Long, very long, lasting C-41 chemicals

StoneNYC · Mar 17, 2014

MattKing said:
The indicator is there for:

1) labs that re-use their stop bath for film; and
2) prints, where it sits in a tray and several prints are run through it.

When printing, the indicator helps remind you to change or replenish the fix and developer too.

They make indicator developer? Lol or do they exhaust at the same rate somehow?

MattKing · Mar 17, 2014

StoneNYC said:
They make indicator developer? Lol or do they exhaust at the same rate somehow?

No, there isn't any indicator in print developers.

But one thing you will find if you ever start printing in the darkroom is that you tend to get into a groove, and if you are not careful you can lose track of how many prints are going through the developer, stop and fix. The indicator in the stop acts as a reminder when you have otherwise forgotten.

Darkroom printing is both enervating and consuming. I had a high school graphic arts teacher who would talk about starting a printing session at home in the evening, getting really involved in the process, and then suddenly realizing that it was morning and that he needed to get showered, shaved and dressed for work, because he had classes to teach .

Sort of like working on the computer with digital images, except the darkroom is fun

Rudeofus · Mar 17, 2014

Truzi said:
The more that I think about it, my original question was probably a bit stupid. Supplementing with an additional fix bath would probably not make the blix work any better. It might make sure the film is properly fixed, but bleaching is my concern.

Bleaching strength of a BLIX depends strongly on its fixing power, because the fixer removes Silver ions from the reaction. Needless to say, the fixer part of your BLIX stays stronger if it is less loaded with Silver ions. I would therefore expect much better BLIXing, if you use a fixer before the BLIX, especially if you reuse the BLIX.

Photo Engineer · Mar 17, 2014

Anything with a label "Stabilizer" contains Formalin. Anything labeled "Final Rinse" does not!

Formalin is banned in many states in the US, but the ban started in Australia on all aldehydes due to problems with fumes. It is a mild carcinogen but the fumes are pretty bad.

It is absent from all color processes and materials except E6.

PE

CatLABS · Mar 17, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Anything with a label "Stabilizer" contains Formalin. Anything labeled "Final Rinse" does not!

Formalin is banned in many states in the US, but the ban started in Australia on all aldehydes due to problems with fumes. It is a mild carcinogen but the fumes are pretty bad.

It is absent from all color processes and materials except E6.

PE

Yes, the fumes are awful.

StoneNYC · Mar 17, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Anything with a label "Stabilizer" contains Formalin. Anything labeled "Final Rinse" does not!

Formalin is banned in many states in the US, but the ban started in Australia on all aldehydes due to problems with fumes. It is a mild carcinogen but the fumes are pretty bad.

It is absent from all color processes and materials except E6.

PE

The JOBO kit for C-41 I have, the bag that came with it says "stabilizer" on it, but it's for C-41.

Is it possible it's miss-labeled?

CatLABS · Mar 17, 2014

CatLABS said:
Yes, the fumes are awful.

My sprint "STABILIZER" says stabilizer on it, and it does not contain formaldehyde either.

Photo Engineer · Mar 17, 2014

There is apparently mislabeling out there by secondary sources. The use of the two words was intended to discriminate. Therefore I would only trust the MSDS.

Sorry for the confusion, but this is not my doing and I hope you understand that Kodak also intended for some sort of separation of these two.

PE

gopher · Mar 17, 2014

Kodak Flexicolor SM catalogue # 538 3973

This kit -consisting of parts A, B and C in two boxes of 6x3L volumes is reasonable for someone like myself who doesnt want to purchase much larger quantities; there is no starter involved with this kit. Would the addition of 5 grams of CD4 to l liter of A and B provide excellent results as with the larger quantities that come with a starter? Has anyone done density reading of a gray card in a negative to compare the color balance and density with a similar negative processed with the original parts A, B and C?

CatLABS · Mar 17, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
There is apparently mislabeling out there by secondary sources. The use of the two words was intended to discriminate. Therefore I would only trust the MSDS.

what are you referring to here?

Photo Engineer said:
Sorry for the confusion, but this is not my doing and I hope you understand that Kodak also intended for some sort of separation of these two.

PE

I guess this stems from the above question, but what does kodak have to do with sprint stabilizer?
Out of interest, i brought up the sprint MSDS:
http://sprintsystems.com/msds2011/MSDS_WETTING_2010.pdf
And while it does not say it contains formaldehyde as one of the ingredients, the state of CA warning notes that it does and that it is dangerous. This is indeed confusing, and now i am not sure if it does or does not contain formaldehyde...

