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

[Sirius Glass]

Hi, I don't think that this is an argument that "needs" to be won, one way or the other. In my mind, there is very little possibility of a normal person getting optimal "correct" color from an out-of-spec C-41 process. But if someone else thinks they are doing good work with "stand development," or whatever, what difference should it make to me?

To me, the only pertinent point is with regard to people READING about such things, and perhaps being persuaded that such out-of-spec operations are equally good. I personally think that they should consider that the inventors of C-41, Kodak, doesn't condone such processing, and that therefore the burden of the proof ought to be on the others. But if they want to try it themselves, well ... let them have at it.

My background includes years as the QC manager in a large studio chain lab. Over the years, I was involved in perhaps ten or so trade trials of new films and papers for pro portrait use. We did our own intensive testing before considering usage in our chain, but the trade trials would include a handful of tech reps as well as film/paper engineers from the manufacturers, including Kodak, Fuji, and Konica. They would all have packages of exposed materials to be processed by us, to see how they behaved in thoroughly-seasoned processes. And they would want to take back some of our own test prints for eval. (By the way, we always stayed with the lowest speed Kodak pro portrait/wedding films, from CPS up to Portra.)

In our testing, we used a variety of models, with different complexions and hair colors, over a wide range of camera exposures. We also included color charts and some clothing/ fabric samples (we could put the actual clothing/fabrics in the color booth next to actual prints to see how close they agree). Our main visual criteria was for "good" skin tone reproduction across all complexions, without significant color crossover (from highlights into shadow areas). But no major color errors were allowed either. I think that many of the people on this forum would be astounded at how good the color reproduction was, or at least, could be.

One thing we did NOT specifically test for was out-of-spec processing; we had no need to know about such behavior. But we DID study, sensitometricly, what various things did in the film process (this knowledge is useful in "process control," in knowing how to troubleshoot).

Anyway, from this background, I'm very skeptical that "optimal" color reproduction will come from an out-of-spec film process. And I even doubt that a "normal person" can digitally fix a scan to do so, at least unambiguously. Sure, with a lot of digital manipulation one can get something good, provided that they know what it should look like. By if, for example, someone gives you some (out-of-spec process) film of strangers, with clothing you have never seen, could you fix up the files to get really good color reproduction? I'm really doubtful.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Ps, I think a great deal of the give-and-take on these issues is a matter of how finicky, or perhaps sophisticated, people are about color reproduction. If one has never seen better, it's hard to appreciate how good something really is.

For clarity, neither am I.
If the development is out of spec, there will be crossover, because that is what happens when the different colour layers develop differently. Whether or not the amount of crossover results in unacceptable results probably depends on variables that are difficult to take into account with tests.
Things like variables that arise from differences in the subjects being photographed, the light sources used to illuminate the subjects and, most importantly, the colour sensitivity of the end user (e.g. my "mother of the bride" example above).
There may also be variables arising from the choice of film, condition of film, choice of developer "package" and the age and condition of that developer - not to mention the technique of the operator.
If you are trying an alternative approach, you aren't looking for optimum results - you are looking for "good enough". And you therefore have to address the questions of what constitutes "good enough" and how you are going to react when you get inconsistent results, with some being "good enough" and others not being "good enough".

I agree. One gets what they pay for. Go out of spec and things can go bad. Just follow the instructions. Is that so hard to do? After all you were taught to color in the lines in kindergarten, or did you miss that class?

 

[cooltouch]

Okay, yesterday I stand developed five rolls of film. This is kinda mystery film. It's been in my freezer forever, so I have no idea what to expect from it. Four rolls are Kodak 200 and one roll is Fuji 200. One roll of Kodak was pretty obviously over the hill and I don't think it would have mattered what type of developing it received. I've included a few shots from that roll to show some items that are elucidating.

I had planned to scan the negatives -- that way I'd have handed the color routines over to the scanner. It's been a long time since I've scanned 35mm negatives with my scanner, and we moved to a new house somewhere between then and now. So the holders are in a box somewhere. So this means I had to use my NEX 7 with dupe rig to dupe the negs. Which can make things tricky when it comes to accurate color rendition. Fortunately, the software that I often use -- Paint Shop Pro X9 -- has a couple of routines that vastly simplify what can otherwise be a tedious process. First I select Negative Image to invert the negative. Next I select Fade Correction (from the Color menu selection). This is often all that's required. If the image is still looking a bit anemic, I'll then give it a shot of Vibrance (found under the Hue and Saturation selection). And that's as far as I usually take it. Sometimes the color is still a little off, in which case, I'll select the gray paintbrush from the Curves menu selection and select an appropriate area to convert to 18% gray. That will almost always get things right.

