dave_cheng1 Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 The winter has kept me idle for photography for a while. I managedto shoot a few rolls last weekend. I am ready to process the filmswith my ATL-2300 using Kodak's C-41 chemicals. Well, I have had a long history of processing problems in E-6 (andprobably in C-41 as well) so I am trying to be very careful this timeto make sure I do everything correctly. I looked up Kodak's web andfound tech pub Z-131 sectin 3. In this pdf document there is thecapacity table of Kodak's gallon sized C-41 developer for variousformat of films. It says 5 rolls of 220 negatives for the gallonwithout replenish. So that's 760ml for one roll of 220 negative. If this is true I have a problem. I can't process my 220 rolls withthis chemical on my Jobo ATL-2300. Take Jobo 1540 tank as an example.This tank can be loaded with 2 rolls of 220. But the max amount of chemical it can take for rotary processing is 470ml. Obviously itcan not possibly develop 2 rolls of 220. And obviously it can not process even one roll either. I now suddenly realize why I have not been too happy with my c-41runs in the past year of dozens of rolls of 220 negatives. Somehowmy 35mm runs were OK but not the 220 runs. I have had poor resultsof E-6 runs for the same reason only been more obvious. So is Jobo specs of the capacity of 2 220 rolls in one 1540 tank with470ml of chemical deceiving or is it Kodak's C-41 developerlack the strength for my Jobo processor? Kodak's tech pub z131 saysthe gallon sized developer is designed for rotary processing. Butits capacity table says no it is too weak. The 1540 tank is already8 inches long. With only one roll of 220 in it more than 50% of thetank is empty. I would feel very funny to use even bigger tank inorder to accpt 760ml of developer. Just processed a 220 roll of NPS160. The negative came out a littlethiner than I would have liked. I think this roll is basically ruinedagain just like my dozens of rolls before. This time I seem to have aclue. The Z131 says it all. Oh well, Can Kodak do something this small right? How can I possiblyuse the gallon developer to develop 220 negatives even one roll at atime? At least I would expect the developer potent enough at470ml to process one 220 roll. I have been buying only 220 rollsand now I think I am stuck with the developer and ATL-2300 unableto process the 220 rolls. I can foresee someone to come out to say the chemical is capableat 470ml for 2 rolls. It will do it but will never yield the colors that I have been waiting for from Portra UC, NC and VC. I onceprocessed a roll of VPS-3 expired 3 years. I was shocked to see howgood it was. It was a 35mm/36 roll. Now I finally know why. Kodak has been always a respectful company for me but once again Ifeel disappointed. I now have no choice but look for chemicalalternatives, perhaps Trebla chemicals which is available here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg_kern Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ever thought of increasing the temperature in 0,5?C steps or the time in 10sec steps if your negatives are too thin and you've ruined dozens of films? Also, maybe it is not mainly a problem of the developers capacity, but on roll film spirals the agitation of the developer within the film spiral might be less then with the smaller 35mm films. This can also cause under-development. BTW, 220 film will get extincted quickly. Regards Georg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neal_wydra1 Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dear Dave, Send them an e-mail. I have found them to be very helpful in the past. Neal Wydra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discpad Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 <i> I can't process my 220 rolls with this chemical on my Jobo ATL-2300. Take Jobo 1540 tank as an example. This tank can be loaded with 2 rolls of 220. But the max amount of chemical it can take for rotary processing is 470ml. Obviously it can not possibly develop 2 rolls of 220. And obviously it can not process even one roll either.</i> <br><br> <b>Go onto eBay and buy a 25xx/28xx drum, lid, and matching reels.</b> <b>Cheers! <br> Dan Schwartz <br> Cherry Hill, NJ <br> <br><i>Owner of two ATL-3 processors</i> Click <a href = "http://users.snip.net/~joe/default.htm" target = "_blank"><u>here</u></a> to visit my home page! <br></b> [Note: <i>All links open a new browser window</i>] <br><br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland_mowrey Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dave; It seems to me that we went through this a while back. The 1540 will process 220 film in the C41 process. I have done it many times. Ron Mowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discpad Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ron, I always use the larger 2000-series tank, to get better solution agitation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland_mowrey Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dan; I do as well, but I also use the 1500 series. I just wanted to reassure Dave. I would suggest that he follow our lead and move to the 2000 series. I should have mentioned that myself. Thanks. Ron Mowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._shafi Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dave, My experiences are with Jobo, Tetenal C-41 (5L kit), and 35mm film, so take what I say with a grain of salt. First of all, I have the 1540 tank and the 470mL number is the MINIMUM. You can definitely use more chemistry. I don't know the maximum capacity, but it might be mentioned either in the documentation or on the tank itself. Also, my experience with the Tetenal kit is similar in that the chemistry recommends 1L/4 rolls of 135-36 film, but the 1540's 470mL figure contradicts it; however, I have been able to use less chemistry with good results (after overcoming a problem that you can search here on photo.net). Second, are you making sure that the second reel is in the tank even when you develop a single 220 roll? That's important for both chemistry level in the tank as well as