Kodak C41 2.5/5L kit and Fujihunt 5L kit - from a Bellini 1L user

Hi

Recently I got email notification that both of the following larger C41 kits are available again. And I'm wondering if they will be a more economic way to process C41 at home, compared to my current Bellini 1L kit.

Kodak C41 2.5/5L kits (from Cinestill)
Rollei Fuji Hunt C-41 X-Press 5L Kit (from B&H)

My current process with Bellini C41 is to mix 1L working solution, store in light-tight aluminum lined wine bag, and process several rolls at a time. And extend development time according to how many rolls I have already processed. Up to Bellini's stated 16 roll capacity, I had good experience in terms of color and contrast.

Now if I move to Kodak/Fuji larger kit, I plan to mix all the working solution, and store in 1L light-tight aluminum lined wine bags. If I only process 2-3 rolls each time and use the similar extended time as Bellini kit suggests, will I get 16 rolls capacity for each 1L bag with reasonably consistent results? Or do those Kodak/Fuji kit needs to be replenished or used one-shot?

Thank you if you happen to have experience with both Bellini and Kodak/Fuji kits.

Not sure what exact Kodak chemistry you're looking at.
I use Kodak Flexicolor C-41 RA chemistry. The bleach is expensive but it's practically eternal. It comes ready to use, replenishment is very low,, basically you just add a few mL per roll. Bleach needs oxygen to work so keep that in mind.
The fixer can be ruined by oxygen, it's like any rapid fixer.
The developer I use is Flexicolor LU, package makes IIRC 10L of replenisher, this requires starter and more water to make working developer.
Historically the developer replenisher has been so cheap I would make up what I would require and toss remainder after sitting.

None of this stuff is designed to sit, the bleach lasts forever, the starter is eternal. Fixer is fixer, if sets too long you get stinky sulfur.
Developer Replenisher concentrates last a long time unopened.
You'll be experimenting in territory I'm not sure of by storing developer in wine bags. Those bags are Mylar which are wonderful containers, I think you will be OK.
Dare mighty things!

Sometimes the fixer goes bad even as a concentrate. I have two bottles of Ilford Rapid Fixer - looks good but when I mix it with water it turns black after only a day or two. Really unpleasant.

i have used the older kodak chems for a long time. I have stock solutions that have lasted years. i mix up what I need and store the working chems and replenishment chems in wine bags, like you and they have lasted years. As have the stock chems, all topped off with propane after using them to mix. If you take care to to store them properly, they will last a lot longer than you think. in e-6 and c41, I buy the 20 liter size and they have kept very well

Thank you all for sharing the experience. I feel much better now buying bulk C41/ECN-2/E6 kits.

Santa comes early. Finally Kodak colour chemicals.

Threads combined - and here is the link: https://cinestillfilm.com/products/...NrnPRQwn_SVVUiPRnPDlj89lPFoQAXVck6IPEiRhrKM_n

I ordered the "new" Kodak C41 5L kit from freestyle and will share my experience in a few month.

Well, one hitch is it appears to be shippable only in the USA. I left a message to see if is somehow shippable to Canada. I will let everyone know the response.

Maybe someone knows a Canadian distributor.

I reached out to PhotoSys on their website using their contact form and Cinestill responded. So perhaps you could find out through that route.
Start here: https://kodak.photosys.com/#section-3

The new Kodak 5L kit arrived today. Well done Kodak! Similar amount of liquid in beer would have cost more...

I looked at the link from @MattKing , and it seems C41 developer replenisher is in giant quantity only (guess for labs). I wonder if there is alternative smaller portions for sale somewhere? I only do about 50 rolls of C41 a year, and can only use that much replenisher.

blee1996 said:

The new Kodak 5L kit arrived today. Well done Kodak!

Click to expand...

Except that Kodak has nothing to do with it.......
Eastman Kodak got rid of its photochemical segment in their chapter 11 crisis, and that segment was then part of Kodak Alaris.
But Kodak Alaris wasn't able to run it economically and sold it, together with the RA-4 paper business, to Sino Promise Holdings, China.
And then Sino Promise went bankrupt and stopped all production of their Kodak branded products.

