Reusing one shot developer and other bad practices.

[Cholentpot]

The colours look fine to me but only you were there at the time so are they the same as the actual colours? If you can get to 30 rolls from a kit that that is supposed to be OK for only 8 then that appears to be one heck of a safety margin that has been built-in.

If you did some post process alterations can you say if these were of the kind that an RA4 printer using an enlarger could replicate?

Thanks

pentaxuser

The colors are pretty close, I find that if I struggle with colors from the first roll I'm going to struggle all the way. Yellow goes first and the yellows still look pretty nice to me in this photo. There is most defiantly a magenta-green-blue hue present in later photos. Again, these are developed for scanning so I can generally take out the issues.

I've never worked with RA4 so I can't tell you.

 

[Cholentpot]

I don't shoot a lot of color so I save up my rolls of color film until I have about 20 exposed rolls before I even mix my developer. I can easily develop 20 rolls in a kit that is supposed to have a capacity of 8 rolls. I do it all the time. But I also know the risks. I am usually completely done developing all 20 or so rolls in two days. I'm not saving the developer over several weeks and developing a roll or two as I expose them.

I've never tried 40 rolls. Usually by 20 rolls I am seeing just enough decrease in quality that I cut it off. But who knows? Maybe I'll prowl around fleabay and look for some badly expired color film to play with just to see what happens.

Oh well, that will probably have to wait. I have several rolls of Adox film on the way that I need to test so I'll put this one on the back burner for now.

I have nearly 40 rolls stocked up right now waiting for development. I tend to do it over the course of a few weeks and darn the torpedoes for the later rolls. I tend to scan after I develop everything. After I finish the bulk of my rolls I develop as I go along until I feel the kit is done. I save my terribly expired stuff for the later rolls.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You don't wanna know what I do with my C-41 kits...

At FreeStyle's recommendation I get up to 16 rolls per 1 liter C41 kit which recommends only 12 rolls.

 

[Cholentpot]

At FreeStyle's recommendation I get up to 16 rolls per 1 liter C41 kit which recommends only 12 rolls.

How far do you mess with the times?

 

[Sirius Glass]

How far do you mess with the times?

I just follow the instructions. I do not vary from them.

 

[npl]

Just a suggestion, keep the D76 for your usual rolls and use a cheap developer for the odds ones ? like rodinal 1:50 or reused/replenished Xtol.

 

[Rudeofus]

The last one, a powder kit rated for 8 rolls I pushed into the 40's. Every half dozen rolls I'd push the time a bit more on the dev and blix. And yes, while there are obvious color shifts on the rolls, really past roll 30 only, for the film I'm using, expired, or ECNII stuff it doesn't really matter. Either I fix in post or I just roll with it.

You can certainly squeeze many rolls out of C-41 CD (like the folks here in this thread), but you should be careful with overextending BLIX. It will not show up in the images right away, but retained silver will be an issue down the road. The folks in the thread I just quoted did mix fresh bleach and fixer every so often.

PS: There's a yet more extreme way to overstretch C-41 CD. I dare you reuse that soup :-D

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply Cholenpot. The yellows look pretty good to me as well. Oh, and the other colours as well

pentaxuser

 

[Cholentpot]

Just a suggestion, keep the D76 for your usual rolls and use a cheap developer for the odds ones ? like rodinal 1:50 or reused/replenished Xtol.

I don't generally like the look of Rodinal as a developer. I almost exclusively use it for stand development. My expired stuff is grainy to begin with and throwing it in Rodinal just makes it worse.

You can certainly squeeze many rolls out of C-41 CD (like the folks here in this thread), but you should be careful with overextending BLIX. It will not show up in the images right away, but retained silver will be an issue down the road. The folks in the thread I just quoted did mix fresh bleach and fixer every so often.

PS: There's a yet more extreme way to overstretch C-41 CD. I dare you reuse that soup :-D

I'm not so concerned with longevity as I scan the film and hope that keeps it archival. If there's an issue I just plunk the negatives in standard fixer and it generally clears it up.

 

[Rudeofus]

I'm not so concerned with longevity as I scan the film and hope that keeps it archival. If there's an issue I just plunk the negatives in standard fixer and it generally clears it up.

There may also be metallic silver left in your film, you'd have to use bleach and fix to clean that up.

 

[Cholentpot]

There may also be metallic silver left in your film, you'd have to use bleach and fix to clean that up.

Good to know. I'll look back at my archives and if I see issues time to order some bleach.

I just ran 5 rolls through some HC110B. The first two rolls were Arista EDU 400@400 developed in 450ml of dilution B, I then developed two rolls of Orwo N74 with a one stock push and last a roll of N74 shot at box speed. All using the same 450ml of developer.

