Unsuccessful C41 attempt with Fuji Hunt chems help

[brbo]

Same findings here. I processed it to look a bit more Frontier-like...

 

[koraks]

Yeah you could take it in any conceivable direction of course. I chose to just contract the histogram and not alter anything else.
If course all this shows is that the scanner spits out something useful; it says very little about any potential differences between home and lab development. Mild problems with processing may still be there for all I know. But if digital output is required and nothing more, then I would be pretty optimistic about this outcome.

 

[Radost]

This chart is from my second development 101.5F pre wash and development

 

[mshchem]

If you are convinced it's the chemistry buy new chemistry.

 

[Radost]

Same findings here. I processed it to look a bit more Frontier-like...

View attachment 299734

This is the best colors out of my negatives that I have seen. How did you get to this result?

 

[koraks]

Hmm, before troubleshooting any color development issues (real or imagined) I'd recommend getting a crash course in digital color correction and doing lots of practice. It seems to me you're a bit disoriented in these matters.

 

[Radost]

Hmm, before troubleshooting any color development issues (real or imagined) I'd recommend getting a crash course in digital color correction and doing lots of practice. It seems to me you're a bit disoriented in these matters.

As I said so many times my lab developed films scan just perfect. So it’s not the scanning or my digital processing. I try not to do anything digital processing other than negafix standard.

It’s the development process.

I smell a little urine smell from my developer. Still develops everything fine apart from the red cast with purply shadows.

 

[koraks]

The color checker scan you posted does not exhibit purply shadows or a red cast.

I've tried to help you in a few ways, but apparently I can't. So that others might have a go at this, if they have the time and patience: what would you ideally get from this thread?

 

[MattKing]

It seems to me that Radost is expecting his film to scan and give exactly the same results as lab scanned developed film without any change to his scanning settings.
I don't think that happens even if you compare the results from two within spec commercial labs.

 

[koraks]

Well, perhaps, but I suspect something else is at play here as well. Sometimes people expect that color negative should always scan or print 'well' with identical scanning (& post processing) or printing parameters. Regardless of scene contrast, subject matter, quality of the light, exposure...and possible film processing deviations. In other words: some people apparently fail to accept that a color negative is comparable to a digital raw file in it being just a carrier that has recorded (hopefully) the required image information from which the desired viewable representation can be made with the necessary post processing to achieve that end result. It's an intermediate, and nothing more.

 

[Radost]

It seems to me that Radost is expecting his film to scan and give exactly the same results as lab scanned film without any change to his scanning settings.
I don't think that happens even if you compare the results from two within spec commercial labs.

Not lab scan. Scan at home from lab development. I don’t lab scan. I scan at home.

 

[Radost]

The color checker scan you posted does not exhibit purply shadows or a red cast.

I've tried to help you in a few ways, but apparently I can't. So that others might have a go at this, if they have the time and patience: what would you ideally get from this thread?

the color checker scan is from my second development that I mixed new Chems and increased temp to 101f. It looks better than the first one.

 

[MattKing]

Not lab scan. Scan at home from lab development. I don’t lab scan. I scan at home.

Thanks - I've corrected my original post to what I meant to type - lab developed film.

 

[Radost]

Here is the thing.
People keep repeating the same ideas.
This post is not about can it be fixed in post or not. Or if my scanning is bad.
I needed and asked for development help.
I scan everything at home.
Just started developing C-41.
Lab development looks great being scanned at home. my first 2 developments were too redish.
I am not interested in heavy post processing of my negatives.
My question was how can I improve my development to be more balanced like the lab. C-41 in theory is pretty straight forward. I have a great thermometer. I am very cariful with mixing chems and times.
I wish PE was alive.

 

[MattKing]

We are not talking about fixing.
We are talking about more than one normal.
The same adjustments that one would make if they switched from a Kodak film to a Fuji film - as one example.

 

[Radost]

Thanks - I've corrected my original post to what I meant to type - lab developed film.

I don’t see a reason for home developing to be that much deferent from lab developing. As long as everything is done correctly they should be very close.
My next step is getting a different chems.
The Fuji hunt I got last summer were imported from Germany. There was no expiration date on the bottles so I assume the chems are not old.

 

[Radost]

We are not talking about fixing.
We are talking about more than one normal.
The same adjustments that one would make if they switched from a Kodak film to a Fuji film - as one example.

That makes sense. Is Fuji more reddish?

 

[MattKing]

That makes sense. Is Fuji more reddish?