Well, I may as well start with the problem roll, Kodak 200 of indeterminate age.

This first shot gives you a really good look at one of the more severe cases of bromide runs. Well, I guess it's bromide causing the brown blooms. This appeared on several shots on this roll. But not on any of the others.
Dead Link Removed

With this next one, the bromide staining is just visible. I selected this photo because out of the five rolls I developed, this is the only scene with some red in it. Unfortunately, this is the crappy roll, so anyway I think that reds would look much better with a better roll.

Dead Link Removed

This is one of the better shots from the problem roll:
Dead Link Removed

Our back yard. I think this is the Fuji.
Dead Link Removed

A big house in our old neighborhood (fyi, ours was a tiny house).
Dead Link Removed

The branches of a big oak tree that was in our old house's front yard.
Dead Link Removed

My bike next to a big flood basin/duck pond.
Dead Link Removed

Another shot of the duck pond.
Dead Link Removed

So what do I think about stand developing? I think it suffers from the same problems regular developing does. Crappy shadow detail for one thing. Grain is just okay. I'm gonna develop my next few rolls normally to see if there's any significant difference. It would be nice if there were. Of course, the fact that I'm shooting ancient film has to be kept into account. I have some fresh C-41 on order that should be here in a few days. I dunno if I'll want to stand develop it, though.

 

[rpavich]

Just about the ONLY way to really know is to develop several rolls from fresh film and thereby ridding ourself of a few of the variables, otherwise when turns out bad..what do we point to as the culprit?

I did do one roll for fun, and hopefully tonight I will bust out a contact sheet at least.

After doing it I realized that it wasn't that big of a deal to heat the water bath up and just do the developing at temp. The whole ordeal is over in 20 minutes. With the stand developing, I had to be available once per hour for a few hours. It wasn't any more convenient for me.

 

[cooltouch]

After doing it I realized that it wasn't that big of a deal to heat the water bath up and just do the developing at temp. The whole ordeal is over in 20 minutes. With the stand developing, I had to be available once per hour for a few hours. It wasn't any more convenient for me.

Yes, this is true. Prior to my very recent C-41 experiences, the only color developing I had done was E-6, and it is quite a bit more tedious than C-41, mostly because of the times the developer and blix must remain at elevated temperatures. C-41 is very easy by comparison.

 

[Cholentpot]

So has Cholentpot's negs, developed under the stand-development regime, got colour crossover which his scanner has automatically corrected so the faults are not apparent. Are his scans which have turned his negs into the equivalent of positive prints not a true reflection of what the negs colours actually are i.e. under an enlarger in a darkroom his negs will not be able to give prints which are free of colour cross-over.

How do we get to the bottom of this in order to establish whether stand development has delivered correctly coloured negs? Otherwise we are condemned forever to have members come up with allegedly sound processing methods which involve less than 100F and others replying that at less than 100F colour crossover is inevitable.

pentaxuser

I don't use a scanner persay. I digital dupe with a DSLR, macro tubes and a lightpad. I color correct in Lightroom and Photoshop. That being said, I've found that stand developed or following the regular procedure takes just about as much effort, which at this point is mostly automated through PS actions. I do need to manually white-balance though. Also, as I am using expired film and near exhausted developer this would not be a scientific result.

Thanks rpavich. If I may summarise: I think you are saying that you have processed C41 with the stand method and the negs to your naked eye look normal. You have an enlarger and can optically print RA4 to check if the negs are free of colour crossover. You will post your results here on APUG.

I cannot speak for others but this is what I would need to make a decision on trying stand development if I did not have the facilities to ensure normal "in spec" processing

I know nothing about scanning and scanners but it would also appear from one of the replies above that the scans we were given by Cholentpot could not have been automatically corrected. The first scan represents an expired film so lets eliminate that. In the third scan the colours look a little washed out but as this is mural art this may be an authentic representation of the actual colours so it is difficult to pass judgement. However the second scan looks like a good neg on which to pass judgement.

I'd have to say that unless Cholentpot has chosen to do a lot of post processing work of a digital nature which from another reply is difficult to do and has chosen not to tell us about, then this scan of the street, trees in blossom and houses and sky looks OK to me and that neg looks therefore to be capable of producing an RA4 print optically of an acceptable nature.

