No longer a C-41 virgin

OldBikerPete · Apr 21, 2006

Last week I developed twelve sheets of 5x4 Portra 160VC in a Jobo CPE-2 with 2500 tank and 2509N reel and I am overjoyed with the results. Compared to 'professional' lab processing the negs were much cleaner (dirt-wise) and development consistently even (lab results were uneven development - as if the neg was half-immersed for a significant period - in about 10% of negs). I included a C-41 process control strip in each batch to check out the accuracy of my process, consistency was within 0.2 density units according to my densitometer and absolutely the same by eye.

I used the formulae published in this forum and chemicals supplied by JDphotochem in Canada except for fixer for which I used Ilford Universal fixer concentrate purchased locally.

I am posting this in order to offer my thanks to Mick Fagan, PhotoEngineer and others who have shared their experience and expertise and who have been instrumental in my arrival at this point.

Thank you all.

Petzi · Apr 21, 2006

Keep it up!!

Mick Fagan · Apr 21, 2006

Pete, happy that you lost your virginity, but apportioning blame to me for doing so!

Glad that the process is under control, how are you storing your control strips, freezer?

I'll have to check out your negs next time I'm over.

Mick.

Photo Engineer · Apr 21, 2006

Congratulations!

I had nothing to do with it. It was all your own blood, sweat and tears!

PE

digiconvert · Apr 22, 2006

OldBikerPete said:
Last week I developed....... I am overjoyed with the results. Compared to 'professional' lab processing the negs were much cleaner (dirt-wise) ......

Thank you all.

Just developed my first C-41 (120 format Portra), thanks to all of the help on this site I was able to do it with a bowl of hot water and hot water from my tap (40 deg C almost bang on ). OK it will never win any prizes for the most sophisticated development technique in the world but;
a) It worked
b) I did it myself
c) My negs are not covered in water marks like the last lab batch.
d) did I mention it worked ?

I can't wait to try and print from these negs ( I guess filtration may be a little strange given my method ). It's all thanks to this forum that I have been able to do it .

Kino · Apr 23, 2006

OldBikerPete said:
I used the formulae published in this forum

Can you link to the exact formula you used?

thanks!

Frank

OldBikerPete · Apr 24, 2006

Kino said:
Can you link to the exact formula you used?

thanks!

Frank

No, I don't think I can - however here is a copy of the process I am using.

Pre-wet 5 Minutes at 100+/-0.5F from PhotoEngineerWaterDeveloper (pH: 10.0 - 10.1) 3min:15sec at 100+/-0.5F (modified from Gerald Kosh/BJP/Laut) AU$1.34/LCalgon (not if using distilled water) (g)2.00Sodium Sulphite (Annh) (g)4.25Potassium Bromide (g)1.50Potassium Iodide, 1g/l solution (ml)2.00Potassium Carbonate (annh) (g)37.50Hydroxylamine Sulphate (g)2.00CD-4 (g)4.80Water to (ml)1000.00Adjust pH with 28% Acetic acid or 10%NaOH Stop Bath 30 Seconds at 100F from Fagan et. al.Acetic Acid Glacial (ml)10.00Water to (ml)1000.00Rinse 30 Seconds at 100F from LautWater2x ChangesC-41 Bleach (pH 6.5) 6 Minutes at 100F (modified from Photoengineer) AU$16.96/LFerric Ammonium EDTA 50-60% (ml)200.00Ammonium Bromide (g)150.00DiSodium EDTA (g)10.00Sodium Sulphite (Annh) (g)10.8325% Ammonia Solution (ml)12.43Dissolve in 500ml water and make up to 1000 ml with water, adjust pH to 6.5 with 28% Acetic acid or 25% AmmoniaMay be partially re-activated by bubbling air through - adjust pH after.Rinse 30 Seconds at 100F from LautWater2x ChangesFixer (ph: 5.8 - 6.5) 6 minutes at 100F (modified from Fagan/BJP) AU$4.12/LSodium Sulphite (g)20.00Potassium Metabisulphite (g)20.00Ilford universal fixer concentrate to (ml)1000.00Adjust pH with 28% Acetic acid or 10%NaOH Wash 4 minutes at 100F from LautWater8x ChangesStabiliser 30 seconds in tray at room temp. from BJPWetting Agent (10% soln) (ml)10.00Formaldehyde (35-37%) (ml)6.00Water to (ml)1000.00

OldBikerPete · Apr 24, 2006

Kino said:
Can you link to the exact formula you used?

thanks!

