Kodak Flexicolor - experimental replenishment - Jobo centric.

[Tom Kershaw]

Hello all,

A quick note that I seem to have successfully processed two rolls of Kodak Portra 800 in 1000ml replenished Flexicolor developer (Jobo CPP-3). Time permitting I'll try and report on further results. The solution I used this evening contained 200ml fresh replenisher to 800ml (of 1000ml) previously used on June 26th. I realise this usage goes against Kodak's recommendations in the z131 manual, so I'm not offering this as advice...

Tom

 

[mshchem]

I've done the same thing, until I read the correct document that said no no no. I still replenish the bleach as I'm convinced proper aeration = immortality. Fixer is super cheap. I doubt Kodak (pre-bankruptcy) did any real intensive research on the use of Jobo machines. I imagine that many of the Kodak technical folks thought the rotary process was heresy, I know I did for at least 30 years. Now I have a CPP3, CPP2+, and several other Jobo things I have hoarded during the collapse of the analog civilization.

I think problems can arise (both temperature and chemical exhaustion) when people use the minimum volumes, which work fine for 1 shot. When I process E6, I always use tanks that will accommodate 700-1000 mL, even if I'm only processing a couple rolls. Time, temperature and activity are so critical with 1st developer in E6. C-41 has such short developer time using more volume helps consistency. I suspect replenishment is quite viable, just maybe use more fresh solution.

In the good old days with Cibachrome I always used 1/2 fresh, and, 1/2 used chemistry. Worked better than fresh, it's the old adage "nothing better than a nice seasoned tank" especially if you use some sort of control strip, or check.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I think problems can arise (both temperature and chemical exhaustion) when people use the minimum volumes, which work fine for 1 shot.

- suspect this is very much the case.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Kodak publications have always claimed replenishment isn't for "small tank" processing -- as far back as when they still sold D-23, at least. None the less, it's been done, and seems to work pretty well, at least for the B&W chemistry I'm more familiar with -- I'd replenished D-23 for several months, around fifteen years ago, with no visible change in the negatives (Foma and Forte, 120 and 4x5), and there are a couple users here currently using replenished Xtol.

I'll be watching your progress, since I was strongly considering dropping the necessary change and starting replenished C-41, including separate bleach and fix. Wish they'd sell the developer starter in smaller packages, but I understand it's aimed at mini-labs.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'll be watching your progress, since I was strongly considering dropping the necessary change and starting replenished C-41, including separate bleach and fix. Wish they'd sell the developer starter in smaller packages, but I understand it's aimed at mini-labs.

Well, I've just now processed another two rolls of Portra (160, 800) with "Flexicolor-R" and all seems to be okay. Haven't shot any colour charts etc. yet however.

- I should make it clear that I'm replenishing at a rate of 50ml per film (roll of 120) at the moment.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak publications have always claimed replenishment isn't for "small tank" processing

In the black and white world, for both X-Tol and T-Max RS, the Kodak datasheets provide specific recommendations for rotary tube processing with replenished developer.
So at least the black and white people at Kodak believe in it.
I find it interesting that Kodak explicitly tells you to use the colour chemicals one shot when you use rotary tubes.
I'm guessing that that may be due to difficulties in obtaining consistent control strip results.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'm guessing that that may be due to difficulties in obtaining consistent control strip results.

- and why I'm cautious about advocating for replenished Flexicolor based on my current sample size of four rolls. As mentioned previously however, I am being generous on a solution per film basis.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As I recall from discussions when PE was involved, if you follow Jobo's instructions on how much chemistry to use in the rotary systems, you'll be exhausting your chemistry more in a single use than you ever would in an inversion system, and then pouring (part of) that back into the stock bottle. Also, the 250 ml you need for 2 rolls of 120 in a Jobo is just above double the the 101.6 ml you'd replenish for that film area.

