Severe Results with Fuji Film and Unicolor C-41 (powder) Kit

[cooltouch]

I have freshly mixed my Unicolor chems today and I have developed two "batches" of C-41 film so far. Each batch included one roll of a Kodak film and one roll of Fuji. The rolls of Kodak came out looking normal, more or less (I haven't tried scanning them yet), but in both cases the rolls of Fuji came out looking like they'd been either exposed to light or way, way overdeveloped. Each strip is almost entirely dark. If I hold it up to a strong light source, I can just make out some detail, but not enough to tell much about what the detail is. I can't read the Fuji info on the edge of the strips.

Since I didn't expose the films to light prior to loading them into the tank, and since each roll of Fuji shared the tank with a roll of Kodak that came out correctly developed, the only answer I can come up with is that, for some very strange reason, these two rolls of Fuji seem to have been severely overdeveloped.

I have two more rolls of exposed Fuji and I think I'm gonna try this. I will develop one roll by itself according to Unicolor's directions, and see what happens. Give it one last shot. If it also comes out looking severely overdeveloped, then I'm gonna try cutting Unicolor's recommended development time in half for the second roll, and see if that helps.

Honestly I don't know what else to do, but also honestly I'd really like to know what is going on. Any ideas?

 

[rpavich]

I have freshly mixed my Unicolor chems today and I have developed two "batches" of C-41 film so far. Each batch included one roll of a Kodak film and one roll of Fuji. The rolls of Kodak came out looking normal, more or less (I haven't tried scanning them yet), but in both cases the rolls of Fuji came out looking like they'd been either exposed to light or way, way overdeveloped. Each strip is almost entirely dark. If I hold it up to a strong light source, I can just make out some detail, but not enough to tell much about what the detail is. I can't read the Fuji info on the edge of the strips.

Since I didn't expose the films to light prior to loading them into the tank, and since each roll of Fuji shared the tank with a roll of Kodak that came out correctly developed, the only answer I can come up with is that, for some very strange reason, these two rolls of Fuji seem to have been severely overdeveloped.

I have two more rolls of exposed Fuji and I think I'm gonna try this. I will develop one roll by itself according to Unicolor's directions, and see what happens. Give it one last shot. If it also comes out looking severely overdeveloped, then I'm gonna try cutting Unicolor's recommended development time in half for the second roll, and see if that helps.

Honestly I don't know what else to do, but also honestly I'd really like to know what is going on. Any ideas?

I'm no expert but in my opinion, if you are close to the time and temperature recommendations for developing C-41, you won't get results like you describe. I'd think it was something wrong with the film before I'd point a finger at the developing.

Of course, nobody will have anything constructive to say unless we see a picture of the negatives. Can you take a picture of a few of the negatives pretty close up (12 inches away or so, maybe 8 inches) with the negative on a light source like a window or ipad or light box?

 

[cooltouch]

A light box won't do any good. When I hold the film strips up to a very bright light, I can just barely make out the faintest detail. Really, I don't need to take pics of the negatives. Just imagine a completely black film strip and you'll be right on track.

If it would have been just one roll, I'd have chalked it up to some sort of bone-head mistake. But this second roll was a test roll of images I took with a camera I'd just bought, so I know I didn't do anything stupid with it.

However -- now that I think about it, both rolls were from an unknown source. I bought a bunch of film from a guy years ago and it's been in my freezer ever since. I've been slowly working through the film and, so far, it's all been good. But who knows, maybe this guy I bought the film from was the clueless idiot who decided to unspool then respool a few rolls.

 

[btaylor]

If you can't read the info on the rebate I would suspect the film was either lightstruck or damaged in some other way before you ran it through the camera. As far as I know, c41 is c41, I've never deviated from factory proscribed times and never had an issue no matter the film's manufacturer.

 

[bvy]

...then I'm gonna try cutting Unicolor's recommended development time in half for the second roll, and see if that helps.

