Arista E-6 kit question about chemical reuse

[james_barber4]

So I've got some slide film to develop and I don't do this everyday, so my knowledge is limited.  In the instructions, it gives a formula for every two rolls that you have to extend the first developer time.  My question is, if I can fit three rolls in my Jobo tank at a time, do I need to compensate for have 3 instead of 2 rolls?  In the past I have only done batches in 2 rolls, according to the instructions.  What happens if I move to 3 at a batch, or am I making a mountain out of a molehill? 

[glen_h]

When I did E6 years ago, it was two 135-36 rolls in 8oz or 240ml of solution,

with a longer time for the second roll.  That was mixed from concentrates,

so I could mix up 8 oz batches.

 

How much solution are you using for two or three rolls?

[kmac]

Here's a guy developing 3 rolls in one go using Arista E6. His first dev time = 7.5 mins. His Color dev time = 4.5mins

https://emulsive.org/articles/darkroom/a-guide-to-developing-your-own-e6-film-arista-e6-by-kikie-wilkins

[kmac]

It appears that 4% extra time is added each time the 1st developer is used, after the first roll. I think it might be a good idea to add a little extra time for your three rolls done in that multiple reel tank. It's hard to know how much extra to give it, technically it should be 8%, 4% for each of the other two reels.

From the link ...

"The formula Arista uses adds 4%more time for every re-use of the 1st Developer, cumulative with any times you have used it previously. This is explained more precisely in the instructions that come with the kit. This applies to the 1st Developer only; re-using the Color Developer and Blix does not affect their processing times."

[rodeo_joe1]

This is tricky to answer, because the tank volume and quantity of developer used is important. The time will vary depending on the volume of developer used per film. 

Obviously, 3 films developed in a 3 gallon tank will hardly affect the activity of the developer, whereas 3 films in a rotary tank taking only 300ml of developer will completely exhaust it. 

And 4% + 4% cumulatively is not 8%! Say the 2nd roll needs an extra 4% of 100% time, then the next roll needs 4% more of 104%. Which is 1.04 * 1.04 = 1.0816 x the original time. Not too significant a difference after three rolls, but then the fourth roll needs (1.04 ^ 3) = 1.125x the original time, the 5th roll needs 1.17x the original time, and so on.

That's using the full 946ml of developer. Developing 3 films in a tank taking only half that amount would be like developing 6 films in the full 'quart', and needing (1.04 ^ 5 = 1.217) nearly 22% extra time, in theory. 

Now that seems a bit excessive to me, since all the films will initially be getting 'fresh' developer. However at the end of development the solution will be three-quarters used up.... so.... What's the answer?🤔

I reckon adding 15% to the time would be a close enough guess for 3 films in 500ml. But the following 3 films would need about 10% more of that time after the used developer was remixed with unused. That's just an educated guess mind you!

Edited December 7, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[kmac]

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

And 4% + 4% cumulatively is not 8%!

Yes, quite right, my mistake, but I don't think it matters in the case of 3 films in the one lot of developer, now that I think about it.

Whatever happens to films 2 and 3 as far as extra time is concerned, is going to happen to film 1 ... adding extra time for any one of those films, or two of them, doesn't make sense.

So all 3 films would have to be developed for the standard time of just one film, given that all the films are in the same tank.

The answer is to develop the films separately, applying the 4% cumulative rule to each roll.

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

3 films in 500ml

It's actually 850ml there abouts. I wouldn't do three films together myself ... but if I did, I would develop for the same time as for one film.

Edited December 7, 2022 by kmac

[james_barber4]

Thank you all for the replies.  I am trying to do three rolls at once in the full quart, then do another three in the used chemical, then the last couple rolls before I get rid of the chemical just as a time saving measure.

However, as I think about it, if I do two at a time then I won't be saving all that much time, I will have to do four batches instead of three.  Maybe I'd better just stick with two at a time until I can get more familiar with the process.