Truzi · Mar 17, 2014

Do you think PE may be referring to the concept that Kodak specifically used the terms Stabilizer and Final Rinse to discriminate between two different formulations, and the MSDS may be the best way to determine what the contents are since the naming conventions appear to not be as originally intended, especially when considering third-party products?
(How was that for a complex-compound run-on sentence?)

Is there a level of formaldehyde that does not require reporting in the MSDS? Could either California or the authors of the document be in error? Could someone simply have noticed the word "Stabilizer," which traditionally had formaldehyde?

The MSDS not listing formaldehyde, but the State of California notes claiming it does contain it, certainly raises quite a conundrum. Assuming the manufacturer creates the MSDS, I wonder which of the two sources knows the contents.

Athiril · Mar 18, 2014

I know when I used the 5L tetenal kit a long time ago, the stabiliser contained hexamine instead. Which is formed from formaldehyde, and deocmposes to it in acidic conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexamethylenetetramine

mtjade2007 · Mar 18, 2014

gopher said:
This kit -consisting of parts A, B and C in two boxes of 6x3L volumes is reasonable for someone like myself who doesnt want to purchase much larger quantities; there is no starter involved with this kit. Would the addition of 5 grams of CD4 to l liter of A and B provide excellent results as with the larger quantities that come with a starter? Has anyone done density reading of a gray card in a negative to compare the color balance and density with a similar negative processed with the original parts A, B and C?

If you are mixing only 3 liter at a time you really don't need to use the method. Just mix Part A, B and C per the instruction. Store the solution in the bottles as full as possible. Try to use up the solution in a month no more than 2.

C-41 developer and C-41 replenisher + starter are the same. C-41 replenisher is for commercial labs that use it to replenish their working developer solution. They will use starter only when they start from a freshly mixed developer. So replenisher packages are usually fairly large. The one I got makes 4x 10 liters in one box and I bought almost 10 boxes (from a closing lab owner). It will last me 5 - 10 years. All Part C bottles had gone dark brown (black) after 3 years. So I am forced to try the CD-4 powder method and it seems to work for me.

This experience tells me that when I need C-41 developer again I can buy large packages again. I won't need to worry about Part C going bad any more. So if you are only dealing with 3 liters at a time you really don't need the CD-4 powder trick.

By the way C-41RA replenisher, the one I got, is a version that has more (about 1.5 times) processing capacity than non RA version. The box says it makes 4x 10 liters of C-41RA replenisher. When following the instruction to make 1 liter of developer I will need only 700 ml of it, add the correct amount of the starter and add water to make up 1 liter. So the 4x 10 liter of C-41RA replenisher will make up nearly 60 liters of developer for me. This really enables me to shoot a lot of films and saves a lot of hassle dealing with commercial labs.

Athiril · Mar 18, 2014

I've replenished 1.6L working solution of C-41 for quite some time before stored in a glass bottle with great success.

Dcarubia · Sep 27, 2017

Wondering if anyone has tried this: "prepers" use oxygen absorber (OA) packets to remove oxygen from food items stored in containers. I haven't tried it yet, but was wondering, what if I take a mason jar, stick an OA packet on the underside of the jar lid and then pour in some color developer and cap it. The OA should remove any residual oxygen in the air gap at the top of the jar. As oxygen is absorbed, I'm thinking the air pressure in the air gap would decrease as oxygen is absorbed and potentially any dissolved oxygen the color developer would "undissolve" from the developer into the air gap and then the oxygen absorber would absorb that O2 as well.

RPC · Sep 27, 2017

Dcarubia said:
Wondering if anyone has tried this: "prepers" use oxygen absorber (OA) packets to remove oxygen from food items stored in containers. I haven't tried it yet, but was wondering, what if I take a mason jar, stick an OA packet on the underside of the jar lid and then pour in some color developer and cap it. The OA should remove any residual oxygen in the air gap at the top of the jar. As oxygen is absorbed, I'm thinking the air pressure in the air gap would decrease as oxygen is absorbed and potentially any dissolved oxygen the color developer would "undissolve" from the developer into the air gap and then the oxygen absorber would absorb that O2 as well.

This may work if there must be an air gap in the top of the jar (i.e., not enough to fill it). But if you can fill it to the top, then the preservative in the mixed developer will protect the developing agent from oxygen in the air dissolved in the developer. Since the glass of the mason jar is impermeable to air and if tightly sealed, no more oxygen will get to the developer from the outside and it will last months or even years without degradation. At least this is my experience.

So, glass + filled + sealed = very long life.

Mason jars come in various sizes which makes it easier to keep them filled.

Photo Engineer · Sep 27, 2017

What about the effect of the chemical on the developer if they are in contact?

