Self processing color...

[Ian Grant]

I've been processing my own colour films (& prints) since the late 1960's when the processes were extremely finicky, temperature control was +/- 0.5° F I work in °C and that means extremelytight

However C41 and E6 are a touch more tolerant. You don't need anything more than a dev tank and a bowl or two of water at the right temperature to get very consistent results.

Ian

 

[hrst]

Color can be as difficult and convoluted or as easy as B&W. The most important thing is CONSISTANCY. I've been doing color since 1977, so I've been through a few chemistry and paper changes. My method.....Let the chemistry drift. For C-41 I start with mixing the developer as single shot as needed. The BleachFix is premixed in 1 liter. Since BleacheFix is not temperature sensitive and works 'till done, I use it at room temperature. I mix the developer at 100 degrees F. Have a 1/2 gallon container of 90 degree water on hand. With film in the tank pour in the developer and with tank inversion every 30 seconds, develop for 2:30. Pour out developer and fill tank with water, invert and dump. Do this 4 times. Pour in BleachFix, invert tank a few times and every 30 seconds for 5 minutes. All done. Wash and hang film.

Again the most important thing is consistancy. This also works for Drum processing of paper also.

Well, of course you should use what you like, but I don't agree with the argument of the importance of consistency when it means making it wrong every time. Of course, if the exact form of contrast, density, color and crossover problems are EXACTLY the look you desire and your mind does never change, then this consistency if naturally good.

I would start by just simply following the instructions and running the standard C-41 process, because it is as easy as deviating from it is. Then, I would experiment just for fun but wouldn't call that consistency. But of course use a procedure that suits your needs.

Actually, your method can be quite interesting and agreed, it calls for extreme consistency in procedures and may still be inconsistent in result. What I get is that by severe underdevelopment, you create very low-contrast images. Then, by using blix (which by definition can be problematic) at temperature and time too low, you may retain some amount of silver, causing a contrast increase compensating the contrast decrease in the development. In addition, you get muted colors. This may be a desired look, especially with only higher-contrast and relatively colorful papers available today. Anyway, your process is very difficult to keep consistent due to your use of "controlled/partial bleach bypass" type of control, whereas the official C-41 process is very easy to keep consistent.

As a general rule of thumb, the easiest way is to follow instructions. This is true for C-41, too.

 

[wogster]

Well, of course you should use what you like, but I don't agree with the argument of the importance of consistency when it means making it wrong every time. Of course, if the exact form of contrast, density, color and crossover problems are EXACTLY the look you desire and your mind does never change, then this consistency if naturally good.

I would start by just simply following the instructions and running the standard C-41 process, because it is as easy as deviating from it is. Then, I would experiment just for fun but wouldn't call that consistency. But of course use a procedure that suits your needs.

Actually, your method can be quite interesting and agreed, it calls for extreme consistency in procedures and may still be inconsistent in result. What I get is that by severe underdevelopment, you create very low-contrast images. Then, by using blix (which by definition can be problematic) at temperature and time too low, you may retain some amount of silver, causing a contrast increase compensating the contrast decrease in the development. In addition, you get muted colors. This may be a desired look, especially with only higher-contrast and relatively colorful papers available today. Anyway, your process is very difficult to keep consistent due to your use of "controlled/partial bleach bypass" type of control, whereas the official C-41 process is very easy to keep consistent.

As a general rule of thumb, the easiest way is to follow instructions. This is true for C-41, too.

I remember in the late 1970's working in a darkroom that was at 12C on a good day in winter, and knowing that the chances of holding anything at .5C was impossible. Warming everything for C41 to 42C, and knowing by the end of development, it would be 34C, by the time it came out of the stabilizer it would be about 24C. The negatives turned out fine and printed beautifully. So the idea that you need to keep everything at .1F or your results will be unusable is a load of male bovine manure.

 

[hrst]

I completely agree. You get well usable results even if you mess up badly. Many examples here such as ones describing doing the process wrong for years or decades without noticing, prove this. Or, as was shown by some APUGers when they tested Rollei's claims of room temperature processing, C-41 was still quite usable down to around 30 deg C or so, which is a huge deviation from the standard. There were clear image quality problems, though.

I have accidentally diluted C-41 developer 1+1 and compensated by adding time. It affected image quality and color balance quite a bit, but the results were still usable.

On the other hand, some people are very strict about highest standard of quality and repeatability. I try to do the process as well as possible; then, there is more headroom for messing up, compared to a situation where I would decide to mess up on purpose, still hoping to get "normal" results. Then I would need to keep higher standard not to mess up even more.

Those who scan their images with their broken scanners and even more broken software performing auto-create-color-crossover-error functions can be very satisfied even when the film images would have severe errors, because those may be autofixed, and even if not, the errors those software create make it difficult to distinguish where the problems came from. But for a careful RA-4 printer who is concerned on fine contrast and color details, proper processing still might make sense.

I do proper processing simply just because it is just as easy as doing sloppy processing. If I could gain something, for example, save time by doing sloppy processing, I would probably do it.

 

[markbarendt]

I agree that temperature perfection isn't required to get workable results. It was great fun too experimenting and making do with what I had when I started.

What I came to realize is that a small change in temperature simply yields a bit of an unintended push or pull, not a failure. Film development typically only fails outright when a significant error is made, like using fixer first.

With that said know also that it has been a pleasure to refine the process little by little over time. The closer my process gets to the intent, if not the letter, of Kodak's instructions; the easier my life gets in the darkroom.