Why use brand name process solutions with color films

[Photo Engineer]

Paul;

E6 and C41 use different color developing agents which give dyes with different hues and the dyes formed are optimal with their chosen developing agents. Therefore, if you try to use the wrong developing agent, you get the wrong dye with the wrong stability. The two films would have to be redesigned from the ground up.

Also, reversal color developers are extremely complex to allow development to go to completion, whereas negative color developers are a bit simpler, more akin to B&W developers. This difference causes high fog in C41 films when put through an E6 type developer and would cause other odd problems such as high contrast and crossover in E6 films when run through C41 color developers.

The E6 first developer is more easily changed out, I'll admit, but it must be modified with addenda that would not be good for B&W films.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

The E6 first developer is more easily changed out, I'll admit, but it must be modified with addenda that would not be good for B&W films.
PE

Unless the B&W film was being reversal processed

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Unless the B&W film was being reversal processed

Ian

Ian;

Since I have not run that exact experiment, it would be hard to say how much change would have to be made. Since it is a matter of adjusting development rates of about 9 emulsions, it is not just a simple matter as I have stated before. I can say that HQ vs HQMS caused problems.

PE

 

[Tim Gray]

That's good to know about the fixer at least. Flexicolor fixer is pennies compared to B&W fixers. Can it be used for B&W prints too? It's not as acidic as most B&W fixers, correct?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tim;

Color fixers can be used for ALL B&W work. The reverse is NOT true. B&W fixers should NOT be used for any color work.

PE

 

[Tim Gray]

I think flexicolor fixer is in my future then. It's dirt cheap. And if I ever make the jump to home C-41 (and if I can find the rest of the chemicals), I'm good to go. Finding the developer and bleach in reasonable sizes from a company who will ship seems difficult.

 

[fotch]

Ditto

 

[wogster]

Paul;

E6 and C41 use different color developing agents which give dyes with different hues and the dyes formed are optimal with their chosen developing agents. Therefore, if you try to use the wrong developing agent, you get the wrong dye with the wrong stability. The two films would have to be redesigned from the ground up.

Also, reversal color developers are extremely complex to allow development to go to completion, whereas negative color developers are a bit simpler, more akin to B&W developers. This difference causes high fog in C41 films when put through an E6 type developer and would cause other odd problems such as high contrast and crossover in E6 films when run through C41 color developers.

The E6 first developer is more easily changed out, I'll admit, but it must be modified with addenda that would not be good for B&W films.

PE

See this is the kind of stuff, use users don't know, which is why it's important that we have folks like your (Ron), here to help us figure this stuff out. Trying to sum up then:

You need a non-solvent B&W developer for E6. You need separate colour developers for C41 and E6. I would assume that E6 and C41 bleach performs a similar function and that the E6 and C41 fixers would be fairly similar. Not sure about the stabilizer.

So would the bleaches, fixers and stabilizers be similar enough (between C41 and E6) to be interchangeable, would they be at different dilutions and times, or are they completely different?

What I am trying to determine is how few different chemicals in concentrate form, could be used to process film of all three types, B&W, colour negatives and colour transparencies.

If the bleaches and fixers are the same, then unbundling the solutions so you buy what you need in various sizes makes more sense then a kit where you end up throwing most of the fixer and bleach away.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The bleaches, fixes and stabilizers can be the same as long as the stabilizer is of the old style with formalin.

The E6 process needs a reversal bath or a light re-exposure.

You would have to have one common color developer solution part but with either an E6 or C41 option with 2 bottles of chemicals for each proces so you would have A, B1, B2, C1, C2, D and you would use either A, B1, C1, D or A, B2, C2, D depending on process.

The first developer would be most likely a B&W reversal first developer but would probably be low in quality due to the compromises made. It would be better to just use the E6 first developer.

But, the bottom line is, who would pay for the R&D and is there an ROI for it?

You see, many years ago there were kits just as we have been describing and they all vanished from the market place. The compromises ended up giving just so-so results. A very reputable company from Japan manufactured them, and I had many of them I tested here. Only the paper version worked well due to the fact that grain, speed and sharpness were not an issue with paper.

They came as a common tail end kit, and the developers were individually purchased and there were no throw away parts depending on the film(s) you targeted IIRC.

PE

 

[wogster]

The bleaches, fixes and stabilizers can be the same as long as the stabilizer is of the old style with formalin.

The E6 process needs a reversal bath or a light re-exposure.

You would have to have one common color developer solution part but with either an E6 or C41 option with 2 bottles of chemicals for each proces so you would have A, B1, B2, C1, C2, D and you would use either A, B1, C1, D or A, B2, C2, D depending on process.

The first developer would be most likely a B&W reversal first developer but would probably be low in quality due to the compromises made. It would be better to just use the E6 first developer.

But, the bottom line is, who would pay for the R&D and is there an ROI for it?

You see, many years ago there were kits just as we have been describing and they all vanished from the market place. The compromises ended up giving just so-so results. A very reputable company from Japan manufactured them, and I had many of them I tested here. Only the paper version worked well due to the fact that grain, speed and sharpness were not an issue with paper.

They came as a common tail end kit, and the developers were individually purchased and there were no throw away parts depending on the film(s) you targeted IIRC.

PE

I think that small volume kits will make a come back, either from Kodak or Fuji, as the number of mini-labs is dropping like flies, and even many pro-labs are going digital only, if they want film to survive then they need to make it possible to do at home.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think I said that Paul, but as I said further, I believe that the smaller companies will do it before Kodak or Fuji, and they will do it using authentic kits, splitting them into appropriate sizes.

PE

 

[Tim Gray]

I hope they do it soon before all the yummy color films are discontinued. hahah

 

[mts]

In response to this thread title, why indeed? I am perfectly happy using alternative C41 and E6 that I formulate from scratch, on demand in 1-liter quantity. Looking in my files I find transparencies and negatives more than 20 years old that print/scan close to original--good enough for my purposes as when they were processed, with films from Fuji and Kodak going back to Vericolor II and earlier E6 Ektachromes. That's not to say I don't really appreciate discussion about matching films to processing for optimal and consistent quality. However, images I process today can be expected to last another 20 years at least and that's longer than I expect to care. Archival (> 100 year) processing is somebody else's concern, in my opinion. Important photos that perhaps should be archival, i.e. ones I want to leave for posterity, I shoot on large format in black & white.

For processing analog color, I figure you can never tell when the next meteor is going to hit. It's arguable whether or not any digital will turn out to be more archival than a roll of processed and properly stored film. I can't read code I wrote twenty years ago and have stored on 8"/160KB floppies, but I presume that it's still there. I can still print C41 negatives and look at E6 transparencies and of course too few truely magnificent Kodachromes of the same vintage.

Anyway, that's my take on this thread subject.

(BTW, I use the same quinone/peroxide bleach for both C41 and E6 and am very happy not having to locate, buy, ship, and store Fe-EDTA)

 

[Ian Grant]

No.

CPAC (as Ron knows) was set-up by ex EK employees initially to manufacture silver recovery units. They also bought Tura and own Trebla chemistry, they have plants manufacturing chemistry in a few countries now.

Ian