I am seeking ways to get to the truth about stand development and am hoping that APUG will lend a hand in this. I am not seeking to win an argument which by definition involves two sides, one of which wins and by definition the other of which has to lose.

pentaxuser

Bingo.

The post takes some effort and I don't leave it to automation to make the final decisions. I don't know if the negatives will produce a good optical print but that's not my goal.

Okay, yesterday I stand developed five rolls of film. This is kinda mystery film. It's been in my freezer forever, so I have no idea what to expect from it. Four rolls are Kodak 200 and one roll is Fuji 200. One roll of Kodak was pretty obviously over the hill and I don't think it would have mattered what type of developing it received. I've included a few shots from that roll to show some items that are elucidating.

I had planned to scan the negatives -- that way I'd have handed the color routines over to the scanner. It's been a long time since I've scanned 35mm negatives with my scanner, and we moved to a new house somewhere between then and now. So the holders are in a box somewhere. So this means I had to use my NEX 7 with dupe rig to dupe the negs. Which can make things tricky when it comes to accurate color rendition. Fortunately, the software that I often use -- Paint Shop Pro X9 -- has a couple of routines that vastly simplify what can otherwise be a tedious process. First I select Negative Image to invert the negative. Next I select Fade Correction (from the Color menu selection). This is often all that's required. If the image is still looking a bit anemic, I'll then give it a shot of Vibrance (found under the Hue and Saturation selection). And that's as far as I usually take it. Sometimes the color is still a little off, in which case, I'll select the gray paintbrush from the Curves menu selection and select an appropriate area to convert to 18% gray. That will almost always get things right.

Well, I may as well start with the problem roll, Kodak 200 of indeterminate age.

This first shot gives you a really good look at one of the more severe cases of bromide runs. Well, I guess it's bromide causing the brown blooms. This appeared on several shots on this roll. But not on any of the others.
Dead Link Removed

With this next one, the bromide staining is just visible. I selected this photo because out of the five rolls I developed, this is the only scene with some red in it. Unfortunately, this is the crappy roll, so anyway I think that reds would look much better with a better roll.

Dead Link Removed

This is one of the better shots from the problem roll:
Dead Link Removed

Our back yard. I think this is the Fuji.
Dead Link Removed

A big house in our old neighborhood (fyi, ours was a tiny house).
Dead Link Removed

The branches of a big oak tree that was in our old house's front yard.
Dead Link Removed

My bike next to a big flood basin/duck pond.
Dead Link Removed

Another shot of the duck pond.
Dead Link Removed

So what do I think about stand developing? I think it suffers from the same problems regular developing does. Crappy shadow detail for one thing. Grain is just okay. I'm gonna develop my next few rolls normally to see if there's any significant difference. It would be nice if there were. Of course, the fact that I'm shooting ancient film has to be kept into account. I have some fresh C-41 on order that should be here in a few days. I dunno if I'll want to stand develop it, though.

What kind of reels did you use? I get drag from some reels and not others. I've taken to making a flip at the halfway point of development when I'm using reels guilty of drag. It eliminates the drag and doesn't seem to effect the development.

 

[cooltouch]

By "drag" do you mean when you use a spinner? I don't usually use a spinner . . . well sometimes I do, but usually I invert the tank four or five times for one agitation cycle. I like your idea of a "flip." Not sure what you mean by this either, but I've been thinking that, next time I do a stand development of C-41, I'll perform an agitation cycle at least once during the process. I was thinking this might eliminate the bromide runs, or at least reduce them. And, who knows? It might help some with the blocked-up shadow detail.

On another note, I misspoke, or miswrote, I guess, with regards to a comment that I thought one roll was Fuji. Turns out it was Kodak. I just finished scanning, or duping to be more correct, the only Fuji roll that was stand developed. How did it come out? Meh. Most images were so desaturated they almost look monochrome. Using Fade Correction, I was able to extract some color from several of the photos. Grain is about the same as the Kodaks, although it doesn't seem to block up as bad in the shadows as it does with the Kodak. A few of the photos came out very well.

Here are some of the better ones, starting with the best of the lot. Note the excellent shadow detail and minimal grain. It's a little washed out toward the top of the image, but I think that was actually exposure. Perhaps a touch of 'curves' might help in that regard.
Dead Link Removed

Three different shots of red roses. I actually passed all three through a de-noise utility because the backgrounds were so noisy. It didn't help all that much. Also, all three could do with some adjustment via the 'curves' command, methinks. Note how desaturated the greens are in the last shot.
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

 

[Cholentpot]

By "drag" do you mean when you use a spinner? I don't usually use a spinner . . . well sometimes I do, but usually I invert the tank four or five times for one agitation cycle. I like your idea of a "flip." Not sure what you mean by this either, but I've been thinking that, next time I do a stand development of C-41, I'll perform an agitation cycle at least once during the process. I was thinking this might eliminate the bromide runs, or at least reduce them. And, who knows? It might help some with the blocked-up shadow detail.

