Just how bad is blix vs bleach & fixer?

[hrst]

I should rephrase my wish - by inexpensive I mean in hobby level quantities, not 50 gallons of the stuff.

http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/fuji-hunt-c41-x-press-kit-5l-680-p.asp

 

[Photo Engineer]

I can tell you how to make your own RA-4 Blix and your own C-41 bleach and fix. That is about it.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

I just lost a long far more detailed reply

Ron (PE) runs down just about every non Kodak or Fuji product, especially C41 / E6 blix, he's MR KODAK because he worked on them, which means sweet FA to the rest of the world.

If anyone mentions a non Kodak Blix then Ron rubbishes it or the company. Unicolor have been trading 40 years, sure I heard of problems with their blix that's nearly 30 years ago now, and I had problems with chemistry from another small company (still trading) around that time too.

But since the Internet came along I've never seen anyone with a problem. I've used Photocolor chemistry extensively (about 25 years), I worked as a Photo-chemist there were NO problems. I've also seen many thousands of prints (off Photocolor II negs) & slides made with Photocolor chemistry there were NO differences to Kodak, Fuji, Konica etc.

Photo Systems Inc, should read Ron's comments, he has ZERO knowledge of their current products and so they could sue him into oblivion . . . . . .

Last time I said that the company ceased trading Agfa DID begin a legal action . . . . . and the US company folded . . . . .

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

Kodak does not make a film compatible Blix. Nor do any of the major film or chemical companies.

I have mentioned no company names regarding film Blixes, except in the one quote about Pippard's Ferrania kit, just generic comments on Blixes for films. This has been a well known problem but has not been reported on for several years in the photo magazines. I have just commented positively on Trebla products which is producing a bleach then fix. Since I have also "endorsed" Fuji products, maybe Trebla and Fuji will pay my legal fees if any?

I admit to not having done any tests since I retired! I was not doing any before that, but was kept informed. Then again, by looking at the MSDS sheets, I see that the two part Blixes for film have not change substantially in the last 20+ years. In fact, the Kodak Bleach chemistry has changed more than most of the others. I have not looked up the single part Blixes for information. (see below)

I worked as a photo engineer for 32 years designing and testing photo materials of one sort or another.

I have added over and over again that if it works for you, then use it. As far as endorsing Kodak products, I do know that every type of color film Kodak sells is tested in authentic C-41 chemistry and is designed to develop, bleach, fix and "stabilze" in that chemistry. I can also say that Fuji chemistry matches Kodak's chemistry and follows the same process sequence. I cannot say that this is true of every other combination of color chemistry and color film. My tests when I worked on the project said "no". Basically, we have disclosed this in our patent. So, if I can be sued based on what is in a US patent, well then that goes beyond the pale.

Now, how does telling a published truth constitute anything legally actionable. The truth is this....

Kodak, Fuji, Trebla, Agfa, Konica, and Ferrania to name 6 major producers of chemistry, all make or made a Bleach then Fix process not a Blix process even though it was possible and would have given them a competetive advantage. The C-41 film family is designed and optimized by Kodak and Fuji for the true C-41 process. This is also true of the E6 film family and process.

People have complained about the single solution Blix here on APUG. This is a separate but related problem. If you get a Blix strong enough it may not be very stable.

We know what Bleach bypass looks like in C-41 type films. That is the extreme. A film Blix can give results that fall somewhere between good (normal) results and Bleach bypass. Sometimes, it requires enlargement to see the grain or sharpness problems, and sometimes it requires direct comparison to see the color problems. In any event, I have said this before as well. If you are happy with your results, then by all means use the process of choice.

I am not a corporation, I am a retired photo engineer expressing an opinion based on years of R&D experience in this field, and I am also a graduate chemist. Developers, blixes, fixes, films, emulsions and papers that I worked on or designed myself have been commerciallized. I will not speculate or comment on Ian's qualifications in this field.

PE

 

[Tim Gray]

http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/fuji-hunt-c41-x-press-kit-5l-680-p.asp

Shipping to the US might be a problem

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tim;

Fuji sells in the US as well. IDK if that kit is available here, I didn't look it up specifically, but if so, that is a good bet.

I get no payola from this endorsement.

PE

 

[keithwms]

Photo Systems Inc, should read Ron's comments, he has ZERO knowledge of their current products and so they could sue him into oblivion . . . . . .

