Is possible to use the CD1 (color agent) in RA4 or C41 processes

Hi,

I discover that my friend has the CD1 in bottle but I don?t know some

formula to make the color develor ...

Is this color developing agent CD1 possible to use in one of the

standard process (RA4 or C41), do you know anybody some formula for

color developer and how to continue in processing of papers or film ?

Thank you

 

Jan

Colour developers CD-1(TSS) is pale yellow to pale roseate crystalline powder or granules. Colour developers CD-2, CD-3, CD-4 are white or grey-white ctrstalline powder or granules. They are easy soluble in water. The new-made colourless or light-red aqueous solution will slowly become red when exposed in air.

 

Trade Name CD-1 (TSS)

 

Chemical Name: (N,N-Diethy1-1,4-Phenylene Diamine Sulfate).

 

Molecular Weight: 262.32

 

Use: It's used for developing water-soluble color film and dye intermediate.

 

Content %: > 99.0

 

Melting Range: 182-187 *C

 

Evaporated Component%: < 0.5

 

Ash%: < 0.1

 

Heavy Metal%(ph): < 0.001

 

Iron%(Fe): < 0.001

 

Trade Name CD-2 Chemical Name: (3-Methy1-4-Amino-N,N-Diethylaniline Hydrochloride). Molecular Weight: 214.70 Use: It's used for developing oil-soluble color Positive film. Content %: > 99.0 Melting Range: 246-268 *C Evaporated Component%: < 0.5 Ash%: < 0.1 Heavy Metal%(ph): < 0.001 Iron%(Fe): < 0.001

 

Trade Name CD-3 Chemical Name: (3-Methy1-4-Amino-N-Ethyl-N-(2-methanesulfonamido ehtyl)Aniline Sesquisulfate(monohydrate). Molecular Weight: 436.52 Use: It's used for developing oil-soluble color Positive at high temperature and quick speed, as well as developing color film. Content %: > 99.0 Melting Range: 126-131*C Evaporated Component%: < 0.5 Ash%: < 0.1 Heavy Metal%(ph): < 0.001 Iron%(Fe): < 0.001

 

Trade Name CD-4 Chemical Name: (3-Methy1-4-Amino-N-Ethyl-N-(2-Hydroxyethyl) Aniline Sulfate(Monohydrate) Molecular Weight: 292.34 Use: It's used for developing oil-soluble color Positive film at high temperature and quick speed, as well as developing color film. Content %: > 99.0 Melting Range: 152-257 *C Evaporated Component%: < 0.5 Ash%: < 0.1 Heavy Metal%(ph): < 0.001 Iron%(Fe): < 0.001

 

 

Now, when they say "water soluble" film (especially asian companies do that), they refer to the color couplers hydrophyllicity in the film layers. The modern consumer development processes (RA4 uses CD3, C41 uses CD4, E6 used CD2) work with "oil soluble" (activelly non-ionic) developers. CD-1 is a special case, and I am not sure what is it used for. There are some reference patents (mainly Japanese, about photographic thermosetting materials), and some Application US Patents, dealing with Color Developing Agent CD-1, which you may want to check up. It is used in compositions alone or together with the other representatives of the class and they make all kinds of crazy assumptions and comparisons there...

 

You can of course try your own formulations and you can use recent examples from this forum (just search messages under my name and you may study all the processes as best I could get them. There is no warranty that any of them will satisfy any quality standard, and depending on your ability and skill, they may or may not serve you in a feasible manner. Use the sources just for inspiration, because I cannot be held responsible for any of their content)

 

Good luck,

 

the rookie

Jan;

 

CD1 is not very soluable compared to the other developing agents, and is more prone to causing allergies.

 

It produces dyes with poorer hue and poorer stability. CD2 is similar in effect as is CD4.

 

The only two developers that produce reasonable hue and stability with current RA papers are CD3 and CD6.

