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

[sfaber17]

I just bought some Kodak developer, although its a 5liter, and may give David's thing a try. I have been using another brand. On a related note, some people have said they gave up optical printing of color due to the paper being too high contrast these days presumably perhaps because the paper is made to be laser printed. Maybe there is a case for formulating a lower contrast color developer formula.

 

[Wayne]

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 think deviations from standard procedure come with implicit caveats that YMMV and implicit non-guarantees. People who are careless enough not to see that probably can't be saved from themselves anyway.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Rudeofus]

I think deviations from standard procedure come with implicit caveats that YMMV and implicit non-guarantees.

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.

People who are careless enough not to see that probably can't be saved from themselves anyway.

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.

 

[bvy]

It's not a sermon. It's what works.

 

[Rudeofus]

It's not a sermon. It's what works.

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.

 

[bvy]

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.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Normal life has compromises and I have made them in the past. I have no need, want nor desire to make compromises in my photographic work, especially to make your hurt, tired and sore ego feel better. Your ego can make all the compromises you want it to and you are welcome to dilute down as much as you would like.

​

 

[Wayne]

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.

We are in complete agreement.

 

[Rudeofus]

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 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.

It's a case of false economy when your price per film goes below a certain point.

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.

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.

 

[bvy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

David Lyga fully embraces both the content and intent of this comment. I AM doing things way off the mark, theoretically, and that is enough to cause great concern. However, my finger is not poised upon the nuclear bomb button and my results are very satisfying. That said, I welcome caution in your comments, but I will still keep doing what I am doing because the results, and cost benefits, are more than considerable. Besides, others have asked me to expound here: am I to deny their 'wayward' attempts with exploring this process?

All comments are welcomed but, really Rudeofus, why did you get to hog all the brains when they were being passed out? - David Lyga

 

[chuck94022]

David, if your finger was poised upon the nuclear bomb button the world would be safe, because you would not allow the explosion to come all at once, but you would connive to release the tiniest amounts of the most diluted, diminutive, yet perfect poof possible, providing a safe, artistic, tiny mushroom for all of us to photograph.

 

[David Lyga]

This is not true chuck because I do not believe in nuclear bombs.

Here is my original post from 31 DEC 2012:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

My dilutions/precise procedure might be a bit different in some cases, but use the ones I most recently posted in 2016.

 

[Murray Kelly]

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 used the diluted method and been pleased. More pleased than with a lot of 1-hour 'laboratories' run by someone who has none or little knowledge of the process being used.
My personal variation on David's system is to dilute the developer with a buffer solution at the preferred pH. I don't add a measured volume of carbonate crystals. At such a dilution it doesn't even have to be 30-40g/L but half or less. Still much more than than the active ingredients' final concentration. I do this often with B&W stand developing as I suspect high dilution will, even with monochrome, change the pH more than desired.
Bottom line for me is - it works. Try it before you dump on it.

 

[MattKing]

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!

One correction Murray: way more than half of all the remaining wedding photographers out there are "She" not "He".
Otherwise, I agree .

 

[Murray Kelly]

SRI Matt, as I wrote that I knew I should take the extra second to put both but failed. Mea culpa.
It occurs to me that if asked, I'll bet H C-B would give you a blank look if you asked him the D max of his prints etc.

 

[trendland]

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 I know part "C" is allways the problem - but a little question to your
plastic bottles David :
What kind of bottles from the supermarked do you mean?
There are many types.
As I noticed to a long time the "normal"
bottles (coke 1,5L) are with a very thinn
thickness.
The theme here is the defundation of gass (oxygen).
ALL BOTTLES are PET - I thought.

Do you mean the bottles to juice (1L )
They are with an größter thickness.

I am not as sure as to be but they are
also in use (same PET product) from
ROLLEI DIGIBASE.

Do you think also (Orange Juice,Red Orange Juice)
Stable but not too stable - so you can handle 1L as 0,7 L in many variations
without oxigen?

with regards

 

[David Lyga]

You 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.

