Pacific Film for color prints ASA 80 is not C-41 process!

I was given a "mystery" roll of Pacific Film film and processed in C-41 chemistry. This was a mistake. The emulsion was destroyed and peeled off as ugly brownish sludge. The chemistry is fine, I developed another roll after this and the negative came out fine.

Pacific Film was an Australian company based in Sydney. Among other things they sold German and Japanese films under their name. The label says "Made in Germany" and the spool looks identical to older Agfa ones.

Can anyone shed some light on this film stock? If this is not C-41 what process could this be? And what are the options of processing this film now?

From looking at the images you posted of the label, "made in Germany" would suggest Agfa, and ASA 80 would suggest Agfa CNS film.
Agfa CNS was completely different (and now obsolete process) from the Kodak based C41 or C22. The hotter C41 process at 38C will melt the Agfa CNS emulsion as you found out.

There are some people who process this type of film in C41 BUT at 20C and extended times.
Here are some suggestions about it.

http://www.florisdox.com/expired-agfacolor-cns-c41/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/998890@N20/discuss/72157656808149052/
http://classicameras.blogspot.com/2010/08/agfacolor-cns.htmlhttp://classicameras.blogspot.com/2010/08/agfacolor-cns.html

It does look like Agfa Color Negative Special:
https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Colour_Darkroom/Early_Agfa.html#anchorAgfa8
"G" before CNS must mean Germany. I have an undeveloped 126 type cartridge also from Pacific Film which has "J C41" on the label. The film was made in Japan.

Agfa was the last of the western manufacturers to give up their very own emulsion (coupler) technology and processes and change over to Kodak style ones.
Agfa was such a big player at world scale (No 2 behind Kodak) that they longtime could live fine with what over time became a chemical island.

Romanko said:

I was given a "mystery" roll of Pacific Film film and processed in C-41 chemistry. This was a mistake.

Click to expand...

In case of doubt ask here before. That CNS designation already would have given you a hint at googling.

However, "Processing not included" on the other hand just indicates a generic process. By including processing in the price, by the respective voucher, a film manufactuer could be sure that film lands again in a lab controlled by him. And also bringing him back the employed silver... Of course by this it was guaranteed that the film ended in the apt processs

Not to mention that the film is very old, wrong process and who knows what time has done to the emulsion.

I remember CNS, more in common with C-22 than C-41 BUT not compatible with either. back in teh day when we sent it to the lab it came back in agfa brand packaging and printed on Agfa Paper. although the lab salesperson assured us that they were the designated lab. AGFA couplers were different than Kodak, (when PE was alive he once explained the difference) so I would not count on it working with C-22.

the vauge process game not only mean that the labs could get the processing business, some went to far as to provide replacement rolls of the vauge film to keep the customer captive. I recall that their was a "triple print" film that appeared to be made by Greveart. which no one could process when Triple print labs gave up.

What is the problem with using the formula (CNs)
I use this formula almost always. It is an excellent developer and lives a very long time on the shelf.
If you can prepare the developer, I can help you.
These are some samples of the expired Kodak Color Plus film.

Apparently, CNS process is very similar to ORWOCOLOR and Sovcolor.

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/directo...dsn=directory.file;field=data;id=28612;m=view

According to this Wikipedia article (in Russian) ORWOCOLOR NC-19 and ORWOCOLOR NC-21 could be processed in "ЦНД" chemistry manufactured in the USSR and the results were the same as when processed in ORWOCOLOR kits:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovcolor

The formulas for both processes are included at the end of the article. Please let me know if anyone is interested I can try and translate them.

cmacd123 said:

AGFA couplers were different than Kodak, (when PE was alive he once explained the difference).

Click to expand...

When Fischer invented in 1912 chromogenic devrlopment and the modern 3-layer colour film he could not make it work, as his couplers did not stay in the layers they were meant to be.
So in the 30's Kodak invented a complicated diffusion process where the couplers only were added to the emulsion at processing and where they were just in the right layer when the development process started.
Independantly at the same time at Agfa they invented couplers with a ballast that would fix them in the gelatin of the very layer. And Agfa kept this principle up into 1980.
At Kodak they too looked for such an easy process and as they could not licence the Agfa system, they invented couplers that got stuck to oily droplets that themself would remain in their layer.




(By thy way, at this Kodak systen the term "emulsion" for the first time was correct.)

Romanko said:

Apparently, CNS process is very similar to ORWOCOLOR and Sovcolor.

Click to expand...