 

Ron Mowrey

I believe CD1 is used in Process ECP-2 for motion picture print film. This is only run by a few large labs. They use protective equipment to avoid worker exposure. It is far more likely to cause dermatitis than other color developing agents. You should wear rubber gloves and safety glasses to handle the stuff--even to discard it.

Ron;

 

You may be right, but I thought ECP used CD2. In either case, the workers would be advised against contact. Both CD1 and CD2 are quite strong allergens and cause contact dermatitis in users.

 

Ron Mowrey

Ron Mowrey is right again.

 

ECP uses CD2 and ECN uses CD3. For example, in ECN-2 (3 baths process) the second bath has the following composition:

 

250g Water

 

2.1g Sodium Sulfite

 

0.75g Potassium Bromide

 

10g Antifog 0.2% sol. (puzzle-puzzle-puzzle)

 

16.9g Sodium Carbonate

 

1g Hydroxylamine Sulfate

 

2g CD-3

 

Water to make 500 ml.

 

ECP color developer bath has almost similar composition, but it contains CD-2.

 

 

 

CD1 use was patented in West Germany (I believe first) and consequently applied in Eastern Europe by ORWO (of course) for motion picture film. As a DE patent iterates:

 

"... at the beginning of the 70?s, it appears that the cine materials manufactured by ORWO which includes the long-chained couplers for processing with colour developer T22/CD1 cannot be treated analogous with the most common colour systems in the western world. The Kodak processes ECN II and ECP II use developers CD2 and CD3 instead..."

 

The chemical was dropped form mass production, I think, by 1984, and now it has just research (or hobby...) meaning.

 

Jan, I think you have a good view about it and you may try to use it according to example given. Be very careful with it and use gloves.

As it was designed to be used with ORWO materials, you may first want to take a look in Andreas Pfeininger book(s). It may not work good at all with American or Japanese films, but it may still work with Agfa, Russian and Hungarian variants.

 

You can try paper development as well, hey, what do you have to loose?

 

This stuff IS toxic, but not more dangerous than some BW developers (Pyro, PMK, etc.)

 

Take care!

 

the rookie

CD1 may be intended for the original chromogenic couplers which used very large molecules to avoid meandering about in the gelatine. Kodak used shorter molecules, lodged in resin.

<p>

Here is a post from another list (which serendipitously appeared recently), that covers some of this:

<blockquote>

To: subminiaturephotography2@yahoo...<br>

From: Peter Frederick psfred@earthl....<br>

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 04 21:08:11 -0500<br>

Subject: Re: [subminiature Photography] Re: Minox C-41<br>

<p>

Steve:

<p>

My mind is wandering.... GAF films used long hydrophillic "tails" on the

color couplers to 'anchor' them in the gelatin, not resin microbeads.

This is why GAF (and Afga) films could be evaluated for color balance

wet, unlike Ektachrome type films. The resin has a difference refractive

index than wet gelatin, so the film appears foggy and blue from the

back/red from the front until the gelatin dries down.

<p>

Phenylethyl amine is most likely a pH buffer, not a "coupler catalyst" --

the color dye formation is an azo dye reaction and requires nothing other

than oxidized developer and high pH to occur.

<p>

Sorry about the chemistry lesson, I get carried away.

<p>

Incidentally, Geavert or Agfa (aka GAF, originally Afga-Ansco prior to

WWII in the US) invented the substantive color process. Kodak 'stole'

it, used resin beads since they coudn't use the "tails" on the couplers

without obviously violating the Agfa/Ansco patents (even though they

claimed later that the patents were voided by US action during the war

with Germany -- since they release the original Ektachrome in 1938 this

is rather funny logic at best), and eventually sued GAF in the 70's for

violating Kodak patents. They lost the lawsuit eventually (paid a

penatly, I believe, for false suits, too), but achieved their objective

-- GAF went out of the photography buisiness. Kodak also swiped the

Polaroid instant print system too -- Polaroid got to them first that

time, remember when they "recalled" all the instant print cameras and

crushed them?

