Kodak C-41 Gallon Sized Color Developer Capacity

[discpad]

Dave,

 

Take a look at chart 3-2 again: The Flexicolor developer replenishment rates of 102 & 151 ml per roll of 220 constitutes the amount of exhaustion (depending on film type: See table) when processing a number of rolls of film. But, if you try to process one roll of (say,) Portra 400 size 220 with 170 ml of developer, you'll get into trouble, especially in the 1500-series drums.

 

In other words, I just plain don't like the 3 inch drums in a Jobo: Get a 25/28xx drum and a few 2502 reels, and put your problems in the rear view mirror. After all, you have an ATL processor (I have two!), so that means you care a bit more about your color developing than Joe Homeowner and his inversion tank! :)

[rowland_mowrey]

Dave, Dan;

 

The C41 developer formula is the C41 developer formula and has been from day 1.00 with no changes inluding the Hobby Pac.

 

If it changed, you would observe severe changes in curve shape, speed, grain and sharpness. Fuji would have seen the same and there would have been chaos in the market place.

 

The original sheet that I have says as I stated above that 1 roll can be processed in 1 pint, or 8 rolls / gallon. You can process 3 rolls per pint - reusing the developer and adjusting development times.

 

If you develop 2 rolls in 1 pint at the same time, you don't need to adjust the development time, as the 'seasoning' is not present that you get from reusing the developer, which EK says not to do.

 

The capacity figures from the older data sheet are less conservative than the new ones, I guess. IDK. I know that I routinely process 2 220 or 1 220 and 1 120 roll of film or even 1 220 and 2 120 rolls in my 1500 series tank. I have no problems.

 

Remember that if you make a more concentrated developer in color, you change the results. If you reduce time to compensate for a more concentrated developer, you still exhaust it at a proportionate rate to the original C41 and have to make some adjustment. In the end, you have an exhausted developer. I suggest that if someone gives you a formula that has more capacity, you will find it is just a less conservative estimate than EK for the same or a similar formula.

 

Ron Mowrey

[dave_cheng1]

Dan, that's exactly what my problem is. JOBO's 15xx drums are so neat

and a simple 1540 takes 2 220. Isn't it great? No!!! Boy, did I learn

a leson. My first reaction when realizing the capacity issue was to

blame Jobo's design of a system with a drum that is useless. But

when I realize it can not even process one roll of 220 then I have

to think if I should blame Kodak.

 

Jobo line of processors are so popular. And Kodak home processing chemicals are the only game in town. But they are not designed for Jobo processors!!! Ahhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Isn't it brain damaged? I had

hoped that I was wrong. But unfortunately I am not wrong. I have so

many useless 15xx drums and reels now. BTW, by using 25xx/28xx drums

and reels I will still need 760ml one shot for one roll, right?

 

I remember seeing from time to time used equipment dealers selling

long stainless steel tanks with capacity of 4 to 8 or even more 35mm reels. Guess only one ore two can have films loaded and all others

have to be empty kaus the developers are not capable!!!

 

Oh, even those popular small stainless steel tanks that hold two

35mm reels or 1 120/220 reel are pretty useless now because they

only take less than 500 ml of juice so forget about 220. You owuld be

lucky if your 120 will develop fine.

[dave_cheng1]

"I know that I routinely process 2 220 or 1 220 and 1 120 roll of film or even 1 220 and 2 120 rolls in my 1500 series tank. I have no problems."

 

Ron, I used to do that too and thought everything was fine. But when

processing E-6 like that I had very obvious poor results. Then I

began to wonder why my Potra 160/400 VC/NC always got grainy scans

and not so pretty skin tone. I tried NPS and it wasn't any better.

 

Well, I have some Konica VX-100 rolls that are only half the length

of requalar 120s. I shot some of them in Hawaii. I had one roll

developed alone in my 1540 tank with 470ml developer. The result

kind of woke me up from a long nightmare. I did not expect the

Konica long expired sample films to be any good. But it outperformed

all the Potra/NPS 220 rolls (fresh in date) I shot during the week

in Maui. All my Velvia 220 rolls were pretty much ruined as well.

Somehow I had one 120 Velvia with me and it survived.