This new chemistry is produced by Photo Systems Inc - PSI - https://www.photosys.com/
It just has a Kodak label on it, because PSI bought the right to use it.
But neither Eastman Kodak nor Kodak Alaris are involved in the production, or in the distribution.

I was told by Cinestill to contact downtown photo in Toronto and Gosselin in Montreal to express interest in them bringing in the kits, which I have done.

Angarian said:

Except that Kodak has nothing to do with it.......
Eastman Kodak got rid of its photochemical segment in their chapter 11 crisis, and that segment was then part of Kodak Alaris.
But Kodak Alaris wasn't able to run it economically and sold it, together with the RA-4 paper business, to Sino Promise Holdings, China.
And then Sino Promise went bankrupt and stopped all production of their Kodak branded products.

This new chemistry is produced by Photo Systems Inc - PSI - https://www.photosys.com/
It just has a Kodak label on it, because PSI bought the right to use it.
But neither Eastman Kodak nor Kodak Alaris are involved in the production, or in the distribution.

Click to expand...

Correct - although it turned out that Eastman Kodak was the entity that the rights reverted to, after Sino Promise went under. It was they who made the choice who to re-license them to.
And it is Eastman Kodak who has the production line that produces the control strips that can be used in conjunction with the photo chemicals.
So there remains some connection.

MattKing said:

Correct - although it turned out that Eastman Kodak was the entity that the rights reverted to, after Sino Promise went under.

Click to expand...

Interesting.
Do you have a source for that?

Angarian said:

Interesting.
Do you have a source for that?

Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm not in a position to share it.
It comes from the same knowledgeable and dependably reliable source as the information about the control strips.
The only caveat is that the information came to me more than a few months ago, when the uncertainty about the reversionary rights was being resolved. And in the world of photographic industry, a few months can bring corrections and revisions.

MattKing said:

So there remains some connection.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the suggestion of Photosys that they worked with Kodak for some form of quality assessment of the product itself before it was brought to the market.

koraks said:

Not to mention the suggestion of Photosys that they worked with Kodak for some form of quality assessment of the product itself before it was brought to the market.

Click to expand...

That could also be more marketing than reality. I would at least not rely on it, as we don't have any inside knowledge of what was really done at PSI.
Their marketing seems quite aggressive: They have just 1:1 copied the Adox C-41 product description ("optimal replacement for the Tetenal Colortec kit"). Not very fair in my opinion.

Sure. Although given the fact that they do collaborate with Kodak in some way (see @MattKing's response above) and their subject to some form of license agreement, I consider it a little far-fetched to imply they're lying about this. Moreover, the testing done by Kodak is likely something fairly straightforward and lightweight; think of running a few control strips and doing densitometry on this, and perhaps a review of the formulas used by Photosys. Sounds like something that's entirely feasible in return for a modest fee to be paid to Kodak for the work done.

Angarian said:

They have just 1:1 copied the Adox C-41 product description ("optimal replacement for the Tetenal Colortec kit").

Click to expand...

Google turns up no hits for the phrase "optimal replacement for the Tetenal Colortec kit". If I Google the kodak.photoshys.com site, I see no mention of 'Tetenal' (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:kodak.photosys.com+tetenal).
Where did you find it in Photosys' communications and where did you find an identical phrase in ADOX's communications?

Angarian said:

Not very fair in my opinion.

Click to expand...

That's a personal/subjective, normative assessment, a.k.a. "that's, like, your opinion, man." The Tetenal chemistry was popular for small-scale/home users. The fact that two competitors who provide a substitute product both allude to it in their sales pitches seems only logical. I don't see why it would make it unfair for Photosys to do it but not for Adox, or vice versa. Personally I wouldn't think in terms of 'fair'/'unfair', but just plain business sense and basically harmless especially since Tetenal no longer exists.
Plenty of products are being marketed as 'substitute for X' where 'X' represents whatever de-facto industry standard in whatever category you're looking at.

This looks to me like a very marginal ant hill at best, but I guess that a dedicated mountaineer will attempt to see mountain potential in it anyway.

koraks said:

Where did you find it in Photosys' communications and where did you find an identical phrase in ADOX's communications?