If you're using a larger volume than the minimum, for instance 375 (as with a Paterson tank with a 220 reel, loaded with two 120 one after the other) or 500 ml (stainless with two 35mm reels) for two rolls, then replenishment starts to make some economic sense as well as being more sensible on the consistency front.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

As I recall from discussions when PE was involved, if you follow Jobo's instructions on how much chemistry to use in the rotary systems, you'll be exhausting your chemistry more in a single use than you ever would in an inversion system, and then pouring (part of) that back into the stock bottle. Also, the 250 ml you need for 2 rolls of 120 in a Jobo is just above double the the 101.6 ml you'd replenish for that film area.

If you're using a larger volume than the minimum, for instance 375 (as with a Paterson tank with a 220 reel, loaded with two 120 one after the other) or 500 ml (stainless with two 35mm reels) for two rolls, then replenishment starts to make some economic sense as well as being more sensible on the consistency front.

I'm using the 2500 series tanks and reels so can work with much higher solution volumes. In the past I've tried the Jobo minimum quantities but ran into some quality issues. The most film I'd probably run now would be 4 rolls per 1000ml.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The most film I'd probably run now would be 4 rolls per 1000ml.

Which is about twice the liquid per roll of a minimum for Jobo. Replenishment likely will work for you, if you process enough film to keep the chemistry fresh -- and keeping it in well-sealed bottles between uses, rather than standing in the machine like a mini-lab would, probably puts that number in the "couple rolls a week" category like the break-even for B&W replenishment.

 

[JWMster]

Haven't used the Kodak Flexcolor chemistry yet, but with the Tetenal, Arista and Unicolor C41 I've re-used the chemistry for between 14 to 18 rolls as suggested in the documentation and experience here. All with a JOBO CPE-2 (the small machine). I've used 2500 tanks and 5 rolls of 35mm and/or 120 with very consistent results. Like OP, I haven't tested against a color chart, but since I scan, color adjustment tends to happen in post anyway. Keep us posted. I'm thinking of Flexcolor.... and had set up the poll here, but may stick with Unicolor for now (shipping is cheaper than liquid chems and results virtually indistinguishable). Purists easily get us overworked about the temperature. Yes, I pay a lot of attention to it, too, but frankly, once you set the starting temp with an eye to cooling through the process, it all works. If processing required high digital precision as documentation suggests, C41 would NEVER have caught on. Kodak and others were too smart to require nuclear physicists for this work. Remember that good results can be achieved by teenagers with raging hormones, undeveloped adolescent brains, and even a degree of distraction. This is SUPPOSED to be easier than it looks.... and they succeeded with that objective. So can we. Expect success.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Since photographers discovered the sous vide machines, temperature control is easy-peasy. A $30 and up device in a deep dishpan covers your temperature needs with only a couple gallons (8 liters or so) of water (rather than a continuous flow that also runs up your electric bill as you heat some of that water -- yes, the sous vide uses electricity, but less water heated => less energy used). Honestly, the only issue I think about with C-41 now is aging of my chemicals. It'll take me a couple months to use up the capacity of a quart/liter kit, long enough that oxidation in storage is a concern.

Speaking of which, I need to process four more 35mm rolls of Superia Xtra 400 today or tomorrow...

 

[MattKing]

Kodak and others were too smart to require nuclear physicists for this work.

No, not nuclear physicists - but I'd be careful with the distracted teenagers!
I've optically printed negatives that are so screwed up (by poor processing) that even the best and most experienced users of digital post processing tools would want to curse their very existence!

 

[Mr Bill]

In the black and white world, for both X-Tol and T-Max RS, the Kodak datasheets provide specific recommendations for rotary tube processing with replenished developer.
So at least the black and white people at Kodak believe in it.
I find it interesting that Kodak explicitly tells you to use the colour chemicals one shot when you use rotary tubes.

I think it's easily explained. B&W has two main things going for it. First, it doesn't need a delicate balance going between emulsion layers such as color film does. And second, B&W developers can use huge amounts of preservatives (such as sulfite). So one can have B&W developers that are hugely immune to problems due to excessive oxidation.

With our standard color processes, however, the preservatives are purposely held at a relatively low concentration. They compete for the oxidized developer, a result of developing silver, that is necessary to form the colored dyes. Consequently the preservatives are ideally held at a fairly low, and relatively constant level.