 

If Kodak Z-131 says 1 220 per liter there must be a reason. If

I process 1 220 with 470ml the result is marginal. The flower image

I posted wasn't too bad. But I know I have much better ones if processed peoperly.

[rowland_mowrey]

Dave;

 

I searched my library and found identical documents on capacity dated 1977, 1986, and 1996 from the EK color handbooks and data sheets included in kits up until recently.

 

There have been no changes in the developer. There has been a change in the bleach, fix and stabilzers, and there are new C41-RA bleach, fix and stabilizers that are even faster and different.

 

I append a rather poor scan of one document here. This also agrees with the Jobo data that I have over the same time period.

 

Remember, developing one roll of 220 followed by 1 roll of 220 is different than doing 2 at one time due to dilution effects from the pre-wet, and seasoning effects that build up in sequential processes.

 

Ron Mowrey<div></div>

[rowland_mowrey]

Guys;

 

Sorry about the size, but I had difficulty getting a good scan. It was a black print on green paper document that gave poor results during the scan.

 

This shows up to 3 220 rolls/pint sequentially. I get 2 / pint at one time with no compensation then toss the developer.

 

Ron Mowrey

[discpad]

<b>Ron,</b>

<br><br>

After re-reading the posts between you, me and Dave, it's obvious <b><i>something</i></b> is happening with Dave's C-41 (and E-6, for that matter) developer liquid volume and Jobo 1540 tank combination. Exactly what it is, I don't know without looking at, and calibrating the processor with a catch bottle and my own thermometer.

<br><br>

<b>Dave:</b>

<br><br>

I'm assuming you calibrated the volume of fluid pumped into the tank? Personally, I always like to catch the effluent from each chemical step in a marked 1 or 2 liter pitcher or bottle, just so I can verify everything is OK; and if not, take corrective action if possible. <b><i> You should do a "water run," i.e. fill the chemical bottles with water and measure the dump volume, as an air leak can reduce the volume of a given chemical pushed into the drum.</i></b>

 

<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>

[rowland_mowrey]

Dan;

 

Once, I put in less than the required solution and the only thing that happened was that the last shot on the 220 roll was lost with streaking and developer and water marks. The 120 roll in with it was OK. But, you might be right.

 

I had a problem with the drum slowing down with a 2500 series drum loaded with about 6 rolls and a full load of developer. It didn't lose me anything, as I cranked up the speed in time, but it would have led to a problem if I had not. I doubt if the 1500 series would have that problem unless Dave's machine is running slow.

 

I agree that something is happening with Dave's process as I can follow the EK manuals published for 30 years and get the results that both EK and Jobo predict.

 

All EK solutions are adjusted to follow approximately the same profile for replenishment. That is why Jobo and other drum makers can publish recommendations and why everyone builds drums of about the same size. And these work for B&W as well, you notice, unless you use some extremely dilute B&W developers.

 

It all centers about the chemistry of development. Once a proper developer is formulated and a time profile is established, it turns out to have just about the same capacity as any other developer.

 

Manufacturers may vary in the safety factor, but the developer itself has a given capacity due to the general design principles used in formulating the developer.

 

If the developer is too strong, the time is too short to control, or contrast is too high, or fog forms etc. If it is too dilute, the shoulder rolls over, contrast is too low, etc. You see what I mean? There is a 'common' sweet spot that all developers have that place them all within the Jobo sweet spot.

 

Ron Mowrey

[dave_cheng1]

"I'm assuming you calibrated the volume of fluid pumped into the tank?"

 

Dan, My yesterday's run was programmed to use 640ml and at the end of

the development step there was indeed 600+ml of developer effluent in

my #4 bottle. I did not check the amount of efflunet in #5 and #6.

They were just about the same or I should have caught it long time

ago.

 

Ron, thanks for the effort for scanning the old document. Yes, it did

say 1 220 roll per pint. If this is correct then the JOBO 1540 tank

can process only one 220 not two as it can be fed with max of 470ml only. My NPS160 processed two days ago with 470ml ended with marginal

result so it is close to the number on your document. Z-131 reduces the number further down to 5 rolls per gallon. This number is more conservative so it is probably the number for optimal result.

 

So after all the gap between the numbers from Kodak and my experience

is finally getting really close. I think I will process a single

220 roll with 640-760ml if I am able to figure out which tank to use.