<p>

Funny world we live in.

</blockquote>

Reuben;

 

Sorry to disagree, but the Agfa system used sulfonic acid based couplers that were dissolved in the layers and immobilized by having long chains of carbon atoms attached between the coupler and the sulfonic acid. Therefore, Agfa used very hydrophylic developing agents. One of them actually had a sulfonic acid on it to render it more soluable.

 

The dyes that were formed had no protection from oxygen and were subject to fading, and the sulfonic acid groups on the couplers rendered the emulsions difficult to coat due to their effects as surfactants.

 

Kodak went to the resin (coupler solvent) method for several reasons. One reason is that the solvent acts as a barrier to oxidation and therefore slows down dye fade, and another is that this type of dispersion is easier to coat as it has no surfactant effects at all during the coating process.

 

There were two independant lines of research going on at the same time, one in Germany and one in the US. The Kodak method turned out to be the best solution, and now all companies use this method of making color films. Kodak gained only one piece of technology from Agfa as a result of the war and it was related to emulsion sensitization, not color film making.

 

The phenyl ethyl amine used in Ansco processes, or later benzyl amine, was the effort by Ansco to use dispersed couplers and then avoid the EK patent on benzyl alcohol in the color developer to allow the developing agent to penetrate the hydrophylic / hydrophobic barrier of the coupler solvent.

 

The Kodak instant print material was totally different than the Polaroid system. EK used direct reversal emulsions and RDRs (redox dye releasers). The dye was released during development imagewise so a positive silver image formed. Polaroid uses a hydroquinone azo dye compound that allows dye to migrate where silver is not developed, thereby requiring a negative emulsion and negative silver to form. These systems used totally different chemistry. Nothing was stolen. The suit hinged around the concept of an integral package for forming film, but even that was different. Polaroid used a white goo that formed the image substrate, but EK used a black goo which acted as a light barrier. The image diffused to a white titanium dioxide undercoat. Again the opposite of Polaroid. In fact, the images were reversed from each other and therefore required totally different camera formats to place the picture correctly in the final print. Polaroid exposes from the front of the picture and EKs product exposed from the back.

 

Another case of people on the outside not knowing what the truth really was.

 

The case was far different that what most people thought. For example, did you know that the judge owned a largish block of Polaroid stock? That apparently did not require him to recuse himself from the case, nor, I'm sure did it affect his judgment.

 

Hope you appreciate a few facts.

 

Ron Mowrey

Actually, I believe the judge (Zobel) <i>did</I> recuse him(her?)self,

 

after which it was handed over to a judge named Mazzone. There is a lot of

 

interesting information here (links below) on the case, the patents, the

 

nitpicking, even down to the level of the names of the coating machines at

 

the Polaroid plants, and the methods they used for each of the layers in

 

their film:

<p>

<a href="http://www.patents.com/apl/kodak1.pdf"><b>[1 of 2] Polaroid Corp.

 

v. Eastman Kodak Co. (DC

Mass) 16 USPQ2d 1481 Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman

Kodak Co.</b></a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.patents.com/apl/kodak2.pdf"><b>[2 of 2] Polaroid Corp.

 

v. Eastman Kodak Co. (DC

Mass) 16 USPQ2d 1481 Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman

Kodak Co.</b></a>

<p>

<p>

(There is also a <a href="http://www.patents.com/apl/kodak3.pdf"><b>third

 

part</b></a> but it's short, and fairly boring court-stuff.)

<p>

Here are some highlights I found interesting.

<p>

From the first file, on page 13:

<blockquote>

From 1983 onward, distribution in consumer channels was reduced

significantly. Eventually, in 1984, Kodak decided to pull out of the

 

amateur market

completely. By the time it was ordered to leave the market in 1985, Kodak

 

had lost $600

million on the instant photography business, not including the cost of

 

exiting the market.

</blockquote>

My take on that is that it looks like Kodak was in the process of bailing

 

from the instant camera/film market by that time, regardless of the

 

litigation, because they'd been taking a terrific pounding on it, having

 

lost 600 million dollars.

