In response to those who wish to be apprised of my C-41 methodology

I have had several requests for my version of C-41. Here it is in its latest edition. It works, folks.

First, store mixed color developers in air tight containers. I use soda bottles, PET plastic, filled to the rim. If the bottle is not squeezable, use glass marbles to take up the slack. Marbles are available through Walmart. For tiny amounts, I use tiny 50mL liquor bottles I find on the street and wash them. For even smaller quantities of liquid, insert tiny glass marbles (AC MOORE or other arts/crafts stores).

I use Kodak Flexicolor Developer/Replenisher (KF 12-1532753). I buy it in the 25 gallon size because I KNOW that it will not go bad if stored properly. Understand: Parts A and B do NOT have to be kept air-tight, but Part C DOES!!! Part C MUST be kept in glass or PET plastic with the liquid reaching up to the very top of the bottle to prevent airspace.

In this 25 gallon kit the total quantities are as follows: A: 3784 x 2 = 7568mL, B: 445 x 2 = 890mL, C (keep airtight): 473 x 2 = 946mL

If you do the math, the convenient ratios are: A : B: C: ///////// 80:9.4:10

This makes it easy to mix small quantities. Theoretically, since there are 94.625 liters in 25 gallons, we convert as follows by dividing the total amounts above by 94.625: For ONE liter of developer mixed the way Kodak says to mix it, use the following amounts of liquid, starting with about half a liter or water: Part A: 80mL, Part B: 9.4mL, Part C: 10mL all in water to make one liter total.

Now for the interesting part: I do not use Kodak's dilutions. I dilute this liter of developer (that I just mixed, above) a whopping 1 + 9. Yes that is a WORKING developer that is TEN TIMES as diluted as the mixture that Kodak recommends! In other words, MY working solution dilution will make, not 25 gallons total of developer, but 250 gallons of working solution developer!WARNING: for age fogged, old film, your dilutions will have to be less, making developer maybe twice as strong as I recommend here.

Of course, do not store such a dilute mixture, but make it from the 'Kodak recommended' full strength that I stated above. When developing film, do the following:

Assume that you wish to make a full liter of working solution (the 10x dilution). (Smaller quantities tailored to your tank's capacity are prorated). Do this: take 100mL of the above full strength developer, add 900mL water and also add 1mL (by volume, not mass) of sodium carbonate, mono-hydrate (identical to Arm & Hammer washing soda). This liter of WORKING STRENGTH developer is used to develop C-41 films. TIMES: at 100F, use a convenient 8 minutes with frequent agitation.

After development, try to keep the following at reasonably similar temperatures although this is not critical:

Stop bath (half strength B&W film stop I use, without problems). Then rinse film in clean water. THEN, what I do is FIX the film in film strength fixer for about 5 minutes. After fixation, room lights can be turned on.

Again, rinse the film briefly. Then BLIX. MY blix consists of the following and must be mixed together shortly before using it as it will not keep for too long. Although it might last longer than 15 minutes, it is best to mix it up AFTER you fix the film. Below:

To make one liter of blix (again, prorate for smaller quantities): mix 5mL potassium ferricyanide + 100mL of film strength fixer in water to make one liter of blix. Blix for about 5 minutes, again trying to keep it at least fairly warm or lukewarm. Temp not critical here.

That is it! I have CONSISTENT results, costs are minuscule, and, although Kodak would probably relegate the soul of Spanish Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada to deal with my heresy, I have the prints, beautiful prints, to prove that my deviance and treachery never cost this planet a soul, (or, monetarily, never a sou). - David Lyga

OF COURSE EVERYTHING I STATED ABOVE IS 'ONE-SHOT' ONLY. Do not so much as DARE to re-use!!!

This is very interesting, David! I have a couple of questions:

1) Do you experience any color crossover at all? Does this work, in terms of color correctness, exactly as the standard dilution? (Also I assume the dilution is one shot, right?)

2) Have you considered a separate bleach and fix? (I've never done bleach bypass, but might want to try it.). If so, what would your separate bleach and fix formulas and steps be?