If you put a color developer in a high-oxidation position (such as in a rotating drum with a relatively large air volume, and you keep spreading the developer out in a thin film, giving a large surface area exposure to air) I just don't see much good about it. The color developer can probably withstand a certain amount of this, but if you are keeping the bulk of the developer, and subjecting it to the same oxidation over and over again, well...

 

[Mr Bill]

I still replenish the bleach as I'm convinced proper aeration = immortality.

Well sure, certainly aeration doesn't hurt the bleach. I never clearly understood why Kodak didn't support the reuse of bleach with a Jobo machine.

If I had to GUESS I'd say that perhaps the large amount of solution carryover (both the film and the reels, etc., wet with developer) might excessively dilute the bleach, such that either 1) a much higher replenishment rate or 2) a special replenisher formulation might be called for. Actually the #2 item might be needed to keep the bleach pH under control.

Or another possibility has to do with partially oxidized developer in the bleach, producing a higher "stain" level in the film. This is not normally a problem with large finishers because the standard machines "squeegee" the film leaving the developer. So they have much less developer carryover, AND they typically aerate bleach which will help complete the process.

So I can see where a Jobo machine might have certain bleach problems that a commercial processor is somewhat immune to.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I realise there has been a certain amount of discussion on this forum and others about potential for inconsistent results with the rotary Jobo approach and colour processes in terms of low solution volumes; however I and many others seem to achieve good results and I'm not too keen on sending my film off to be processed via a roller-transport machine.

 

[MattKing]

I can understand that, although a well operated and maintained roller processor unit is probably preferable than anything that is poorly operated.
After all, millions and millions and millions of rolls of Kodachrome were quite happily processed in roller transport machines!
I'm lucky enough to have a good, professional dip and dunk line a reasonable distance away.

 

[Mr Bill]

After all, millions and millions and millions of rolls of Kodachrome were quite happily processed in roller transport machines!

I don't think so; I think they were more than likely cine machines.

In the lingo of the trade, a roller-transport machine uses a large number of semi-opposed rollers that can essentially self-feed a piece of film.

A cine machine, on the other hand, is a leader-fed continuous processor. The idle machine is fully strung with leader. When you start it up you attach the front end of the film to the leader, and the leader guides it through. All of your film is spliced together, and at the tail end of the processing run you attach leader to the film; this restrings the machine with leader again.

One big advantage of the cine machine is that the emulsion almost never touches a roller, only in a couple of places. The way this works is that each rack, the frame that sits down in each processor tank, has a set of rollers on both the top and bottom. The film is wound, in a single strand, around all of these in sequence, with the emulsion facing out. So the emulsion virtually never has to touch a roller. And where the base contacts a roller, it usually rides only on the edges, or on a dimpled rubber sleeve. (Cine machines can run with very little tension so it's not a problem to have dished rollers.)

Another advantage of a cine machine is that it can use "proper" squeegees. The leader can feed the film right through. A roller transport machine, on the other hand, can essentially self-squeegee by squeezing the film between rollers at the exit of each tank.

Fwiw user laser, on this site, can probably confirm the Kodachrome machine type. He was, as I recall, the chapter editor for "Processing Methods" in the last edition of IS&T's Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering, which means that few people would be more knowledgeable about general processor drives, etc.

Sorry to be so pedantic, but there really is a big difference between the two machine types. Roller transport machines can do really good work if they are scrupulously cleaned and maintained, ind if the specific film can take the pressure, etc. But the ultimate, in my view, is a properly set up cine machine.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry to be so pedantic, but there really is a big difference between the two machine types. Roller transport machines can do really good work if they are scrupulously cleaned and maintained, ind if the specific film can take the pressure, etc. But the ultimate, in my view, is a properly set up cine machine.

Hey, I am a big supporter of pedantry.
I'll agree with the description of the Kodachrome process machines as a cine machine.
The one that I was most familiar with (as a Kodak employee family member) was an amazing thing.
I've just always considered them as being really, really high volume roller transport processors, loaded with a mile of leader, a mile of spliced customer film, and a mile of trailer - for each run!
And during the busy season, up and running 24 hours per day!