The negatives look fine. Edge markings are there but they always tend to be somewhat thin on N74 film for whatever reasons.

What this experiment so far has got me is I've managed to develop all my film from the past three months in a few days rather than weeks and also saved a whole lot of developer in the process. I'll only know if it truly worked when I scan but as it stands the negatives look fine. At some point when the scans are done I'll post them up here.

 

[Mr Bill]

The last one, a powder kit rated for 8 rolls I pushed into the 40's. Every half dozen rolls I'd push the time a bit more on the dev and blix. And yes, while there are obvious color shifts on the rolls, really past roll 30 only, for the film I'm using, expired, or ECNII stuff it doesn't really matter.

I've never tried 40 rolls. Usually by 20 rolls I am seeing just enough decrease in quality that I cut it off. But who knows?

I know this post is really about b&white film, but since it's taken a short excursion into C-41 color I'll make a comment or two.

Years ago I was introduced to what seems to be something of a secret method to get maximum usage out of C-41 developer. This method requires starting out with some initial quantity of developer, after which needs only about an extra 26 ml per roll (135-36). So each additional liter, 1000 ml, of "developer" is good for a nominal 38 rolls of film.

Now, many other people seem to see some degradation after a lot of rolls, but not with this method. The 1st roll and the 38th get nearly identical development. There is no other method I know of that gets such economy out of the developer.

I don't know why the method seems so little-known but it is revealed in Kodak's Z-131 process manual. One simply uses Kodak LORR developer replenisher. See table 2-4 for the replenishment rates. Only 26 ml of LORR replenisher per roll.

There IS an aspect that rules it out for many users - one is NOT allowed to aerate the developer. So no Jobo rotary processors, nor anything else that exposes the C-41 developer to very much air. You see, a color developer uses only a small amount of "preservative" (mainly sulfite); too much sulfite combines with oxidized developer before it can reach a dye coupler, limiting color formation. So there is a delicate balance that gets disrupted if the developer gets aerated. Or stored too long.

And if one carries this on for a long period of time it's probably necessary to filter it periodically. Commercial processing machines have built-in circulation pumps and filters to deal with this, but they can go on indefinitely, for years and years. I almost forgot to say that the user of a replenished system has to keep an eye on the "activity" of the system; it is sometimes necessary to raise or lower the replenishment to keep things on an even keel.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for that Mr Bill. My take on it is that unfortunately and in a nutshell it's a non starter for a lowish volume home processing enthusiast?

pentaxuser

 

[Mr Bill]

Thanks for that Mr Bill. My take on it is that unfortunately and in a nutshell it's a non starter for a lowish volume home processing enthusiast?

Why not? Is there some fundamental reason why it can't be done?

I wouldn't mention the idea to someone who does, say, 10 rolls per year. But with the guys that I quoted one is already doing past 30 rolls (last time into 40s) and the other "usually" cuts it off at 20 rolls due to decrease in quality. (I presume they mean this is per liter.)

So if someone can pull this off ...?

 

[MattKing]

A decent understanding of replenishment will also help understanding how best to use a regime that involves moderate re-use.

 

[pentaxuser]

Why not? Is there some fundamental reason why it can't be done?

I wouldn't mention the idea to someone who does, say, 10 rolls per year. But with the guys that I quoted one is already doing past 30 rolls (last time into 40s) and the other "usually" cuts it off at 20 rolls due to decrease in quality. (I presume they mean this is per liter.)

So if someone can pull this off ...?

Maybe I read your list of qualifications that you consider necessary to make the process work, wrongly. I could of course ask a myriad of questions involving what I think you have said that mitigates against trying replenishment and you answering each but it might be quicker if I could ask you what the home processor person needs to do to make it work.

Clearly you have ruled out very low volume users such as 10 films per year and a Jobo processor So this may form the start of a suggested process

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Pioneer]

I know this post is really about b&white film, but since it's taken a short excursion into C-41 color I'll make a comment or two.

Years ago I was introduced to what seems to be something of a secret method to get maximum usage out of C-41 developer. This method requires starting out with some initial quantity of developer, after which needs only about an extra 26 ml per roll (135-36). So each additional liter, 1000 ml, of "developer" is good for a nominal 38 rolls of film.

Now, many other people seem to see some degradation after a lot of rolls, but not with this method. The 1st roll and the 38th get nearly identical development. There is no other method I know of that gets such economy out of the developer.

I don't know why the method seems so little-known but it is revealed in Kodak's Z-131 process manual. One simply uses Kodak LORR developer replenisher. See table 2-4 for the replenishment rates. Only 26 ml of LORR replenisher per roll.