<p>

And on page 25:

<blockquote>

In April 1980, Polaroid commissioned a study of picture alternatives which

 

asked 600

interviewees to choose between two prints and give the reasons for their

 

choice. This

study concluded that, " [in] a direct comparison of the current square

 

SX-70 and Kodak's

rectangular PR-10 show that the majority of consumers prefer the

 

rectangle." (DF

21,180). The 1974 National Analyst Study found that sixty-nine percent of

 

consumers

preferred the matte finish of the Kodak print as opposed to the glossy

 

Polaroid surface.

(PT 2458).

</blockquote>

This would seem to confirm what I said earlier, about Kodak's film being

 

better, with several advantages including the textured surface.

<p>

In the the second file, the judge goes over the patents one by one on pages

 

30 to 33. I did find one apparent error in the © section, where it seems

 

to refer to Polaroid while describing Kodak's "darkroom" metaphor.

<p>

Also, in (e), the Polaroid "rear pick" patent seems absurdly obvious (and

 

"prior art") -- at least to anyone who has seen a Grafmatic film holder. I

 

think the ancient "bag mag" holders used the same "technology" even

 

earlier. How Polaroid could claim originality, and how the courts could

 

back that up, is beyond me.

<p>

There is also some information <a

 

href="http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/tphs-doc10.html"><b>here</b></a> and <a

 

href="http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/tphs-doc12.html"><b>here</b></a> at the

 

Photographic Historical Society's newsletter, about the suit, but more

 

interestingly, about Fuji's instant print cameras (and even <i>more</I>

 

interestingly, their <I>film</i>).

<p>

Apparently, Fuji has been ever since the start (when Kodak marketted their

 

instant film) been making and selling instant film and cameras that use

 

fully compatible film, and they're still doing it. They do not "gray

 

market" it to the US for a variety of reasons, but if you know someone in

 

Japan you can get him so ship you some, and you'll be able to use your old

 

Kodak instant camera again!

<p>

This is something I personally plan on looking into, because I do not like

 

the Polaroid integral pack films at all. They look dull and lifeless, but

 

the Kodak prints looked like real photographs. The Fuji prints should look

 

the same if they're made the same as the Kodak film. They're probably made

 

better now than they were then.

<p>

I had no idea it was still possible to get film for those cameras!

<p>

As to that Agfa stuff, as I said, it's just something that crossed the

 

wires a couple of days ago, so as they say, don't shoot the messenger.

 

Since it's a "you said/he said" situation, you can take it up with him ;)

<p>

I edited the email address to protect it from the spamhunters but you

 

should be able to decipher it (the "earthl...." is "earthlink.net") if you

 

<I>do</I> want to take it up with him, but if you do, please be gentle with

 

him, as he has no idea this thread exists. (I am just a lurker on that

 

list. I mainly lurk most places, but this stuff has drawn me out.)

Reuben;

 

Judge Sobel did not recuse himself. Sorry.

 

Some of the finest legal minds in the country agreed with EKs position. I have read some of their position papers. The EK instant product differed substantively from the Polaroid film, and was granted patents that to this day were never voided.

 

If the case were fully justified, the patents would have been voided as well.

 

As to the loss, there is a lot missing from that information you referred me to. For instance, it does not include the fact that EK had prepared to enter the peel apart market and did R&D on a suitable product, and then decided not to market it. Those were not properly taken into consideration in that evaluation. The costs for that product, which was deemed inferior to the integral market, and the market much smaller, were included in the entire project costs.

 

In addition, the costs of the 3000 speed product, just on the verge of introduction were included but 'hidden' due to its being confidential at the time. In fact, that is further evidence that EK was intending to stay. You probably did not see that other post of mine about this potential product.

 

You might also consider the fact that EK did most of the R&D and coating for Polaroid on its peel apart product, as Polaroid could not make it itself at the time.