After World War II the Soviets took equipment, stock, and formulas and used it to establish their own Sovcolor so basically, they were based on Agfacolor process
The Agfa's plant at Wolfen was in the Soviet occupation area and produced Agfa films in what would become East Germany (DDR / GDR). The Wolfen plant lost the right to use the Agfa name and so became ORWO in the early 1960s Their films were based on the Agfacolor process.

In Ireland back in the 1960s and 1970s, Agfa was a very popular brand and their films sold well. Any of the labs that I knew of (in 1970s) all ran a Kodak process machine and an Agfa process machine, for colour negative films.
The Agfachrome (AP41), also a different process to Kodak slide film, were sent to a lab in UK with a very fast turnaround (for those days 1 week)

Romanko said:

Apparently, CNS process is very similar to ORWOCOLOR and Sovcolor.

Click to expand...

foc said:

After World War II the Soviets took equipment, stock, and formulas and used it to establish their own Sovcolor so basically, they were based on Agfacolor process

Click to expand...

Worldwide the Agfacolor process was used by film manufacturers.

CNS is the designation of later Agfacolor emulsions, the latest even already being being of type C41.

Sovcolor is a vague designation, it does not depict for sure a certain technology. However in the USSR all chromogenic films were of the Agfacolor principle.


Basically there were 3 colour emulsion principles, designated as:
Kodachrome
Agfacolor
Ektachrome (Kodacolor)

Romanko said:

Apparently, CNS process is very similar to ORWOCOLOR and Sovcolor.

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/directo...dsn=directory.file;field=data;id=28612;m=view

According to this Wikipedia article (in Russian) ORWOCOLOR NC-19 and ORWOCOLOR NC-21 could be processed in "ЦНД" chemistry manufactured in the USSR and the results were the same as when processed in ORWOCOLOR kits:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovcolor

The formulas for both processes are included at the end of the article. Please let me know if anyone is interested I can try and translate them.

Click to expand...

Yes brother, I am using the first (CNs) formula, which depends on a developer and then an assistant development solution,
I use this formula almost always (especially in the winter). It is an excellent developer and lives a very long time on the shelf.
The formula is published in Mister Dagnan's book.
I highly recommend everyone to use this wonderful formula.

foc said:

The Wolfen plant lost the right to use the Agfa name and so became ORWO in the early 1960s

Click to expand...

They did not loose that right.
It was a bit more complicated...

Agfa Wolfen lost one important court case against Agfa Leverkusen at a west-german court in the early 50's, when a west-german Agfa was arising. The decision of this court can be seen as questionable. As with similar decision or stand in West-Germany concerning east-german trade-marks. The basic stand in the West was that the respective east-german entity is no longer the same as that which once owned the trademark.
Unquestionable though is that both soviet and east-german authorities long time neglected care for the trademarks of the eastern manufacturers registered or being registered abroad.
For the soviet authorities this even was not surprising as they either wanted those plants for the USSR or at least their production for the soviet market. Thus they had no interest in east-german manufacturing for the West and for western trading, necessitating such care for trademarks.

For the Wolven vs. Leverkusen case it is most important to understand that both plants in the postwar years were dependant on each other and so they made a contract between each other regulating matters, including the unilateral use of the trademarks.


When a prolongation of this contract was due, it was the east-german government that decided in 1964 not to prolong this contract.


The idea was to be better able to compete under an own label with Leverkusen, than within a mix of products under same label and within a contract with a partner that meanwhile gained dominance.

AgX said:

They did not loose that right.
It was a bit more complicated...

Agfa Wolfen lost one important court case against Agfa Leverkusen at a west-german court in the early 50's, when a west-german Agfa was arising. The decision of this court can be seen as questionable. As with similar decision or stand in West-Germany concerning east-german trade-marks. The basic stand in the West was that the respective east-german entity is no longer the same as that which once owned the trademark.
Unquestionable though is that both soviet and east-german authorities long time neglected care for the trademarks of the eastern manufacturers registered or being registered abroad.
For the soviet authorities this even was not surprising as they either wanted those plants for the USSR or at least their production for the soviet market. Thus they had no interest in east-german manufacturing for the West and for western trading, necessitating such care for trademarks.

For the Wolven vs. Leverkusen case it is most important to understand that both plants in the postwar years were dependant on each other and so they made a contract between each other regulating matters, including the unilateral use of the trademarks.


When a prolongation of this contract was due, it was the east-german government that decided in 1964 not to prolong this contract.


The idea was to be better able to compete under an own label with Leverkusen, than within a mix of products under same label and within a contract with a partner that meanwhile gained dominance.

Click to expand...