There IS an aspect that rules it out for many users - one is NOT allowed to aerate the developer. So no Jobo rotary processors, nor anything else that exposes the C-41 developer to very much air. You see, a color developer uses only a small amount of "preservative" (mainly sulfite); too much sulfite combines with oxidized developer before it can reach a dye coupler, limiting color formation. So there is a delicate balance that gets disrupted if the developer gets aerated. Or stored too long.

And if one carries this on for a long period of time it's probably necessary to filter it periodically. Commercial processing machines have built-in circulation pumps and filters to deal with this, but they can go on indefinitely, for years and years. I almost forgot to say that the user of a replenished system has to keep an eye on the "activity" of the system; it is sometimes necessary to raise or lower the replenishment to keep things on an even keel.

This is something I was aware of when I used Kodak chemicals but since I use a Jobo and continually agitate the film I have never tried it. Secondly I am presently using inexpensive C-41 kits from Freestyle so I'm not really sure how replenishment would work with those.

 

[Mr Bill]

... but it might be quicker if I could ask you what the home processor person needs to do to make it work.

Sorry, I've been a bit tied up lately, but...

There was a time when I would have said one needs a color densitometer and "control strips" to properly control a replenished C-41 process. I'd still say this for high quality work being optically printed.

But in a case where someone is willing to stretch the (unreplenished) batch of developer out to 5 or 10 times what Kodak suggests, I'd say that the rigid quality specs are pretty much out the window. (Note that Kodak Z-131 puts the capacity of 1 liter of developer at about 4 rolls, unreplenished.)

Today, when most people seem to "scan" their C-41 film, one can POTENTIALLY fix just about anything so "correct" processing is not so crucial. (I'm guessing that this is what the people extending their C-41 developer are doing.) But... in order to do this with a minimum of effort one wants the film process to be consistent so that a single software recipe can get things close. If one can use replenishment, even in a poorly controlled system, it's almost guaranteed to be more consistent than simply extending use of developer.

So how does a home processor use replenishment? Basically like Z-131 says. But... be very careful about letting their developer become exposed to air. Small volumes (like a hand tank) are relatively more susceptible to oxidation than a
larger volume. Comparing surface area vs volume, as a "tank size" increases the surface area increases as a squared function whereas volume increases as cubed function. So, for example, if you double the dimensions of a tank the surface area increases by 4x (2 squared) whereas the volume increases by 8x (2 cubed). Since oxidation and evaporation occur at the surface, and total amount of preservative is proportional to the volume, one can see that increased tank size improves the situation. So with a small tank and a color developer one should try to minimize exposure to air as much as possible.

A couple years (?) ago photrio user Donald Qualls began an experiment with replenishment - see this thread from his post #45 on (note his use of twizzle stick for agitation to minimize aeration). He seemed to be initially successful but I don't know how far he eventually went, or if he tried inversion agitation.

How much do you get out of Kodak Flexicolor?

Then, on freestyle, I find this: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/3667805-Kodak-FlexiColor-C-41-Developer-Makes-20-Liters But there is no starter... Is this the "small tank one-shot developer" from CIS-211? Hi, I looked at your Freestyle link. Although the Freestyle text simply calls it "C-41...

www.photrio.com

 

[Don_ih]

Technically, you could eliminate aeration from Jobo development by spraying some kind of gas that displaces the air into the developing tank before you pour in the developer. Then you pop on the rubber lid and run the machine.

 

[Mr Bill]

This is something I was aware of when I used Kodak chemicals but since I use a Jobo and continually agitate the film I have never tried it. Secondly I am presently using inexpensive C-41 kits from Freestyle so I'm not really sure how replenishment would work with those.

Hi, I'd say that the Jobo rotary system automatically rules out replenishment of a color developer. (Unless, perhaps, if you found a way to fill the tank with an inert gas, etc.) But just for general background information see below:

Regarding the "inexpensive C-41 kits" I don't know the makeup. But if they are specified as "developer replenisher" AND spec a low replenishment rate (similar to Kodak's LORR) then they should be roughly equivalent.

Fwiw the spec replenishment rate tells one a lot about the replenisher. One of the first things a "proper" replenisher should do is to dilute the development byproducts back down to the original spec concentration. Kodak's LORR replenisher specs a rate somewhere around 26 ml/roll for certain lower speed films (Portra 160 for example). Since we (or at least I) mostly trust Kodak's tech information) we can conclude that this volume is enough to dilute the byproducts (mostly bromide ion) back down to spec.