A bit extreme for comments given for free, eh? Are we all legally responsible for endorsements we give? If I say I prefer fuji to kodak....

Surely you jest!

 

[Ray Rogers]

A bit extreme for comments given for free, eh? Are we all legally responsible for endorsements we give? If I say I prefer fuji to kodak....

Surely you jest!

Free or otherwise I would say!

But sometimes "identification" with a product, group or company, leads to unexpected behavour in defense of the group... and I must say there is some truth in what Ian wrote; I have seen it live and in person!

But the shortcommings of blixes vs the processes done separately are rather well known... I myself have known for years, and I was not even interested in it.

I think everyone could benefit if we went back to basics, and Ian or someone capable of speaking on behalf of ... uh what exact product are you defending Ian? - and that chemistry were discussed. Perhaps Ron might find something he missed by allowing it to slip under his radar. Or, Ian might find Kodak Research was pretty spot on after all.

Anyhow, what I am seeing is fuzziness here as to the exact products, their chemists, their research publications, the resulting product and an honest evaluation and comparison of product performance... by anyone.

Did Ian's group overcome the problem of blixes that Ron mentions and if so, how?

Can't any one provide a direct comparison, or, look at the chemistry in more depth? Where is that chemist now? (Is he still with us?) Perhaps he would like to comment?

In anycase, if we stick to methods, data and comparisons, things might remain more sane.

(Less interesting, but hey, we can't have everthing can we?! )

 

[L Gebhardt]

I never had any noticeable problems with the Tetenal C41 kit, but have moved on to using the Kodak kits several years ago. I have not done any side by side testing, but I seem to be getting negatives that print easier since the switch. Of course in that time I have changed many variables, from a new color head to several more years of experience printing. But some of the older negatives are still harder to print than they should be. I don't know if this is related to using a Blix or not.

It would be interesting to do a test to see if there are noticeable differences between the products. However this isn't something I really want to tackle at this time. I'd still be too worried about the keeping properties of the Blixed film to trust it, even if it looked exactly the same.

I am now out of Kodak Bleach III and have ordered some Trebla bleach III, which I will be trying in the next few weeks. At $110 for 20L it isn't cheap, but on a per film basis it's not bad at all (and I can get it shipped, unlike the Kodak product from the big photoshops). It says it can be replenished at 12ml/sqft, but I'm not sure how well that will work with the Jobo. I still need to do some research into how much it can be reused or replenished.

 

[brucemuir]

Just to clarify, a blix could result in

Sharpness issues,
problems with color accuracy,
less or no archival stability

am I missing anything?

My strategy will be to use the 2 Unicolor C41 powdered kits to familiarize myself with the process/testing and then try to source the chemicals for the complete process with a bleach then fix. It will more than likely be cheaper per roll with bulk chemicals although I don't shoot massive amounts of c 41 material.

The results I got with my very first attempt at this with the Unicolor kit were quite nice with some Portra 160NC and it s*anned with very little color correction.

I do have an Artista E6 kit (those are all liquid I believe and use a blix also) that I haven't tried yet.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bruce;

I say again;

Possible issues are sharpness, and color contamination along with some increase in grain when the image is magnified. There are no issues related to archival stability as far as I know if the process includes a good wash and a good stabizer or final rinse.

PE

 

[stradibarrius]

I just received my LIQUID Arista c-41 kitfrom Freestyle. It is a Blix kit but the is a 3 part liquid as is the developer. The stabilizer is only one part. All are concentrated and must be mixed to gether with water.
I hope to try processing some c-41 film today or tomorrow.

Photographers Formulary is soon to release a C-41 kit that has seperate bleach and fix. This is what I was told by them last week.
I thought I would try the Arista 3 part liquid kit for now.
Do you think the blix being 3 separate parts and being liquid will be better?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I get about 20 email messages or PMs each day and try to answer them. Sometimes 50% of them come from Ray who always gets an answer. I am not sure what Ray is referring to as "live and in person". The last time I saw him in person, we had a cordial discussion in which I showed him some of my hand coatings and he took some photos of me.

The point is that my answers are from the POV of a Kodak person because that is what I know and where I worked. I can't discuss Ilford or Agfa methodology because I never worked there. My information on their work is at best second hand. So, there is some "identification", but this does not mean endorsement nor approval. I do use Ilford B&W film and I have used Ilford B&W paper for years. I also used Kentmere until they vanished.

I cannot comment on the POV expressed by Ian, as I know nothing of it for all practical purposes.

In the subject of bleach then fix vs blixes, I rely on the backing of 6 companies mentioned above for their agreement in this area. The big companies don't make a blix for any film even though it is possible.

But sometimes "identification" with a product, group or company, leads to unexpected behavour in defense of the group... and I must say there is some truth in what Ian wrote; I have seen it live and in person!

Thank GOD. Someone else is aware of the problem. Thank you Ray. This was common knowledge years ago, as I said above and has generally faded out of the information stream current today.

But the shortcommings of blixes vs the processes done separately are rather well known... I myself have known for years, and I was not even interested in it.

...............

Can't any one provide a direct comparison, or, look at the chemistry in more depth? Where is that chemist now? (Is he still with us?) Perhaps he would like to comment?

In anycase, if we stick to methods, data and comparisons, things might remain more sane.

(Less interesting, but hey, we can't have everthing can we?! )

The data comparisons appear to be absent in the patent. I just skimmed it though. The data I read over says that the blixes that were not of the invention took 2x or more of the time to clear the film of silver and silver halide than the blixes of the invention. I would have to review the patent in more detail.

I can go on to say that the data was obtained, and was derived from x-ray fluorescence of silver retention and analysis of photomicrographs. If it were not available, the patent would not have issued.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I just received my LIQUID Arista c-41 kitfrom Freestyle. It is a Blix kit but the is a 3 part liquid as is the developer. The stabilizer is only one part. All are concentrated and must be mixed to gether with water.
I hope to try processing some c-41 film today or tomorrow.

Photographers Formulary is soon to release a C-41 kit that has seperate bleach and fix. This is what I was told by them last week.
I thought I would try the Arista 3 part liquid kit for now.
Do you think the blix being 3 separate parts and being liquid will be better?

It may be. IDK. If two of the parts are the reddish liquid, this will improve the chance of having a good blix. I am trying to gather information on this to explain it.

PE

 

[stradibarrius]

Blix A&B are clear but blix C is very dark brown/redish?

I had ask a similar question last week about trying to put together a specific list of kodak chemicals needed for C-41. I think a good list was compiled but the issue then became sourcing them.
B&H carries them but in store sales only.

The folks at Photographers Formulary said they were aware of the demand for the C-41 kit with seperate bleach and fix so that is why they were about to release it. They also said they will be able to ship.
I told them that there was quite a bit of interest here at APUG. Maybe if more of us would call and inquire they will release it soon???

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, you see that they went the other way. You need more oxidant, not more fix power. They appear to have added more fix power. IDK, can't really do more than guess from this, but that is the way it appears. I am working on some examples.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

How to live with a blix - or not.

Yes, you can make a film blix!

Now, let me explain the consequences and the reasons behind the problems.

1. Ammonium Ferric EDTA only comes as a liquid of about 40% concentration or about 400 g/l.

2. Ammonium Thiosulfate only comes as a liquid of about 60% concentration or about 600 g/l.

3. Sodium salts of the above are less soluble and come as powders. They are far less active than the ammonium salts.


Now, let us look at the E6 bleach and fix concentrates. The bleach itself consists of 2 bottles that total to approximately 3 Liters all on their own. The fixer consists of one bottle of 423 ml. Each of these makes up 1 gallon or 3.8 L of solution.

If you mixed each one up and then mixed them together to make a blix, the resultant mixture would be 50% more dilute than the original leading to less activity.

If you mix them together in 1 gallon (3.8 L) then they have the same working strength as desired in separate bleach and fix, but the oxidation and reduction power of the two main ingredients conflict and the solution becomes short lived (less than a month, perhaps less than a week).

Either of these would make a suitable blix given enough treatment time, but the first, if it worked, would be slow, and both methods would yield a very unstable blix. The second would be fast but very expensive.

Lets now look at C-41. Bleach III is at working strength as-is, so that adding hypo solution only dilutes it further and weakens it. The same arguments hold as above regarding stability. The blix would decompose rather quickly. So, you cannot make a good blix from C-41 chemistry as it exists. You need to reformulate and can’t use Bleach III.