 

[Mr Bill]

I've just always considered them as being really, really high volume roller transport processors, loaded with a mile of leader, a mile of spliced customer film, and a mile of trailer - for each run!

Wow! A mile of leader would put the speed at around 150 ft per minute, about the speed of a leisurely walk. I'm guessing the total machine to be about 60 feet long (assuming 35mm film)?

Our little C-41machines, by comparison, only ran about 50 ft per minute, and held under 1/4 mile of leader. Still, it's a piece of cake to run 3 miles per day on one. But our business was in printing portrait packages, where all told we could put out near 500 feet per minute of 10-inch wide paper. Leader-belt machines for the paper, 6 or 8 Pako CP6000 machines. Once industry workhorses, now virtually unknown to the internet. But I digress.

 

[MattKing]

Wow! A mile of leader would put the speed at around 150 ft per minute, about the speed of a leisurely walk. I'm guessing the total machine to be about 60 feet long (assuming 35mm film)?

Not quite that long, but close.
Think of a small bus, not a large one.
The film path was quite complex, and the machine was really very loud.
And the description about what they had to do if a splice failed or a damaged roll got through the checks was really impressive (think really long rubber gloves!).
The machine was used for 35mm, 16mm, Super 8, Regular 8, 828 and 126. I'm not sure whether 110 was processed there, or in eastern Canada.
A really large percentage of the throughput was movie film.
This is, of course, a digression from the thread topic, but it helps to understand the context of the sort of use the Z manuals were designed around.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

This is, of course, a digression from the thread topic, but it helps to understand the context of the sort of use the Z manuals were designed around.

Matt,

A digression yes, but very informative for someone like me who processes in a Jobo, up to 5 rolls at a time.

Tom

 

[Mr Bill]

And the description about what they had to do if a splice failed or a damaged roll got through the checks was really impressive (think really long rubber gloves!).

Yeah, I think we might have got a film tear maybe once every year or two. We had ir cameras watching the dark side, so operators could watch for problems. If they saw a slight tear it was cross your fingers and hope it makes it out into the light side. If so they'd temporarily stop the machine and try to repair with staples and leader. If something actually broke in the dark side, which I can only vaguely recall perhaps a couple times, someone will an ir scope could supervise the operation, which mainly consisted of getting film out of the developer and into a holding bath, then get leader attached to the end of the running film.

But in C-41 only the development is critical, anything else is ok to stop for a bit of time. Except for the film dryer. You really need an emergency response team that is prepared. If you're gonna stall film in the dryer someone needs to open the dryer doors to cool it off. Then make sure it gets heated back up in time to restart the film - it's not easy to deal with loads of wet film coming out. Something not generally known about cine machines is that they'll typically use so-called elevators at both the feed and take up ends. This is just a set of moveable lower rollers that can slide up and down in a track. Normally they're used to give you a little buffer time for splicing or take up, but might be used otherwise in an emergency (I haven't thought this through but I bet user kino could elaborate; my experience is mainly in the chems and troubleshooting process problems, not running the machine). Not that this is of any use to anyone else here.

 

[MattKing]

Something not generally known about cine machines is that they'll typically use so-called elevators at both the feed and take up ends. This is just a set of moveable lower rollers that can slide up and down in a track. Normally they're used to give you a little buffer time for splicing or take up, but might be used otherwise in an emergency

These were also employed in the Kodachrome machine to help get the film movement up to speed, and to make it possible for the machine to be as small (????) as it was!
It made a truly amazing sound as it revved up.
And of course to feed the machine you needed staff working in total darkness, handling each film individually, splicing the first roll to the leader and then each subsequent roll to the one immediately preceding it.
At the other end, the films that were slide films needed to be mounted using operator monitored semi-automatic mount presses - slide after slide after slide after slide .....

 

[Tom Kershaw]

To update this thread I'd like to report that last week my replenished Flexicolor developer ceased to function correctly and so I would not recommend replenishment in the context of Jobo rotary processing, even using relatively larger solution volumes, e.g 1000ml. Negative density was still okay but colour quality declined.