Understood - but it seems to me that the base colour might be a symptom that is inherent in the film, not your process.
I will develop one myself with the Adox C41 kit.
Thanks Walt - these things are of course personal preference and monitors etc play a role here, but do you notice a small cyan or perhaps greenish dominant in your example? Again, perhaps just personal preference or the impact of seeing this on my own monitor.
Assuming that most viewers of the image will have uncalibrated screens complicates matters and I'm pondering how I might solve this conundrum and perhaps someone has advice for me?
There's not all that much you can do, really. Displays just differ, and if that's not enough, viewing conditions are wildly different as well and this in turn impacts how we experience/see colors - which of course is subject to considerable individual variety to begin with. So it's basically a gigantic crapshoot.
In terms of calibration, if you get very different colors on two monitors, evidently, something didn't work out w.r.t. calibration, and/or either of the monitors are just relatively poor quality-wise. I have two calibrated monitors of different brands & types next to each other and they show fairly subtle differences. This is normal and virtually unavoidable. However, the clear cyan bias in your image combined with your remark that it looks good on one screen makes me suspicious of the successful calibration and/or quality of that screen.
However, if you want to explore this further, I'd suggest doing this in a separate thread. I think @albireo is trying to optimize his C41 development routine and as I stated above, it's not wise to contaminate that process with digital color balancing parameters. That's a different universe.
With an added stop bath after developer, I assume?
Thanks for reporting back!
I wonder if the fact that I'm not using the water bath between dev and blix anymore is shortening the life of the kit.
Definitely! Thanks @albireo for sharing your observations, and glad to hear the problem seems to have resolved itself.
I don't expect so; in fact, the opposite would be more likely. What kind of anomalies did you see on that 10th roll?
Another strong possibility is the recent decline in Kodak film quality.
Another strong possibility is the recent decline in Kodak film quality.
I'm sorry, I find that a rather odd suggestion. Yes, there will be minute variations in a product like photographic film, but the notion that the differences would be anywhere close to this severe goes against everything that Eastman Kodak does w.r.t. QA, which of course involves sensitometry and densitometry.
If you've got data or at least examples of Kodak's QA running off course to the gigantic extent you're implying here, I'd very much appreciate it if you could post these data/examples somewhere on the forum.
Edit: as explained in the other thread you posted similar allegations - I think the film you've been seeing has been subject to strong xray damage. It's not a QA problem; it's a logistics problem.
I don’t want to post photos as proof because they can be falsified
I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.nearly stripped of its film-like character.
What I mean is, a small number of photos wouldn’t be enough to show Kodak film’s decline in quality, since people might attribute it to improper storage on my part, shooting errors, environmental factors, or developing and scanning issues. That’s why I haven’t shared any photos. However, my friends and I have gradually developed a significant number of Kodak film rolls (Portra and Ektar) with poor quality—all from the new polyester-based versions. Having developed film for 10 years and processed roughly 40,000 rolls, Kodak’s quality had always been consistent until now (I’m 90% certain saying this). This breaks my heart. I sincerely hope I’m mistaken, because if this is true, no one will be happy. I urge everyone to keep an eye on recently purchased Kodak film and collectively report this issue to Kodak.What do you mean by 'falsified'? Something may be lost in translation here. I'd expect that if you have examples, you are also in control of how they are posted.
As said before, there's a possibility you are using x-ray damaged film.
If there would have been QA issues to the extent that you vaguely imply, Kodak would have dealt with them before the product would have left the plant. If they hadn't managed to, problems would have been reported all over the internet. They're not, so it's evidently not something related to the product as such. Something's going wrong in either the logistics part of the process, or at the user's side.
I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.
I find these remarks very vague, and the lack of any objective data or observations doesn't help your case. I don't doubt you're seeing disappointing results, but the question is what factor(s) are causing this. A QA problem at Kodak is very far at the bottom of the list.
What I mean is, a small number of photos wouldn’t be enough to show Kodak film’s decline in quality, since people might attribute it to improper storage on my part, shooting errors, environmental factors, or developing and scanning issues. That’s why I haven’t shared any photos. However, my friends and I have gradually developed a significant number of Kodak film rolls (Portra and Ektar) with poor quality—all from the new polyester-based versions. Having developed film for 10 years and processed roughly 40,000 rolls, Kodak’s quality had always been consistent until now (I’m 90% certain saying this). This breaks my heart. I sincerely hope I’m mistaken, because if this is true, no one will be happy. I urge everyone to keep an eye on recently purchased Kodak film and collectively report this issue to Kodak.
This may be the problem. Why not adhere to the instructed 4 minutes? With B&W, you can fix for longer, but for color it's more critical. The bleach, as part of that Blix mix, also needs the correct time.
That's correct.I thought that the Bleach and Fix steps are both "to completion" so it doesn't matter if you let it run longer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?