It is too risky to process one with 470ml to me still. And I don't

know how you (Ron) can do two at a time still.

 

I will try to do a complete physical exam of my ATL-2300 just in

case I am chasing a bug all over everywhere not knowing taht it is

in fact right in the box in front of me.

[discpad]

David wrote: <br>

<I>Dan, My yesterday's run was programmed to use 640ml and at the end of

the development step there was indeed 600+ml of developer effluent in

my #4 bottle. I did not check the amount of efflunet in #5 and #6.

They were just about the same or I should have caught it long time ago. </I>

<br><br>

<B>As the mohyle said, <i>"Measure twice, cut once..."</i></b>

<br><br>

I will try to do a complete physical exam of my ATL-2300 just in

case I am chasing a bug all over everywhere not knowing that it is

in fact right in the box in front of me.

<br><br>

<b>Speaking of giving a rectal, be sure to calibrate your thermometer using your "body temperature" as a reference....

<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></b></b>

[rowland_mowrey]

Dave;

 

Look again, you will see 3 rolls of 220 / pint with adjusted development times, and as I said that is sequentially and the adjustments are for dilution and seasoning.

 

You can do 2 in one pint with no adjustment if you do them at the same time. At worst, if you are concerned, the table says you can do two with a small adjustment in development time if you really feel it necessary. In no case should you see a severe problem.

 

Ron Mowrey

[michael_beckmann]

Why do Kodak recommend 3 roll films 220 per gallon with one-shot development, when the same development can be done with so much less chemistry? Is it only to avoid the change in development times?

 

It seems excessive to me dumping 3.9 liters of expensive chemistry for 3 films.

 

Will the same maximum density be achieved with the smaller amount of chemistry and prolonged development? If there are any side effects, what will they be?

[rowland_mowrey]

Michael;

 

They do not. They recommend 1 roll / pint with no change in time, so that is 8 rolls / gallon. It is 24 rolls / gallon with adjustment of time, or about 2 rolls per pint if you do 2 at a time rather than sequentially. This latter is as per Jobo instructions.

 

Ron Mowrey

[dave_cheng1]

"You can do 2 in one pint with no adjustment if you do them at the same time. At worst, if you are concerned, the table says you can do two with a small adjustment in development time"

 

Ron, I have done many times 2 rolls with no time adjustment so far.

I could not bear with the quality of the result. All my Portra NC/VC

all appreared very grainy and colors very hard to balance. But densities on both films looked fine.

 

My latest single 400VC roll with 640ml came out very fine grained.

I was surprised that 400VC, which has a bad reputation of being coarse,

is in fact very fine grained. NPS 160 is supposed to be extremely

fine grained film. But the one I did with 470ml came out worse than

my 400VC. That's not real.

 

Well, I'll try to listen to the master and do my experiment all over

one more time. I will have to shoot a few more rolls this weekend.

I have no more rolls to develop right now. I need to shoot 3 rolls.

That's challenging. I will just get snap shots fast if weather permits. This is worth the effort. Hopefully I will figure out a

workflow to achieve optimal results.

[rowland_mowrey]

Dave;

 

Overuse of the developer would probably not cause the severity of the problem you have observed. IMHO, you would see a speed loss and a drop in contrast. It would be similar to a 'pull' process of about 15 to 30 seconds, which I do from time to time with no problem.

 

If you notice in the table above, the adjustment for the second roll of 220 in 1 pint is only about 10 seconds. In a 3' 15" development time that is about 5%, and is rather insignificant in the face of the times used for push and pull processes.

 

Something else is going wrong.

 

I suggest that you make two standard exposures 'or more' and run one in your best process and send the other to a trusted pro lab. Then try printing these at the same color filtration (your best) on your enlarger. See if they match. I do that regularly, and they match to within 0.1 on the red axis, with identical on-easel speed. I use the MacBeth checker or the EK color chart as reference in a picture.

 

Good luck to you.

 

Ron Mowrey

[dave_cheng1]

Ron, I will include a Macbeth color checker shot in each roll of

my next experiment. The only problem I can think of is they will be

shot at a different time because my camera does not use a removable

back for quick shuffle of films. I have a Macbeth digital densitometer

TR-527 that will be useful to numerically check the results.

