Rollei Digibase C41 Mixing Question

<p>I don't normally have problems following instructions when mixing developer but this new Rollei Digibase C41 1L kit I just purchased has 100 + 10ml as the ml contents on the developer <strong>Part C</strong> container. I actually measured the contents and it does in fact have 110mls.</p>

<p>Given that the mixing instructions state 100ml Part C for a 1L mix, I'm wondering what the extra 10ml is all about. Part A and B each have 100ml only, I measured those also.</p>

<p>I'm hoping a fellow photographer has already experienced this anomaly and can explain why that extra 10ml is there in Part C.</p>

<p>Any information to understand this apparent "freebie" 10ml would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Ken</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photo of Developer Part C container with "100+10ml"</p><div></div>

<p>I'd expect so that you have a little slop for measuring errors if you make it in small batches.<br>

Where did you buy the Digibase kit from?</p>

<p>I bought the kit online here in Australia John, a supplier by the name of Lofico<br>

http://www.lofico.com.au/products/rollei-digibase-c-41-kit</p>

<p>The contents measured precisely 110ml, so I discounted the "slop" factor. Since I can't think of any practical or obvious reason why that extra 10ml is there, I think I'll go ahead and mix the developer according to the instructions using just 100ml part C. Probably the safest way out but if the negs look strange I'll post about it</p>

 

<p>I had a site that described in detail how to divide this kit.<br>

they also had instructions for developing kodachrome as a B&W film.<br>

but that hard drive is not working.<br>

If anyone knows of it post thje address.</p>

<p>Ithe rollei kit seems to be the best.<br>

I dread paying high prices to develop c-41</p>

<p>Dividing the chemicals accurately is easily done by using tall narrow graduated glass beakers no smaller in capacity than 50ml for a 1/2 liter mix. The narrower the beaker the better, there will be much less error, if any, than a wide beaker like the ones you do your final mixing in. A large syringe is a good idea for extracting the chemicals and squirting into the narrow beaker, otherwise use a small funnel to eliminate spillage while pouring</p>

<p>The more surface area the chemicals come in contact with, the more chance of losing chemical due to surface tension. What I do is keep the total pieces of equipment to minimum</p>

<p>Use only quality equipment. Anything from cheap stores won't be accurate, use it at your peril </p>

<p>Nobody seems to be importing the Digibase C-41 kits into the US anymore. Readily available in Europe, but shipping from there to US is punitive. I still have a good local dip & dunk lab, but I want an alternative, and the "press kits" with Blix aren't appealing.</p>

<p>Freestyle mentions that the Digibase kit is no longer manufactured, not sure how true that is but it may be why you can't obtain it in the United States. If by chance you do get your hands on one from some other supplier in the US, it will probably be old stock. Freestyle do though, sell the ColorChem blix type kit.</p>

<p>Come to think of it, my Digibase kit was only taped together, no box and no instructions, so this kit could have been made up of surplus individual bottles which might explain why, as I've just found out, the stabilizer is only half the require quantity for a 1L mix. My dramas haven't ended yet</p>

<p>I've mixed the Developer, Bleach and Fixer, they worked out fine, I did those precisely according to the online Digibase instructions. With the Developer part C (as per my original OP question), I measure out 50ml for my 500ml developer mix and ignored the "bonus" 10ml. So what I have remaining in the bottle is 50ml (for my next 500ml dev mix) and the bonus 10ml - total 60ml. The bonus 10ml could be for replenishment, but I'm not at all certain of that. Perhaps it makes sense to throw it in the Developer when the negs begin to look a bit off, all other things being equal of course and the developer still looking like it has more life left in it.</p>

<p>Now to move on to mixing the stabilizer with only half the quantity I paid for, worries never end !</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Rollei_Digibase_C41_InstructionManual.pdf</p>

<p>When re-using: Flush with <em>destilled water</em> between each steps. Or even better use an Acetic Acid Stop 2%-3% after the C-41 developer.<br>

These kits are refilled by <em>Compard</em>, Hamburg from a <em>Fuji minilab kit</em>. So better 10ml too much then you have too less volume to make it.</p>

 

<p>Ok so I mixed the Stabilizer (500ml) and then set up to process a poor man's film, a ColorPlus 200. This film was exposed in a Petri FT and the images are unimportant in the bigger scheme of things</p>

<p>I did a text book development except for a quick wash with water at 100⁰F straight after the Fixer</p>

<p>This is the result scanned in Nikon LS 1800 using Vuscan ... plus a few minor adjustments in PS </p>

<p>First time use of Rollie Digibase C41 developer</p>

<p>Second and final image</p>

It looks good, without any color cast.

