Long, very long, lasting C-41 chemicals

[mtjade2007]

Thanks a lot for the comments about the pics. Looks like it's a complete failure and there is no way I can make a meaningful conclusion. Yes, I should have at least shot with fresh film and develop the film without long delay. As far as the film scanner issue there is really nothing I can do. I scanned the films with everything in default. I did not preset the scanner prior to the scanning. I did Photoshop the images to adjust the high light/shadow to proper level. I have scanned all my films this way all these years. Images came out this way mostly need the same tweaking. I never touched the hue and color saturation adjustment.

I just have one thing came to mind. It may be an issue of my monitor. It could be it not set to the right hue or color temperature. Also it could be an issue of the color management scheme of the system I am in. There is an ICC profile associated with my monitor, my scanner and my Photoshop software. Maybe there is something wrong that I need to investigate. I will try to use a different computer and look at the pics I uploaded to here. I might be surprised.

But again there is no point trying to evaluate my C-41 process with expired films. The experiment needs to be redone. Thanks to everyone's input. Happy film processing!

 

[mtjade2007]

Scans don't tell anything useful about the presence of crossover or color balance. There's too much hocus-pocus going on in the scanner and its driver & software itself to be sure that what you get accurately represents the dye densities as they are present on the film.
Having said that, I see a lot of very nasty color casts, gross underexposure or underdevelopment in frame #2, what looks like a distinct color crossover issue in #3 and in #4 as well.
All considered I wouldn't be happy with these results if they were mine. However, as I said, scanning doesn't tell us much. Maybe the negatives print just fine onto RA4. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Thanks Koraks for the suggestion. However, this is something I really don't understand. You seem to suggest that the scanner will not record colors faithfully. I can believe there is a limit of the scanner's CCD sensor. But why would the scanner deliberately distort the colors it sees? If so it must be the ICC profile it uses that changes the colors? I actually believe the scanner is more accurate than for example an optical enlarger for making wet prints. I have one with a dichroic color head. I used to print RA-4 with a Durst RCP-20 and I got really tired of it for tweaking the filtration endlessly.

 

[mtjade2007]

@mtjade2007 love your spirit and I love experimenting myself. So just to clarify, you're trying to replace the part-C, right?

Yes, I read an article on a photographic magazine called Creative Darkroom Techniques that introduced the trick if part C goes bad one can use 5 grams of CD-4 powder per liter and forget about part C bottle. I was in a time when Kodak discontinued its Hobby Pack that I always used, a 1 liter C-41 kit. So I purchased LORR replenisher in 4Lx10 boxes. I had to deal with the part C going bad issue. If it really works well people could no longer worry about part C and buy large replenisher and save. I think the trick really worked before.

 

[koraks]

But why would the scanner deliberately distort the colors it sees?

Because it needs to. C41 film doesn't have meaningful color information that our eyes can interpret. It needs to be inverted, compensated for the orange mask and the gradient of each of the curves needs to be adjusted to get to an image that us humans perceive as natural/faithful. Scanners and their software have several mechanisms for handling these conversions and adjustments and many if them take place "under the hood" out of view and outside the control of the user. This is what makes scanners more user friendly as you found out, but it also makes them unpredictable for film testing purposes unless you find a way to exert full control over all these adjustments, which in practice simply isn't possible with most scanners. You could try to find a way out of this by scanning in positive mode and using exact references (control strips, color targets) to calibrate the output, which will prevent and negate some of the automatic adjustments the scanner makes. In the end you'll still be stuck with an rgb capture method that tries to translate cyan, magenta and yellow dye images into digital information, meaning that the hardware choices (response curves of the sensor elements, their analog and digital gain, characteristics of the light source used) are essentially hardwired and impossible to influence. You found that RA4 printing is fussy, but scanning is actually even more complex - but this complexity is largely hidden from the user's view, creating a false illusion of simplicity.
I have scanned and optically printed several kinds of materials for years now and C41 remains one of the trickier things to get right in my experience, especially with scanning. So much so that you never really know if you're running into intricacies of a scanner or problems with the negatives much of the time. Scanners are little pandora's boxes, really.

 

[MattKing]

+1 to what koraks posted.
I think it is really important to understand that negative film and the C-41 process and enlarger light sources are designed to match the requirements of colour paper and the RA-4 process. If everything is in tolerance with the colour paper and the RA-4 process, together they constitute a fixed "target" for all of the rest of the components. You can use that fixed target to evaluate the quality of negatives.
There is no digital analogue to that fixed target. There is so much that happens "under the hood" with a scanner and scanning software that you can't see - that is what makes it impossible to use a scanner to check the results of film development, based on how images "look".
Scanners may be made to do densitometer like comparisons. And if you work with scanners enough, and become familiar enough with their tendencies, and have test negatives that produce repeatable results, you can make useful comparisons between new negatives and the test negatives, but you can never use a scanner to make a one-off test of the quality of film or development.

 

[mtjade2007]

Thanks again, Korak. It makes a lot more sense to me now. So it is the scanner ICC profile that is the problem. There are so many different films There is probably a standard one that fits (not) all films. I will have to post process the image to achieve a reasonable result. The Minolta scanner was probably made more toward a better rendition for Konica Minolta films. I seem to always have more problems scanning Kodak films. I think there is no way I can achieve what I hoped to achieve by using a scanner to evaluate the C-41 processing. The monitor I use will only add more complexity to the issue.

Well, judging from the scans I believe the CD-4 trick probably worked in some way. With post processing the result may be OK. One thing just came to mind that I could substitute the CD-4 with CD-3 then try to use it as a cheap E-6 color developer. ANd it will be used only on expired E-6 films. Ha, ha. I might give it a try some day.