Absolutely don't do that! If the Kodak films came out okay and they were in the same tank, then your development is fine. It's the film that's dubious. C-41 processing is time and temperature standardized regardless of whose chemicals you're using or what film you drop in it.

 

[cooltouch]

OK, you guys have convinced me. I will just try developing these last two rolls of Fuji and hope for the best. I guess that if the same thing happens with a roll of Kodak then I'll know for sure that I've just got some bogus film mixed in. Too bad.

On a separate note, I have another question. I'm seeing lots of streaks and water spots on my Kodak negs. I've wiped them with a photo sponge but this seems to make the streaks worse. I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to use some Kodak Photo Flo (or equivalent) on the film to eliminate the streaks and spots? I understand that it's used for B&W films, but I'm wondering if it might not also work with color? I don't have any sort of wetting agent at the moment. From what I understand, a wetting agent is basically a surfactant so I'm wondering if a drop of dishwashing liquid mixed with, say, 100ml of water, might amount to the same thing?

I gotta get rid of these spots and streaks!

 

[MattKing]

C41 processing should end with a stabilizer/final rinse final step. Stabilizer/final rinse contains both a surfactant and an anti-bacterial component. You need the anti-bacterial part, because otherwise your negatives won't last.
If you try to use a wetting agent after the stabilizer/final rinse, you will defeat the anti-bacterial component (by washing it off).

 

[bvy]

I gotta get rid of these spots and streaks!

The kit stabilizers are notoriously bad. Replace it with Kodak Final Rinse. It's cheap and works like a charm.
https://www.uniquephoto.com/product/kodak-flexicolor-sm-c-41sm-tank-final-rinse-1925254/

 

[mklw1954]

I used to get water marks using the Unicolor kit until I started adding 1/2 teaspoon PhotoFlo concentrate to 1 liter of Unicolor stabilizer, and repeated every 8 rolls developed - no more water marks. Dishwashing liquid probably has other substances in it (e.g., fragrances) that might not be good for your film.

 

[Cholentpot]

I used to get water marks using the Unicolor kit until I started adding 1/2 teaspoon PhotoFlo concentrate to 1 liter of Unicolor stabilizer, and repeated every 8 rolls developed - no more water marks. Dishwashing liquid probably has other substances in it (e.g., fragrances) that might not be good for your film.

I've done this too. It works for me.

 

[btaylor]

I don't remember the brand of C41 liquid chemicals I got from Freestyle, but I had big streak problems too. Next batch I mixed up I used distilled water for the stabilizer and the problem was gone.

 

[cooltouch]

Thanks for this information, guys. And bvy, thanks for that link. I was looking around, They've got good prices on stuff.

Yeah, btaylor I've never used distilled water with chems I've mixed in the past, but I think I'm gonna make it a priority in the future.

So, for my streaked film then, I can add some Photo Flo to the Stabilizer and put this film through a rinse cycle again, and will that help get rid of the streaks? Also I noticed in the Unicolor kit they recommended air dry and didn't mention anything about wiping down the film, so I plan on just letting it air dry instead. I hope my "photo sponge" didn't damage it.

I will be ordering some of that Kodak Final Rinse, though.

 

[Rudeofus]

About these dark negs: There are two possible causes for excessively dark negs:

1. extreme fogging and/or overdevelopment
2. incomplete bleaching.

Since powder kits use notoriously bad BLIXes, I would definitely not rule out #2, and you could just try to reBLIX these films. BLIX as a process runs to completion, so you can't really overBLIX. Put one of the most egregious rolls back on its spindle, and reBLIX at 38°C/100°F for at least 10 minutes. If the such processed negs look visibly better than before, continue the process until they look as they should. Don't forget to reapply STAB after a thorough wash!

About that "half the CD time" recommendation: this would lead to severe underdevelopment and completely forgone shadow detail, which usually means irredeemably lost negs. Do this only after all other process modifications fail.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'll admit. I've been stand developing with expired film and a C-41 kit that's near the end. Results haves been passable being that I'm using expired film.

