I'm not sure it makes sense to make your own. The kits from Fotochem aren't that expensive. Or the bulk chemicals from people like Fuji or Kodak aren't that bad either. Blix will keep. In my expierence even the developer keeps fairly well.
Nick,
I bought one of the fotochem kits a few weeks ago but I was kind of worried about using it because all the bottles of chemicals I got were labeled C-41!!
This may be where the big pond divides us as far as chems are concerned but I have used Tetenal and then Paterson. This is based on U.K. prices and availability but I found Paterson to be considerably cheaper but equally as good.
There was a URL to a new RA developer posted on PN about a month ago. It looked pretty good. All of the previous errors I saw in it were fixed. It is almost like the real thing!
Not all kits out there are good. Never use a CD4 based kit or formula for paper.
Nick,
I bought one of the fotochem kits a few weeks ago but I was kind of worried about using it because all the bottles of chemicals I got were labeled C-41!!
I've used the one linked to by Nick with (to my subjective eye) good results, using Kodak and Fuji papers. I can't speak to archival qualities, though. Another one is described here:
This might be the one to which PE referred, but I'm not positive of that. I've not yet tried it, since it contains some chemicals I haven't tracked down. (I've not tried all that hard, but I'm pretty sure I checked some of the popular photochemical suppliers, such as Photographer's Formulary and Art Craft.)