 

[mtjade2007]

Thanks Matt. It suddenly makes everything clear. Thanks a lot for the very educational input. I know some photographers insist in printing by the traditional wet process than digitally printing with inkjet. I never know the reason. So this makes perfect sense now. Although digital scanning and inkjet printing could be optimized but the traditional wet print has its magic that is where the artistic film photography presides. Thanks again.

 

[MattKing]

One other thing to be aware of with a lot of scanners and scanning software is that in many cases the software is analyzing each frame individually, and responding to the content of the image. As a result, the software settings will vary from frame to frame within each roll.
That makes for a higher percentage of nice looking results straight out of the scanner, but it plays havoc with using a scanner to evaluate film or developing.

 

[koraks]

So it is the scanner ICC profile that is the problem.

No, what I posted does not touch the profiling part yet. That can *also* be an issue, but a large part of the problem already occurs before ICc profiles even come into view in the digital workflow. They add another layer of complexity and potential confusion (even though necessary!) on top of the things I mentioned.

 

[mtjade2007]

One other thing to be aware of with a lot of scanners and scanning software is that in many cases the software is analyzing each frame individually, and responding to the content of the image. As a result, the software settings will vary from frame to frame within each roll.
That makes for a higher percentage of nice looking results straight out of the scanner, but it plays havoc with using a scanner to evaluate film or developing.

Agree completely. Been there since I bought my Minolta scanner in early 2000's. Film scanner's output is never a fixed linear translation of the pixel data seen by the CCD. This a very important fact to understand. Thanks again, Matt.

 

[mtjade2007]

No, what I posted does not touch the profiling part yet. That can *also* be an issue, but a large part of the problem already occurs before ICc profiles even come into view in the digital workflow. They add another layer of complexity and potential confusion (even though necessary!) on top of the things I mentioned.

I think Matt has pointed out what you were trying to tell me. Besides ICC profiling for each different films, the scanner has another layer of algorithms in a dark hole that is impossible to predict the relationship between the CCD data and the final output as an image. I think a film scanner's ICC profile alone is a huge unknown already. So trying to evaluate C-41 processing by using a film scanner is deemed to be a wrong idea. So what is the best method to evaluate a C-41 process of a film? The traditional analog way? I am afraid the most practical way for me is still by film scanning plus post Photoshop processing trying to optimize the scan output. I will need to use a good quality monitor and calibrate it accurately.

Fortunately all these troubles can be avoided if we just follow the official C-41 mixing and processing instructions. It will make the life a lot easier. The CD-4 trick is only for if you have old developer with bad part C and don't want to dump it. Do it on expired old films only and have some fun.

 

[koraks]

The traditional analog way?

That's the way I personally get the best feeling for what's going on, yes. Other than that, color densitometry of course.
But in the end let's not forget that it's the end result is what counts; how you get where you want to be doesn't matter, as long as you get there. If it's outdated film, off-standard processing, scanning and some photoshop mojo, then so be it, right?

 

[mtjade2007]

That's the way I personally get the best feeling for what's going on, yes. Other than that, color densitometry of course.
But in the end let's not forget that it's the end result is what counts; how you get where you want to be doesn't matter, as long as you get there. If it's outdated film, off-standard processing, scanning and some photoshop mojo, then so be it, right?

I like that, it's the right way to go and there is not a more practical option for me any way. The densitometry way? I tried it and did not succeed due not enough effort and patience. Digital camera way? I have a Canon 5D-iii. Honestly, film photograpy is a more interesting hobby to me.

 

[koraks]

I have a Canon 5D-iii. Honestly, film photograpy is a more interesting hobby to me.

I have a 7D. I use it as a webcam.

 

[mtjade2007]

Did you buy it for that purpose? I have seen wedding photographers using 5D for video shooting. To them it's money well spent just for the purposes of shooting video. The 5D-iii (7D as well) is an amazing camera. But I rather shoot films. That's after comparing the pics between the two. I particularly like portrait shots on films. But my friend told me it is because I don't know enough about how to use my 5D. It is probably true but for now I have no desire to explore more about 5D.

 

[koraks]

Did you buy it for that purpose?

No, it just so happened that I use it for very little else Yes, it's a fine piece of equipment and a joy to use. So easy and intuitive. But it doesn't give me darkroom prints...

 

[mtjade2007]

I had a BW darkroom and a color one when I was a bit younger. I actually made some nice 20"x24" wet prints. I switched to film scanning and inkjet printing when the technology became available.. I continue to enjoy film shooting and process my own films. Since I wasn't really successful in wet printing I eventually gave it up. I still have all the equipments accumulating dust.

 

[es1201]

Hey, you think you could send me a message? i’m thinking on developing at home and the oxidation times where the only thing worrying me, reading your info really changed my mind and i was hoping i could ask you some questions

 

[mtjade2007]

Welcome to Photrio. I have sent you a reply. You can ask your questions here too and I am sure you will have answers from many experts here. I developed half a dozen C-41 220 rolls a few months ago using the same CD-4 power trick to my long expired C-41 LORR developer replenisher. It worked very well and I truly believe this trick works as far as I am concerned. I just went through a cleanup of my garage and I found by surprise 3X packages of Kodak 3.5 gallon sized Kodak c-41 developer. The price labels on them is of $8.50 each. I guess I bought them from a camera swap meet long time ago. They were probably already outdated so they were so cheap. If any of you still have doubt about this trick just try it on some expired films and see if it works. It's even better if you try it on fresh films. I don't think you will be disappointed.

 

[mtjade2007]

I also found a unused box of Cibachrome kit and a Kodak E-6 1 gallon sized kit. I am sure these are useless now.