Issues with first roll of non expired film

Hey guys! I've decided to post my questions here after getting tons of help from other threads here found off google in the past.

I've recently started to get into C-41 color film, and am developing it myself. However, previously I had only ever shot and developed expired film (~20 years out of date, not refrigerated). This is now my second roll of non-expired film I have developed, and it is Kodak gold 200, nice and cheap. The first roll I developed slipped off the reel in the tank, which lead to as you may imagine, bad results. With this roll, I had issues getting it onto the reel in the dark, but once it was on there was no issues. I blocked the exit of the reel with a piece of plastic, so the same thing as last time wouldn't happen.

A number of issues occurred when developing:
One thermometer was used to measure both the temperature of the blix and developer solution, and there may have been cross contamination, but not much. I'll be running a few test frames to see if the developer is completely done. However I had divided my working solutions in half, so I used the known good other half for this roll

On the edges of every few frames, there is a dark spot. On some shots, this overflows into the exposed area. It is worst at the end of the roll that was exposed first. (see exposures 12 and 15 on 0.jpeg, the first image)

The other issue is these weird wavy lines on approximately half of the roll, see exposures 9, 10, 12 on the images below, or 15 above)
My apologies if the images above imbed poorly, I've never used this forum software before. Also, the dark lines are on the wall I'm using as a lighting source, its the best I have right now.

So, my questions, which I would be most grateful if someone could answer:
How do I know if I got too much blix in the developer?
What could have caused the dark spots at the edge?
What could have caused the wavy lines?

This has not happened on any other roll, no part of the process was different, other than it being a new type of film(from amazon), and no other roll has has light leaks or other issues. Photos shot with a Canon EOS Elan II.

Thank you for any and all help.

Looks like a light leak to me. Coming from the cassette cap being opened where there was still light in the room. Cell phone in the darkroom with you, lighting up on its own while handling the film? Smart watch in the changing bag? Or possibly a problem with the top of the camera's film door...

Donald Qualls said:

Looks like a light leak to me. Coming from the cassette cap being opened where there was still light in the room. Cell phone in the darkroom with you, lighting up on its own while handling the film? Smart watch in the changing bag? Or possibly a problem with the top of the camera's film door...

Click to expand...

Both darker spots would be caused by that?

I made sure to put my watch in my pocket, and put my phone on do not disturb, but that could be an issue. I'll check the film door too.

Are you sure this would have happened while on the roll? The length between the spots seems to somewhat line up with the circumference of the film reel, but I haven't precisely checked.

Thank you for your thoughts!

An edge leak like that could affect multiple frames, where the film layers one on top of the other (consecutive turns on the spool), either in the dark bag/room or in the camera. If film door, most likely it's at the take up end, since you have the same on multiple frames about one spool turn apart. Another possibility is that a leak on the straight part of the strip could repeat when the camera sat for longer between advances, and be less noticeable (even invisible) where you shot multiple frames in succession. That won't necessarily have even spacing.

If it lines up with the film reel, then it has to be in the dark bag/room during loading, or tank didn't get correctly sealed, or something of the sort happening before or during development (not afterward, fogging later wouldn't get developed, just fixed away).

Excellent, thanks for your help! The light seals on the camera are not foam, they're just hard plastic, similar to the light locks on some developing tanks. I use a very old developing tank (1960's), and a windowless bathroom, so I'll check if the light leaks line up on the reel. I also left the film to sit in the tank for longer than normal while I troubleshooted a thermometer, so there was a greater chance of light leaks having an effect.

Edit: The light leaks line up in the tank, and they face the top of the tank where light may come in. One half of the light lock may also jostle loose, I'll make sure to check next run, and perhaps not have as bright of light on the tank, as well as have less time with it sitting in the unprotected tank.

If that 1960s tank is Bakelite, it might have a crack that can fog film directly beneath it, but be quite hard to actually see. Most modern plastic tanks are made of ABS or polypropylene, which are much more resilient than Bakelite.

A brand new Paterson tank, including a single reel (holds 35mm or 120, depending on adjustment) is around US$40 here; if it seems possible you've got a cracked tank, that's what I'd suggest as a replacement.

Where in Canada are you? If you are nearby, I could probably help with some underused developing equipment - in a socially distanced manner of course!.

MattKing said:

Where in Canada are you? If you are nearby, I could probably help with some underused developing equipment - in a socially distanced manner of course!.

Click to expand...

Aww that's very kind of you! Unfortunately I'm in Ontario though, and I think that's a bit beyond even social distancing distance sadly.

Donald Qualls said:

If that 1960s tank is Bakelite, it might have a crack that can fog film directly beneath it, but be quite hard to actually see. Most modern plastic tanks are made of ABS or polypropylene, which are much more resilient than Bakelite.

A brand new Paterson tank, including a single reel (holds 35mm or 120, depending on adjustment) is around US$40 here; if it seems possible you've got a cracked tank, that's what I'd suggest as a replacement.

Click to expand...

Well crap, its hard black plastic and it looks pretty close to other samples of bakelite I have. I'll see if I can find any cracks and what I can do about them, I could buy a new tank but they're 70-80 CAD here, and long shipping times, if in stock at all. I probably should get a new one though.

Oh, and going back to the original post, any way to tell if the developer is done other than doing a test piece of film?

That film looks pretty good, aside from the light leaks. Was this a quart/liter C-41 kit, or mixed to volume from larger mini-lab concentrates? If it's a kit, they're generally good for at least eight rolls from the liter, and if you're willing to add a little time to the process as you go and don't have a colorimeter eyeball, up to twice that count. If you were following the one-shot mixing using Developer Replenisher and Developer Starter, mixing only what was needed to fill your tank, you should probably assume it's used up and discard it (through correct disposal channels) and mix fresh for each film -- or at least each session.

Separate bleach and fixer will both keep pretty well -- fixer is good for at least eight rolls to the liter (again, maybe up to twice that if you stretch the time as you go), and bleach will last almost forever with addition of a little bromide and some aeration from time to time. Blix, on the other hand, doesn't last anything like as well -- but what comes in a kit is still good for the minimum of 8 rolls, possibly as much as double that.

Donald Qualls said:

That film looks pretty good, aside from the light leaks. Was this a quart/liter C-41 kit, or mixed to volume from larger mini-lab concentrates? If it's a kit, they're generally good for at least eight rolls from the liter, and if you're willing to add a little time to the process as you go and don't have a colorimeter eyeball, up to twice that count. If you were following the one-shot mixing using Developer Replenisher and Developer Starter, mixing only what was needed to fill your tank, you should probably assume it's used up and discard it (through correct disposal channels) and mix fresh for each film -- or at least each session.

Separate bleach and fixer will both keep pretty well -- fixer is good for at least eight rolls to the liter (again, maybe up to twice that if you stretch the time as you go), and bleach will last almost forever with addition of a little bromide and some aeration from time to time. Blix, on the other hand, doesn't last anything like as well -- but what comes in a kit is still good for the minimum of 8 rolls, possibly as much as double that.

Click to expand...

It was a liter kit, from powders. It says that its good for at least 12 rolls on the package (of 24 exposures, which is what I have been doing). The film looks good, but that's because only 500ml was contaminated, this is developed with the other 500. I'm not concerned about exhaustion of the developer, I'm concerned about the fact that blix got into it(but less than a drop).

No idea what one shot mixing is, this kit has blix which came in two powders but I didn't want to risk using them separately given this is my first kit for developing.

Online I've seen some "replenisher" kits, once I'm done my 12 or 24 or however many rolls, do I need to buy all new solutions, or do packages exist of just those that get exhausted?

knotimpressed said:

I could buy a new tank but they're 70-80 CAD here, and long shipping times, if in stock at all. I probably should get a new one though.

Click to expand...

These AP tanks at Downtown Camera are quite good, come with two reels that I actually prefer to the Paterson ones and are compatible with Paterson: https://downtowncamera.com/shop/ap-...bd5c-0138-a4e8-00163ecd2826?variation=2762000

Found a link!

So for example, this product here : https://www.argentix.ca/techdata.php?=SID&pno=816&mq= is only 2 solutions, and it says "fixer/replenisher". Replenisher here confuses me, is this to replenish an exhausted kit, or is it just the 2 chemicals to use instead of blix?

Or what about this one? https://www.argentix.ca/techdata.php?=SID&pno=817&mq= the title is "Kodak C41 LORR Flexicolor developer & replenisher-5 liters", and says it has solutions "A B and C", but its 5 liters of working solution for under half of what I paid for only 1 liter. What does this kit actually contain?

MattKing said:

These AP tanks at Downtown Camera are quite good, come with two reels that I actually prefer to the Paterson ones and are compatible with Paterson: https://downtowncamera.com/shop/ap-...bd5c-0138-a4e8-00163ecd2826?variation=2762000

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't refresh the page so I didn't catch your post. That's excellent to hear they're in stock, when I looked a month ago the pickings were pretty slim. I'll see if I can get down there to pick one up, or just order it.

knotimpressed said:

How do I know if I got too much blix in the developer?

Click to expand...

If you were able to actually SEE any go in, it was too much. If you wanna test the developer, just process an unexposed piece of film and look at it. It should be just as "clear" as other film. If there was any blix in the developer then the clear part of the film will get noticeably darker. (This is provided that the developer is not "dead," so if it's been a long time since the contamination you might want to also process a short piece of exposed film to make sure the developer is still capable of working.)

knotimpressed said:

Oh, and going back to the original post, any way to tell if the developer is done other than doing a test piece of film?

Click to expand...

Nope, at least no sensible way.

Mr Bill said:

If you were able to actually SEE any go in, it was too much. If you wanna test the developer, just process an unexposed piece of film and look at it. It should be just as "clear" as other film. If there was any blix in the developer then the clear part of the film will get noticeably darker. (This is provided that the developer is not "dead," so if it's been a long time since the contamination you might want to also process a short piece of exposed film to make sure the developer is still capable of working.)



Nope, at least no sensible way.

Click to expand...

I didn't see any go in, the thermometer just was dipped into the blix and then the developer about a minute later, with a thin coating on it I assume.

Thank you so much for your tip with the unexposed film though, the contamination was last night, so I'll test with an unexposed piece of film as soon as I figure out how to do that. Last night I did super sloppily process a piece of exposed film, but it was the "leader" of the roll, and light was on it while developing, so I'm not sure how good of a test it was. It did come out just as black as other leaders though.

Anyone have any ideas what the product links I posted actually are? Just wondering given I may have to buy more soon...

knotimpressed said:

Anyone have any ideas what the product links I posted actually are? Just wondering given I may have to buy more soon...

Click to expand...

The links you refer to are different sizes of packaging and slightly different formulations of the chemicals listed in Kodak's CIS211. Here is a link to a slightly older version.
If you read through this, you should get a better sense for how to use the full set of Kodak process chemicals.
https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/cis211-2010_08.pdf

Ah I see, so the 1.2L of developer can only be used in a one shot, but the developer and replenisher (or other solutions) can be used multiple times by replenishing it. I didn't understand it as everything I had seen and heard about was one solution used without changing.

Alright that makes more sense then, the cost makes more sense then too.

Are these chemicals less change-tolerant(age, temperature of developing, etc) than "press kits"?

And if I was to buy a 2L powder kit but only mix 1L, I assume that has a good chance of not working out?

knotimpressed said:

I didn't see any go in, the thermometer just was dipped into the blix and then the developer about a minute later, with a thin coating on it I assume.

Click to expand...

If it were me, then, and I was doing critical work, I'd probably just dump the developer. I'm assuming that it's a small quantity, like a liter or so. If it were a larger amount, say 20 liters or more, it might be an immeasurable effect, but...

If you're just experimenting, and the work is not critical, it might be worth trying it out. But the effect will be greater in an image, probably in just the cyan dye layer. I suggested to just look at the clear base because it usually is obvious here, and I presume you don't have the means to check further. If you were a commercial lab what you would do is to run what they call a "process control strip," an accurately pre-exposed piece of film from the manufacturer, then read the test patches with a densitometer. This would show up ANY detrimental effect. But without such a capability your options are pretty much just to see if there is any obvious problem; if yes, then dump the developer; if no obvious problem, perhaps flip a coin.

Updating before I post: thinking a bit further, and going from some past experience, I'd guess that you won't be able to see any difference in processed film. But you almost have to do the test to be sure.

Mr Bill said:

If it were me, then, and I was doing critical work, I'd probably just dump the developer. I'm assuming that it's a small quantity, like a liter or so. If it were a larger amount, say 20 liters or more, it might be an immeasurable effect, but...

If you're just experimenting, and the work is not critical, it might be worth trying it out. But the effect will be greater in an image, probably in just the cyan dye layer. I suggested to just look at the clear base because it usually is obvious here, and I presume you don't have the means to check further. If you were a commercial lab what you would do is to run what they call a "process control strip," an accurately pre-exposed piece of film from the manufacturer, then read the test patches with a densitometer. This would show up ANY detrimental effect. But without such a capability your options are pretty much just to see if there is any obvious problem; if yes, then dump the developer; if no obvious problem, perhaps flip a coin.

Updating before I post: thinking a bit further, and going from some past experience, I'd guess that you won't be able to see any difference in processed film. But you almost have to do the test to be sure.

Click to expand...

I’m not doing critical work, and I have expired film I’m willing to sacrifice, if it saves me from spending $20 of my broke student budget. Here’s my plan, feel free to correct any issues or make suggestions:

expose an entire roll of expired film, then in the dark room pull out the leader. Measure out the film until I get to where the images should be, cut out the first one or few, recognizing at least one image will be sacrificed and cut in half, roll the film back into the canister, then develop the cut piece, compare image, clear and exposed parts to other previously developed film. I think that should cover all my bases.

knotimpressed said:

I’m not doing critical work, and I have expired film I’m willing to sacrifice, if it saves me from spending $20 of my broke student budget. Here’s my plan, feel free to correct any issues or make suggestions:

Click to expand...

I almost quoted one of my old lines, back from my younger days. It's, "What do you have more of, time or money?" So this frequently controls our decisions. I tend to presume that anyone who is processing color film, one shot developer, no less, has more free money. But I guess not so in this case.

I'd probably modify the testing plan, then. Since you're talking about leader, I presume you're using 35mm film. So how about this: load the camera and take one test shot. Then go in your darkroom and open the camera back. Cut the film right behind the exposure, and this is all you need to process. You still have the rest of the roll for other purposes. Put a note on it about the amount you cut off, so you won't be surprised, in the future, to run out of film 4 or 5 shots early.

Of course this won't be a critical comparison, but if you're scanning you can probably fix anything up.

Mr Bill said:

I almost quoted one of my old lines, back from my younger days. It's, "What do you have more of, time or money?" So this frequently controls our decisions. I tend to presume that anyone who is processing color film, one shot developer, no less, has more free money. But I guess not so...

Click to expand...

I like quotes like that.

That’s certainly an interesting idea, I’d do a few shots so I could wind one turn on the reel and test for light leaks too. I could also do a few more so I wouldn’t have to advance the film to the take up spool, wasting exposures.

If I can’t find anything to shoot, I think I’ll go with your idea. If I can though, I’ll just expose the whole roll with things I care about, and since I have known good developer (just 500 ml), I can just develop the other part of the film right after in good developer. The cost of messing up a roll of expired film is way less than messing up the camera (Shutter curtains don’t like being jabbed with scissors), or messing up the way the film goes onto the take up reel.

You make it seem like one shot developer is way more expensive than other options, is that what I’m using though? I thought one shot only developed one batch of film, where as mine develops 12 rolls before being exhausted. Perhaps I’ve just been “scammed” into using one shot developer, as it has no replenisher, for multiple rolls?

I bought the kit I did because it was the cheapest up front cost, but if going forwards there is an even slightly cheaper but more time-expensive option, particularly if it keeps longer, I’d be glad to hear it.

Edit: Also, I just wanted to say this is one of the kindest forums I’ve come across, and I’m very grateful for all of your help. I never would have expected to have gotten this far ahead in what went wrong and how to fix it in 24 hours, and am very pleasantly surprised.

In general, the per-roll cheapest way to process color will be whatever the commercial labs use -- if you can use it with your processing volume. That's replenished developer, replenished/regenerated bleach, and replenished fixer.

The problem with color chemical replenishment is the process is designed to handle, at minimum, dozens of rolls a day, where most home users will process dozens of rolls a year. Some replenishment regimens are still usable in this low volume -- Xtol, for instance, doesn't much care if it's two weeks between uses, as long as it's in a tight bottle with air excluded. The same may not be (probably isn't) true of color developer. One issue that comes up is very small changes in activity of color developer (changes that would be detectable in B&W only if you ran a densitometer on every single roll) can result in color casts (annoying to correct in printing or scanning) or crossovers (impossible to correct in printing, very difficult to correct in post-scanning). This is because balanced color is dependent on three or four emulsion layers in the film getting the exact specified amount of development, where two or three of them get their developer by diffusion through layers above (the cyan-forming layer in Fuji films has three emulsion layers and a filter layer, plus one or more inert gelatin layers, overlaying it). Everything is balanced for the exact combination of time, temperature, and developer activity to give the right contrast levels in each layer to produce color that's balanced across the entire range of exposure.