[glen_h]

5 hours ago, james_barber4 said:

Thank you all for the replies.  I am trying to do three rolls at once in the full quart, then do another three in the used chemical, then the last couple rolls before I get rid of the chemical just as a time saving measure.

However, as I think about it, if I do two at a time then I won't be saving all that much time, I will have to do four batches instead of three.  Maybe I'd better just stick with two at a time until I can get more familiar with the process.

 

When I did this years ago, the capacity was 8 rolls per quart.

I suspect if you do them three at a time, in the full quart, you can get to 9 without any problem.

Most of the development happens in the first minute.  Timing depends most on the condition

before pouring it in.  The usual charts base it on previously developed rolls.

 

There was a question recently about D-76 1:1.

The rated capacity of D-76 stock is one roll per 8oz,

and so of D-76 1:1 one half roll in 8 oz.

There are times, though, that allow for some combinations.

 

As for E-6, I wasn't sure from the original question, that you might try

to do three rolls in 8 oz, or some small amount.  (Which you might be

able to do in some drum processors.)

[rodeo_joe1]

7 hours ago, kmac said:

So all 3 films would have to be developed for the standard time of just one film, given that all the films are in the same tank.

No. It's not like that. It doesn't matter whether the films are developed together or separately. The issue is that the developer loses its 'power' as it develops.

Technically, the active ingredients, which are reducing agents, get oxidised by the exposed silver halide crystals during development and are of no further use. This is dependent only on the area of exposed film passing through the developer and the amount of unused reducing agent it contains; not on whether the films are being developed separately or together. 

Dividing one US quart (946ml) by 8 films gives 118.25ml per film. So 3 films will (according to Arista) completely exhaust 354.75ml of developer. You obviously don't want to do this, so the tank needs to hold more than that amount. How much more developer will dictate how much longer the development time needs extending. But it will need extending if more than one film is being developed. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[kmac]

2 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

No. It's not like that. It doesn't matter whether the films are developed together or separately. The issue is that the developer loses its 'power' as it develops.

 

It's certainly a brain teaser

I'm looking at it from the point of view that each of the 3 films will exhaust the developer slightly anyway, as in normal development of just one film, and it seems pointless to me that you would compensate for loss of developing power by increasing the time beyond the stated time for one film.

Because in the tank, which is holding 850ml of developer, each of the three films is sitting in 283.4ml of the liquid, and that 283.4ml is the right amount for one 35mm film if it was being processed separately. This is why I'm suggesting that the first three rolls together in the one tank be developed for the same time as for just one roll. I'm contradicting what I said in my first post in this thread, about adding a little extra time for multiple reels, but I had no rational reason for saying it, and no scientific proof at hand to back it up.

For the second lot of 3 rolls done together in the one tank and using the same developer, the 4% cumulative time would apply, but it would be impossible to calculate accurately because of the 2nd and 3rd roll thrown into the mix. The 4% cumulative extra time is only for one roll at a time.

The extra time for subsequent multiple reels would only be guesswork, and then quality would be sacrificed for time saving ... personally, I wouldn't do that with my expensive Fuji Velvias' or my Kodak E100s'

 

[rodeo_joe1]

11 hours ago, kmac said:

Because in the tank, which is holding 850ml of developer, each of the three films is sitting in 283.4ml of the liquid, and that 283.4ml is the right amount for one 35mm film if it was being processed separately.

I'm not sure where your 850ml comes from. The OP hasn't got back with their tank capacity as far as I can see, but the developer comes as a US quart (946ml) kit. So that's going to be the maximum amount anyway. 

I think you're looking at this a bit wrong. 

Arista (probably) assume that the 1st developer is going to be used separately for each film, with the part used developer being returned to the storage bottle after use. So in effect Arista are saying that one film, developed in one quart of developer, impairs the developer 'power' to the point of needing 4% more time. The second film impairs one quart of developer to the point of needing 8.16% more time, etc, etc, for subsequent films up to a maximum of 8. 