Actually I feel confused.
What is the reason for studying the history of the company (AGFA), and (ORWO), and its subsidiaries? !
I think it is worth answering the main central question.
- If we prepare the process chemistry (CNs) today, and use them in the development of the Kodak Color Plus film produced this month. What are the expected results?
The answer is in the picture attached to post #13, and based on that, it is a fortiori that if we use that chemistry in developing rolls (CNs), in the case we are discussing is the roll of the Australian colleague (OP) it is assumed that it will work more than we can Highly standardized results

Romanko said:

Apparently, CNS process is very similar to ORWOCOLOR and Sovcolor.

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/directo...dsn=directory.file;field=data;id=28612;m=view

Click to expand...

This article basically is about cine films. Statements often do not apply on still film and thus may be misleading here.

AgX said:

Statements often do not apply on still film and thus may be misleading here.

Click to expand...

Agfa CNS was a colour still film, and the most advanced one that Agfa west germany had designed back when it came out in the 70s. I only shot a couple of rolls but liked it a lot. Shortly after that , Kodak sprung C-41 on the world. CNS had Nothing to do with any eastern European product! a while later, Agfa like the other makers all switched to a C-41 compatible process.

and Sovcolor was used for marketing Motion Pictures produced by the Soviet Motion Picture industry. the film stocks may have changed over time and been made anothere behind the Iron curtain. BUT the colour stocks in that area were all based on the WWII Agfa process. I would guess that many did not even include an Orange mask.

AgX said:

They did not loose that right.
It was a bit more complicated...

Agfa Wolfen lost one important court case against Agfa Leverkusen at a west-german court in the early 50's, when a west-german Agfa was arising. The decision of this court can be seen as questionable. As with similar decision or stand in West-Germany concerning east-german trade-marks. The basic stand in the West was that the respective east-german entity is no longer the same as that which once owned the trademark.
Unquestionable though is that both soviet and east-german authorities long time neglected care for the trademarks of the eastern manufacturers registered or being registered abroad.
For the soviet authorities this even was not surprising as they either wanted those plants for the USSR or at least their production for the soviet market. Thus they had no interest in east-german manufacturing for the West and for western trading, necessitating such care for trademarks.

For the Wolven vs. Leverkusen case it is most important to understand that both plants in the postwar years were dependant on each other and so they made a contract between each other regulating matters, including the unilateral use of the trademarks.


When a prolongation of this contract was due, it was the east-german government that decided in 1964 not to prolong this contract.


The idea was to be better able to compete under an own label with Leverkusen, than within a mix of products under same label and within a contract with a partner that meanwhile gained dominance.

Click to expand...

Fascinating! Imagine the two facilities trying to work together, while the USSR and the USA fought the Cold War. Must have been a hard thing to watch Agfa being torn apart!

mohmad khatab said:

Actually I feel confused.
What is the reason for studying the history of the company (AGFA), and (ORWO), and its subsidiaries? !
I think it is worth answering the main central question.
- If we prepare the process chemistry (CNs) today, and use them in the development of the Kodak Color Plus film produced this month. What are the expected results?
The answer is in the picture attached to post #13, and based on that, it is a fortiori that if we use that chemistry in developing rolls (CNs), in the case we are discussing is the roll of the Australian colleague (OP) it is assumed that it will work more than we can Highly standardized results

Click to expand...

Why not use C41 chemistry???

mohmad khatab said:

The formula is published in Mister Dagnan's book.

Click to expand...

Mohmad, thanks for your comments and suggestions. I am new to colour photography. What book are your referring too? I could not find any photography books by Dagnan.

As for your Kodak Color Plus images, they look absolutely amazing. I really like the warm and vibrant colours on the second one. As far as I understand from your comments you use modern (not expired) film and process it in the chemistry that you prepare yourself using the formulas you mentioned, am I right? If so, did you try comparing your results with standard C-41 processing? There's extra effort (and maybe cost, at least initially) in making your own chemistry and I would like to understand if I want to go this path. Once again we are not talking processing expired/non C-41/"mystery" film, I am interested in processing fresh C-41 film stock.

mshchem said:

Why not use C41 chemistry?

Click to expand...

This seems to be the recommended way of processing CNS film today. Enno Veereste processed several hundred rolls of Agfa CN 17 shot in 1960s using cold C-41 chemistry. The results are here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/werra/albums/72157632297160348
To my inexperienced eye of a black-and-white photographer the images look very similar to historical photos taken on Agfa CN17 and processed in the original chemistry (taking into account image degradation over several decades of storage). CN17 preceded CNS which was introduced in 1968.