Powder kits made with sodium salts of the ingredients is possible, but these become very slow acting. Remember that sodium based fix solutions are not “rapid fix” solutions. You have to go to ammonium based fix solutions to have a rapid fix!

So, here is a quick rundown of the above:

Use solid powders and the blix is too slow.

Mix the bleach and fix parts normally then mix together, and the kit becomes weaker and less stable due to dilution. It also requires more time due to the loss in strength and you end up right back where you were with a bleach and fix situation. Mix the two parts without dilution if possible and the blix is fine for rate but much less stable. It becomes a one-shot essentially.

In the end, you have about equal costs or more with a blix due to the shorter shelf life after mixing and the lower capacity.

With a bleach-fix, the process is a tad more complex but not necessarily longer.

With a blix, there is a chance to have silver retention with some film / blix combinations. This is due to the heavy silver load, the type of silver developed, and certain inhibitors used in color films to control image quality. The dyes also act to protect the silver from the bleach and so the dye cloud must be rendered penetrable by the blix.



There are ways to limit any problems with blix kits.

Use a long blix time! Use 2x – 4x the suggested time or more. It will not hurt. It does make the process longer.

Mix the two parts right before use and in the quantity you are going to use. Don’t re-use it. But, this increases cost.


There is a summary of some of my work over a 30+ year period on bleaches and fixes. The Bleaches and Blixes included Copper, Cobalt, Iron and various organic oxidants in order to optimize Blixes for films.

As Ray said above, the problems with Blixes used with films were known years ago.

Best wishes to you all, and whatever you choose, may it work well for you.

PE

 

[Tom Kershaw]

2. Ammonium Thiosulfate only comes as a liquid of about 60% concentration or about 600 g

PE,

I can apparently (I've not done so) buy Ammonium Thiosulphate from Silverprint here in the UK as 500g dry, I'm not sure about the format.

Tom

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tom;

That is essentially a typo. The liquids come as stated. No other liquid concentrations are available. No solid Ammonium Ferric EDTA is available. Solid Ammonium Thiosulfate is available but it is very hygroscopic (absorbs water from the air quickly) and it goes bad fast. It is also very expensive.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I hope my expansion on that line helps. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

PE

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tom;

That is essentially a typo. The liquids come as stated. No other liquid concentrations are available. No solid Ammonium Ferric EDTA is available. Solid Ammonium Thiosulfate is available but it is very hygroscopic (absorbs water from the air quickly) and it goes bad fast. It is also very expensive.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I hope my expansion on that line helps. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

PE

Thanks for clearing that up. Silverprint's price is 5.05 GBP per 500g.

Tom

 

[Ian Grant]

I cannot comment on the POV expressed by Ian, as I know nothing of it for all practical purposes.

In the subject of bleach then fix vs blixes, I rely on the backing of 6 companies mentioned above for their agreement in this area. The big companies don't make a blix for any film even though it is possible.

My POV is mainly as a user of various colour chemistry kits at an amateur and professional level from around 1969/70 onwards. I began making colour prints from C-22 negatives using the Pavelle process, and then shortly after Ferrania transparencies with a kit. Both processes were very finicky temperature control was critical and they were long winded.

Around 1972 I began E4 processing, the kits were almost always actually "E3" as E4 was a bit toxic for home use. Very nice & easy to use.

When E6 & C41 where introduced I obviously switched to the modern - current processes. Initially I used "liquid" kits from Barfen a small UK company, they also sold Fuji film in 30m/100ft. These kits used a bleach and temperate fixer.

When Photocolor released the two bath Photocolor II C41 kit in 1976 there was a lot of scepticism because of the use of a Bleach-Fix (blix) and UK magazines, amateur, professional & trade, did exhaustive tests expecting there to be problems with silver retention but the blix past their tests. (By this point I'd begun working as a photochemist).

Based on the reports I began using the new Photocolor products, I'm not sure when their Chrome 6 kit was released but I switched as soon as it appeared. They were exceptionally good, and the only time I had a problem was when I deliberately tried to exceed the Blix capacity, this showed up as soon as I made a print, unexpected grain (XP-2) it was barely visible looking at the negative, a re-blix and problem gone,

I was only processing some of our company's C41 & E6, 75% went to a lab in a nearby city, but there were no differences in quality between films and subsequent prints using the Photocolor kits or the Fuji Q-lab.