 

[bvy]

About these dark negs: There are two possible causes for excessively dark negs:

1. extreme fogging and/or overdevelopment
2. incomplete bleaching.

Since powder kits use notoriously bad BLIXes, I would definitely not rule out #2, and you could just try to reBLIX these films.

I've never heard of different films responding differently to bleach/blix. Doesn't make sense to me that one film in the same tank would come out perfectly fine, and the other have incomplete bleaching. Even so, I would first try it with a clip from the errant roll (either blank film or a non-critical frame), before going through the trouble of rebleaching, washing, etc., the entire roll. You can do this in room light in a small mixing vessel.

 

[Rudeofus]

I've never heard of different films responding differently to bleach/blix. Doesn't make sense to me that one film in the same tank would come out perfectly fine, and the other have incomplete bleaching. Even so, I would first try it with a clip from the errant roll (either blank film or a non-critical frame), before going through the trouble of rebleaching, washing, etc., the entire roll. You can do this in room light in a small mixing vessel.

As I wrote, powder kit BLIX is borderline acceptable, and it doesn't take much silver to darken the already present orange mask. A few minutes in BLIX speed could explain the whole difference in density. Also there can be a difference in how the anti halation layer is realized: if it is made from colloidal silver, it will likely bleach last because it is the bottom most layer, whereas if it is made from soluble dye it will likely wash out in previous steps.

I do agree with your suggestion of test samples, there is no need to reBLIX the whole roll before it becomes clear that incomplete BLIXing was the culprit.

 

[cooltouch]

Thanks for the additional info. I have no problem with doing the Blix again. Heck, I'll load up both rolls and run 'em for 10 minutes. What have I got to lose?

Cholentpot, your coment on stand developing got me to thinking so I googled the topic and found an Art of Photography video on the topic. At the end he mentioned more of his videos, including C-41 developing, so I decided to take a look. This is the video:


It was interesting because that was the first time he'd ever done C-41. His Jobo kit had the exact same mixing directions and developing directions as my Unicolor kit. Even the chemical packages looked the same. So, I wonder if they weren't in fact the same kits, just with different labels. Anyway, his results were excellent. I didn't really learn anything new from his video, but it did serve to reinforce the differences in techniques between B&W (and E-6, far as that goes) and C-41.

But, Cholentpot, I have some questions for you: you mentioned that you were using C-41 chemicals that are "near the end." I'm curious, because I've read wildly different accounts of just where the "end" is with color chemicals -- how many rolls -- say 35mm 36 exp equivalent -- of film did you process before you chems were on the verge of the end? Also, how did the stand developing come out. Were you having any problems with bromide-whatever-it's-called leaving streaks, or is this only a problem with B&W?

Well, I'm off to the camera shop in a bit. I think I'll wait till I'm back before I try re-Blixing those rolls.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'll admit. I've been stand developing with expired film and a C-41 kit that's near the end. Results haves been passable being that I'm using expired film.

I have never heard of stand development with C41. Can you give the details of your process, thanks?

pentaxuser

 

[Cholentpot]

I follow this fellas guide http://www.addicted2light.com/2014/03/14/how-to-develop-color-negatives-in-c-41-the-easy-way/ more or less.

You get some color shifts but I'm not sure if it's my expired film, my trashy camera or I'm nearing my 25th roll through the chems. Either way, for very expired fast film it does the job.

Kodak Gold 800 expired in '06 shot @ 400. The flower shot is some expired Gold 200 from about the turn of the century. Shot on a Minolta Freedom Autodate. Only the best for me.

I think I did 45 in dev and 45 in blix if I recall.

 

[cooltouch]

Well, dang it. The camera shop's closed on Sundays, so buying some Photo Flo will have to wait. It's at times like this that makes me wonder about this city's sense of history -- which it seems to have little of. Fourth largist city in the USA (some say third) -- some four million people in the greater metro area -- and it can support only ONE camera shop. Used to be two until the other closed up suddenly last year. Dang!