agitation. Finally, I second the recommendation to contact Jobo. Their technical support is known to be good and I doubt that you're the only person with this problem that they've encountered. Good luck and let us know how it goes. -Haz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_cheng1 Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ron, Dan: I have around a dozen 1500 series drums and 2 dozens of 1501 reels. These drums and reels are very well designed with lots of room for losts of rolls. But the chemicals are not powerful enough to match. I wonder if Kodak sees that as an opportunity to make their chemicals to match JOBO's capacity. Kodak could dominate the chemicals for people who use JOBO machines. Although that may not be a big market but it should be easy to do. I will look into 2000 series drums and reels. I know my ATL-2300 will accept them. Meanwhile I will try to attach a 1520 to a 1530 to make it a bigger drum and process another 220 roll with 760ml and see if I am ringt about the chemical capacity issue. The NPS roll I did yesterday came out with density OK but a bit more grainy and color balance off a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_cheng1 Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 Haz, I just pourd 500ml of water into a 1540 drum and level the drum horizontally. The water was just about to overflow out of the tank. I did not have the reels nor films in the tank. If I did I am sure it would be impossible to pour more tham 500ml of chemical into it. This is for rotary processing. If you process with the tank vertical you can double the amount of juice in it. It's an interesting idea to have a second reel, although no film, in the drum. I will try that. But bottom line the chemcial must have the capacity (strength) to begin with. It's kind of funny. Before owning the ATL processor I process manually with good result mostly. After I got the ATL I have had so many poor result. And it took me so long to eventually realize the cause. I will contact Jobo and see what they will say. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland_mowrey Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dave; My point in my first post was that the 1500 series tanks and reels do work with EK C41 chemistry and the recommended fill rates. I have done it many times. I can exactly duplicate the local professional labs in my output. I get the same contrast and color balance. I must agree with Dan about the 2500 series tanks. I use them as well. In fact, now I use my 1500 series mostly for B&W and the 2500 series for color. I find that the 1500 series reels are slightly harder to load, especially with 120 and 220 film. Ron Mowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discpad Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dave, I guess I'll see you on eBay bidding for 2502 reels and 25xx/28xx (same thing) drums! Cheers! eBay user Mac-NT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_cheng1 Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 "the 1500 series tanks and reels do work with EK C41 chemistry and the recommended fill rates." Ron, you did not mean that the 1540 tanks with 470ml to process 2 220 rolls, did you? The 1540 takes two 1501 reels so it will accept 2 220 rolls but it can be fed with only 470ml chemical. I think it will overflow a bit and at the end of the development the waste developer bottle will collect only about 400ml developer from the drum. With only one 220 roll it will have 450ml+ in there. I had hoped it would do well with only one roll. But it looks like it is marginal in my opinion. I will run more experiments soon. Dan, there seems to be a lot of 25xx/28xx drums on Ebay. There are many buyers too. My local supplier often has used ones at half price too. I think I will not rush to Ebay to take all and leave you none. Ebay is a good flea market for darkroom stuff indeed. Thanks for the drum suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland_mowrey Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dave; Jobo recommendations for the 1540 tank and 2 220 rolls of film will work. Ron Mowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_cheng1 Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ron, if so then the gallon developer would process 16 rolls of 220. Kodak's z-131 says the capacity is 5 without replenishment. Are you saying the actual capacity is more than 3 times the official number? I constantly got poor result to process 2 rolls and just had a marginal result from one yesterday. When I processed one 35mm/36 roll in the same tank with the same 470ml then the result was super. I wish what you said were true. I am doing a 400VS 220 now with 640ml in a jumbo tank. I will report the result in a couple of hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland_mowrey Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dave; My instruction booklet, from EK, which I just read says 1 roll per pint without development compensation. There are 8 pints / gallon, so that is 8 rolls / gallon. It goes on to say that with development time compensation, you can process 3 rolls / pint or 24 rolls per gallon, by adjusting developmen time and using no replenishment. So, I'm just agreeing with what my booklet says, and what I have actually done. Ron Mowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_cheng1 Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ron, I have been buying this gallon C-41 developer for years. There has never been a booklet in the boxes, not one like what you got. There is always a large sheet of paper folded 4 folds that has 8 different languages telling how to mix the developer (Part A, B and C, etc.) There is not a single hint about the c-41 process nor the capacity of the developer. It's a box of chemical with no instruction about the process at all. Kodak's 5 liter E-6 kit has no instruction whatsoever either. There is only mixing information printed on the box and no mention of the E-6 process whatsoever. I really don't get it. Anyone who considers to try to process their own slides at home when looking at the kit will most