Jump to content

timlaux

Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Thank you all. It seems that Bill and Alan have, more or less, come to a similar conclusion that the swelling of the emulsion layers have an effect on the rate of reaction of the development process. Initially, I would have thought the presence of water (swollen film) might lead to over-development if I think of film as a kitchen sponge. A very dry sponge takes a while to initially absorb water and to become saturated. So, I figured dry film might act similarly. However, seems like dry film is pretty hydroscopic so it will tend to suck in developer solution upon contact. In this case, if the film is already pre-saturated with water, then displacing the water with developer requires some time, which may lead to slightly less development..though...how much can it really be?
  2. Hi all, Tonight, I plan on processing with Kodak C-41 chemistry for the first time. I noted that the Kodak z131 manual does not recommend a pre-soak stage for rotary tank processing. While I am using a Paterson tank, I feel their recommendation may still hold. As far as I know, the pre-soak stage is just bring the temperature of the tank and film up to 38C/100F. Here's their recommendation: Some part of the emulsion runs off after the pre-soak. (I think the water is usually a blue-ish color.) On one hand, maybe those chemicals are really inteded to be their during development. On the other hand, seems like it might be good to keep those 'blue chemicals" out of the developer working solution. But, no science to back any of that. Anyone have a more scientific answer? Thanks!
  3. I still have a pending account. This is a very confusing place to me: There seems to be such a big disconnect between the forum and photo sharing end. I was very excited about joining, but am loosing faith. Thanks.
  4. Thank you for the lesson and for sharing your knowledge. I suppose doing process control at home is probably not really worth it, although it may depend on how much you do. In my case, I do not think I will ever exhaust the solutions, as in use up all of the reactants, within the manufacturer stated allowable storage times. If I only shoot 4-6 rolls in an 8 week period, mixing 1L at a time, then most likely will have plenty of overhead, in terms of chemical capacity. That said, I am well aware that the performance of the solutions will be slightly different (worse) after each roll it processes. I can refer to the replenishing rates for a particular system to understand how much to discard and how much to add per roll. While sounds good in theory, I wonder if there's really much use ( in my case ) where I will probably only exhaust about 1/3 of the chemicals' potential before it needs to be discarded due to age.
  5. Also, does anyone have input on whether Stabilizer III (with formalin) has much advantage over the Final Rinse stuff? Not particularly stoked about using formalin in my kitchen, or trying to properly dispose of it. But if negatives only rinsed in Final Rinse are likely to go bad in 10 years then maybe I'll reconsider?
  6. Thank you for your insights Bill. Makes perfect sense about why blix isn't used by commercial processors. I've see people make arguments that "Well the commerical processors use separate bleach and fix baths so it must be technically superior!" and others come back saying "It's not that blix is bad, it's just that it doesn't scale for commercial operations". Interesting points. And I'd agree that my shot looks more underexposed than anything. I remember that I didn't actually meter for that shot in particular,but did a general meter reading a few minutes before to get an idea about the available light. But, I metered for +1 box speed, and it seems like this exposure is maybe at -2 stops underexposed. Having a hard time thinking that I was really off by 4 stops, but who knows.
  7. Honestly that one might just be underexposure. Regardless...I'm planning on re-stocking chemistry soon. I was mostly curious if anyone's used Kodak Flexicolor at home, whether you thought it was worth it, and if the shelf life of the unused chemicals was any good. In part, I think that's mostly been answered. Seems like it should be possible to do Flexicolor at home, just have to commit to shooting a lot of film to make it worth it!
  8. Thanks. Is that Tetenal 4 bath kit really available? I've never seen it. Only the "2-bath" (really a 3-bath) kit. Do you have a link? In general, I think it's okay to "over-blix", right? Is there an upper-limit to how much you might blix passed the time noted on the instructions? Maybe another 30 seconds for a 6:30 Tetenal press C-41 blix? Thanks Glen. I'm just starting to learn about grain vs. dye clouds. My eye isn't really trained enough to know what is metal grain and what is dye cloud. I've attached a clip of an image which it seems most apparent.