I'm gonna re-Blix anyway, though. And then Stabilize.

Cholentpot, well that roll of 800 looks pretty tired. Made me think your chems were indeed exhausted until I saw your roll of 200. Nope, looks like those chems still have some life left to them! 27 rolls and counting . . .

 

[Sirius Glass]

It was interesting because that was the first time he'd ever done C-41. His Jobo kit had the exact same mixing directions and developing directions as my Unicolor kit. Even the chemical packages looked the same. So, I wonder if they weren't in fact the same kits, just with different labels. Anyway, his results were excellent. I didn't really learn anything new from his video, but it did serve to reinforce the differences in techniques between B&W (and E-6, far as that goes) and C-41.

There is only one way to develop C-41; one set of chemicals; one set of timing. Only the packaging has differences.

 

[cooltouch]

You mean for home developing, of course. Because that sure ain't the case if you toss minilabs into the mix. I know because I browsed through the chemicals in the Uniquephoto link in bvy's above post.

 

[pentaxuser]

Cholentpot, I take it that your post 19 is a reply to my question. If so thanks. It was difficult to assess the results on the link as only the tree shot seemed to have enough detail to make a judgement. The author might have given more examples if he feels that he has really found a satisfactory way to stand develop C41 at room temp. The colours did not look good to me. A kind of a washed-out look that he seemed happy with but it did not come close to what I'd regard as OK nor if I may be so bold, do I think it would meet many others' standards

While your second neg of flowers looked reasonable it wasn't the ideal neg to make a judgement on. What I think is needed to is a neg with a full range of colours, including a person close enough to the foreground to judge skin tones before stand development can be judged

Frankly the quality of the first shot of what appears to be a pot of marbles on top of a piece of wood with trees as a background is terrible. This may be the age of the film but I do wonder if stand development at room temp contributed to the very bad quality.

All that matters is that stand development works for you but I doubt if the evidence you have provided will persuade others to give it a try. The only real test is a fresh film in a reasonable camera of a range of colours in a range of light conditions where all or nearly all the negs are OK when scanned without correction.

I see no point in not being honest here but nevertheless thanks for the link and taking the time to give me an answer

pentaxuser

 

[cooltouch]

Pentaxuser, I'm willing to give it a shot. I have about 20 rolls to process and I don't think there's anything particularly memorable on any of them, or I would have set the roll aside. I may have to develop a few before I get the right mix of ingredients in one frame, but across the frames I should be able to get some idea.

I'm in the process of re-Blixing my Fujicolor failures, but once that's done, I'm willing to give stand developing a couple rolls a try.

 

[Mr Bill]

There is only one way to develop C-41; one set of chemicals; one set of timing. Only the packaging has differences.

You mean for home developing, of course. Because that sure ain't the case if you toss minilabs into the mix. I know because I browsed through the chemicals in the Uniquephoto link in bvy's above post.

Sirius is essentially right. C-41 has specific aim values for the main chemical components in the developing solution, as well as specs for developing time and temperature. The exact amount of agitation is NOT specified, but one knows that it is ok when pre-exposed "process control strips," when processed, give in-spec results.

The reason that developer replenishers can be different is that they are designed to maintain the proper tank solution specs under different operating conditions. For example, one of the functions of a developer replenisher is to dilute out the byproducts of development; if you want to formulate a low-rate replenisher, you would have to use lower levels of such things as bromide (a restrainer) in the replenisher.

Of course one can get "useable" results under all sorts of conditions, but if they can't get in-spec results from a process control strip, then it's clear that they are operating an "out-of-spec process." For example, one might stretch developer usage to an extreme, possibly increasing development time, but I can't imagine that their process results will still be in spec, UNLESS the film was very lightly exposed, such as nighttime cityscapes, for example.

In such a case, with barely-exposed film, very little developing agent is consumed and very little byproducts are released, so the developer solution is not exhausted very much. (If you were running a commercial C-41 process, the normal "correction" for such barely-exposed film would be to reduce the developer replenishment rate.")