It follows that the impairment of developer power applies to the whole quart, and is a continuous process during the development time. It's not an integer step-change that suddenly occurs only at the end of a film's development time. Chemical depletion doesn't work like that. 

3 film's worth of chemical depletion is always 3 film's worth. It doesn't matter if it takes place in one go, or over 3 separate uses. Although it's easier to calculate the time adjustment for the separate use case. Add in the fact that most tanks won't accept a whole quart of developer, and it makes the time adjustment even more convoluted to work out. 

I think a formula like: Base time * 1.04 ^ (number of films - 1 * (946/tank capacity in ml)) would be close to the mark.

And the larger the tank capacity the better, as far as consistency of the result is concerned. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[james_barber4]

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

I'm not sure where your 850ml comes from. The OP hasn't got back with their tank capacity as far as I can see, but the developer comes as a US quart (946ml) kit. So that's going to be the maximum amount anyway

Sorry, I am using a jobo drum that will hold 1000ml, as that is the limit of the rotary motor.  So I was planning on using the whole 946ml..

[glen_h]

16 hours ago, kmac said:

It's certainly a brain teaser

I'm looking at it from the point of view that each of the 3 films will exhaust the developer slightly anyway, as in normal development of just one film, and it seems pointless to me that you would compensate for loss of developing power by increasing the time beyond the stated time for one film.

Because in the tank, which is holding 850ml of developer, each of the three films is sitting in 283.4ml of the liquid, and that 283.4ml is the right amount for one 35mm film if it was being processed separately. This is why I'm suggesting that the first three rolls together in the one tank be developed for the same time as for just one roll. I'm contradicting what I said in my first post in this thread, about adding a little extra time for multiple reels, but I had no rational reason for saying it, and no scientific proof at hand to back it up.

For the second lot of 3 rolls done together in the one tank and using the same developer, the 4% cumulative time would apply, but it would be impossible to calculate accurately because of the 2nd and 3rd roll thrown into the mix. The 4% cumulative extra time is only for one roll at a time.

The extra time for subsequent multiple reels would only be guesswork, and then quality would be sacrificed for time saving ... personally, I wouldn't do that with my expensive Fuji Velvias' or my Kodak E100s'

 

 

There are formulas for it, including from Kodak.

As well as I know it, for E6 the capacity is 8 rolls of 135-36 (or 120) per quart/litre.

When I did it, it was two rolls in 8oz, with a specific extra time for the 2nd roll.

There is actually a table which says how much to add for each size of roll,

from 110 up to I believe 8x10 inch, and how many you are supposed to do.

 

Now, some people will stretch it to more than 8 rolls, and at that point

I agree with you.  I wouldn't do that for my expensive film.  But to get even

the 8 rolls, you need to add a little time.

 

So, for four rolls in one quart, you use the non-extended time.

If, for example, you wanted to do all 8 rolls in the quart at once,

which you can do with some drum systems, then you would want a

little extra time, which would be half way between the time for the

first four rolls and the second four rolls.

 

There was previously discussion on D-76 where this came up.

For D-76 1:1, the rated capacity is one roll in 16 oz, and you could put

a 35mm reel in 16 oz, and that would be fine.  But there is also a Kodak

recommendation that you can do one roll in 8 oz with maybe 10% more time.

 

Even though you can do that, it is not recommended to do two rolls

sequentially in 16 oz of D-76 1:1.  You can do them at the same time.

Most of the developing happens in the first minute or so.  The extra

time allows for the longer development for shadow details.

 

I have seen tables, but not from Kodak, for more than 8 rolls

in a quart. 

 

C-41, on the other hand, does 12 rolls (135-36) per quart,

again with increased time for later rolls.  And again, there

are some who do more than that, with even more time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[glen_h]

The official Kodak data sheet is here:

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j83.pdf

 

Interesting is that they give the numbers for a gallon!