 

On another note, no company has had to develop a film or paper process for the last 30 years except Kodak. All companies relied on E6, C41, Ektaprint3 or RA processes. You see, it is not illegal to use someone elses process for your own product. They rode along on the EK process with no R&D costs to themselves for process chemistry or environmental chemistry.

 

Ron Mowrey

<i>Judge Sobel did not recuse himself. Sorry. </i>

<p>

I was probably fooled by the fact that the official court documents say that he did recuse himself. Most likely that rascal judge who replaced him after his recusal is to blame for fooling me into thinking that he really recused himself.

<p>

In http://www.patents.com/apl/kodak2.pdf I read, <b>"When this case was reassigned to me after Judge Zobel's recusal, counsel worked diligently in preparing for the damages trial."</b>

<p>

About the expenses of the unreleased product, the court document seems pretty clear, it says, <b>"By the time it was ordered to leave the market in 1985, Kodak had lost $600 million on the instant photography business, <i>not including the cost of exiting the market.</i>"</b>

<p>

That seems pretty all-inclusive. The emphasis is mine, by the way, but it seems to point out the scope of the loss.

<p>

The judge also said, <b>"From 1983 onward, distribution in consumer channels was reduced significantly. Eventually, in 1984, Kodak decided to pull out of the amateur market completely."</b>

<p>

He's either telling the truth or lying. If he's lying, I'd say "take it up with him" and once again, "don't shoot the messenger" (that would be me ;)

<p>

But if he's telling the truth, then Kodak had taken a beating on instant photograph, and had made the decision to bail out of the field.

<p>

The judge's statement is pretty clear and unambiguous, and it really does boil down to him either telling the truth or telling a lie.

<p>

And about the peel-apart technology, Kodak <i>did</I> indeed sell a peel-apart instant product. I've got a box of it sitting on my shelf. It's called "Ektaflex." A nice concept, that was sadly discontinued. (You'll hear words like that in regard to many Kodak products by the way.)

<p>

I'll wrap up with a question: why do you seem so hostile to me? You seem to personalize a lot of what I've posted -- a LOT of it -- and really laid into me with a vengeance, trying to prove me a liar, or "wrong", and nearly every one of your recent posts to me has had a "there, I TOLD you so!" zinger in it -- even when you've been mistaken.

<p>

I am not the enemy.

<P>

If anything, I am an <i>ally</i> who is taking a terrific dose of "friendly fire".

<p>

If you will look over my posts, you will find that most of the time what I have said has been in support of you, and your posts. In those recent incidents in which you have opted to disagree with me, you have done so without attempting to "disagree without being disagreeable", and I am at a loss to understand why, inasmuch as I have not been attacking YOU.

Reuben;

 

Lets set the record straight. I am not hostile to you. I am just trying to get information out there from an inside POV. Thats all.

 

Now, as for the judge, as I remember it, Judge Ira Sobel tried the case to its conclusion, and AFAIK did not recuse himself, nor did EK ask him to. The spelling I had in my records was Sobel btw. There was more than one case, and a later portion or an appeal may have appeared under another judge or Sobel (Zobel) may have recused himself for the appeal. (It was appealed up to the Supreme Court) There was a lot of bitter reporting of this in the papers here, but EK said all along that they would not ask for the judge to recuse himself. AFAIK all internal documents referred to judge Sobel.

 

I know about Ektaflex, I worked on it. It was Ektaflex PCT. I have many fine prints made on the type R and C versions.

 

I'm talking about a peel apart in-camera product, which was never released. It was packed similar to the Polaroid 690 now on sale. It was a totally different chemical concept than the Polaroid product or the EK PR10 product, but EK never marketed or even named the product. It was never seen by anyone but EK people, and was never packaged in trade dress (the yellow box).

 

EK had a firm commitment to a second generation of integral product as I have already explained. All costs you have given or are reported in those documents include development of PR10, the 690 type product, and the new product that was cancelled while still unnamed. The losses were startup and R&D losses for a series of products that were expected to be recouped during the products lifetimes.