I experience no crossover. Dilution does not seem to cause such. Of course the development time MUST be extended with dilution, but that carbonate helps to mitigate that and, quite frankly, who wishes to be tethered to the short 'lab efficiency' times that were originally the focus of this 'improvement' over C-22?

That said, I do dare to develop at lesser temperatures and also get great prints. At 90F try development times of about 13 minutes. The negatives so developed have a bit more bluish appearance but look beautiful and correction at the enlarger level mitigates such color deviance. (I am critical of color and do not state these facts lightly.)

I DO separate the bleach from the fix. First I fix COMPLETELY, then I bleach. The little amount of fixer in the bleach mixture serves to assassinate every last vestige of 'halide hell'. (In life, I take no prisoners.)

NB: If you do NOT bleach, you still get to make great prints. Actually the silver AND coupler-induced dye synergy makes a negative that offers a bit more contrast. The negative is a bit darker, but extended printing time will result in a fine color print. - David Lyga

Three questions if you don't mind me asking, Mr. Lyga:

1 Did you find any difference in the PET bottles from different brands? Around here the Mountain Dew bottles are noticeably thicker than say Coke ones. Would they be a better barrier to aerial oxidation, or do they work the same?

2 The fixer: is it regular B&W fixer, sodium thiosulfate/ammonium thiosulfate?

3 Did you run sensitometric tests to assess whether there was any crossover present?

This is really, really interesting.

This sounds complicated, and I'm not seeing the appeal. The 5 liter kit from Kodak is easy to mix and works. Prepared all at once it keeps for over a year if stored properly.

View attachment 168261 View attachment 168262 View attachment 168261 View attachment 168262 View attachment 168261 View attachment 168262

APUGuser19 said:

When you get to be 60, a year is a week.

Click to expand...

How 'bout when you get to be almost 67 like me?

I made a slight error with the ratios. For practical purposes, I will re-state them in the same terms of mixing one liter per Kodak's instructions: A: 80mL, B :9.4mL, C: 10mL. Then add 1mL of the carbonate and you then have what I call the 'stock' c-41 developer.

Last evening I photographed three greeting cards under tungsten light. No filtration was used for the exposure on Fuji Super G+ ISO 100 film. The film 'expired' in 1998 but was kept cold and retains all its speed. It was printed on Fuji Crystal Archive.

NO sensitometric tests were done; only my eyeball.

I have found that no matter how thin PET plastic is, it retains its airtight capacity. Rule of thumb: if it can hold carbonation, it is safe. Some soda bottles can be squeezed: all the better but watch out for excessive crinkling which might, with time, weaken its structural integrity.

I have found that any B&W fixer works well. - David Lyga

APUGuser19 said:

Now, if we could just do that for the printing too.

Click to expand...

You WOULD demand that!!!!

RA4 is much of the same;

I use Kodak 25 gallon developer replenisher RT (roller transport) (KP 36-8477184) for less vulnerability with oxidation.

The 25 gallon size has, also, three parts, A, B, and C.

A: 2370mL x 2 = 4740mL, B: 1422 x 2 = 2844mL, C: 2370mL x 2 = 4740mL

Thus, the ratio is a most convenient (thanks Kodak) one. A: 10, B: 6, C: 10.

To make ONE LITER the way Kodak wants you to make it:

start with half liter of water, then, to it add: 50mL of A + 30mL of B + 50mL. That is what Kodak says to use for your working solution, however David Lyga does not follow rules. I dilute this only half as much (as the C-41 for negatives): 1+4 and then add 2mL of sodium carbonate and water to make one liter of the RA4 working solution developer. Thus, my 25 gallon size will make a total (for me) of 125 gallons of RA4 working strength developer for prints.

For print development, I use trays like for B&W. I find that 1.5 to 2 minutes, at ambient temperature, (like for B&W) works fine and gives deep blacks. Less development time might dilute those blacks, but with age-fogged paper this might be the only alternative. With such, restrainer works only a tiny bit, but you add only about 1/20th as much as you would add for B&W age-fogged paper. Best to stick with fresh paper, as color is very depressing with such old paper.