  9. I'm using a Fuji X-T30 and Nikkor 105mm f/4 for scanning. I am using the Lightroom plugin Negative Lab Pro with the B&W profile. In general, it does a very good job with auto contrast and producing a very nice histogram. Shadows were muddy and flat and the grain larger than I would've expected for 120 film. Still usable, but just felt like something was a little off. And yes, I won't rule out under development, although this isn't exactly my first rodeo..but it's not like I'm developing every day for a living. I also won't rule out proper exposure in camera. Was not using a camera with a meter or auto-exposure, but as I mentioned, was still metering at +1 box speed. Regardless of whether it was operator error (for this roll) or not, I'm probably going to need to swap out my chemistry soon anyway, as it's pushing about 5 months now. I know people have had reported 1 year or more with properly stored Tetenal, but I wonder how realistic that is. Thanks!
  10. Thank you. Interesting. I hadn't given much thought to the idea that "weak blix makes thin negatives" other than (I think) reading it somewhere else. And by dark, I assume you mean the negatives are dark, not the print/scans? I found this thread on phototrio: Shelf life of Kodak Flexicolor SM Tank chemicals? There are some photos showing the LORR LU dev kit, final rinse, and fix/bleach. Kodak gives them all a 2 year (after manufacturing date) shelf life. To me, if they're willing to give them a 2 year expiration date, without particular storage instructions, then seems like they will hold up pretty well.
  11. Hello Sandy. Sorry to hijack this thread from the OP, but I too have been waiting for approval for over 3 months now. I've tried contacting support via email, but no response. I tried uploading new photos but still pending. Thank you!
  12. Hi all, First off, I'm sorry about the length of this post. If you have any input, or can answer only one question, that would be awesome. I also hope this might be useful to other people reading. I developed 7 rolls over 4 months in my last Tetenal C-41 powder press kit. Once mixed, all solutions were stored in brown glass bottles, in a dark refrigerator, with all air removed by adding marbles to the bottles to displace the air. The density of the last roll was a little bit thin. Could be a little underexposed, but I was already metering for ISO200 on IS400 film (XP-2 Super). So, I have reason to believe the blix might be shot. (3 of those rolls were Portra 800. I've read higher ISO films cause chemicals to wear out sooner.) My main dilemma is that I don't shoot much at all. On average, I shoot about two rolls per month. I'm also the type who likes to develop as I go. I have all the equipment for developing and scanning, so at this point, it still makes more sense for me to continue developing at home, as I can still beat the per roll cost of most labs, and of course, I enjoy the process. I'm between these two systems: Kodak Flexicolor LORR and CineStill CS41 Liquid. --- CineStill CS41 Liquid: Makes 1L Dev A + Dev B + Dev C Blix A + Blix B + Blix C (uses Ferric Ammonium EDTA, apparently better blixing agent than Ferric Sodium EDTA found in powder kits) Stabilizer (Hexamine + Photoflo) $35 shipped Kodak Flexicolor LORR: Makes 5L minimum (Fixer makes 25L, Bleach makes 10L) Kodak Flexicolor LU Developer Replenisher (A+B+C) (to make 5L)- 823 1672 Kodak Flexicolor C-41 Developer Starter LORR (1.2L) - 660 1074 Kodak Flexicolor Bleach III Replenisher (to make 10L) - 660 0258 Kodak Flexicolor C-41 Bleach Starter (1.2L) - 660 1082 Kodak Flexicolor Fixer & Replenisher (to make 25L)- 660 0027 Kodak C-41 Final Rinse & Replenisher (to make 5L) - 867 3170 or (??) Kodak Stabilizer III & Replenisher (to make 19L) - 196 5482 $100-120 shipped --- First of all, do those Flexicolor chemicals look correct? Kodak seems to have discontinued many chemicals. Numbers have changed, and I'm not sure what's what. If I hypothetically only made 5L working solution (even though most of the chemicals support 10-20L+), then the cost is $22/L. To use up (almost) all of the chemicals, I'd need to buy 1 more bottle of Bleach III and 3 more packages of LU developer, which adds about $75 to the price. This allows me to make about 20L of working solution for about $175USD, so the cost is $9/L. However, as I mentioned above that my throughput is quite low. According to Kodak (z131 document), the shelf life of the working solutions of most of their chemicals is about 2 months. One of my main questions is: What is the shelf life of the unmixed chemicals? I plan to only mix 1L at a time. Based on using 1L every 2 months, I will use 6L in a year. It will take me 3.3 years to go through 20L of working solution. Are the chemicals stable enough, unmixed, to last that long? Or am I going to have to toss them sooner? The Bleach III and LU developer I can buy in the future as it's depleted, but how about the other stuff? Another question: For processing new films like Portra, Pro400H, Ektar, XP2-Super, is there still an advantage to using formaldehyde based stabilizer (like Stabilizer III)? Or do most labs/people just use the "new" Kodak Final Rinse only? These two are interchangeable right? From what I understand, the Final Rinse does not include any anti-microbial/anti-fungal ingredient. For the most part, I'm just scanning these and not touching the negatives again. Does anyone have any suggestions or feedback on my proposed methods? What's your experience. Thank you! Tim
  13. timlaux

  14. timlaux

  15. timlaux

×
×
  • Create New...