Frank

That Excel spreadsheet didn't patse to well, here's trying a paste through Word.
Pre-wet 5 Minutes at 100F from PhotoEngineer

Water

Developer (pH: 10.0 - 10.1) 3min:15sec at 100+/-0.5F (modified from Gerald Kosh/BJP/Laut) AU$1.34/L

Calgon (not if using distilled water) (g)

2.00

Sodium Sulphite (Annh) (g)

4.25

Potassium Bromide (g)

1.50

Potassium Iodide, 1g/l solution (ml)

2.00

Potassium Carbonate (annh) (g)

37.50

Hydroxylamine Sulphate (g)

2.00

CD-4 (g)

4.80

Water to (ml)

1000.00

Adjust pH with 28% Acetic acid or 10%NaOH

Stop Bath 30 Seconds at 100F from Fagan et. al.

Acetic Acid Glacial (ml)

10.00

Water to (ml)

1000.00

Rinse 30 Seconds at 100F from Laut

Water

2x Changes

C-41 Bleach (pH 6.5) 6 Minutes at 100F (modified from Photoengineer) AU$16.96/L

Ferric Ammonium EDTA 50-60% (ml)

200.00

Ammonium Bromide (g)

150.00

DiSodium EDTA (g)

10.00

Sodium Sulphite (Annh) (g)

10.83

25% Ammonia Solution (ml)

12.43

Dissolve in 500ml water and make up to 1000 ml with water,

adjust pH to 6.5 with 28% Acetic acid or 25% Ammonia

May be partially re-activated by bubbling air through - adjust pH after.

Rinse 30 Seconds at 100F from Laut

Water

2x Changes

Fixer (ph: 5.8 - 6.5) 6 minutes at 100F (modified from Fagan/BJP) AU$4.12/L

Sodium Sulphite (g)

20.00

Potassium Metabisulphite (g)

20.00

Ilford universal fixer concentrate to (ml)

1000.00

Adjust pH with 28% Acetic acid or 10%NaOH

Wash 4 minutes at 100F from Laut

Water

8x Changes

Stabiliser 30 seconds in tray at room temp. from BJP

Wetting Agent (10% soln) (ml)

10.00

Formaldehyde (35-37%) (ml)

6.00

Water to (ml)

1000.00

OldBikerPete · Apr 24, 2006

Mick Fagan said:
Pete, happy that you lost your virginity, but apportioning blame to me for doing so!

Mick.

Just goes to show the effect you have on me Mick!

Kino · Apr 24, 2006

Hey, many thanks for posting that information for me (and others)!

I hope to join you in your C-41 debauchery soon!

Thanks OldBikerPete!

Mick Fagan · Apr 24, 2006

Well that makes 1 litre of go juice $22.42 assuming 8 rolls of 36 or 8 by 4 x 5 sheets per litre = $2.8025 each.

Allowing for the fact bleach can obviously be re-halogenated for a bit, fix has (as I understand it) twice the capacity of developer, what do you estimate your total developing costs alowing for the above factors?

Mick.

OldBikerPete · Apr 25, 2006

Mick Fagan said:
Well that makes 1 litre of go juice $22.42 assuming 8 rolls of 36 or 8 by 4 x 5 sheets per litre = $2.8025 each.

Allowing for the fact bleach can obviously be re-halogenated for a bit, fix has (as I understand it) twice the capacity of developer, what do you estimate your total developing costs alowing for the above factors?

Mick.

That's 8 rolls of 36x35mm or 8 Sheets of 8x10 or 32 sheets of 5x4 per litre.
In the Jobo, you are volume limited for the developer, one-shot - you only get 24 Sheets of 5x4 per litre. -> $0.056 /sheet

If the stories about the 1.5 times bleach capacity with re-halogenation are correct, that's 48 sheets /litre -> $0.353/litre.

If the stories about 2 times fixer capacity are correct, thats 64 sheets/litre -> $0.064/sheet

Total $0.47 per sheet. Less than one-tenth the cost of Lab. processing and a damn sight better quality.