 

Our 3000 speed product was under development the day the judge (whoever that may be) rendered the decision. We were all called into a large conference room and told that the project was cancelled, all coating time was frozen, all emulsions and dispersions were to be destroyed, and everyone was given 90 days to find a reassignment position at EK. That ended the project, not a unilateral withdrawal. In fact, a group of us had just reached a milestone in the product, and my last product development patent was related to that milestone.

 

At about this same time, Ektaflex was cancelled, as it was part of the litigation due to Polaroids 8x10 products. It was handeled differently as it was already a product.

 

All machines for making the peel apart in-camera material were destroyed as were the PR10 machines as per the court order. No Ektaflex equipment was destroyed as it was coated and packaged using conventional machines.

 

I watched the scrap trucks haul the machinery away Reuben. I saw forklifts moving the demolished machinery out the back of the building where the film was assembled.

 

I apologize if you think I was attacking you. That was not my intent. What sets me off is the 'knowing' attitude of what went on. For example, you talk peel apart referring to Ektaflex, when I was not referring to it in any way whatsoever. There was another product you never heard of.

 

Another thing was the costs as reported. I don't disagree with them, I am just saying that the statement that EK was withdrawing is wrong and I know it was because follow up products were in the pipeline, and you seemed to disbelieve that.

 

Some very good friends lost jobs over it or had to transfer within EK, and the public seems to blame EK, but everyone at every level of EK tried their utmost to avoid Polaroid patents and we had the best legal advice tell us that we had indeed avoided infringement.

 

Perhaps the judge did leave and a new one took over, maybe I disremember, but I do know this; EK was committed to continuing in the in-camera and Ektaflex image transfer business, and had a pipeline filled with products in R&D. Those losses you speak of cover the R&D costs of those products and startup of the PR10 line.

 

That is what I disagree with. The interpretation of the situation from the outside. And the losses friends went through makes me want to defend all of our efforts to be honest. We did not try to infringe anything of Polaroids.

 

So, sorry. You pressed one of my buttons. It was not personal in any way.

 

Ron Mowrey

Reuben;

 

Just FYI, the quote you gave about Judge Zobel (yes, my notes had her name spelled wrong but I guess quite a few of us made that mistake here), says that her recusal only took place AFTER the trial but BEFORE the damages asessment. She did not take part in that part of the trial, so you see, there is truth in what both of us said.

 

The notes you refer to also quote other facts, such as the one that even if EK had never entered the business, the Polaroid coating plant would never have had the coating capacity to equal the market that was generated. In other words, EK did not take business away from them, as they could never have had it. We used to coat it for them, and stopped when the contract expired, which was timed to match their new plant coming on-line. They had not estimated the market size and were unable to coat enough product to match total demand (Polaroid + EK) and therefore the testimony indicates that EK took no business away from them.

 

Well, that matches pretty much what I remember.

 

Again, this is not anything against you. Just a presentation of the facts from the record.

 

Ron Mowrey

Hello,

thank you very much for your answers.

I want to try develop film and color paper prints at home (I have good and "rich" experience with BW prints at home - 15-th year ago I made about one hundred prints per week, BW chemistry I mix from chemicals and I was very interested in :-) ) so I found the way how to get the chemicals for color processes C41 and RA4 ...

When I read the answers, I think that it will be better to buy C41 and RA4 kits from Tetenal and I will have more time to making color prints etc.

What do you think ? :-) How much does it cost at your country ?

(I am from Czech Republic)

 

Thanks

 

Jan

Jan:

 

For RA-4 chemistry, it is around $50 (including shipping to your country on freestyle.com) for about 15 liters of each kit component (after dilutions). From this you can roughly make 250 8X10 color prints (good or bad). For 20 cents per picture only the chemicals, you are way better off mixing them from start.

 

I never bought C-41, I always did it myself.