There are other replenishers that are designed for significantly higher replenishment rates. On the surface it might seem that these replenishers would over-dilute the byproducts, but not so (at least for a proper replenisher). What they do is to already contain the equivalent of SOME byproducts such that the replenished "tank solution" stays at the correct concentration.

The next thing a replenisher should do is to bring the concentration of the developing agent back up to aim concentration. So one can probably see that a low-replenishment-rate system needs to have a higher concentration of developing agent, compared to systems using higher replenishment rates.

So these two things - developing agent concentration and "byproduct" concentration in a replenisher need to be different according to the aim replenishment rate. Meaning that the design replenishment rate for the specific product pretty much determines the makeup with respect to these two things.

Now, if someone is concerned about getting the maximum economy out of a replenished system (and assuming that such a system is feasible for them) here's one way to look at it. When film leaves the developing tank it is wet, meaning that carries out some of the developer; this amount is "lost." On top of this any excess volume due to the added replenisher is also lost (has to be discarded). So obviously a higher replenishment rate system produces more waste material. And obviously throwing away more excess developer volume than necessary is not the most economical use of the chemicals.

Anyway these are just some general things about C-41 developer replenishers that are not immediately obvious.

Fwiw the "secondary" chemicals are generally also replenished in commercial operations. But for a small scale user the situation is different. Carry over from the previous solution, including what carried in the tank and reels, can dilute things excessively. So the chemical cost savings are nowhere near what a commercial processor, keeping carry-over at a minimum, can do.

 

[Mr Bill]

Technically, you could eliminate aeration from Jobo development by spraying some kind of gas that displaces the air into the developing tank before you pour in the developer. Then you pop on the rubber lid and run the machine.

Yep, I've sometimes wondered why Jobo never came up with ways to deal with this. I'd guess that part of this is that when one develops such a system to allow replenishment that they are also expected to support same, including replenishment problems. So perhaps they see such tech support as too costly. Or perhaps not... just a guess on my part.

With today's greatly reduced film usage it may not be worth the R&D effort to even design such a system.

 

[Kino]

Yep, I've sometimes wondered why Jobo never came up with ways to deal with this. I'd guess that part of this is that when one develops such a system to allow replenishment that they are also expected to support same, including replenishment problems. So perhaps they see such tech support as too costly. Or perhaps not... just a guess on my part.

With today's greatly reduced film usage it may not be worth the R&D effort to even design such a system.

It would be interesting to feed the air pumps on a ATL-type machine that displace the chemistry with pressurized nitrogen, but that would require a complete re-design of the machine physically and electronically. I doubt any company would want to take on the legal liability of using an oxygen depleting gas in a developing appliance.

Still, it would be an interesting project!

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, with replenished X-Tol in my Paterson tanks I fill the tank with developer - both for rotary agitation, and inversion agitation.
I see no reason why one could not do that with C-41. It would probably help as well with temperature control.
You can easily use smaller volumes with the other chemicals in the C-41 process.

 

[bluechromis]

It's one thing if knowledgeable folks like those in Photrio use a somewhat questionable developing protocol with their eyes open, knowing the possible drawbacks. What worries me is beginners blindly doing it. They hear about ways they can purportedly save boatloads of money on developer, and then go overboard. They may use an inadequate amount of developer in the first place. Then they hear they can save money by diluting the developer but not increasing the volume of the working solution. Then they hear that they can reuse developer and start reusing the stock solution a bunch of times. If anything a beginner needs, it is consistency and the reduction of the variables to deal with in development. If reuse requires changing the developing time, I think that is an unjustified complication for a beginner. On other forums when people suggest ways to pinch pennies on developer, I never hear, a "Yes, but", I never hear them say what could be the drawbacks of doing one of those techniques, much less several combined.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's one thing if knowledgeable folks like those in Photrio use a somewhat questionable developing protocol with their eyes open, knowing the possible drawbacks. What worries me is beginners blindly doing it. They hear about ways they can purportedly save boatloads of money on developer, and then go overboard. They may use an inadequate amount of developer in the first place. Then they hear they can save money by diluting the developer but not increasing the volume of the working solution. Then they hear that they can reuse developer and start reusing the stock solution a bunch of times. If anything a beginner needs, it is consistency and the reduction of the variables to deal with in development. If reuse requires changing the developing time, I think that is an unjustified complication for a beginner. On other forums when people suggest ways to pinch pennies on developer, I never hear, a "Yes, but", I never hear them say what could be the drawbacks of doing one of those techniques, much less several combined.

When making such posts, one should put caveats to warn people new to darkroom work. I have complained about the lack or such caveats in the past.