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

Michael Guzzi said:

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.

Click to expand...

Greetings, back on APUG, er, Photrio after a four year hiatus. Major move, blah, blah.

Anyway, reading David's first post part, I was going to raise the issue about PET bottles, at least of the beverage kind. PET is terrible for chemicals I would think after I discovered an old stash of water bottles at my parent's house. They were all partially collapsed because water went through the walls of the bottles! Now, maybe oxygen doesn't go back the other way, but why take a chance on something so easily remedied?

I did further research on plastic types and permeability, there is a huge amount of research and data on this. And, yes, PET is vapor and moisture permeable.

Just these last few days mixing chemicals - again, finally! - I discovered a 1L wide-ish mouthed, medium thick PE at Academy, the sporting goods chain for $3. And 1 QT - but will hold a liter - polycarbonate wide mouth bottles at HEB, the big grocer here in Texas. Red or green, $4. I'm going with the polycarb for developers, PE for other chemicals.

Instead of the hassle of marbles, I am going to try argon gas made to keep wine fresh. JUST got my item via Amazon, $10.

I remember the original thread some years ago and have wanted to revisit it. And here it is, the kernel. Thank you.

I've always used Unicolor C-41 w/o issue. But needing new stock, I found the Arista 1 gal for $70 and the Rollei 5 liter for $73, both liquid, at Freestyle. Seven and six bottles respectively. It will develop 80 rolls. At $1/roll even with shipping, I've no interest in further squeezing every dime of cost out.

As my two reel Yankee tank uses 600 ml of liquid, I intend to make 700ml of working strength developer at a time. Keep in polycarbonite bottles (see my other comment), use wine keeper gas, and keep in the fridge. Should last a long time. I don't foresee developing more than a few rolls a month, so that should work for many months. I can also put it in the freezer; that process opened arguments on a thread years ago, like this one. "You can't do that!" Sputter, sputter. Funny, I could. I did. No problem.

Anyway, being the incorrigible experimenter and having some of that mindset DNA that David does, hell, yes, I 'm going to try this! If nothing else, just for fun. But then, maybe I can just use a ml graduated eye dropper and mix the raw chemicals straight to the 1:9 dilution, no stock necessary.

Ain't we got fun?

Well right after I wrote the above, I found your original thread, David. I had saved it to my photo library.

I see you've moved from 1:14 to 1:9 and from 90 degrees to 100, both moving development from about 15 minutes to about 9.

That sound about right? Your newer system sounds a lot less scary; i.e., more likely to work.

Paul Verizzo said:

Greetings, back on APUG, er, Photrio after a four year hiatus. Major move, blah, blah.

Anyway, reading David's first post part, I was going to raise the issue about PET bottles, at least of the beverage kind. PET is terrible for chemicals I would think after I discovered an old stash of water bottles at my parent's house. They were all partially collapsed because water went through the walls of the bottles! Now, maybe oxygen doesn't go back the other way, but why take a chance on something so easily remedied? .

Click to expand...

Because medium PET from things like soda bottles and some water bottles works great and keeps some developers fresh for over a year. I wouldn't use the crinkly thin stuff that some small water bottles are made up, and really thick PET is too stiff to squeeze the air out of.

David Lyga said:

In other words, MY working solution dilution will make, not 25 gallons total of developer, but 250 gallons of working solution developer!

Click to expand...

David, (if you are still tuned in to this thread)
First, congratulations for exploring outside the beaten path.
Just a simple-minded question: how long does it take you to use those 250 gallons of developer? How many rolls of film do you develop with tat? And how do you find the time to just shoot all that film?

bernard_L said:

David, (if you are still tuned in to this thread)
First, congratulations for exploring outside the beaten path.
Just a simple-minded question: how long does it take you to use those 250 gallons of developer? How many rolls of film do you develop with tat? And how do you find the time to just shoot all that film?

Click to expand...

I bought the developer about a dozen years ago and keeps its concentrates in PET plastic bottles (or glass), airtight and filled to the brim. (NOTE: for C-41 Flexicolor, only part C needs to be kept airtight.)

When will I use up everything? I will probably die first, but I wanted to make certain that I retain the chemistry to process C-41 until I croak (or die, whichever comes sooner.)

Thank you for complimenting me on the 'off the beaten path' paradigm, which is part and parcel of my nature. I have paid many prices in life for daring to be daring. - David Lyga

Wayne said:

Because medium PET from things like soda bottles and some water bottles works great and keeps some developers fresh for over a year. I wouldn't use the crinkly thin stuff that some small water bottles are made up, and really thick PET is too stiff to squeeze the air out of.