likely shy away from looking at the kit and finding no instruction. Samething for Kodak RA paper chemicals. Frankly I am experienced in paper processing with older generation EPP2 and EPP200 chemcials. But every time when I looked at RA chemical boxes at my local darkroom supplier I walked away more than 10 times because lack of instruction in the boxes. Each time I told myself to go back to study the chemical then come back to get them. I never did. I have a full setup of color darkroom with a 6x7 color enlarger and a Omega Chromegatron Prolab color analyzer and a Durst roller transport paper processor that has been converted to RA-4. It is the Kodak chemicals that has pushed me away from doing it again. Your gallon developer must be from a previous generation that has long obsoleted. I liked the hobby pack in the old days. They were good products full of instruction and that's how I got started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland_mowrey Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dave; Yes, the information sheet I have is no longer supplied, but then the developer has not changed formula in about 30 years. So, the data sheet is still valid and it does work! That is the correct capacity of the developer, and I continue to use that capacity chart. It is basically identical to what Jobo uses on their tanks. BTW, using 2 rolls at one time is NOT equal to running two rolls in succession. With 2 rolls at one time, you don't need to adjust development time, but running one roll after the other you do, as chemical build up and dilution take place. So, these two scenarios are not the same. I hope you are aware of that distinction as well. Ron Mowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_cheng1 Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ron, one pint is about 500ml. According to your instruction booklet that's 1 roll per 500ml. So Jobo's number (2 rolls per 470ml) is already false. I have done many rounds of proceesing 2 rolls at 470ml. Each time the result was obvious and poor. When I did one roll yesterday my NPS160 came out very grainy and skin tone was off although film density looked not bad. I just had my 400VC dried. Cut one frame and scanned it. Boy, this may be the best 400VC I ever had for a long time. Its grain is finer than the NPS160 I did yesterday. The image has more contrast as it should and color is very good as far as comparing to the NPS 160. I have a proof now of what I have long been suspecting the problem. I have little doubt that the gallon C-41 developer can process only 5 rolls with no replenishment as Z-131 says.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_cheng1 Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 The image posted above is raw staright off from my scanner unmodified. 100% view of this image shows very fine grain better than the NPS160 shot attached in this post.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_cheng1 Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 Now a little bit of tweaking the VC400 shot becaomes this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discpad Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 <br> <br> <b><i>OK boys, let's go to the source:</i></b> <a href = "http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/Zmanuals/z131.shtml" target = "_blank"><u>Process C-41 Using KODAK FLEXICOLOR Chemicals Publication Z-131</u></a> Chapter 3: <a href = "http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z131_03.pdf" target = "_blank"><u> Sink-Line, Batch, and Rotary-Tube Processors</u></a> This section provides the steps and conditions for using FLEXICOLOR Chemicals in sink-line, batch, and rotary-tube processors. <br><br> First is Table 3-2, which is the replenishment rate...</i></b> <br><br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discpad Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 <br><b><i>And here is Table 3-3, which is the capacity of unreplenished solutions:</i></b> <br><br> <hr width = "64"> <b>Cheers! <br> Dan Schwartz <br> Cherry Hill, NJ <br> Click <a href = "http://users.snip.net/~joe/default.htm" target = "_blank"><u>here</u></a> to visit my home page! <br></b> [Note: <i>All links open a new browser window</i>] <br><br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discpad Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 <b>...And I just finished assembling Z-131 into a single PDF manual</b> <a href = "http://users.snip.net/~joe/z131.pdf" target = "_blank"><u>Here</u></a>. <a href = "" target = "_blank"></a> <br><br> <b>Cheers! <br> Dan Schwartz <br> Cherry Hill, NJ <br> Click <a href = "http://users.snip.net/~joe/default.htm" target = "_blank"><u>here</u></a> to visit my home page! <br></b> [Note: <i>All links open a new browser window</i>] <br><br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_cheng1 Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 Dan, thanks for the effort. It is what I saw from Kodak's web site. It is clear that the gallon developer can develop only 5 rolls of 220 or one roll per liter. That's 1/4 of Jobo 1540 drum's capacity. If this is what Kodak has in their mind to sell such a poor product that's fine. But I don't understand why they hide such capacity info deep into their web site and not clearly stated in their box. Ron, I am not sure what you said about Kodak C-41 formula not changed for 30 years. I think Hobby Pack had more develper strength than the gallon developer per liter, if I remember correctly. Hobby Pack C-41 kit made 2x500ml but could process at least one 220 roll per 500ml if I remember again correctly. In my opinion when Kodak discontinued Hobby Pack their film sales began the down hill journey soon after. I am not sure if they are related though. I did stop shooting films together with all my darkroom hooby until some 10 years passed. At the same time I also witnessed most minilabs in my area switched from Kodak to Fuji Hunt chemicals. Will you believe it, if Kodak sells good home use processing kits their film sales will turn around and face a uphill battle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now