However I don't disagree with Ron (PE) about the problems of Blix's, every time other kits (using them) were tested in UK magazines they were found to fall short because of the Blix. I think even back around 1976 most UK colour photographers were careful to ensure that the Blix was complete and gave a bit longer time than recommended. I tried a Paterson 2NC kit once but didn't trust the blix, the Photocolor Blix acted very quickly indeed, but the Paterson blix didn't (years later the 2 companies merged).

Photocolor dominated the UK market, I'd guess they outsold competitors products by about 10:1, I knew a lot of photographers using both the C41 & E6 kits and the print kits and no-one of them had quality problems, many had tried other low volume kits and had found them lacking. There were also some smaller labs using the 5 litre kits.

The other company who I began using for RA-4 chemistry is Tetenal, it's more economic as I use the mini-lab packs, Their range of chemistry is exceptionally good and there's no problems with the Blix's they use in their C41 and E6 kits.

The big companies don't make a blix for any film even though it is possible.

I think that sums it up very well. Mason (& Levenson) re-wrote (1972) the Bleach-Fix section of "Photographic Processing Chemistry - 2nd Ed" to include work that Ilford and Agfa had done and patented, and referenced 2 articles Levenson had written about Blix's, concluding that reliable Blix's for films were no possible. (Mason - Ilford Research, Levenson - Kodak Harrow Research, UK).

That's 4 years before Photocolor and they say it can be done But it's not efficient enough for a replenishment system due to the high silver levels in films and the blix is much more complex than a simple bleach & fixer so costs far more in comparison.

Profit margins on kit's are significantly higher, chemical usage is small batch using chemistry up to 3 times so using a blix is more practical.

The data comparisons appear to be absent in the patent. I just skimmed it though. The data I read over says that the blixes that were not of the invention took 2x or more of the time to clear the film of silver and silver halide than the blixes of the invention. I would have to review the patent in more detail.

I can go on to say that the data was obtained, and was derived from x-ray fluorescence of silver retention and analysis of photomicrographs. If it were not available, the patent would not have issued.
PE

I wonder if the "tolerances" have been lowered in recent years, as modern C41 (and RA-4) processors are wash-less and there must be a trace of residual silver left in the emulsion.

Finally from my POV there have been no problems with the kits using Blix's that I've used.

I think Ron's warnings are very valid, I just caution against warning not to use a certain product, it's safer to recommend something you have personal experience of. Photocolor went when Champion moved manufacture from the UK to Spain, and got the contract to manufacture Kodak chemistry.

So now all I'd personally recommend is Tetenal C41 & E6 kits. Because of the issues Ron raises and I share I wouldn't suggest anything I haven't tried although they might be equally as good.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I wonder if the "tolerances" have been lowered in recent years, as modern C41 (and RA-4) processors are wash-less and there must be a trace of residual silver left in the emulsion.

I presume this is in reference to commercial mass-processing lab type environments? My Jobo (C-41), and Thermaphot (RA-4 / B&W) processors both incorporate water washes.

So now all I'd personally recommend is Tetenal C41 & E6 kits. Because of the issues Ron raises and I share I wouldn't suggest anything I haven't tried although they might be equally as good.

Ian

In the UK market the Fuji and Kodak kits are competitive or cheaper compared to the Tetenal colour kits.


Tom

 

[Ian Grant]

I presume this is in reference to commercial mass-processing lab type environments? My Jobo (C-41), and Thermaphot (RA-4 / B&W) processors both incorporate water washes.

In the UK market the Fuji and Kodak kits are competitive or cheaper compared to the Tetenal colour kits.

Tom

Even pro-Labs often use Minilab equipment for 35mm & 120.

Yes the Kodak & Fuji kits are more competitive now, because the £ has slipped a lot against the Euro the Tetenal kits anren't a cheap as they used to be.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

I am not aware that RA-4 processes are washless. I'll have to check.

I do know that C-41 can be washless but only using the C-41 Flexicolor RA Bleach and Fix. They have been modified to prevent problems with any possible retained silver complexes. In addition, the Final Rinse RA III must be used with this washless process.

If you don't use the proper chemistry, you can end up with unstable negatives.

You can use the RA chemistry with a wash however, with no problems.

PE

 

[Jacko1729]

I do appreciate all the posts in this thread. A very interesting read to say the least!

Jack