Click to expand...

I've gone down the used drink bottle route. Also heavy PE lab bottles, and those accordion photo ones. Everything has pro's and con's. For instance, the accordion ones tend to flop over, are narrow mouthed, and the creases eventually leak.

I've explained my rationale', different strokes for different folks. In the scheme of expenses, the bottles I mentioned are cheap and have wide mouths. You can't get that with beverage bottles other than Mickey's Wide Mouth malt liquor - grin - and they don't hold much. Just kidding. I just remembered Gatorade has fairly wide mouths and are fairly thick, but the very uneven surface makes it hard to affix labels on.

In fact, I picked up a couple more of the polycarbonate ones yesterday at HEB and I was wrong about the price, even less, $3.47. And they have blue, which I guess they were out of when I discovered them. So, color coded polycarbonate wide mouth bottles for the cost of a roll of off-brand 35mm film. No funnels needed (been there, done that.) And a few pennies or less of inert gas to "top off" after use.

I'm already liking what I'm doing much, much more than my old cheapskate system. For any given line, meaning color or B&W, just under $10 using one polycarb developer bottle and stop/blix/stabilzers in PE. And a $10 bottle of inert gas which they claim will do "hundreds" of bottles for $10. No marbles, no squeezing bottles until they won't stand up.

I'll end with "different strokes for different folks." If you like what you are doing, have at it.

Paul Verizzo said:

PET is terrible for chemicals I would think after I discovered an old stash of water bottles at my parent's house. They were all partially collapsed because water went through the walls of the bottles! Now, maybe oxygen doesn't go back the other way, but why take a chance on something so easily remedied?

Click to expand...

You are welcome to disagree with me. However, how does one explain year after year of my developer's proper storage with bottles that are obtained from every urban trash can?

The one thing that I will concede is this: although I stand by the fact that PET plastic does not allow oxygen to ENTER the bottle, I will state that, over much time, liquid can slowly begin to evaporate, leaving a tiny 'air space' within the bottle. Thus, theoretically, there is some tiny seepage OUT OF THE BOTTLE. However, this problem is really not a problem, as this trait comes about so slowly that it matters little.

I cannot speak for your 'partially collapsed bottles', but I can speak for my storing Kodak's MIXED RA 4 Developer back in 2003, and this RA 4 developer / replenisher is still just as good as the day I originally mixed it. That is a long time, perhaps longer than either your parents or David Lyga will be allowed to bother, or bother with, Photrio. - David Lyga

David Lyga said:

I bought the developer about a dozen years ago and keeps its concentrates in PET plastic bottles (or glass), airtight and filled to the brim. (NOTE: for C-41 Flexicolor, only part C needs to be kept airtight.)

When will I use up everything? I will probably die first, but I wanted to make certain that I retain the chemistry to process C-41 until I croak (or die, whichever comes sooner.)

Thank you for complimenting me on the 'off the beaten path' paradigm, which is part and parcel of my nature. I have paid many prices in life for daring to be daring. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

Hey, David! When I returned here just a few days ago I was happy to see you were still active. In fact, I pulled up all the threads you ever originated and read many of them, or at least the beginnings, because I value your different drummer perspectives. OK, I do often shake my head, too...............250 gallons of developer? Even 25! Even my 5L Rollei kit with your system would develop about 166 rolls two at a time in my plastic tank.

I noticed that a funny thing that basic math revealed. That depending on exactly how far one is willing to push - number of rolls, not EI - undiluted developer, the cost per roll vs. diluted is only right about half. Fifty cents instead of a dollar. The big advantage, then, is fresh chemistry. Not cost per roll.

Comment, please on my perceived change of suggested dilution and temperature between you original post and now?

Are you familiar with the "freethinker" movement of the latter 19th century? I suspect that with your curiosity and intellect that you are. Think Lincoln and Twain. I'm all on board with stepping outside boundaries. Yes, often social or other prices to be paid.

David Lyga said:

You are welcome to disagree with me. However, how does one explain year after year of my developer's proper storage with bottles that are obtained from every urban trash can?

The one thing that I will concede is this: although I stand by the fact that PET plastic does not allow oxygen to ENTER the bottle, I will state that, over much time, liquid can slowly begin to evaporate, leaving a tiny 'air space' within the bottle. Thus, theoretically, there is some tiny seepage OUT OF THE BOTTLE. However, this problem is really not a problem, as this trait comes about so slowly that it matters little.