I then stop bath (like for B&W paper).

Then I fix (as with B&W paper, you can dilute film sixer 1+1).

Then room lights can be turned on.

Like for negatives, I use a blix (like the potassium ferricyanide / fix mix I used for color negatives), but you can get away with diluting that blix 1+1, as paper blixes much faster than film does. Blixing paper slightly makes it a tiny bit whiter and slightly adds warmth. Prints made without blixing are also decent.

One thing that I need to stress, ad infinitum; please heed this: Potassium ferricyanide is the most lethal enemy of developer. When paper goes through the development, stop, fix procecure it can STILL retain tiny amounts of develolper. Best to rinse after the fix step in order to prepare that paper for the blix. I have become paranoid about even a molecule of developer mixing with this bleach step, as ugly cyan stains can result. Never, ever move in reverse, from blix back to the fix used previously. At these dilutions, 'one-shot' processing is your guarantee of clean processing.

No, I will not disown you if you need quick help. I have given my number in the past and, although few call, I have had calls from Sweden, Hong Kong, and Texas. I will try to help. Land line: 215.569.4949 and mobile: 215.820.1560. Best time is usually between 6 AM and 7 AM Philadelphia time, but other times I can be reached as well. (I do NOT have a computer where I live: Am I nuts or what?!?!?!) - David Lyga

bvy said:

This sounds complicated, and I'm not seeing the appeal. The 5 liter kit from Kodak is easy to mix and works. Prepared all at once it keeps for over a year if stored properly.

Click to expand...

This is very true, but my ratios allow one to mix lesser quantities if so desired. However, I disagree with your 'limited' time frame: in FULL PET plastic or glass, with truly secure tops, it will last for MORE than a year. I have never had it go bad and sometimes that has been for YEARS. If you bought a bottle of soda and kept it for ten years, would the carbonation still be there? Yes, it would. - David Lyga

Greg Davis said:

No he has not. I have and posted the results in another thread a couple years ago. I wouldn't touch this method with a 10 meter pole.

Click to expand...

How 'bout with a 20 meter pole. That way this infection would be a bit less likely to harm you. - David Lyga

Greg Davis said:

No he has not. I have and posted the results in another thread a couple years ago. I wouldn't touch this method with a 10 meter pole.

Click to expand...

Ah, but.were they true believers?

To expand, I have used David's V1.0 using 1;15 dilution on some 21 y/o exposed film and it works.
My next experiment will be with a stronger powered diluent (carbonate/bicarbonate) to see if puddling around with the pH with tiny carbonate additions is so effective as it seems. That part of the mix is way easier than altering the C41 brew due to local difficulties with chemical suppliers.

Murray Kelly said:

To expand, I have used David's V1.0 using 1;15 dilution on some 21 y/o exposed film and it works.

Click to expand...

Does this mean you did sensitometric tests to check for crossover?

RPC said:

Does this mean you did sensitometric tests to check for crossover?

Click to expand...

sfaber17 tested PE's original C-41 formulas and (there was a url link here which no longer exists). There is a good chance, that the most original and authentic products will create measurable cross over and whatnot, and even more so in a typical amateur environment with inaccurate temperature control and pH meters, and/or unadjusted tank solutions.

There is also a good chance, that these deviations do not matter nearly as much as their high numbers may suggest. Hint: target medium for photographic prints are not densitometers, but human eyes with all their flaws and deficiencies.

I have given my number in the past and, although few call...

[BRRRRRING! BRRRRRING!]

Hello? Is your darkroom refrigerator running?

Rudeofus said:

sfaber17 tested PE's original C-41 formulas and (there was a url link here which no longer exists). There is a good chance, that the most original and authentic products will create measurable cross over and whatnot, and even more so in a typical amateur environment with inaccurate temperature control and pH meters, and/or unadjusted tank solutions.

There is also a good chance, that these deviations do not matter nearly as much as their high numbers may suggest. Hint: target medium for photographic prints are not densitometers, but human eyes with all their flaws and deficiencies.

Click to expand...

Well, I have used various home brew formulas, and with some got parallel curves measured with a gray scale and densitometer. I trust my results, because what the curves show, I always see in prints of the gray scales and ordinary subject matter, when testing and experimenting.

I have not used Lyga's method, but based on based on its makeup, and experimenting with C-41 I have done in the past, and with what Greg Davis has reported, I would not trust it.

Some may find it acceptable, as people's perceptions are different, but personally I would not find acceptable any process where I could see crossover in a gray scale, and others should be warned if this is found to be the case.

RPC said:

Well, I have used various home brew formulas, and with some got parallel curves measured with a gray scale and densitometer. I trust my results, because what the curves show, I always see in prints of the gray scales and ordinary subject matter, when testing and experimenting.

Click to expand...

What are the deviations you encountered on the curves that gave good gray scales when printing?
A Kodak test strip for example has a low density and high density patch. The difference gives the slope of the curves and those targets are 0.81, 0.87, and 1.08 for R,G,B. Various formulas have differed from the targets by 0.20D or so and the the target control limits are more like 0.08D, but as Rudi suggested, maybe 0.20D still might look OK. I haven't tested prints yet to find out.

FIRST AND VERY IMPORTANT: I NEGLECTED TO STATE THE STORAGE PECULIARITIES OF KODAK RA4 DEVELOPER/REPLENISHER RT (KP 36-8477184): please read and heed carefully, as these quirks might drive you nuts, otherwise:

PART A: need NOT be kept air-tight. Keep in origial container or any other container that you wish. Partially filled OK.

PART B: MUST be kept air-tight always. But here is the catch (and I learned it the hard way). For some reason this Part B slightly 'expands' and, if stored in glass bottles filled to the very top, such tiny expansion can cause glass bottles to crack. Instead, store Part B in PET plastic, filled to the very top. PET plastic 'gives' ever so slightly in order to accommodate this tiny bit of expansion.

PART C: need NOT be kept air-tight, but please understand that this Part C is so intensely alkaline that a few weeks of storage in PET plastic will result in the plastic's structure becoming softened, thus prone towards leaking! As a result, store in original container or store in glass bottles partially filled. One other quirk: this is the ONLY part of any color developer (C-41 or RA4) that tends to form a precipitate after a time in storage. I have found that simply filtering out this precipitate and using the clear solution results in NO reduction in developer effect. Part C is (I think) merely an accelerator and, again, filtering out this precipitate does not affect any results (that I have ever seen).

Nota Bene:

I know that the things that I am saying here and elsewhere are markedly unorthodox, and, quite frankly, I do not fail to appreciate all the dismay from the theoreticians who structure their thoughts upon the foundations of strict chemical formulation. No, I do NOT do sensitometric tests attesting to every hue's 'correct' wavelength. But, let us be honest here: how many of you go by the strict rules, with great effort, and still find colors to be at least somewhat 'off' to a practiced eye? I think many.

What I have done is to offer a cheap, simple way of challenging the status quo, and, in the process, have achieved admirable results for critical viewers. I want to emphasize that the world is not going to fall apart if you are half a degree off; instead, you might get a bit more or less contrast in you are several degrees off, and this difference just might not even be perceived as 'wrong', given the subject matter.

In fact do this: take a photo of a colorful object in dull light, like shade. Here, only the colors themselves provide the contrast. Give this negative one full stop UNDER exposure. Then, do something entirely radical: develop that negative for about 50% MORE time. You will get colors that compete with the most incredible saturation imaginable and color cross-over will not interfere with the panoply of strong hues. Of course, doing this in a normal contrast scene will prove to be a disaster, as shadow detail will be null and overly bluish. Why is doing that experimentation so very wrong? Is art not, itself, a series of experiments in which one deviates from the status quo?

When Cibachrome was being marketed back in the '70s I remember hearing that the colors were stupendous, but the contrast was unmanageable. Transparency film is processed to a higher contrast than is negative film because paper allows a contrast range much shorter than does a projected transparency. But when that extended contrast range is printed onto paper, although the shadows become killed, the remaining hues are more saturated. David Lyga

I think that I may give David's method a try. I haven't done any color developing or printing in many years, although that is how I began in the darkroom - color, not b&w. Beseler chemistry, I think, maybe it was Unicolor.

Regarding technical perfection in the accuracy of the color of the prints, if it is pleasing to the eye of the printer, I feel it is an acceptable print. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and for the beholder, that is what counts.

Thanks David for the experiments and the documentation, and thanks to the other posters who have added their knowledge and experiences. I appreciate it.

C-41 is very sensitive to even minor irregularities as Rudeofus pointed out. So why aggravate it more with an non-standard, potentially inferior process?

On the other hand, I am the first to say that a non-standard process may be perfectly acceptable to some. But when a non-standard process is presented, if not tested, a caveat should be given that it may give inferior results compared to the standard process, and I had not seen that presented here. I fact, quite the opposite. Otherwise uninformed readers can be mislead into thinking it gives standard results when it may not. This is important for C-41 more than almost any other process.

sfaber17, the Kodak literature I have says .09 for control limts. I can go a little outside that and not readily see any crossover in the prints, but much more outside that and it begins to show. I have had test negs that were around .20 and greater when I tested the Dignan process and the prints were unacceptable to me, but again may be acceptable to others. I tested PE's formula long ago and IIRC my results were much better than yours and very close to being in tolerance. (In fact, I posted this formula here, or one similar to it, long before PE did; it came from a patent). But as they say YMMV.

RPC said:

sfaber17, the Kodak literature I have says .09 for control limts. I can go a little outside that and not readily see any crossover in the prints, but much more outside that and it begins to show. I have had test negs that were around .20 and greater when I tested the Dignan process and the prints were unacceptable to me, but again may be acceptable to others. I tested PE's formula long ago and IIRC my results were much better than yours and very close to being in tolerance. (In fact, I posted this formula here, or one similar to it, long before PE did; it came from a patent). But as they say YMMV.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think I remember yours being close to the one PE just posted. I tried Dignan and Chapman and they were good starting points. Sounds like the control limits are about right.

Some people here, intentionally or unintentionally, create the impression here, that some dark room neophyte created a cheap C-41 process mod while blissfully ignoring glaring image quality issues. I would like to point out, that this is not the case here. Look at David's portfolio here to judge for yourself.

I would also like to point out a few more things here:

1. David's process mod as described may see much more variation than regular C-41: "1 ml Sodium Carbonate" will be different in just about any place, so whatever Greg Davis tried some time back may be quite different in pH.
2. Stefan Lange reported, that a small change in process temperature required a substantial change in CD composition to stay within spec. How certain is everyone that his/her process temperature is accurate for the whole CD time? Even if one had a perfect way to dial in the temperature at some point, I would predict substantial changes with different ambient temperature and/or humidity.
3. While some folks here appear to have access to unlimited funds and/or incredibly cheap C-41 chemistry, most color folks have to buy packaged 1l or 5l kits. These kits with their pricing make process liquid reuse necessary, and a Tetenal C-41 CD after three or four reuses may be far more out of spec than David's single use soup (assuming one correctly matches his "1 ml of Sodium Carbonate").
4. Whether color crossover matters or not depends a great deal on subject matter. A newly wed couple with white bridal dress and black tuxedo may put a lot more stress on color accuracy than a landscape shot during sunset.

I posted this with great consideration. I am well aware that deviation from chemically pure data is subject to much criticism. However, given my flagrant deviations, why do I get color and contrast that apes the real thing? Should not my prints, thus, be pitiful? They are not.

To assert that only with precise everything can hues really be true to form is, in itself, misleading, because the efforts needed to attain that goal are, in too many cases, not achievable within the realm of the real world. When labs held sway, I remember that MOST photos from labs were FAR from having what I would call 'good color'. I think that, here, those who claim perfection because they follow procedure precisely, have had many unmentionable moments whereby color that was provisioned for, by strict adherence to perfection, was not realized.