 

[trendland]

You 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.

Yes thanks a lot - I don't see it different
David (to the white colored milk bottles )
have proved it but don't like it.
I guess we mentioned the same stuff -
and I think they are identical with some
packaging of manufacturer (Rollei).
Last word to : Storage in darkness - I have still an old wooden container from
my first darkroom.
Inside it is dark enought to the bottles
and outside you can see the color of the
chemicals because of the clear plastic.
Thats great.
Ok - with your argumention I was a little
stupid to Pay for - but it was the first
Red-Orange (natural pressed) juice
ever I was drinking.Smelling realy bad
but gold vor healthy.

Well realy stupid was to buy one JOBO
2L canister in the 80th ($ 7,99).

with regards

 

[Berri]

I wouldn't use this method although it seems appealing for its economical characteristics. I wouldn't use it because tetenal kit in 2.5L is just right for my needs and it proved to give me good results in the printing step too. I process about 40 rolls and it lasts a long time in dark brown glass bottle filled with gas and stoppered tightly. That makes 0.9€ each roll I process, not bad.

 

[trendland]

I would agree with you berri - but thinking to economical issues, you mentioned it - the idea is not bad.
What is economical?
In the 70th I remember to my first bw films- the labs I have wanted first $,50
to each developement (135 films).
Some years later it was $0,70 each film.
Then I had to pay $1,10 - at this time I desided to make my own developement
with Neofin Blue :$ 3,95 to 5/10 bw films (just look at the beutler formula in regard to economy).
Today I was allways laughing on the way
to my lab.
Requesting the price to bw film developement..
They guarated me after I just request in
2005 $3,95 to each 120 film in bw.for decades: "This price you will have ever.
It won't become higher at all"
2 years later they can't remember their given guarantee : $4,50.It has done no mater to me since 1979!!
I asked just from interrest several times after that.
$5,95,$6,50,$7,95.
Last price was (from 2015) : $11,95??

NEARLY 12 BUGS TO A SIMPLE BW FILM
DEVELOPMENT WITH STANDARD REPLUNISHED BW DEVELOPER ?

I can't believe that.

They stated :"Yes - but it is with scans"
What kind of scans with cd ?

Resolution somewhere from mind in 1200x1800.
But I still don't need these scans.

There last sentence :"Sorry but the price
for development is $11,95 even with no scans".

I have an idea of $14,50 (with smal scans in 2017) perhaps I should als again .

Notice the cheap prices to c-41 chemicals today are without guarantee.
In a few years you will love any economical method - and don't forget this - berri.

$14,50 vor bw development


with regards


PS-allways laughing on the way to his lab

 

[OptiKen]

Thank you, David.
Without people like you we would never have Caffenol or Pyro HD, for that matter.
In fact, all developers today had to start in somebody's kitchen sink.
I'm going to try your process. I am tired of having to dispose of my chemicals long before I think that I should have to.

 

[dmr]

I dilute this liter of developer (that I just mixed, above) a whopping 1 + 9.

So 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 ...

 

[trendland]

So 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 ...

Well dmr - as I understand most of this thread correct (I am not absolute sure but I hope ).....this is an alternate C-41 process
created by David Lyga itself (with a lot of work
obviously).
If I can follow the replys (from understanding) this thread is splitting some experts from beliving if these methods of David Lyga will produce excellent C-41 results.
Perhaps this is one reason of your genuine curiousity you stated in an other
thread.
MY OPINION TO THE STATEMENT OF SOME OTHERS IS : THIS IS NO FAIR PLAY AT ALL.

Because : No one is forced to use this method.It is without guarantee.

And to have doubts is ok.....I personaly
have doubts very often - to lots of thinks but for me it is just the basis to get to my own judgements.

And to have doubts in quality of C-41 process? It is on some bad labs and their
exorbitant prices.

Not on the results of David Lyga because
this is a C-41 alternative.!!!!


with regards