<p>They had a slight red cast when I scanned them first up in my Microtec 120tf with Silverfast. The Nikon with Vuescan scanned them color cast free. Vuescan is all I have for the Nikon at present, Im stuck with it, but it's doing a pretty good job just the same. Interestingly, that same program used with the Microtek, is not worth a cracker, it makes angled lines wavy and leaves color fringing on edges - very annoying.</p>

<p>After a text book processing in the Digibase chemicals, the ColorPlus 200 film has, what looks to me, the right brown mask, there was nothing abnormal about it, it was pretty much what you would expect from good lab processing. Some masks I've seen are almost pink in color</p>

<p>Exposure wise, the density and color quality of the negatives depended largely on the accuracy of my old handheld Zeiss Ikophot lightmeter, I bought it off the Bay, it came with a camera, but forget the camera, that Zeiss meter proved to be the "must have" item, I was shocked at how accurate it still is after all these years</p>

<p>Judging the density of the negatives, I determined whether they were "blacked out", "transparent" or "normal with easily seen definite image". After checking, I found that 85% of the images conformed to the third category. The rest were too thin, wrongly exposed because there were times when I used the Petri's meter for testing it, it's way out, so I now know how much adjustment it needs, close on 2.5 stops </p>

<p>There's no problems with this film that I can blame on these chemicals or my processing, the obvious lack of technical quality in the photos derives from the lower grade film and a cheap SLR camera, I just had to work my way through sorting out the discrepancies in the quantities of the concentrates Developer Part C and the Stabilizer, after which everything seemed fine. I also measure the quantity of Fixer concentrate and it measured nearly 2ml short, but since it was fixer I didn't worry too much about that, it's just that if you're dividing it, all parts should be equal, even what you put back in the bottle after measuring out what you need</p>

<p>So if you happen upon a bottle of Dev Part C with "100 + 10ml" as the stated contents on the bottle, just use 100ml for a 1Litre mix as per the Mixing Instructions until such time as you learn different. I can't really say that my first film suffered by leaving the extra 10ml out of the mix, but I am closely watching the color in the scans for "flatness" (lack of color saturation from the film itself).</p>

<p>However, this film, processed in Digibase chemicals has somewhat more saturation and truer color than a similar film I processed in a powder Blix type kit I did some time ago, those images needed massive adjustments whereas this film needed very minor postprocessing, some people might think they need none at all. Be aware though, the the scanner and scanning program that you use can make or break your images in the first instance. Check your negatives beforehand for a brown mask and normal density, then you'll know where to lay blame if things don't look right. There is not a great deal of leeway with color processing but if you get it right, it's very rewarding</p>

<p>A final note: the Stabilizer left "watermarks" on the dried film. What I intend to do with my next film is to do the step as per instructions, then pour the Stabilizer into a suitable tray, then remove the film from the tank while it is still wet, then "slide" the film through the liquid much the same as doing any B&W film with PhotoFlow. Hoping that will rectify the problem</p>

<p>Time to move on to my second film in this chemistry, an Ektar 100, with much more important pics</p>

<p> </p>

You have to lower the Stabilizer concentration then and prepare it in destilled water. Part C of the C-41 developer contains the para- Phenylene Diamine .

When it is too old the color of the chemical is Purple.