For clarity, I should probably have said "the same sort of adjustments".
But for additional clarity, I would stress that all of these comments are related to the issue of how to approach colour casts.
It may be the case that you have crossover problems, not simple colour casts. If so, then development errors are a likely cause.
If the difference between the results is easily corrected out by adjustment - either of a scanning profile or by changing colour filtration when optically printing - then your development is fine.
The challenge with working with scanners to evaluate development is that there is unintended flexibility in the results.
The advantage of optically printing is also its disadvantage - the paper's response isn't flexible, so it can (relatively easily) be used to test the film development.

 

[koraks]

People keep repeating the same ideas.

Because it's a step towards helping you. If you read my suggestions of side by side comparisons, you'll see they're intended to try and track down your problem.

If you want to solve this, it's you who will have to do the work. Get it?

I am not interested in heavy post processing of my negatives.

Better shoot slides. What you seem to experience as heavy processing is in fact the normal range of color corrections (if we're looking at that color checker chart scan you posted) you'd expect to make on scanned C41 negatives.
The fact that you have fewer adjustments to make with lab developed negatives is because the in-built (VERY HEAVY!!!) corrections in your scanning software etc work out well for those negatives.

 

[Radost]

Because it's a step towards helping you. If you read my suggestions of side by side comparisons, you'll see they're intended to try and track down your problem.

If you want to solve this, it's you who will have to do the work. Get it?


Better shoot slides. What you seem to experience as heavy processing is in fact the normal range of color corrections (if we're looking at that color checker chart scan you posted) you'd expect to make on scanned C41 negatives.
The fact that you have fewer adjustments to make with lab developed negatives is because the in-built (VERY HEAVY!!!) corrections in your scanning software etc work out well for those negatives.

Which means my development and not the scanning differs.

I just scanned some portra 400 mini lab development and it looks very good.
I Have been extremely happy with negafix and the reason I knew my development is wrong is because after scanning many C-41 developed in the lab my development was totally wrong.

funny you should mention slides. I was just thinking about it but even though I can live with the limited dynamic range the cost does not make sense to me.

 

[brbo]

If you need to rely on certain (inferior?) inversion routines and insist on fixing or "fixing" you development, google for "C-41 visual process control guide". Fuji and Kodak have documents to help you solve any processing error.

Just a warning, you may find that your definition of "have a very good thermometer and can follow the instructions" might be put into context when you start digging deeper into the matter of C-41 development. For start, I'm pretty sure that Fuji C-41 kit instructions never mentioned pre-washing (although it might actually help; and, yes, I'm perfectly aware of what you think, "this guy is warning me against something that might help, he doesn't have a clue, I want my PE back...") or developing in Paterson tank. Semi-automated processing for C-41 (something like Jobo rotary development with temp. control) should be a bare minimum.

Of course, you can wing it, but then you should be prepared to do some adjustments here and there. And that includes scanning. Most of us can get very good results from scanning and/or printing our home-developed C-41 negatives, but only the over confident users will claim that they can maintain better or equal adherence to C-41 specs than a well run pro or mini lab.

BTW, a similar thread.

 

[koraks]

Fuji and Kodak have documents to help you solve any processing error.

Those won't help here because OP is not capable of creating a digital or physical positive from his negatives that accurately shows the possible problems he thinks he's seeing. I've been trying to get him to that point for days, but he just doesn't get it. I was thinking along the same lines as you but it's impossible to get even to base 1 with him.

 

[koraks]

Ok, one last attempt from my end to help you @Radost. I won't talk about scanning or anything for a bit.

You mentioned you use Fuji Hunt chemistry, and said something about opening it last summer and you also dropped the product name 'Negafix' above (which is not developer; Fuji does market 'Negacolor' developer). All this raises a number of questions about your developer (not bleach, not fix!!):
* What is the exact name of your C41 developer and the Fuji product number?
* When did you open the bottle(s)?
* When did you mix the working solution of the developer? How much (how many liters, gallons etc.) did you mix? If you are keeping unmixed concentrates, how are you storing them?
* If you are using developer that requires a starter (i.e. all minilab chemistry, but usually not consumer-oriented small volume chemistry kits like the 1 liter and 5 liter kits), have you added it when making the working strength developer?
* How have you stored the developer since mixing it (what kind of bottles, for how long etc.) and for how long have you stored it?
* How many films do you develop before discarding the developer? I.e. how many films per liter of solution in a single sessions, and how many sessions?
* If you re-use developer, are you replenishing it? If so, at what rate? Are you using replenisher or working strength developer for replenishment?
* If you still have fresh, unused, working strength developer in storage, what color is it?