 

See Reuben, it is that simple... what Jan wants is some pragmatic advice because he tries to do things cheaper and compromise as less as possible on quality. He couldn't care less about Polaroid issues!

 

In all your messages I can only depict the "CD1 subject" in the first one, in the begining, in a rather metaphoric sentence, "very large molecules" ... "meandering about in the gelatine", then quoting from a guy who appologizes for an inexistent "quarter of a phrase" chemistry lesson. I cannot refrain myself reminding you, if I may, that chemistry is written with respect, dry and exact, and not laconic in substance. In the end, you have to have said something. Instead, from lack of precise knowledge and ability to sustain a scientific argument on the matter (I would assume) you shift the dialog to even more obscure areas, legal issues, making old EK faithful partiots like Mr. Mowrey to waste his and our time, digging for details totally irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I thought history of another phenylene-amine class developer was interesting, bearing in mind that many talented younger adults in the forum may not have heared about CD1, and actually they don't give a rat's ass, neither about color developers, nor about Judge Sobel (am I wrong Mr. Eaton?)

 

the rookie

<blockquote><i>For RA-4 chemistry, it is around $50 (including shipping to your country on freestyle.com) for about 15 liters of each kit component (after dilutions). From this you can roughly make 250 8X10 color prints (good or bad). For 20 cents per picture only the chemicals, you are way better off mixing them from start. </i></blockquote>

And this will help people who want to home-process K14 exactly <I>how</I>? I seem to have missed that point.

<p>

I may respond to the rest of your diatribe after I finish waking up (who knows, I may even finish <i>reading</I> it at that point). I gather that your bile is raised due to your inability to cope with thread drift. All I can suggest is that you either learn to live with it (it's endemic to all things Internet), or, relocate to a more regimented society. I'd suggest Cuba or North Korea for starters.)

<p>

Curious how once R.M. makes nice-nice, you decide to jump into the fray, flame-thrower blazing.

<p>

Curious indeed.

<p>

Ta ta for now...

Sorry guys for the unrelated subject:

 

Reuben...

 

You indeed missed a lot of points (kits do come with instructions, RA4 and C41 are well covered issues in the forum), and I don't think it will help at all if you wake up more. Judging after your last geographic degringolade, you may go back to bed.

 

Last time I examined it, my bile was still in it's place, thank you very much, but my excretions rose as I read your "Processing-Home" (??) related messages.

 

If all people like me would relocate, I believe guys like you would have an insurmountable problem: wake earlier in the morning (maybe North Korean time) and start making sense... and work... what a scary thought, isn't it?

 

Mr Mowrey doesn't have to make nice-nice: just read some speciality literature for a change. Reuben, Reuben... never heared the name... maybe you should make nice-nice or put your real name on, so one can compare and we, the plebeans, may have a straight reference system.

 

Until then, this is the last second I waste with you.

 

Again, I am terribly sorry guys for this lousy intermezzo.

 

the rookie

<i>You indeed missed a lot of points (kits do come with instructions, RA4 and C41 are well covered issues in the forum), and I don't think it will help at all if you wake up more. Judging after your last geographic degringolade, you may go back to bed. </i>

<p>

Please drop the snotty, arrogant blowhard act, "Bujor".

<p>

I already have the manuals for K14, thank you very much.

<p>

I do not have a source for the couplers, or CD6.

<p>

I am considering the purchase of a KLAB chemistry kit (for which as I told you, I <I>already</I> have the instructions).

<p>

If you really can't bear to read about this stuff, how about simply IGNORING it, rather than jumping in like an arrogant jerkoff and trying to incite a flamefest, "Bujor"?

<p>

Bujor, Bujor ... never "heared" the name "Bujor".

<P>

Maybe YOU should make nice-nice or put YOUR real name on.

<p>

MY real name is Reuben. I'm sorry you never "heared" it. Try removing the wax from your ears. It might help your alligator-mouth disability.