Click to expand...

Here:

Angarian said:

Here:

The Kodak Color Negative C-41 Film Processing Kit is Coming to Europe

It's finally coming to Europe.

petapixel.com

Click to expand...

I suspect it would be be something like this. The article you reference quotes a Dupli spokesperson. Dupli is a UK-based distributor of photographic products. It's not Photosys.

Moreover, the spokesperson is quoted as saying this in conjunction with Tetenal:

This long-awaited release comes as exciting news for photography enthusiasts and professionals still mourning the loss of the much loved Tetenal Colortec C-41 Kit yet seeking to achieve exceptional results in film processing.

Click to expand...

On the Dupli product/sales page of the Kodak/Photosys chemistry, they say something closer to your quote:

This new kit is an excellent replacement for the now defunct Tetenal Colortec C-41 Kit.

Click to expand...

Again, note that it's Dupli's sales pitch - not Photosys'.

For a reseller or distributor, it's by all means fair to market a product as a replacement for another product that's no longer available. There really is nothing unfair about all this. Well, perhaps maybe your misrepresentation of what was being said, and by whom.

Also, to reiterate the unanswered part of my earlier question:

...and where did you find an identical phrase in ADOX's communications?

Click to expand...

koraks said:

Again, note that it's Dupli's sales pitch - not Photosys'.

Click to expand...

I don't think Dupli has chosen that without agreement of PSI, or on demand of them. Official distributors are mostly very restricted in the way they can offer the products.

koraks said:

Also, to reiterate the unanswered part of my earlier question:

Click to expand...

It is the first sentence in the product description: https://www.fotoimpex.com/chemistry...kit-rapid-for-12-16-films-to-mix-1000-ml.html

Angarian said:

I don't think

Click to expand...

Well, that's the short of it, isn't it? Your thoughts, but no real facts.

Angarian said:

It is the first sentence in the product description

Click to expand...

OK, so this is what Fotoimpex write on their retail outlet page:

Succesor for the Tetenal Colortec Kit. Made in Germany by ADOX.

Click to expand...

Note that Fotoimpex is not ADOX - but OK, let's not be too hard in this respect since in the end it's Mirko running both and they're of course registered on the same address and intertwined - although legally speaking, they're separate entities. Also note that ADOX on their page of the C-TEC chemistry does not mention the name 'Tetenal'.

What Dupli say on their sales page for Kodak/Photosys C41:

This new kit is an excellent replacement for the now defunct Tetenal Colortec C-41 Kit.

Click to expand...

What you said was being said:

They have just 1:1 copied the Adox C-41 product description ("optimal replacement for the Tetenal Colortec kit").

Click to expand...

Neither party (ADOX and Photosys) said what you put between quotation marks, so technically you misquoted both - at least within the references you provided.
Fotoimpex (not ADOX) and Dupli (not Photosys) say something different, and as such the "1:1 copied" remark is a misrepresentation that implies plagiarism which in fact did not happen.
Both entities quoted above are sales organizations with an arguably valid interest in marketing a product as the replacement, substitute, successor, alternative etc. for a product that they can no longer supply.

koraks said:

Note that Fotoimpex is not ADOX - but OK, let's not be too hard in this respect since in the end it's Mirko running both and they're of course registered on the same address and intertwined - although legally speaking, they're separate entities.

Click to expand...

Honestly, that is really splitting hairs: Adox is the daughter company of Fotoimpex. Fotoimpex is operating the whole distribution for Adox.
They are working in the same building (at one of my trips to Berlin I made a short trip to their location in Bad Saarow).
And I think the other points are also a kind of splitting hairs, because I was referring to the meaning and general way of the PSI marketing imitating was Adox has started before, as the quickest mover in the market.

Angarian said:

And I think the other points are also a kind of splitting hairs

Click to expand...

You made a claim that painted a company in a bad light and that claim was demonstrably wrong.

Angarian said:

I was referring to the meaning and general way of the PSI marketing

Click to expand...

That's vague, again not substantiated by any evidence and I'm sure that if we were to have another round of fact-checking, it would again turn out to be false.

But we're not going to have another round; we're going to end this diversion here.