• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

New E-6/C-41/ECN-2 Chemistry from Jobo

Separate bleach and fixer. Nicely done JOBO. But I call BS on "40 rolls" capacity claim on just 2.5L of C41 developer. This is so annoying... if you going to market a product with a wild capacity disparity with Z-131 (JOBO says 40, Kodak says 8-10 depending on speed) please provide an explanation.
 

Fuji states the same “bullshit” on their X-Press C-41 kit (80 rolls of ISO 100 films for 5L kit).

I’ve used a number of those FujiHunt kits and can state with confidence that for amateur home use it’s no bullshit. I get negatives that scan and print just the same when reusing the developer (that”s how you get to 80 rolls) as when using it one-shot.
 
The same for Tetenal, Bellini etc.

They all use as "pseudo-replenishing" technique.
Instead of replenishing, for the same bath the developing time is gradually prolonged per number of films.

The "bullshit" comes from comparing their effectivity number with that of the un-replenished Kodak technique.
 
This is not to Kodak-standard, but as brbo just explained it yields well-usable results.
 
A japanese manufacturer of processing kits indeed use such bottles. But having made kits in Japan for a market outside Japan seems not the best idea.

Where did you find that "made in Japan"?
 
And I looked at those other, large photos, not realizing that those thumbnails actually were the complete package labels I tried to look at. How stupid of me.

Now one may wonder what sense this importing makes... as Jobo stated to only offer their kits in Europe.
 
AgX said:
This is not to Kodak-standard, but as brbo just explained it yields well-usable results.
Click to expand...

I did not see any explanations. "Usable" is a subjective criteria. It comes back to the problem I raised earlier in a separate thread: without seeing people's work I dismiss their use of "usable". Is it usable in a sense that people faces are recognizable in the photos? I bought a 1L Cinestill C-41 kit once after the pandemic started when I couldn't find Flexicolor, and ran into minor contrast issues even with the first 4 rolls. Threw the rest right away, although many consider that "usable".

Remember, Kodak recommendations apply to small tank processing too. It clearly states in italics: do not reuse the developer. Nobody ever explained why they violate the instructions written by the inventor of C-41.

I suppose the image defects caused by out-of-spec processing are correctable with scanning (predominant reproduction method) that's why manufacturers feel like playing loose. This would be an explanation, if true.

One way to find out is to get a box of control strips, a color densitometer, and expose a test scene across multiple rolls. That would take too much money and time though.
 
brbo stated that he sees no difference to processing in single use developer bath.
Who is to set the scale?
You with your densitometer? brbo with his visuel perception?

You are right in that the manufacturers of amateur kits do not explicetely state that their advised method is not up to Kodak standard processing.

But even holy grail Kodak not that long ago advised a non-tempered C-41 processing with temperature fall-off during processing. Not to Kodak-standard either...
 
How many super 8 films equals 40 135/36 films?
 
Looks like 16 rolls of 50’ S8 equals 40 rolls of 35mm/36 exp. to me in terms of surface area.
 
Resurrecting this thread as I'm about to purchase one of these JOBO E-6 kits sice Fuji Hunt 6X E6 has been unavailable for over a year now. I guess they are interchangeable?
 
That's the question. It does not seem to be a 1:1 copy as the volumes of the concentrates do not match in all cases.

I am wondering how RVP50 behaves in the Jobo chemistry. 32 or 50ISO?
Does anyone here know how it did in Fuji Hunt?

I think i will expose a Film with 32 and 50 shots and try it. If the results are like standard E6 (Tetenal), then i know i can use my established FD nominal times (6:15 default (RVP @32ISO), 7:30 for RVP50 @ 50ISO)
If the 50ISO ones are fine, i would be a happy camper because i do not have to special-treat RVP50 when shot at 50ISO
 
You mentioned Tetenal E6, however their shortened process is far from standard. JOBO E6 should be "standard" however it puzzles me why emphasis on "Optimized for rotary processing"?
 
Yes, it is shortened, but yields the same results as standard E6.

Only in Fuji CR-56, RVP50 has real 50ISO when processed at nominal times where e.g. Velvia 100 and Provia 100F also have their nominal ISO.

When i shoot a Velvia 100 @ 100 and an Velvia 50 @ 50 side by side and process them toghether in the same batch of E6 chemistry, RVP100 is fine while RVP50 is underdeveloped. (At least in my more or less systematic tests)

That's why i want to test the Jobo chemistry in this regard. Does it work like Kodak E6 with underdeveloped RVP50 or like CR-56 with correct 50ISO RVP50?


The "optimized for rotary processing" may come from the fact that Jobo manufactures rotary processors (marketing?). But maybe there is something to the contrast when doing rotary. I remember BW negatives coming out with steeper contrast
compared to manual agitation with 1min intervals.
But AFAIK color processes are designed for continous agitation anyways. Usually by nitrogen blast or something like that.
 
Interesting observation. Never shot much Velvia, but I remember the debates from like 20 years ago people arguing over Velvia's true EI.
 
Hi there!
So.. did anyone use the JOBO E-6 chemistry? How does it work with Ektachrome (or Provia)? What's the real roll capacity? Some random colorful strips?
I want to buy also the 2.5L kit and I would happy to hear more about this one.

Thanks!
 
I notice for the E6 kit it says : If used as one-shot developer the kit will yield 20 film rolls to be processed in impeccable quality, even though the E-6 chemistry can be used for up to 40 rolls of film before being utterly depleted
 
@Craig I have relaxed regarding the overstated capacity claims lately. I realized that most people scan their film which means the raw scans are fed into automatic color inversion tools like NLP that perform far more invasive manipulations with color than a partially exhausted developer would. Essentially you'll get more or less the same image out of NLP regardless whether you're working with roll #1 or roll #40.

But... I am rarely happy with the default output of NLP, and plenty of folks here would agree. So I have no choice but to invert manually, and this is where minor deviations from the spec become really noticeable (and really annoying). Having acquired a color densitometer and a box of control strips, I started to notice how much easier it is to hand-invert negatives that were developed right on the money, i.e. within action limits. And needless to say that hand-inverting negatives outside of action limits is harder, and if you're outside of control limits it's a nightmare.

TLDR: reusing developer is fine if you're OK with auto-color.
 

Steven and all others here: Sorry for the late reply, but upon searching for results regarding kit capacity and quality, @Steven Lee here really says what I think.

My workflow involves using a specific narrowband RGB light source to resemble Status M, although it was a camera that I use as the scanner. Anyway, it was a density-referred workflow and easily reflects any development error.

None, and I mean strictly none, of any rolls from me or friends of mine using any third party kits together with so-called “extending dev time for more rolls” was properly developed. The only way to have normal, neutral scan from such rolls is to use softwares with correction algorithms, be it Grain2Pixel or NLP. Of course, one would happily have nice images from it, and not everyone aims for the same thing.

But it also leaves a question with very different assumed answers by us: what is considered good results for colour negatives? If judged solely by final images regardless of workflow, then yes, a Jobo/Ilford C-41 2.5L kit likely could give you that even at 40 rolls as they claim.
 

Most folks these days who are shooting colour film and using DIY C-41 are doing so not for absolute colour fidelity and accuracy, but for the less than accurate colour that film always had. They certainly do not care if it is not 100% correct with control strips and their ilk.

Not to mention that any colour shifts due to temp variations or chemistry fatigue can easily be corrected if desired with digital manipulation before it heads to the inkjet

I've found it easy to get 40 rolls from a 2.5 litre kit, and probably could have kept going for a while longer if I wished.

.
 

That’s so true. The colour correction can even have a philosophical thread on its own. Some treat negatives as the analogue version of digital raw, while some other control freaks (jk…) like me always want to replicate what the characteristic curves would resemble in the digital sense.

Sometimes I’d kick myself for being so stubborn and forgot why I shoot films, but the feeling of having problems solves is too rewarding to let go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register