I'm stoked.

mts · Feb 6, 2009

A few years ago I offered through an apug post a collection of "clone" formulae, and it is available still for anyone who is interested enough to e-mail me a request. My collection of formulae omits many of the difficult to locate components and I received some critical comments about that, but these recipes do work well and I personally am quite satisfied with the results.

The C41 clones work quite well as do several of the bleach formulae. In experimenting I found that one can use one of several alternative bleaches for C-41 and E-6, although some work better than others. The Fe-EDTA bleach works well, but an alternative quinone bleach works better for me being cleaner and easier to formulate. I use the latter primarily for E-6 because bleaching reversal seems to work better with a more active solution. E-6 is definitely more difficult to bleach than C-41, and paper bleaching is of course easiest to bleach.

To scratch-mix chemistry there is an initial investment required to build a suitable chemical stock. However, once a decent chemical stock is obtained it is very convenient to scratch-mix with convenience and constant availability being most desirable for me. Most of the chemical stock can be considered as 'forever' components. I am using many components that were acquired twenty or more years ago and still achieving good consistent results.

Aside from the investment in a chemical stock one must also have an accurate pH meter and in-date calibration solutions. Fortunately in the last twenty years or so pH meters have become more reliable and much cheaper.

Claire Senft · Feb 6, 2009

Have you thought about going into business and becoming a C41 whore...I guess that would be to extreme.

OldBikerPete · Feb 7, 2009

Re-post of formulae

Seeing that mts has bumped this to the top again, I'll take the opportunity of trying to attach a PDF of the formulae I have used.

snowblind · Feb 8, 2009

So the CPE-2 is good enough for colour then? I can't quite remember all the differences between the CPE, CPA and CPP but I know the CPP had better temperature control which many people reckoned was essential for consistency in colour work. What does anyone think? The CPP is ridiculously overpriced anytime you see one come up for sale.

Thanks for the formulae Pete!

Mick Fagan · Feb 8, 2009

I've been doing C41, E6 and B&W reversal, plus a multitude of different B&W film processing for the last 20 odd years in my CPE2.

Not to mention, Duratrans, Color Print Film (C41), Cibachrome, EP2 and RA4 off the top of my head.

Yes the CPE2 can do all of these and extremely repeatably, just as you can but with a bit more due diligence, do exactly the same procedures with a bucket of warm water and the appropriate drum/tank.

Think of the CPE2 as designed down, from the professional models in the range.

The major difference apart from physical size and ability for large drums/tanks as far as I can remember, is that there is a water pump enabling a closer temperature tolerance factor. The rest of the variables are just icing on the cake, so to speak.

Mick.

snowblind · Feb 8, 2009

I found some more of the differences. I think CPE/CPA are similar but for capacity and CPP adds some extra bells and whistles like cold water inlet and more precise temperature control. Anyway, maybe I hijacked the thread since it was about C-41 and OldBikerPete's results while discussion of the processor should probably be in the equipment section but thanks for the reply. Good to know the cheaper models can cut it because I'm not paying what people are asking for a CPP but I do want something so I don't have to be as worried about the "due diligence" part. "Due diligence" can often equal "chore".

Claire Senft · Feb 8, 2009

Just a thought about some changes made since I did C41 last with any regularity is what this post is about.

There was for years a very fine photo store in Milwaukee that served the commercial trade, the carriage trade and even laid off cab drivers. The name of this store was Reimers. I recall what a well stocked store they had for photographic items. They were wonderful folks too...wonderful may be understating it. The following transpired during the 1970s.

I had been doing C41 in open tanks placed within an insulated...a picnic cooler... waterbath maintained by a Calumet recirculating heater and measured with a Kodak Process thermometer. Used were 6 open tanks that held 8 120 reels each... if I recall correctly. Please believe that here in Milwaukee the 1970s were, it seems to me, more than 10 years ago...but I have not been having many junior moments lately.

Anyhow I wanted to get a C41 chemical. It was called, if I remember correctly, "bleach regenerator". Quite likely is the possibility that I do not recall correctly. It came in 1 quart glass bottles of very ordinary thickness.

Holy cow! This crap was really terrible from an organleptic sense...burn you, blind you, give you respistory problems that the maker's of unfiltered Pall Malls and Camels must have been extremely envious of and closely studying
so that the cigarette industry could close this gap and fill more coffins and achieve greater customer turn under.