On another note, I misspoke, or miswrote, I guess, with regards to a comment that I thought one roll was Fuji. Turns out it was Kodak. I just finished scanning, or duping to be more correct, the only Fuji roll that was stand developed. How did it come out? Meh. Most images were so desaturated they almost look monochrome. Using Fade Correction, I was able to extract some color from several of the photos. Grain is about the same as the Kodaks, although it doesn't seem to block up as bad in the shadows as it does with the Kodak. A few of the photos came out very well.

Here are some of the better ones, starting with the best of the lot. Note the excellent shadow detail and minimal grain. It's a little washed out toward the top of the image, but I think that was actually exposure. Perhaps a touch of 'curves' might help in that regard.
Dead Link Removed

Three different shots of red roses. I actually passed all three through a de-noise utility because the backgrounds were so noisy. It didn't help all that much. Also, all three could do with some adjustment via the 'curves' command, methinks. Note how desaturated the greens are in the last shot.
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

Bromide Drag. Yes, giving some agitation at the halfway point does eliminate the bromide drag it seems.

I've found in the past that Fuji expires less badly than Kodak, however Kodak gets grainy and Fuji gets color shifts.

 

[cooltouch]

I've found in the past that Fuji expires less badly than Kodak, however Kodak gets grainy and Fuji gets color shifts.

Well, that definitely seems to be the case with these few rolls I've stand developed thus far. Except that first shot of the old oak tree's boughs -- it still had quite a bit of useful color. But it also seemed to be the one shot that was over exposed somewhat, which bucked that trend.

 

[Cholentpot]

Well, that definitely seems to be the case with these few rolls I've stand developed thus far. Except that first shot of the old oak tree's boughs -- it still had quite a bit of useful color. But it also seemed to be the one shot that was over exposed somewhat, which bucked that trend.

I tend to massively over expose with unknown expired film. It's worked out in the past for me.

 

[rpavich]

Well, I got around to developing one roll with the C-41 Stand method and printed a contact sheet and one 8x10.
The method I used was 45 minutes of developing with no extra dilution of the developer.
1 hour of bleaching, fixing for 10 minutes.

I agitated for the first minute of the developer and bleach and agitated the fix as normally, that is to say 4 rotations per minute.


So far I can say that the results aren't horrible, the colors look true to me. I'll let you be the judge. This is a scan of the contact sheet and one print so far.
If the colors aren't what you think that they should be then that's down to my skill, not the development method. I wanted to process these prints the exact way I normally would and not take extra care so as to bias the test.

NOTE: as you can see, some frames on the contact sheet are normal looking for color and some look greenish. That's normal. I set the enlarger filters so that the daylight pictures would be correctly adjusted. I can't do much more than that, something will suffer.

Also of note: My normal contact sheets usually are exposed at f/8 for 12 to 18 seconds. This one took f/5.6 for 20 seconds. I'm guessing that means that there is a lot of base fog.

 

[pentaxuser]

rpavich, I don't think I ever got every frame on a contact sheet looking right either but on balance I don't see any obvious signs of colour crossover. What counts is how the prints look. If you have the time and inclination to print a few more I look forward to seeing them.

pentaxuser

 

[Cholentpot]

Well, I got around to developing one roll with the C-41 Stand method and printed a contact sheet and one 8x10.
The method I used was 45 minutes of developing with no extra dilution of the developer.
1 hour of bleaching, fixing for 10 minutes.

I agitated for the first minute of the developer and bleach and agitated the fix as normally, that is to say 4 rotations per minute.


So far I can say that the results aren't horrible, the colors look true to me. I'll let you be the judge. This is a scan of the contact sheet and one print so far.
If the colors aren't what you think that they should be then that's down to my skill, not the development method. I wanted to process these prints the exact way I normally would and not take extra care so as to bias the test.

NOTE: as you can see, some frames on the contact sheet are normal looking for color and some look greenish. That's normal. I set the enlarger filters so that the daylight pictures would be correctly adjusted. I can't do much more than that, something will suffer.

Also of note: My normal contact sheets usually are exposed at f/8 for 12 to 18 seconds. This one took f/5.6 for 20 seconds. I'm guessing that means that there is a lot of base fog.