 

I am not sure I can get it done in one weekend. But I will try to get

it done soon. Thanks for all the advices. I would love to be able to

process two rolls of 220 in one 1540 drum with 470ml. I'll get back

here to report the result soon.

 

Dan, thanks for all the advices from you too. Your pointer to the

plugin site is great. I will spend some time there. I once studied

FilterMister coding for a while then forgot it all after about a year.

Very good stuff.

[rowland_mowrey]

Dave;

 

I'll post the densities of my checker for comparison to yours when you get your data. I have an EK densitometer.

 

Ron Mowrey

[dave_cheng1]

Ron, my densitometer came from an electronic savage yard. Although

it appeared to show some numbers I am pretty sure it is not calibrated. So if I do get some readings the numbers should only be considered as a grant of salt. Only if I see differences between different processing runs then it would mean something.

 

BTW, I have long thought of replacing those gelatin RGB (or CMY) filters inside my densitometer. I suspect they are far too faded but have not figured out where to get replacement. Do you have any idea how this can be done?

[rowland_mowrey]

Dave;

 

The filters are Wr98, 99, and 70 for narrow cut. There is a broader cut with more transmission, but these will do.

 

How big are they? I have some small pieces of filter I could spare.

 

Ron Mowrey

[dave_cheng1]

Ron, thank you so much for your generosity. I remember seeing filter numbers inside the densitometer. At least I remember one of the number was something like 47B. I am not sure. I will take it apart again to see what the numbers are. I'll take a good look to see if I should consider doing anything to them at all. It may not worth the effort unless I can get it calibrated.

 

I have the Kodak book "Handbook of Kodak Photographic Filters". It's

the best book I could find about filters. I think 98, 99 and 70 will do the job. 25, 47B and 58 should be fine too but I am not sure.

 

Well, I have never figured out how and where to purchase filters described in the book. I wonder in fact if I can make them myself by using an inkjet printer to print patches of colors on transparency film. Well, it's just a thought. I tried it but the result did not

look good so I tossed it.

 

Thanks again, Ron. You are a great helper here. I sure appreciate it.

I'll let you know if I need the filters from you.

 

Dave

[discpad]

David,

 

Printing out "filters" on an inkjet printer ain't gonna cut it: You need transmission filters.

[rowland_mowrey]

Dave;

 

I think I may have a set of those other filters as well. If you use a set less than 1 inch square, I think I can manage it if you need it, but even so, EK still sells 2x2 versions.

 

Ron Mowrey

[dave_cheng1]

Dan, there is an inkjet startup here in the Santa Clara Valley that

specializes specialty ink for printing filters. The filters they print

will be used in making the filters behind LCD panels. The filters

are basically tiny pixel sized RGB filters. It is quite feasible to print tiny filters by using inkjet printers. I agree that printing

color patches on transparency film won't cut it but if I can figure

out how to print on mylar sheet it may work. Well, it may be tough to

print pure RGB with narrow bandwidth. But it sure can be done. The

trick is in the ink. I had been among the audiences of the speeches

given by the founder of the company. The filter they print can withsatnd the backlight of LCD display (or TV) without fading.

 

Ron, the filters I need should be in the size of a dime. Thanks again

for offering the filters. I will definitely get back to you if I am

sure I will not waste them from you. Thanks again for helping.

Have a great weekend.

[dave_cheng1]

Ron, the question Michael Beckman asked was a very good question.

I too wonder if reuse of the developer with extended development time

will have any side effect in grain size and colors, in addition to

achive the desired density. Looks like your answer is no. That's

good news to hear. But I seem to have problems in grain size and colors.

Well, because I reuse my bleach and fixer too. Are grain size and

color affected by the bleach? I think they are. Can you shed some

light in this area? BTW, the experiment I did in the past 3 days

all used fresh bleach and fixer. Thanks a lot again.

[discpad]

Dave,

 

You can buy Hoya (not Tiffen!) camera filters, which have the color "doped" into the structure; then use a glass cutter to trim it down -- Any hobby shop that sells stained glass supplies has them.

 

Don't fool with the inkjet stuff, since it'll still have to be calibrated once it's printed... And there's no guarantee that the television receiver grade stuff won't fade over time -- Remember: NTSC = Never Twice (the) Same Color!