I cannot speak for your 'partially collapsed bottles', but I can speak for my storing Kodak's MIXED RA 4 Developer back in 2003, and this RA 4 developer / replenisher is still just as good as the day I originally mixed it. That is a long time, perhaps longer than either your parents or David Lyga will be allowed to bother, or bother with, Photrio. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

As I told Wayne, sort of, whatever works for you, meaning others, great.

My experience with thin PET bottles and my research just takes me away from them. I respect your long term experience, which I value more than theory. But, man, my red, green, and blue polycarb bottles are so pretty!

Paul Verizzo said:

Hey, David! When I returned here just a few days ago I was happy to see you were still active. In fact, I pulled up all the threads you ever originated and read many of them, or at least the beginnings, because I value your different drummer perspectives. OK, I do often shake my head, too...............250 gallons of developer? Even 25! Even my 5L Rollei kit with your system would develop about 166 rolls two at a time in my plastic tank.

I noticed that a funny thing that basic math revealed. That depending on exactly how far one is willing to push - number of rolls, not EI - undiluted developer, the cost per roll vs. diluted is only right about half. Fifty cents instead of a dollar. The big advantage, then, is fresh chemistry. Not cost per roll.

Comment, please on my perceived change of suggested dilution and temperature between you original post and now?

Are you familiar with the "freethinker" movement of the latter 19th century? I suspect that with your curiosity and intellect that you are. Think Lincoln and Twain. I'm all on board with stepping outside boundaries. Yes, often social or other prices to be paid.

Click to expand...

First, my 'free thinking' is just that: Thinking that is neither corrupted nor corroborated by others (in order 'to pass' the societal litmus test). That is why I wash my clothes in a bucket rather than a washing machine. I do what works. I think what makes the most sense. That is why I am agnostic: not sufficiently intelligent to say, or say not, about this 'Supreme Being' thing.

Here is a recap of my latest C-41 Flexicolor dilutions. I do not have the time to look at my past claims. Kodak Flexicolor (KF 12-1532753) 25 US gallon size (12.5 US gal X 2): In mL:
Part A has 3784mL X 2 = 7568mL
Part B has 445mL X 2 = 890mL
Part C has 473mL X 2 = 946mL (MUST be kept airtight in either glass or PET).

To make matters extremely easy (for the feeble-mindedness of David Lyga), I store B and C concentrates in a diluted form: Thus, 1mL B + 8 water = 9mL DIL B. 1mL C + 7mL water = 8mL DIL C. (Of course, also DIL C must be kept airtight.)

CORRECTION FOLLOWS:

Thus done, the mixing of working solutions becomes quite easy. Simple as this: 22mL water + 1mL A = 1mL DIL B + 1mL DIL C = 25mL of C-41 "developer stock". Keep this stock airtight. For WORKING SOLUTION: 1 part dev stock + 4 parts water. Try 8 minutes at 100 Fahr. ("One shot" or you will get shot.)

Paul, I really don't have to time to peruse what your specific dilutions are, but mine demonstrate (do the math) that 25 US gal becomes 250 US gal. Thus, effectively, I dilute 10X what Kodak tells me to dilute. "Nuff said? Are yours more or less? - David Lyga

David, I get the math on the dilutions. My Rollei kit should be here today, but in the meantime I had to go to Maco's website to peruse the instructions, oddly, Freestyle doesn't have them up. No clue until arrival as to the amounts in each bottle. Regardless, it's just math. As noted above, I'll probably just ml eye dropper the amounts that I need, no stock, even.

I appreciate your pioneering work here. I would probably have eventually tried something similar, but I do so love not reinventing wheels.

Ask anytime. Thank you. - David

Paul, I started a thread about wide-mouth PET years ago. They are harder to find than the days when most soft drinks came in wide mouth versions, but they are still available. I currently use Nature's Touch drinking water available from Quik Trip gas stations in the US. I wlll use gatorade ocsasionally too, if its something I'm not worried about squeezing the air out of.

Please see revised post #62, above, as I had made an error with defining the WORKING SOLUTION. It is now stated correctly. - David Lyga

OK, I got my Rollei kit today. Wow, Freestyle and FedEx ground be awesome.