Romanko said:

This seems to be the recommended way of processing CNS film today. Enno Veereste processed several hundred rolls of Agfa CN 17 shot in 1960s using cold C-41 chemistry. The results are here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/werra/albums/72157632297160348
To my inexperienced eye of a black-and-white photographer the images look very similar to historical photos taken on Agfa CN17 and processed in the original chemistry (taking into account image degradation over several decades of storage). CN17 preceded CNS which was introduced in 1968.

Click to expand...

The photos of the mysterious films of your Flickr link are amazing.

Just to be clear, I would use proper C-41 chemistry for modern C-41 color negative film.

mshchem said:

Fascinating! Imagine the two facilities trying to work together, while the USSR and the USA fought the Cold War. Must have been a hard thing to watch Agfa being torn apart!

Click to expand...

And the same time each of the 3(+1) Allies all had their own stand on de development of german economy, added that the Leverkusen plant just was budding. Thus it was not much of tearing apart as there still was yet not much in the West.

The same time also the IG Farben complex was to be disentangled, the largest chemical firm in the world.

mshchem said:

Why not use C41 chemistry???

Click to expand...

there are many reasons .
I have a different and unfamiliar artistic point of view, and many may not agree with me. But this is what I believe in.

The first reason: I use CNs in the winter because it is a very comfortable formula and needs a temperature (20°C), and this means that adjusting the temperature will be very easy and does not require effort.

The second reason: It became clear to me that the formula (CNs) lives for a long time on the shelf without being exposed to oxidation or damage. Arrived more than three months ago,
The third reason: The formula (CNs) does not contain potassium iodide and this contributes to extending the life of this developer on the shelf.

The fourth reason: the most important reason from my point of view, and I know that the opinion will probably surprise most people. This is the only formula that is 100% official.. I believe that Kodak or Fuji patent formulas have some deliberately posted tricks.

Fifth: Auxiliary development solution. We must stop a lot and reflect on the task assigned to this solution. It became clear to me that this solution is a genius creation of the great scholars of Agfa. From my point of view, this solution helps a lot in establishing three things:

A - This solution helps a lot to highlight the details in the shadows in an impressive way. This is somewhat missing in the formula (C41).

B - Color saturation is really amazing, I didn't measure density I don't have the tools to do so, but I speak based on my inner sense.

C- This solution helps a lot in developing expired films in a very quiet manner. As the expired and worn-out film, it basically needs tender treatment, and this is what this solution gives it. It extracts everything inside this emulsion from silver halides in a calm and wonderful way. You can do it yourself, get a fully weaponized roll and shoot it on one scene, and develop half of this roll with standard C41 formula and the other half with CNs formula, you will be surprised with the results,, trust me

Conclusion: I think, according to my point of view, which has no value. That the creativity of German scientists was strongly evident in the invention of the formula (CNs), they invented that formula with the mentality of scientists who love photography and not with the mentality of merchants and businessmen who seek financial profit.

Yes, that formula was later modified to comply with temperatures of 38 degrees Celsius to be compatible with the development machines of Kodak and Noritsu, and these are purely commercial goals. Agfa was in need of financial profit in a period of time, and I do not blame them.

Romanko said:

Mohmad, thanks for your comments and suggestions. I am new to colour photography. What book are your referring too? I could not find any photography books by Dagnan.

As for your Kodak Color Plus images, they look absolutely amazing. I really like the warm and vibrant colours on the second one. As far as I understand from your comments you use modern (not expired) film and process it in the chemistry that you prepare yourself using the formulas you mentioned, am I right? If so, did you try comparing your results with standard C-41 processing? There's extra effort (and maybe cost, at least initially) in making your own chemistry and I would like to understand if I want to go this path. Once again we are not talking processing expired/non C-41/"mystery" film, I am interested in processing fresh C-41 film stock.

Click to expand...

Hello my Australian brother.
Don't worry my dear, I can help you with this if you really want to. You are most welcome.
You say you are a new hobbyist. And I'm actually a little confused, do you have the capabilities to prepare photographic chemistry from scratch.
Do you have the necessary chemicals to do that?
If the desire is available and the ability to provide chemical raw materials is available, I am happy to offer you advice and guidance in order to do so.
If you don't want to buy chemicals, etc., I can give you half a kit. If any of your friends or relatives will come to visit the pyramids, he can pass me by and I will give him a quantity of solutions that I will prepare for you, and that is free of charge.

Greetings to you and the dear people of Australia
I cannot fail to extend my warm congratulations to you on the new nuclear submarines.