Color film is three layers of B&W film. Included are couplers which act upon the oxidation products of the developer in order to create proportional hues conforming to the complements of the primaries. If developed longer than necessary, those hues become augmented. This can actually be a benefit with certain low-contrast subjects. Why it becomes mandatory to deflect this reality, to adhere strictly without compromise, to worship the chemical formula as if deviation therefrom has become an otherwise 'triggering of a nuclear bomb', baffles me.

We are here to enjoy photography; deviations can sometimes be enlightening. But, to the utterly dismal dismay of many, such has become a route wrought through hell simply because it was not intended that way. - David Lyga

Rudeofus said:

Some people here, intentionally or unintentionally, create the impression here, that some dark room neophyte created a cheap C-41 process mod while blissfully ignoring glaring image quality issues. I would like to point out, that this is not the case here. Look at David's portfolio here to judge for yourself.

I would also like to point out a few more things here:

1. David's process mod as described may see much more variation than regular C-41: "1 ml Sodium Carbonate" will be different in just about any place, so whatever Greg Davis tried some time back may be quite different in pH.
2. Stefan Lange reported, that a small change in process temperature required a substantial change in CD composition to stay within spec. How certain is everyone that his/her process temperature is accurate for the whole CD time? Even if one had a perfect way to dial in the temperature at some point, I would predict substantial changes with different ambient temperature and/or humidity.
3. While some folks here appear to have access to unlimited funds and/or incredibly cheap C-41 chemistry, most color folks have to buy packaged 1l or 5l kits. These kits with their pricing make process liquid reuse necessary, and a Tetenal C-41 CD after three or four reuses may be far more out of spec than David's single use soup (assuming one correctly matches his "1 ml of Sodium Carbonate").
4. Whether color crossover matters or not depends a great deal on subject matter. A newly wed couple with white bridal dress and black tuxedo may put a lot more stress on color accuracy than a landscape shot during sunset.

Click to expand...

David has clearly done his homework and has hit on something that works well for him. Putting it out there for others to try, however, should come with some caveats. Mixing developer as needed from the component chemicals introduces A LOT of variables and potential points of failure. Part C is especially volatile. Adding marbles to mixed developer is messy and another potential risk (I realize that was pitched as "optional"). I don't run my results through a densitometer either, but I do print in the darkroom and consistency between films is crucial to the efficiency of my workflow. Mixing the entire quantity of working solution at the same time, storing everything under the same conditions, and following the standardized C-41 method gets me a long way there and gives me the support of the manufacturer and thousands of practitioners if issues arise.

I'm still not sure who the audience for this method is or what problem it solves over the standard methodology. I've posted links before to Kodak C-41 developer that will put you out all of about $15 for 6.5 liters of working solution developer. No powder kits calling for endless use required. No mods or mixing on demand required.

I certainly do not suggest "Mixing the entire quantity of working solution at the same time". Far from it: that's a LOT of developer! This is why I have stated ratios so the user can mix what he/she wants to mix at a time. I also suggest mixing a quantity according to Kodak's directives, and then diluting THAT for 'working solution' use.

Marbles are not 'messy', if you do this carefully and consistently, though it is a bit of a hassle. However, in the long run, doing do provides a long, long time-frame for using that developer. I think the trade-offs work. - David Lyga

The bottom line here is that anyone with sufficient knowledge of the critical nature of C-41 is going to question a process such as this, lacking any test results, or other proof of performance, regardless of how well it might actually work. Simply saying it works is not enough for some when you are dealing with C-41. I would expect its proponents to understand this, since I would expect them to have that level of knowledge. I feel by questioning it, and indicating caveats are in order, I am doing those who don't have sufficient knowledge a favor. I don't see why its proponents have a problem with that.

I am not intending to rain on anyone's parade, just give needed warnings and understanding.

I have already acknowledged that regardless of the results, they may be perfectly acceptable to some, so I don't see why its proponents are continuing to defend that.