For best results, do the following:
* Store mixed, working strength developer in entirely full, glass (or PET, but not LDPE or HDPE) bottles with a tightly fitting cap.
* Use developer only once ('one shot'), or if you re-use it, use the manufacturer's replenishment rate for your particular developer and replenisher (not just any Fuji C41 developer...) and adjust the rate if you find your negatives are sub-par. Note that replenishment rates are always aimed at lab use with a far higher chemistry turnaround than you'll ever get at home and hence, Fuji's rates will be on the low side and probably much too low for your use. In other words: replenishment is a gamble.
* Don't even think about reusing the same developer several times without replenishment if you care in the least how your negatives turn out. Contrary to what you may believe, C41 developer is NOT intended to work if used as-is in several consecutive developing sessions.
* Opened bottles of developer concentrate, particularly the one that contains the CD4 component, do not store well once opened. In practice it is better to mix all of it into working strength developer or replenisher and store it as outlined above. This way you can easily get >6 months (very conservative estimate) of use from your developer. The CD4-containing component is usually the smallest concentrate bottle out of the 3 or 4 developer concentrates that come in the package (or the second-smallest in consumer-grade Fuji Hunt kits that come with a starter).

If you accurately answer the questions above, it is possible to a limited extent to say something about potential problems in your development process.

A better approach would be based on comparative analysis of home- vs lab-developed negatives, but given your responses up to now I have to conclude you're not capable of doing this, so we have to try a plan B.

 

[foc]

Ok, one last attempt from my end to help you @Radost. I won't talk about scanning or anything for a bit.

You mentioned you use Fuji Hunt chemistry, and said something about opening it last summer and you also dropped the product name 'Negafix' above (which is not developer; Fuji does market 'Negacolor' developer). All this raises a number of questions about your developer (not bleach, not fix!!):
* What is the exact name of your C41 developer and the Fuji product number?
* When did you open the bottle(s)?
* When did you mix the working solution of the developer? How much (how many liters, gallons etc.) did you mix? If you are keeping unmixed concentrates, how are you storing them?
* If you are using developer that requires a starter (i.e. all minilab chemistry, but usually not consumer-oriented small volume chemistry kits like the 1 liter and 5 liter kits), have you added it when making the working strength developer?
* How have you stored the developer since mixing it (what kind of bottles, for how long etc.) and for how long have you stored it?
* How many films do you develop before discarding the developer? I.e. how many films per liter of solution in a single sessions, and how many sessions?
* If you re-use developer, are you replenishing it? If so, at what rate? Are you using replenisher or working strength developer for replenishment?
* If you still have fresh, unused, working strength developer in storage, what color is it?

For best results, do the following:
* Store mixed, working strength developer in entirely full, glass (or PET, but not LDPE or HDPE) bottles with a tightly fitting cap.
* Use developer only once ('one shot'), or if you re-use it, use the manufacturer's replenishment rate for your particular developer and replenisher (not just any Fuji C41 developer...) and adjust the rate if you find your negatives are sub-par. Note that replenishment rates are always aimed at lab use with a far higher chemistry turnaround than you'll ever get at home and hence, Fuji's rates will be on the low side and probably much too low for your use. In other words: replenishment is a gamble.
* Don't even think about reusing the same developer several times without replenishment if you care in the least how your negatives turn out. Contrary to what you may believe, C41 developer is NOT intended to work if used as-is in several consecutive developing sessions.
* Opened bottles of developer concentrate, particularly the one that contains the CD4 component, do not store well once opened. In practice it is better to mix all of it into working strength developer or replenisher and store it as outlined above. This way you can easily get >6 months (very conservative estimate) of use from your developer. The CD4-containing component is usually the smallest concentrate bottle out of the 3 or 4 developer concentrates that come in the package (or the second-smallest in consumer-grade Fuji Hunt kits that come with a starter).

If you accurately answer the questions above, it is possible to a limited extent to say something about potential problems in your development process.

A better approach would be based on comparative analysis of home- vs lab-developed negatives, but given your responses up to now I have to conclude you're not capable of doing this, so we have to try a plan B.

This post should be put as a sticky for all those wishing to do C41 home processing and what pitfalls to avoid.

 

[mshchem]

Hmm, before troubleshooting any color development issues (real or imagined) I'd recommend getting a crash course in digital color correction and doing lots of practice. It seems to me you're a bit disoriented in these matters.

Sincerely, where does one look for such information?? I am a total noob when it comes to digital color correction of negative scans. I can go down to my darkroom and make good color prints, no problem. When I saw the OP's reddish images I thought add more magenta and yellow to the filter pack .

I have a subscription to Adobe LR and PS. I can do the basics with digital and slide scans.