<p>

<i>my excretions rose as I read your "Processing-Home" (??) related messages. </I>

<p>

The term you're grasping for is "oral diarrhea", and you are coincidentally <I>exhibiting</I> it.

<p>

I'm sorry your excretions are rising. Must taste like shit. Hopefully you'll eventually be able to redirect them to the traditional exit port. Perhaps if you remove your head, it will help clear out the logjam that's causing them to "rise".

<p>

<i>If all people like me would relocate, I believe guys like you would have an insurmountable problem: wake earlier in the morning (maybe North Korean time) and start making sense... and work... what a scary thought, isn't it? </I>

<p>

See what I mean? Textbook example of "oral diarrhea". Totally incoherent, and full of shit.

<p>

<i>Mr Mowrey doesn't have to make nice-nice</I>

<p>

Did he appoint you his spokesman? I noticed your earlier attempt to bring the lovely Scott Eaton into the flamefest you are trying to create. Nice classic TROLL tactic, "Bujor".

<p>

<i>Reuben, Reuben... never heared the name... maybe you should make nice-nice or put your real name on</I>

<p>

Like I said, "Bujor", it's my name. I'm not about to change it for you. You don't like it? Aww...

<p>

I don't know what your problem is, but I suggest you get it fixed. If you tried picking fights in real life the way you do here, you'd quickly learn some lessons in humility.

<p>

Until then, rave on, "Bujor", rave on...

One last thing, "Bujor".

<p>

You said, <i>"this is the last second I waste with you.</I>

<p>

Well let's hold you to your word.

<p>

I'll expect no more of your impudent tongue.

For anyone who is genuinely interested in obtaining the K14 process information (other than the actual formulas), it is available here:

<p>

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/photofinishing/klab/index.shtml">KODAK Service & Support - KODAK KLab Photofinisher</a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/Zmanuals/z50.shtml">KODAK Chemicals Process K-14M Publication Z-50</a>

Reuben dear;

 

here is one source of what you said you need:

 

Color developer CD-6 Arcos # 41023-0250 price $28.60/25g

 

Cyan coupler C-16 Acros # 40004-0100 price $33.50/10g

 

Magenta coupler M-38 Acros # 42159-0100 price $33.60/10g

 

Yellow coupler Y-55 Acros # 40412-0100 price 31.80/10g

 

Or you may try the Far East

 

Thanks for worrying about my feces!

 

the rookie

Jan you might want to start a new thread with your new question. You'll get better answers that way.

 

"Best" choice depends on various things. How many prints are you going to do? How often? Can you handle temp control? Or do you want room temperture kits?

 

If you're doing alot of paper and film then IMHO forget the consumer kits. Pickup the large volume lab chemicals. They're cheaper per sheet or roll of film. OTOH they're bad choices for people doing a little film every so often.

Jan;

 

Mixing your own color chemistry can only be economical if you get the chemicals locally. Shipping charges on some of the chemistry can be very high as can customs charges in some countries.

 

I have found that the cost of Ferric ammonium EDTA, used in the blix and bleaches is very expensive and that purchasing a kit is economical.

 

Hand mixing also will involve some trial and error. And again, I recommend only the use of CD3 for RA and E6 processes, and CD4 for C41, otherwise you will have poor dye hue and poor dye stability.

 

I wish you the best whichever route you take. Sorry I got off on a tangent answering some of Reuben's comments, but it seemed important to me to get some of the facts out there that are less well known.

 

Ron Mowrey

I'm going to take a stab at pulling this thread back to the original subject. I apologize for the misinformation about CD-1. I knew it was used in a process that was only run in big labs. That is, I knew it wasn't E-6, C-41, or RA-4. After some digging I found that CD-1 was not used in motion picture processes, but was used in the yellow developer of Kodachrome Process K-12. This was replaced by K-14 starting in 1974.

Ron;

 

Yes, CD6 is now the yellow color developer for Kodachrome film. Dick Bent and I hold the patent which I believe has now expired.

 

Ron Mowrey