PE

Dcarubia · Sep 28, 2017

RPC said:
This may work if there must be an air gap in the top of the jar (i.e., not enough to fill it). But if you can fill it to the top, then the preservative in the mixed developer will protect the developing agent from oxygen in the air dissolved in the developer. Since the glass of the mason jar is impermeable to air and if tightly sealed, no more oxygen will get to the developer from the outside and it will last months or even years without degradation. At least this is my experience.

So, glass + filled + sealed = very long life.

Mason jars come in various sizes which makes it easier to keep them filled.

I'm assuming an air gap for whatever reason. Jar too big, not enough developer to fill jar etc. Agreed though that filling to top of jar is easier than using OAs.

Dcarubia · Sep 28, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
What about the effect of the chemical on the developer if they are in contact?

PE

By "chemical" do you mean the ingredients in oxygen absorbers? That is a good point. OAs are filled with iron particles, so whatever hasn't rusted after absorbing oxygen could potentially react with other developer chemicals.

Photo Engineer · Sep 28, 2017

And Iron is very bad for film!

PE

Rudeofus · Oct 2, 2017

Different plastics allow Oxygen to permeate at very different speeds. One could easily encapsulate these iron particles in a more permeable polymer, and the photographic developer would never come into contact with the Iron particles.

PS: Iron is not only bad for film, it is also very bad for photographic developers. And fixers.

sfaber · Oct 7, 2017

I took all the part C bottles in a case of developer and put it in a glass bottle and used small marbles to fill any space. Then I pipet from the bottle, and adjust again with marbles. Lately I just transferred the remainder to a smaller bottle and use the same method. The developer is 4 or so years old and is still good.

BMbikerider · Oct 9, 2017

WayneStevenson said:
I keep all of my working solutions for upwards of a year. When I bottle them, I bottle them warm to keep as much oxygen out of them as possible. Then put them in plastic beer bottles from the brew shop. I squeeze the bottle to get my solution up to the very top and cap it. Once the solution cools down and condenses, it creates a vacuum seal as well.

My answer is more or less the same. The smallest kit for C41 I will buy is 2.5 litres because the 1 litre kits are proportionately much more expensive. I mix all the chemicals at once and decant 2 litres into 500cc screw top glass bottles. The remaining 500cc I now decant into 2x 150cc and 2x 100cc screw top glass bottles. All the bottles are them microwaved so that the contents get to around 100 degrees F. The screw caps are fitted tightly and when they cool down this forms a very good partial vacuum. I am about to use the last of a kit I mixed back in May and the developer is still almost clear liquid - a very very pale straw colour. Pretty much the same as the developer was when freshly mixed.

I also take leaf out of the instructions for mixing Kodak Ektacolor RA4 by mixing the developer in water that has boiled to reduce the free oxygen in the water, then it is allowed to cool to 100 degrees or thereabouts. This ensures the proper mixing without too much stiring and will further reduce the absorption of oxygen.

Jeannine · Oct 18, 2020

Hi everyone! I’m new to this group. I’d just like to thank everyone for their informative posts that have aided me in getting this far.

I have graduated from the c41 kits and into the larger, bulk chemicals of the Kodak chemicals mentioned in this thread. I have yet to mix the Developer and am interested in setting part c aside for longevity purposes.

I’m mixing the Kodak Flexicolor Developer /Starter Loor, with the Kodak Flexicolor Developer Replenisher. It appears I need to mix part A & B and then add the Kodak starter? I set part C aside, mixing it to solution above as needed.

My question is how much part c do I add per liter? If I am mixing the chemistry to use in the next few weeks, part c will still be good. However, I bought in bulk so I will have plenty of chemistry left over after I process my film. I’ll be going out of town and not able to use this chemistry for several months. When I return I will properly dispose of the old part c. Then I will add CD4 instead.

Can someone please confirm how much part C to I add to part a & b when Mixing at a liter per time? And when that part c is spent, how much CD4 do I add to part a&b per liter? I believe someone mentioned 5 grams here and adding something else? However there was much back in forth in that regard and I’m unclear if it’s necessary to add anything else to CD4. Also, do I add the Flexicolor starter all at once to part a& b or mix as needed?

Hope that makes sense.

So happy to be part of this group! Thank you in advance for your help.

Jeannine

David Lyga · Oct 19, 2020

Kodak C-41 developer will keep indefinitely after mixed per Kodak if kept in PET bottles filled to the rim. This also applies to the mixed RA4 configuration. "Nuff said. - David Lyga

Long, very long, lasting C-41 chemicals

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency