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.
I don't remember reading anywhere a claim of David, that his process performs better than standard process, or that he would offer any guarantee that his process works for everyone. It is, however, an incredibly economical process for folks, who only occasionally process a roll or two of color film. For these folks this process, assuming it has been dialed in properly (see my comment about 1ml Sodium Carbonate), is a lot more promising, and a lot more likely to yield acceptable results than extended store of full strength CD that has been run through many process cycles. There are quite a few folks who do mostly B&W, and only the occasional roll of color film when the subject matter requires it.I think deviations from standard procedure come with implicit caveats that YMMV and implicit non-guarantees.
Some people here really seem to get grumpy when they notice folks walking off the beaten path ...People who are careless enough not to see that probably can't be saved from themselves anyway.
It's a sermon, because it preaches the theoretical optimum for everyone. Normal life is a compromise between acceptable performance and the resources required to achieve it.It's not a sermon. It's what works.
The problem is that what's acceptable now may not be acceptable later. Someone who only scans their film may find the results acceptable. Later, if they want to wet print, they're likely to find that the filtrations between similar films are all over the place or, worse, that no filtration balances the colors in the scene. Maybe, maybe not, but it's a risk. Further, I don't see that great an advantage over the "theoretical optimum" of mixing five or six liters of working solution at once. Working solution has much better keeping properties than the component chemicals when stored properly, and five or six liters of developer shouldn't require an addition to anyone's home. It's a case of false economy when your price per film goes below a certain point.It's a sermon, because it preaches the theoretical optimum for everyone. Normal life is a compromise between acceptable performance and the resources required to achieve it.
It's a sermon, because it preaches the theoretical optimum for everyone. Normal life is a compromise between acceptable performance and the resources required to achieve it.
It's not a sermon. It's what works.
My only observation about the discussion in this thread should be considered in light of the fact that it has been a long time since I was regularly printing colour negatives.
The observation is that negatives with significant amounts of crossover are hellish to print optically, and the results are rarely satisfying. It may be possible to obtain more satisfactory results from them if you add digital controls, but I seriously doubt that the "post" work involved is quick or easy.
I used to do proof and machine enlargement printing for wedding and portrait photographers. My colleague did large and custom enlargements for the same customers. One of our customers tried to save money by developing his own film, without the aid of process controls. We eventually had to refuse any work he gave us on film he developed himself.
I don't remember reading anywhere a claim of David, that his process performs better than standard process, or that he would offer any guarantee that his process works for everyone. It is, however, an incredibly economical process for folks, who only occasionally process a roll or two of color film. For these folks this process, assuming it has been dialed in properly (see my comment about 1ml Sodium Carbonate), is a lot more promising, and a lot more likely to yield acceptable results than extended store of full strength CD that has been run through many process cycles. There are quite a few folks who do mostly B&W, and only the occasional roll of color film when the subject matter requires it.
Some people here really seem to get grumpy when they notice folks walking off the beaten path ...
Accusing David of 'carelessness' is preposterous and a pointless insult, he probably goes through more effort and sacrifice for his photographic work than most other folks here, including those who preach the holier than thou "I only use fresh, original chemistry single shot" sermon.
It is quite obvious that you didn't read David's postings, not even the opening one. He did wet print, and the results were to his satisfaction. He does not recommend mixing many liters of working solution at once, no idea where you have that from, in fact he provided detailed instructions how to mix small amounts of his dilute working solution on the fly.The problem is that what's acceptable now may not be acceptable later. Someone who only scans their film may find the results acceptable. Later, if they want to wet print, they're likely to find that the filtrations between similar films are all over the place or, worse, that no filtration balances the colors in the scene. Maybe, maybe not, but it's a risk. Further, I don't see that great an advantage over the "theoretical optimum" of mixing five or six liters of working solution at once. Working solution has much better keeping properties than the component chemicals when stored properly, and five or six liters of developer shouldn't require an addition to anyone's home.
It is not up to me to make this call for other people, and neither is it up to anyone else here, except for our own work. AFAIK David frequently uses expired film, so this changes economic considerations (i.e. acceptable price for developer per roll, expected consistency across batches) a lot.It's a case of false economy when your price per film goes below a certain point.
I'm not sure you read mine. I read perfectly that he's making wet prints from his negatives. And if one wants to make prints for David, then this process is the best there is! Further, it was I, not David, who suggested preparing several liters of working solutions at the same time -- "several" being five or six which isn't that much but provides more accurate mixing and greater consistency.It is quite obvious that you didn't read David's postings, not even the opening one. He did wet print, and the results were to his satisfaction. He does not recommend mixing many liters of working solution at once, no idea where you have that from, in fact he provided detailed instructions how to mix small amounts of his dilute working solution on the fly.
And trying to economize past a certain point can lead to results with limitations. The caveats and risks of David's methodology have been described and discussed ad nauseam by now. I think that's all that anyone here wanted to express. David knows his stuff, and perhaps others can benefit from this methodology, but they should go into it fully informed.Throwing boat loads of money at an artistic process rarely leads to interesting results, and I am glad that David found and shared a way to pursue his artistic passion within his means and limits.
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.
One correction Murray: way more than half of all the remaining wedding photographers out there are "She" not "He".I am incredulous of some of the antipathy evoked by this thread. It has never been said that David's 'system' would suit a professional wedding photographer. That is, in my book, one of the hardest colour assignments known to man. He must allow for equipment deviation, (shutter accuracy, lighting temperature, to name two) then the storage of the film and the quality of processing to get the 'oyster' (yes, really, a colour) of the wedding gown just exactly right in the light of the studio where the prints are viewed. Phew!
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!!!
Yes thanks a lot - I don't see it differentYou think that I am stupid enough to PAY for them???? I get them from the trash bin and wash and dry them at home. Actually the 'thickness' does not seem to matter. I know that some soda bottles are VERY thin but they still hold carbonation and that is all that is needed to hold air. They might not last as long with repeated squeezing (and the thicker bottles cannot be squeezed) but either is fine and will work. As long as it is CLEAR plastic it should be good. In the USA (I do not know if you are foreign to the USA) milk often comes in cloudy plastic that is easily squeezed. I would NOT recommend these bottles. - David.
I dilute this liter of developer (that I just mixed, above) a whopping 1 + 9.
Well dmr - as I understand most of this thread correct (I am not absolute sure but I hopeSo it's YOU who does the 9:1 thing!
I'm just starting climbing the learning curve and this fascinated me! I'm obsessed with "one shot" processing, meaning mix only what you need for one-two rolls and ash-can the effluent.
I got some negative responses asking about doing a 1:1 dilution and increasing the development time by 1.414.
What I am hearing is a lot of inconsistency in what everyone is saying ...
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?