Anyway, the critical C developer component comes in a 250ml bottle, enough for 5L. Rollei/Maco claims up to 16 rolls per liter. As any of us has dabbled in C-41 processing knows, capacity is all over the brand ball park. Many say 8 per qt/liter. Then there is the matter of increased time to extend capacity. I think that David is probably on target with the fact that it is not the CD-4 pooping out, it is the matter of developer byproducts slowing things down. Rollei obviously is OK with developer capacity at 16 rolls/liter, regardless of byproducts.

Which would indicate that 50ml, the amount of Developer C for a liter, would indicate 3.12ml for a one shot per David's prescription for diluted use. Call it 3ml. I have an eye dropper made for baby formulas or something that measures up to 5 ml. Also a little 1ml PE pipette.

Components A and B proportional, of course.

Rollei kit also puts "bleacher" in one bottle, and fixer in another. I've never feared blix, but if I can separate, why not? No downside other than time. Right?

Anyone see a problem with these numbers or thoughts?

Paul Verizzo said:

Anyone see a problem with these numbers or thoughts?

Click to expand...

You may already know this but this method has been shown to produce results that don't match the technical quality of the standard C-41 process, producing crossover and other issues issues. Try it if you want and see if you accept the results, but be forewarned.

RPC said:

You may already know this but this method has been shown to produce results that don't match the technical quality of the standard C-41 process, producing crossover and other issues issues. Try it if you want and see if you accept the results, but be forewarned.

Click to expand...

"Perfection is the enemy of good enough."

And for those of us who have ditched out cherished enlargers and related chemistry for the amazing talents of computer manipulations, it doesn't matter at all.

Spoken as a lover of the wet darkroom.

Paul Verizzo said:

"Perfection is the enemy of good enough."

And for those of us who have ditched out cherished enlargers and related chemistry for the amazing talents of computer manipulations, it doesn't matter at all.

Spoken as a lover of the wet darkroom.

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your response. I don't see anything wrong with warning somebody. I don't do digital, and love the darkroom process. That is why I warned you.

Paul Verizzo said:

"Perfection is the enemy of good enough."

And for those of us who have ditched out cherished enlargers and related chemistry for the amazing talents of computer manipulations, it doesn't matter at all.

Spoken as a lover of the wet darkroom.

Click to expand...

Good luck using digital tools to deal with substantial colour crossover.
And prepare to spend a lot of time at the computer.

Yes, why not just develop C-41 film with the correct process and have your negatives be done right. It eliminates potential headaches and is the best route to easy-to-work-with negatives and highest image quality.

Correct implies, well, correctness. He'll know soon enough if its correct for his purposes.

MattKing said:

Good luck using digital tools to deal with substantial colour crossover.
And prepare to spend a lot of time at the computer.

Click to expand...

Here we have a case of David Lyga stating, that he printed these negatives optically and had no problems with color cross over, and experts stating that "cross over will be so bad that it'll take a long time on the computer to fix it". If it takes you "a lot of time at the computer" to fix color cross over, then you're doing it wrong. To be honest, I'd rather trust David here.

Wayne said:

Because medium PET from things like soda bottles and some water bottles works great and keeps some developers fresh for over a year. I wouldn't use the crinkly thin stuff that some small water bottles are made up, and really thick PET is too stiff to squeeze the air out of.

Click to expand...

Right : PET is working good! Rollei use it - and stated from what advantage PET for developer is
(NOT TO ALL KIND OF CHEMS BE AWARE)
But the "key" with PET from the supermarket is : You shouldn't use the thin-walled PET bottlest !

with regards

Rudeofus said:

Here we have a case of David Lyga stating, that he printed these negatives optically and had no problems with color cross over, and experts stating that "cross over will be so bad that it'll take a long time on the computer to fix it". If it takes you "a lot of time at the computer" to fix color cross over, then you're doing it wrong. To be honest, I'd rather trust David here.

Click to expand...

I would state that "color shifting" is a phenomea of wrong c41 workflow. This may also happen from
correct Kodak process!
For example from stored c41 stock with time correction after each film.
But he -he .... that wouln't be the correct c41 process (that would be the workflow used with developer kits).
But you would not say that all people who are using kits are involved with color shifting ?

So to me it is clear : what is possible with bw (one shot developer) should be possiple also to c41!

AND : The approach of David Lyga seams to be quite correct! I can imagine that "smal shiftings" from time to time are to be seen everywere (also from commercial labs within Kodak's c41 specification) ....I remember such cases from the past!

But you are right Rudeofus that many photographers are sitting a whole night with corrections on
the Computer..........perhaps from other reasons????!
with regards