But there it...the bleach regenerator...was sitting with regularity, multiple bottles more than 3 feet from a concrete floor. Sitting there, just waiting to fall off.

There was terriorism during the 70s as well as Willie Sutton wannabee's.

I often thought were I ever wishing to take control, for instance, of a bank lobby this was truly hell sent. Wear a gask mask and gloves and smash a quart of this crap in an enclosed space and it would be your private play area in next to no time.

But you have to remember that my imagination is much under exercised when compared to that which way to prevelent with my mouf. Sometimes I talk so loud that deaf as I am I can hear myself think...talk about aural pollution:confused:

OldBikerPete · Feb 9, 2009

OldBikerPete said:
Seeing that mts has bumped this to the top again, I'll take the opportunity of trying to attach a PDF of the formulae I have used.

I should point out that the developer formula in the attached PDF - although still the one I am using - produces thin, off-color negs when adjusted to pH=10.2 for use. I am using it as made up at pH=10.8-10.9 (which i think is also off-color - but I only scan my negs and my scanner [an M1] scans every neg differently and I have to spent a lot of time correcting color - and not just the ones I've developed, also Lab. developed - Why can't people write software that makes a scanner behave like an enlarger)
I'm experimenting with modified color developers by other contributors as time permits but have not seen anything significantly better yet.

OldBikerPete · Feb 9, 2009

snowblind said:
So the CPE-2 is good enough for colour then? I can't quite remember all the differences between the CPE, CPA and CPP but I know the CPP had better temperature control which many people reckoned was essential for consistency in colour work. What does anyone think? The CPP is ridiculously overpriced anytime you see one come up for sale.

Thanks for the formulae Pete!

The temperature control is entirely adequate. The only problem is that you are limited to small tanks and small development batches. Although there was no apparent reason to do so, I added a small garden-fountain pump to the tank of my CPE-2 to force water recirculation.

snowblind · Feb 9, 2009

OldBikerPete said:
Although there was no apparent reason to do so, I added a small garden-fountain pump to the tank of my CPE-2 to force water recirculation.

I was thinking along the same lines myself!

ahock · Feb 17, 2009

OldBikerPete said:
(which i think is also off-color - but I only scan my negs and my scanner [an M1] scans every neg differently and I have to spent a lot of time correcting color - and not just the ones I've developed, also Lab. developed - Why can't people write software that makes a scanner behave like an enlarger)

To my knowledge, recent scanner are quite clever enough. If your film are develop under standard protocol and everything is good condition, then you will get a standard film like others. You can very easy scan this film, because it is same with the standard.

I have try to scan film developed by difference Lab. Some of them are always don't have color shift, some of them are always color shift. Just my 2 cent.

OldBikerPete · Feb 17, 2009

ahock said:
To my knowledge, recent scanner are quite clever enough.....<snip>.....

Too bloody clever by half. Duplicate scans of the same neg. were wildly different in color balance and had cross-overs - different ones. That's using the software which came with the M1 - both the Microtek and the Silverfast. I'm waiting impatiently for Vuescan to support the M1.

Although just in the last week or so I had an epiphany.
In setting up my development process I made use of some Kodak process control strips and a densitometer.
I had the idea of using the Microtek software which has in it the facility to enter custom Dmin and Dmax numbers. (I had been leaving the density range on automatic and the software had been arbitrarily clipping the highlights and shadows off my images and screwing with color balance). I had these density numbers to hand from process control strips, so I entered them into each of the R, G and B channels of the custom density setting and --------- voila -------- instant repeatability.
Gross color balance can be tweaked by making small changes to the Dmin values after viewing the prescan.

The initial scan (I use 48-bit scans) is weak and low-contrast and the negs I have scanned only use about 1/3 of the full density span. I save the scan as a tif and
then open it up in Photoshop. Add adjustment layers for (respectively) levels, brightness/contrast, hue/saturation, color balance and curves and I finish up with an image that looks like a good scan of a good transparency without any of the difficult and guesstimated color shifting i had to do previously.

This post is probably more appropriate to the Hybrid site and i will duplicate it there.

No longer a C-41 virgin

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency