and ran 5 rolls in 600ml of developer... well... that only works sometimes. Depending on the content of those rolls, the resulting contrast developed would vary from run to run and thus introduce color cast and other subtle visual artifacts. If you’re an amateur doing it at home and hand inverting each frame, you probably won’t notice or care, but if you’re running control strips and have a fairly tightly calibrated environment, that happening is your bane... so, I started to back off on the number of rolls per ml of developer to see if that made a difference... and it does, and I can actually measure the difference because it shows up in the control strip. I went from 5 to 4 rolls per 600ml, and it stabilized by a measurable amount, but still bumped around a bit over time, so then I backed off to 3 rolls per 600ml, and it just plain stopped bumping around at all and became rock solid, same amount of contrast in each color channel every time, so now that is my minimum for C-41. 200ml per roll. Kodak recommends 250ml per roll, and that probably is a good idea if you expose heavy, but so far, 200ml seems to be a happy medium for a minimum amount per roll.

for replenished XTOL, @Old Gregg you might want to up your minimum amount per roll. That variation you’re seeing is probably due to not having enough developer per roll. I noticed the same behavior with XTOL, if I ran 5 rolls in 600ml of developer, I was replacing 350ml of fresh back into the working solution bottle, only giving me 250 ml of the just used developer to pour back into the bottle. I found that this effectively is stepping too hard on the developer. Not only is 120ml of developer per roll not enough for consistent and reliable development no matter the content of the roll (which I can measure with control strips), it throws off the replenishment ratio and will vary the overall activity of your bottle over time. I did the same experiment with my replenished xtol as I did the C-41 and started to back off how many rolls per ml and once again arrived at the same 200ml per roll number where roll to roll and overall activity over time stabilized out to a happy medium. Depending on the size of your working solution bottle, this may be more or less sensitive to the number of rolls or may take more time to manifest itself, but it does manifest eventually. I run a 2Liter bottle, and it only takes 2-3 processing runs to show up with that amount of working solution. I used to run with 1L, and when my processing volume went up, I had real problems with roll to roll consistency. I figured it was due to the size of my working solution. The real problem was actually not enough developer per roll. The 1L bottle just manifested a lot faster.

now that I’m officially switching over to replenished Ilfotec DD, I’m going through that exercise right now. I’ve got a 2L bottle that I’m seasoning as I write this, and I suspect that I’ll arrive at about the volume per roll as before.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wow, four rolls in 600 ml? I don't have any tanks that will let me do four rolls (two reels, each with 2x120) in less than 1 liter. Four rolls of 135-36 takes 160 ml more (290 per reel) in my Paterson tanks. I've quit using stainless; too slow to pour in and out, and I can't double load 120 (can barely load it at all).

So, with a minimum of 250 ml per roll, I'm well above the 200 ml you found gave good stability. In fact, I'd challenge whether it's even possible to get too much film for your developer at stock solution strength in inversion processing. In a roller tank with minimum solution, perhaps.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Wow, four rolls in 600 ml? I don't have any tanks that will let me do four rolls (two reels, each with 2x120) in less than 1 liter. Four rolls of 135-36 takes 160 ml more (290 per reel) in my Paterson tanks. I've quit using stainless; too slow to pour in and out, and I can't double load 120 (can barely load it at all).

So, with a minimum of 250 ml per roll, I'm well above the 200 ml you found gave good stability. In fact, I'd challenge whether it's even possible to get too much film for your developer at stock solution strength in inversion processing. In a roller tank with minimum solution, perhaps.

I run a jobo, the tank sits sideways and rotates. With the machine and tanks I use, 600ml per tank is all the machine can do.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep. I've read the advice to use a minimum of 200 ml "active developer" (i.e. stock solution at whatever dilution) per roll on Xtol and D-76. Always thought it applied mainly to diluted (and was the main reason neither developer was recommended for dilution beyond 1+1). Never really realized a Jobo would let you load five films, but only allow 600 ml to process them.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Yep. I've read the advice to use a minimum of 200 ml "active developer" (i.e. stock solution at whatever dilution) per roll on Xtol and D-76. Always thought it applied mainly to diluted (and was the main reason neither developer was recommended for dilution beyond 1+1). Never really realized a Jobo would let you load five films, but only allow 600 ml to process them.

If you use the standard 1520 and 1530 extender (I think those are the numbers), you can load 5 reels onto the spindle in 135 format, or 3 reels at the 120 width. If you have one of the newer jobos that can handle larger loads, you can keep stacking the extenders, at 3 135 rolls per extender. Each extender requires a minimum of 330ml of solution, so it’s pretty easy to outstrip your developer capacity on a jobo. Of course, there’s nothing stopping you from putting more developer in, except whether the machine has enough umph to actually turn the tank. With older jobos, this was a real design flaw as they struggle to turn a tank with 600ml of developer. The newer ones can handle a full liter pretty easily, but still, that’s one thing I wish JOBO had done a better job of. Your total solution volume is pretty frequently bumping up against the the upper limits of what the machine can physically handle.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Not something I'm ever likely to need to worry about. Even when I retire, I'll never shoot enough film to make it sensible to look for a Jobo of my own -- even if they were still in production and supported. My bottleneck is in getting from developed negatives to viewable positives, either via scanner or enlarger.

 

[Mariano Madrigal]

I use the flexicolor chems with a paterson tank and replenish with the rates stated in kodak Z-131 for tank developers. I get more than 5 rolls per liter of developer. maybe Im crazy, but results have been nothing but great for the last 8 years. so Im happy. the 20 liter developer from freestyle is $30 + (probably now) expensive shipping. still cheap though

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/3667805-Kodak-FlexiColor-C-41-Developer-Makes-20-Liters

john

I would love to know the specific replenishment rate that you follow. I've had a hard time finding a definitive answer to this question. Since these flexicolor formulations are designed for big lab processors, I wonder what would be the closest to a paterson tank. I initially followed the rates that are attached in the page 40, since the formulation that I have is the c41-ra, but you mention there's a replenishment rate for tanks, what would that be?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have a Kodak document (the Z-131 mentioned above, I think) that gives exact replenishment quantities (to 0.1 ml) for specific roll and sheet films by emulsion and roll size (fun fact, 400 speed wants more replenishment than slower films). In the end, in a commercial lab setting, test strips would be the final arbiter, with replenishment adjusted to keep the strips in tolerance, but I've used most of a liter of LORR replenisher over almost six months (so average around 30-35 ml per roll) and my negatives still look good and produce good color, if I expose them properly.

 

[halfaman]

ill second this. I don’t replenish my C-41 developer, and I process *a lot* of film. I also run control strips, and frankly, mixing up a batch of stock developer, then using that to make working solution with the Flexicolor starter has been absolutely predictable and reliable. I know exactly what it’ll do, and can verify it with the control strip. I suspect a lot of variation that people are seeing is actually down to trying to run with too little developer per roll of film. C-41 is not immune to minimum amount of developer per roll requirements. I used to try to squeeze as much as possible out of the developer, and ran 5 rolls in 600ml of developer... well... that only works sometimes. Depending on the content of those rolls, the resulting contrast developed would vary from run to run and thus introduce color cast and other subtle visual artifacts. If you’re an amateur doing it at home and hand inverting each frame, you probably won’t notice or care, but if you’re running control strips and have a fairly tightly calibrated environment, that happening is your bane... so, I started to back off on the number of rolls per ml of developer to see if that made a difference... and it does, and I can actually measure the difference because it shows up in the control strip. I went from 5 to 4 rolls per 600ml, and it stabilized by a measurable amount, but still bumped around a bit over time, so then I backed off to 3 rolls per 600ml, and it just plain stopped bumping around at all and became rock solid, same amount of contrast in each color channel every time, so now that is my minimum for C-41. 200ml per roll. Kodak recommends 250ml per roll, and that probably is a good idea if you expose heavy, but so far, 200ml seems to be a happy medium for a minimum amount per roll.

for replenished XTOL, @Old Gregg you might want to up your minimum amount per roll. That variation you’re seeing is probably due to not having enough developer per roll. I noticed the same behavior with XTOL, if I ran 5 rolls in 600ml of developer, I was replacing 350ml of fresh back into the working solution bottle, only giving me 250 ml of the just used developer to pour back into the bottle. I found that this effectively is stepping too hard on the developer. Not only is 120ml of developer per roll not enough for consistent and reliable development no matter the content of the roll (which I can measure with control strips), it throws off the replenishment ratio and will vary the overall activity of your bottle over time. I did the same experiment with my replenished xtol as I did the C-41 and started to back off how many rolls per ml and once again arrived at the same 200ml per roll number where roll to roll and overall activity over time stabilized out to a happy medium. Depending on the size of your working solution bottle, this may be more or less sensitive to the number of rolls or may take more time to manifest itself, but it does manifest eventually. I run a 2Liter bottle, and it only takes 2-3 processing runs to show up with that amount of working solution. I used to run with 1L, and when my processing volume went up, I had real problems with roll to roll consistency. I figured it was due to the size of my working solution. The real problem was actually not enough developer per roll. The 1L bottle just manifested a lot faster.

now that I’m officially switching over to replenished Ilfotec DD, I’m going through that exercise right now. I’ve got a 2L bottle that I’m seasoning as I write this, and I suspect that I’ll arrive at about the volume per roll as before.

Very interesting, Adrian. I develop in the same tank 6 rolls of 120 with 650 ml or so of C-41 chemistry. Just only a bit above 100 ml per roll. I must admit that when using amateur chemistry I got some strange things from time to time but since I jump into minilab chemistry (Fuji Hunt Environeg LR) it seems more stable. I take note of your findings nevertheless

I don't know about the CPE3, but the lift of Jobo CPE2/CPE2+ suffers to move 650 ml as you mentioned. The rotation motor of the CPE2 have also a bad time moving all the weight and the mechanical switch to change the rotation sometimes does not work properly, perhaps the CPE2+ has this improved. But I think a CPP/CPA is a much better investment for that load.

 

[destroya]

I would love to know the specific replenishment rate that you follow. I've had a hard time finding a definitive answer to this question. Since these flexicolor formulations are designed for big lab processors, I wonder what would be the closest to a paterson tank. I initially followed the rates that are attached in the page 40, since the formulation that I have is the c41-ra, but you mention there's a replenishment rate for tanks, what would that be?

I use 60ml. its more than required, but I find I got/get much better results. and 60ml is nothing compared to bad development.

here is my simple mixing and replenishment notes for the large 20 liter size developer from the link (took me a while to find these numbers as well)

C41 developer mixing
750ml distilled water
A) 64ml
B) 10ml
C) 10ml
water to 1 liter

replenish

35mm, 120 60ml
220 120 ml
4x5 15 per sheet

 

[Mariano Madrigal]

I use 60ml. its more than required, but I find I got/get much better results. and 60ml is nothing compared to bad development.

here is my simple mixing and replenishment notes for the large 20 liter size developer from the link (took me a while to find these numbers as well)

C41 developer mixing
750ml distilled water
A) 64ml
B) 10ml
C) 10ml
water to 1 liter

replenish

35mm, 120 60ml
220 120 ml
4x5 15 per sheet

You do 60ml per roll? And what formulation of flexicolor do you use? What is the specific table of replenishment rate that you follow on z131?

 

[destroya]

You do 60ml per roll? And what formulation of flexicolor do you use? What is the specific table of replenishment rate that you follow on z131?

well, i use the developer in the link in the post that you replied to. FLEXICOLOR Developer/Replenisher makes 20 liters.
table 3-2 page 3-4 for portra 160 sunny. I usually shoot ektar but the doc came out before ektar was released.

 

[Mariano Madrigal]

I have a Kodak document (the Z-131 mentioned above, I think) that gives exact replenishment quantities (to 0.1 ml) for specific roll and sheet films by emulsion and roll size (fun fact, 400 speed wants more replenishment than slower films). In the end, in a commercial lab setting, test strips would be the final arbiter, with replenishment adjusted to keep the strips in tolerance, but I've used most of a liter of LORR replenisher over almost six months (so average around 30-35 ml per roll) and my negatives still look good and produce good color, if I expose them properly.

The thing is, z131 is not written for small paterson tanks, so I've been trying to get an idea of what people think is appropriate for small tanks. What really confuses me is that there's a separate table for process c-41ra that minilabs use, and those are the process times that I follow, since the formulation that I have IS for minilabs. The replenishment rates of this table (4-1, page 40) are different to those of the other processes (like rack-and-tank, roller-transport and such) so when I read that user destroya was saying there are instructions for small tanks in z131 I thought I had missed something, but the table he is referencing now is for sink line processors.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I can't speak to that set of specifics. I have the LORR chemistry, and use the LORR columns in the replenishment table, and so far I'm getting good results (as long as I don't underexpose deeply expired film). And a couple liters of replenisher (mixed down from a partial of the three concentrate bottles) lasts a longish time when you use an average of about 30 ml per roll. I've lost more when my storage bottle sprang a leak than I've used up.

 

[Mariano Madrigal]

I can't speak to that set of specifics. I have the LORR chemistry, and use the LORR columns in the replenishment table, and so far I'm getting good results (as long as I don't underexpose deeply expired film). And a couple liters of replenisher (mixed down from a partial of the three concentrate bottles) lasts a longish time when you use an average of about 30 ml per roll. I've lost more when my storage bottle sprang a leak than I've used up.

Thank you. The LORR columns of what replenishment table though?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'll have to check which document it is when I'm at home -- I thought it was Z-131, but if you have that and don't find a replenishment table that includes LORR, then it's a different one.

 

[Mariano Madrigal]

I'll have to check which document it is when I'm at home -- I thought it was Z-131, but if you have that and don't find a replenishment table that includes LORR, then it's a different one.

No, I mean within z131 you can find several replenishment tables, each with it's own column for LORR. They are each for a different type of processor. The question that I have for other users of flexicolor is what type of processor they deem closer to a paterson tank or whatever method they are using which is probably not a "roller transport" processor. Z131 wasn't written for use at home and so far I've gotten replies from everything between 6ml per roll to 60ml per roll, which is wild. I know it's just a starting point but that's why I wanted to hear from people who have been using it longer than I have with stable results.