Change the contrast of one layer (by, say, processing too cold, or using developer that's too exhausted or alternately over-replenished and too active) and that balance will be thrown off.

Add to that the relatively large up-front cost of buying the large sizes of concentrates for mini-lab chemicals (makes 20L is the standard size for Flexicolor Color Developer Replenisher), need for starter, difficult of testing for exhaution in chemicals you'll reuse, and cost of chemicals you'll discard because it's impractical to maintain a replenished line at home lab volumes, and you wind up back to shopping price against quality of results in "press kits" that are usually designed to process anywhere from six to sixteen rolls in a liter of chemical before discarding them.

The alternative is that you can mix your own color developer. There are recipes available for C-41 work-alike developer, and the chemicals aren't too hard to source; there are also some variants like Dignan's two-bath C-41 (which I've used with good results) -- a reusable (because no exhaustion in use) Bath A that contains the developing agent, preservative, etc., and a one-shot (and very cheap) Bath B that's just the accelerator (sodium carbonate). This developer is also relatively insensitive to temperature, because it develops to the exhaustion of the first bath that carries over in the gelatin; that condition also manages the relative development levels of the various emulsion layers. If you're mainly after cheap this is what I'd suggest -- any temperature above 80F seems to work, it's very cheap to use (just exclude air from the Bath A when closing it), and the results I had were quite good. You can mix your own bleach (potassium ferricyanide and potassium bromide works well) and use any alkaline rapid fixer (though C-41 fixer is preferred, because it might contain other stuff that's important to the film), then finish with a real C-41 Final Rinse, which costs only a little more per film than PhotoFlo 200. Stabilizer hasn't been required for films made since around 2000.

Back around 2007, I used this process with the Dignan 2-bath developer and Flexicolor (separate) bleach and fixer and was able to process C-41 film for about forty cents a roll. It's probably more now, but it's unlikely to be more than the couple bucks a roll you'll spend on C-41 kits. It does, of course, require you be comfortable mixing your own developer (and willing to treat the first few rolls as guinea pigs until you're confident in the process). The only way to beat it for cost per roll would be to run replenishment on enough rolls a day to make that process work as designed -- and the cost of the unexposed film to do that would break a college student (unless there's a very wealthy parent subsidizing the operation).

Donald Qualls said:

In general, the per-roll cheapest way to process color will be whatever the commercial labs use -- if you can use it with your processing volume. That's replenished developer, replenished/regenerated bleach, and replenished fixer...

Click to expand...

Woah, thank you so much for that info. That seems like a very attractive option, I'll see what it would take to source those chemicals and what else would be involved with it. I'll definitely consider it for my next rolls once this kit is done. The whole way the process works seems to be more superior from a consistency point of view, to me at least.

Whatttttt, I don't need stabilizer? The stuff in this kit is straight hexamine, nothing else, and it took like 4 rolls before I got it to stop forming crystals as it dried. My expired film is from before 2000, but are you saying for new film I don't have to soak it in stabilizer after the rinse after blix?

That's an approximate date, but yes, the stabilizers are "baked in" for color emulsions made over roughly the past twenty years, meaning there's no need for stabilizer with current-date or recently expired C-41 films. If you have film that needs stabilizer, however, after the post-blix wash, and before the final rinse is the correct sequence. I'd expect the final rinse to remove enough of the hexamine from the film to stop crystals from forming following the stabilizer.

Honestly, I don't recommend C-41 replenishment for a home worker -- the rate is too variable (depends on type of film processed, as well as roll length/area) and to really keep your process in line you also have to run control strips regularly (which can be hard to find in date) and be able to read them (a learned skill, and from my understanding also requires instruments). Further, I don't know where you'd buy either Kodak or Fuji C-41chemicals in Canada -- lots of stuff seems harder to get or more expensive there than south of the border, and even here in the States Flexicolor can be hard to come by for a consumer (labs get it from distributors who won't even talk to the likes of us, we're dependent on such companies being willing to resell some of what they buy). There's only one reliable source I know in the US for the full Flexicolor line, for instance -- and you'll drop a pretty good wad getting everything first time out, though over time it's the Developer Replenisher you'll use the most of, even if you're one-shotting the color developer as is often recommended.

On the other hand, CD-4 might be hard to come by in the Great White North, too. If you can find a source of that at a cost you can live with, however, I'd be happy to post the Dignan recipe as I've used it.