<p>Lowering the stabilizer concentration might exacerbate the problem I'm thinking. My humble beginner's intuition tells me to <em>increase</em> the concentration</p>

<p>Unfortunately the second film, developed yesterday, the Ektar 100, has worse watermarks than the first film, they're making me uneasy but I did inspect the film just after the stabilizer step and when hung to dry to determine the behavior of the stabilizer on the film as it was drying. I observed large oval areas of bare film not covered by the liquid even before any real drying had taken place, therefore I concluded that the concentration was not high enough which I can't do anything about now because I've mixed all that was available in the kit, to the right proportion with water</p>

<p>However, the ambient temperature is quite warm here, being Summer time, so the stabilizer could possibly do it's job better in cooler months, maybe! This stabilizer is frothy, lots of bubbles when pouring it, but I think it has more froth than "sticking power", quite frankly </p>

<p>Nevertheless, I'll turn the aircon on for the next film, another Ektar 100</p>

<p>Yes, the Part C of the developer is probably for replenishment. I'll tip it in after about 15 film processes depending on the time these chemicals will be sitting around, but at the moment I have a few films to do, making good use of the chemicals while they are still fresh</p>

<p>Speaking of developing, the second film processed ok, at 100⁰F as the first film was. It has a nice brown mask and no upsetting color cast to write home about. The Nikon with Vuescan couldn't handle them though, most of the images were of mostly blue sky and the program turned the blue to yellow. The problem was fixed by swapping to the Microtek 120tf with Silverfast, this also tended to eliminate the nasty watermarks, altogether in some images</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Slight correction: I meant to say "The extra 10ml of Part C is probably for replenishment."</p>

<p>Update ...</p>

<p>@ Robert,<br>

<br />I'll need to experiment more with the stabilizer. I'll try your suggestion of lowering the concentration, the watermarks are still evident. I tried a little Photo-Flo mixed with the stabilizer, without success. I've never had this problem prior to this kit, I'm suspecting the stabilizer is not fresh, it's acting like old premixed Photo-Flo, leaving tiny white spots as well as watermarks</p>

<p>I've done a fourth film, a Fuji Superia 200. It was a challenge, came out with a strong red cast for some reason. PS had to flex it's biceps to fix it. </p>

<p>This time I used tips in Photonet topics to do "raw" scans and send to PS for fixing. It worked a treat, so that's how I'll do scans from now on</p>

<p>One important lesson I've learned from exposing Superia 200 ... get the exposure right! It's got 10 miles of latitude but any more than a 1/2 overexposure, the image sharpness takes a nosedive</p>

 

<p>This comparison shows a two stop difference. Note the blurred image on the left. Both images were scanned with all adjustments off. No amount of adjusting the neg in the holder or anything else would reduce the blur in that overexposed image on the left</p><div></div>

<p>The left side image doesn't appear to be overexposed but I wrote notes in my note book. Right side: 125 f16. Left side: 125 f8</p>

<p>The over exposed image lacks sharpness and detail and couldn't be retrieved in PS to match anywhere near the right side image, just a hopeless effort</p>

<p>This next image shows the red cast in the right side un-expanded image</p><div></div>

<p>Now the red cast in the overexposed image. The cast is not as strong, probably because the neg was less dense, and it looks the pick of the two but it's not the one I'll be using</p>

<p>I'm posting screenshots which is why they look like news print.</p><div></div>

<p>Next, the right side "sharper" image but with stronger red cast adjusted in PS, again a screenshot, it's no way to view the images, it's a problem I'm having posting them as normal JPEG 640x421</p>

<p>To me, the exercise proved that the chemicals were ok except for the stabilizer, which seems old and had lost it's effect. My camera light meter is not out of whack as I first thought, it's well within one stop and good enough to keep using without reliance on a handheld meter. Different films behaved quite differently and so far, the Ektar 100 being the least troublesome, but it depended on the scanner and software. The Ektar was exposed in a Pentax KM, at times with a little used Tamron 135mm 2.8 multi C. The correct exposure is very important for maximum sharpness and discernible detail in highlights and shadows. How many times have we been told? These cheaper films though, require particular attention with developing and scanning if PhotoShop is going to say, "Come on in"</p>

<p>Sadly, since Rollei Digibase chemicals are not available any longer, I'll be going back to the "Blix" type process, but then again, I was always reasonably happy with that as well</p><div></div>

<p>Whoops, don't know my left from my right. Just reverse where ever I said "Right" or "Left ... my apologies</p>