You do the first 22 rolls in the gallon for the 6:00 time,

and the next 11 for 6:30.

For a quart, that comes out to 5.5 rolls and 2.75, for a

total of 8.25 rolls.  More for 135-24. They used to have

numbers for 110.

 

Given those, and batches of three, you could do the first

and second batch for 6:00 and the third for 6:30.

That would be rounding 8.25 up to 9, which doesn't

seem so far off. 

 

If you have a litre instead of quart, that is 10% more, so

easily 9 rolls.

[Rick Helmke]

Interesting but my experience is a bit different. Back in the day I processed  at least 2 and usually more rolls of35mm b&w every day, usually in D-76 1:1 but sometimes in Acufine or HC-110. 8 ounces of chemistry per roll and developer was single use and throw it out. Fixer lasted quite a bit longer. E-6 was machine processed and I think it was 32 ounces of each chemical for 10 rolls and all of it was single use. Results were uniform every time for all of it. I still do b&w this way in stainless tanks and reels, mostly Ilford chemistry these days and the developer is only used once. I might be able to do more rolls per gallon by re-using it but the cost saving is minimal and I prefer the consistent results.

Rick H

[rodeo_joe1]

On 12/8/2022 at 2:43 PM, james_barber4 said:

Sorry, I am using a jobo drum that will hold 1000ml, as that is the limit of the rotary motor.  So I was planning on using the whole 946ml..

OK, so the formula simplifies to 1.04 ^ (number of films - 1).  For subsequent batches, that would give the base time. 

However, the point that the whole batch of films starts out in fresh(er) developer is valid, and the batch time should be adjusted downwards accordingly. Maybe to 1/2 or 2/3rds of the calculated time extension for the number of films in the batch. It's an educated guess really. 

And FWIW, my experience is that 'hand processed' E6 in amateur kits is never as good as a decent (pro) lab-processed result anyway. But usually slightly better than the result from a sloppy 1 hour shop. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[rodeo_joe1]

On 12/8/2022 at 6:07 PM, glen_h said:

Interesting is that they give the numbers for a gallon!

You do the first 22 rolls in the gallon for the 6:00 time,

and the next 11 for 6:30.

For a quart, that comes out to 5.5 rolls and 2.75, for a

total of 8.25 rolls.  More for 135-24. They used to have

numbers for 110.

 

Given those, and batches of three, you could do the first

and second batch for 6:00 and the third for 6:30.

That would be rounding 8.25 up to 9, which doesn't

seem so far off. 

Hmmm. Those Alaris 1 gallon figures don't align even close with the compounded 4% figure for Arista's quart. 

6 minutes + compounded 4% time extension over 5 films = almost 7 minutes exactly, not 6' 30".

[Actually, I'm not sure why I even care. The developing time in my digital cameras depends only on the speed of the memory card, and is automatically taken care of] 😁

Edited December 15, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[glen_h]

7 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Hmmm. Those Alaris 1 gallon figures don't align even close with the compounded 4% figure for Arista's quart. 

6 minutes + compounded 4% time extension over 5 films = almost 7 minutes exactly, not 6' 30".

 

The one I find is this one:

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/product_pdfs/arista/AristaE6.pdf

 

It doesn't say what the volume is that they are considering.

 

When I did E6, in college years, I would mix 8oz and do two rolls.

(And don't remember now what times it used.)

 

When I was young, my dad had the book:

  "Anscochrome and Ektachrome home processing"

https://www.amazon.com/Anscochrome-Ektachrome-Processing-Robert-Bagby/dp/B004GLYOL0

 

Which seems to be Copyright 1961, so I believe E-2 days.

 

I was in college at the time of the E-4 to E-6 transition, when the Unicolor E-6 kits were new.

There was both the fun of doing it, and saving money.  Two kits and 16 rolls was enough fun.

 

I do have a C-41 kit, which I might use some day.  That would be for a size that the

usual labs won't do.  I have some rolls of C116.