Looks good to me. That little bit of brown around the sprockets looks be not much of an issue as it can be cropped out without much loss.

All in all, judging by your contact sheet I would not hesitate using this method for iffy/cheap/expired film. I have two, 2 reel tanks and this makes processing 4 rolls all the much simpler.

Wait till I tell you folks about taping a 12 shot roll to a 24 shot roll, rolling it onto a Patterson and then developing. Hint. It works.

 

[cooltouch]

Hey Rpavich, a question and a comment. Q: was your film fresh or expired? If the latter, it sure looks to me like you were getting good, accurate color. And judging by your 8x10, it looks like you didn't have problems with shadow detail blocking up with clumps of noise, the way my Kodak rolls did. But then I read that Cholentpot massively overexposes his expired film. This is something I haven't done yet, but something I should do. I have several rolls of fast C-41 and B&W (Ektar 1000 and Fuji B&W 1600), and I'm gonna shoot those at much slower speeds. Maybe ISO 200 for the Ektar and ISO 400 for the Fuji?

Comment: I'm figuring you to be a fellow guitarist. It's cool to see that you shot those pics at a guitar shop. A Martin stocking dealer, no less. You being from West Virginia, I'm guessing you folks probably have some mean flat-pickers up thataway. If I could request an enlarged image, it would be number 26. So's I can check out the Fenders they have.

 

[Cholentpot]

Hey Rpavich, a question and a comment. Q: was your film fresh or expired? If the latter, it sure looks to me like you were getting good, accurate color. And judging by your 8x10, it looks like you didn't have problems with shadow detail blocking up with clumps of noise, the way my Kodak rolls did. But then I read that Cholentpot massively overexposes his expired film. This is something I haven't done yet, but something I should do. I have several rolls of fast C-41 and B&W (Ektar 1000 and Fuji B&W 1600), and I'm gonna shoot those at much slower speeds. Maybe ISO 200 for the Ektar and ISO 400 for the Fuji?

Comment: I'm figuring you to be a fellow guitarist. It's cool to see that you shot those pics at a guitar shop. A Martin stocking dealer, no less. You being from West Virginia, I'm guessing you folks probably have some mean flat-pickers up thataway. If I could request an enlarged image, it would be number 26. So's I can check out the Fenders they have.

I find any speed over 400 if expired and not frozen, no amount of over exposure will really help. I use the rule of thumb for C-41 400 speed film and lower, half the speed for each decade. With 800 and above I never get consistent. This does not hold true with B&W stored well or 100 speed C-41 though. 100 usually holds up well even after 4-5 years. I do shoot it at 80 just to be safe. B&W 100 speed seems bullet proof to me, although 400 speed tends to get foggy and I extend the development time. I don't complain because the film is either very cheap or free.

I wish I had a Martin. My sub $100 black Friday Takamani does the trick though.

 

[rpavich]

rpavich, I don't think I ever got every frame on a contact sheet looking right either but on balance I don't see any obvious signs of colour crossover. What counts is how the prints look. If you have the time and inclination to print a few more I look forward to seeing them.

pentaxuser

Ill do more this weekend and post them. Im curious too.

 

[rpavich]

Hey Rpavich, a question and a comment. Q: was your film fresh or expired?

Fresh

If the latter, it sure looks to me like you were getting good, accurate color. And judging by your 8x10, it looks like you didn't have problems with shadow detail blocking up with clumps of noise, the way my Kodak rolls did.

To me they look normal so far

But then I read that Cholentpot massively overexposes his expired film. This is something I haven't done yet, but something I should do. I have several rolls of fast C-41 and B&W (Ektar 1000 and Fuji B&W 1600), and I'm gonna shoot those at much slower speeds. Maybe ISO 200 for the Ektar and ISO 400 for the Fuji?

I shot this at box speed though sometimes i shoot 400 at 320 as a buffer.

Comment: I'm figuring you to be a fellow guitarist. It's cool to see that you shot those pics at a guitar shop. A Martin stocking dealer, no less. You being from West Virginia, I'm guessing you folks probably have some mean flat-pickers up thataway. If I could request an enlarged image, it would be number 26. So's I can check out the Fenders they have.

I used to play, not anymore.

Ill see what i can do about #26 for you this weekend

 

[rpavich]

Quick update: I noticed that I have very magenta shadows in the pictures taken indoor. I'm not sure if this is directly related to the room temp developing but I have a couple of more rolls to print so I'll do some comparisons to see if it's something that I just didn't notice before.