5 Minute Processing Question/Scott Eaton(or other lab rats)

[steve_levine]

Last week,"big yellow" announced it was opening a series of kiosks

that will offer 5 minute C41 D&P.How is this possible?Back in my lab

days (c1970-80's) C41 film took 38 minutes just to process the

film.I'll assume they are scanning the negs to print,but how can the

film be developed,blixed,washed & dried this fast?Is this some

variation of "stablization" processing that was once offered for fast

prints?Or has progress become a wonderfull thing??Will these negs be

permanent or will they fade away after scanning?

[ilkka_nissila]

I think they scan the film and print it just after development and don't fix or wash it properly. The negatives are not given to the customer.

[scott_eaton]

I'm not aware of C-41 being able to be processed and dried in 5-minutes, although I believe it was Fuji playing with a 'dry' processing for C-41 in the 1990's that never went anywhere. I thought those 5-minute kiosks were strictly 'digital media' or film scanning? You got one on me if they have a a short process for C-41 in that time considering first developer alone is over 3-minutes.

 

RA-4 paper transport time from hitting the first developer to dry can be as short as 4 1/2 minutes, so that part is possible. Still, I'm pretty sure those kiosks they are mostly dye-sub based since if you've ever seen the older Kodak picture express machines they are a mess to maintain with all the enclosed RA-4 chemicals. More than likely I don't think we are dealing with any wet chemicals and only hard media for input.

[jan_zaborsky]

A month ago I needed only film developed ASAP, they say it takes some 15 minutes to develop and dry properly. Anyway, less than half an hour later it was ready to go. No prints, mind you.

 

If, as Ilkka Nissila says, they dont give you negatives, it is a scam. Why would I shoot film if I didnt want negatives?

 

From what I have gathered, Kodak plans to introduce such kiosks for photos from digital cameras and mobile phones. I would say it wouldnt work for normal film & prints, at least not in 5 minutes.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Random stuff.....The C-41 process is alot shorter in time than the old C-22 because they bumped the processing temperature up alot. I wonder if C-41 could be increased in temperature above 100; and still make a decent process. At some point the emulsion is the limit. In ancient times; there were enlargers that worked with a wet negative; in newspaper work. Later the negative was fully fixed and washed. One is not getting back ones negatives in this Kodak gamble. Proper final steps and drying are not necessary. A wet gate scanner would be a challenge; but maybe their scanner is a low dpi/ppi device.

[freehueco]

Fuji film processors take 11 minutes and 30 seconds, dry to dry. If they were using a Fuji Frontier 340, you could probably do one roll with prints in 20 minutes( a little faster with a bigger Frontier( 350, 370 or 390).

 

It probably is possible to go faster on the film times, but is it really necessary? The machine I work with takes about an hour, and is plenty fast enough..

[jan_zaborsky]

I made some quick research about the kiosk (since I am currently writing a feature about digital and analog photography for my magazine) and the info is as follows:

 

a) yes, it will process color negative films

 

b) you come and drop the film in, then come back a bit later to select the photo size, crop and number of copies

 

c) although the sources vary in indication of time needed (headlines give anything from "less than five minutes" to "seven minutes"), most agree and quote Kodak representatives on the fact, that it should take at most 15 mins.

 

d) the process will not give you negative back, but a CD with burned scanned images instead.

[constance_cook]

My corner Osco advertises "30-minute photo" so this past weekedn I had a roll of film I shot at the office so I dropped it off. She said come back in 30 minutes so I did another close-by errand and returned in 25 minutes and I had prints and negs in my hand when I got there. The quality is as good as it always was and it has been pretty darned good. I did not get a CD nor did I inquire if it was available because I didn't think of it because with these pics -- I don't care.

 

But 25 minutes from drop-off to checking out was alright.

 

Conni

[discpad]

A couple years ago Big Yellow bought Applied Science Fiction, as part of their plunge into digital. What they got was the "Digital PIC "technology" which you can view here:

 

http://www.asf.com/products/dpic/

 

From the web page:

 

``Digital PIC, Digital Dry Film Process, in minutes develops exposed, undeveloped 35mm film directly into a high resolution RGB digital format without plumbing nor generation of hazardous waste. It gives a direct output to media, print, display or electronic archive and distribution.

 

``With Digital PIC, a roll of exposed but undeveloped 35mm film is placed into a feeder. As the film is fed through the image capture engine, a proprietary non-toxic developing agent is applied to the film with no resultant by-product. The Digital PIC system then makes a digital record of the image. Once this image data is captured, settings are established on a pixel-by-pixel basis for each element of the image, with each element developed to its optimal exposure level. The system develops 14 rolls per hour and accommodates users with multiple rolls. The data for the final digitized images can be routed to multiple destinations, including the Internet, a file server, printers, removable disk media, CD-ROM, or Digital Versatile Disks (DVD), where the developed image is stored or printed."

 

Now the Bad News: The pictures look like sh!t!

 

Cheers!

Dan<div></div>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Dan beat me to it. According to a newspaper article I saw, this is indeed the Applied Science Fiction technology.</p>

 

<cite>Will these negs be permanent</cite>

 

<p>There are no negs. Your film undergoes some sort of quick development process; it's then scanned and disposed of, as the development is not intended to be permanent and the resulting negs would be useless. You get back your pictures in digital format along with whatever prints you wanted.</p>

[scott_eaton]

<I>I wonder if C-41 could be increased in temperature above 100; and still make a decent process.</i><P>The emulsion starts falling off. <P>Same process occurs with RA-4 - basically they just keep cranking up the process temp to make shorter times. If you run RA-4 and Kodak papers try dropping your process temp to 80F and increase your first developer time by 30%. The result is usually better looking prints with less highlight blocking and better color saturation. RA-4 is way too fast in my opinion to provide proper emulsion development, but Kodak was under pressure to decrease RA-4 times. That's one respect EP-2 looked better than RA-4 - portraits.

[stephen hazelton]

Seems like this was all in Pop Photo a year ago or so. Basically, the customers would be the same kind of people using low-end digital cameras now (who also don't get negatives with their pictures).

[steve_levine]

So much for progress?It sounds like a last ditch effort to keep the cadaver (consumer film use) alive.

[robert_johnson15]

Kodak is trying for the best of both worlds! You are using more film (which is not returned) and they are furnishing digital images! GOTCHA!

 

I am betting the test market in Detroit flops!

[25asa]

Our Noritsu V100 takes about 10 minutes from end to end, plus maybe a minute or two to print, then 4 to 5 minutes to come out the other end. So the best time possible with our equipment is 15 to 20 minutes. Of course workload slows that down quite a bit. Hence one hour. We are getting a new Kodak Picture maker machine that is similar to the old one we have, but this new one has the small 4x6 printer and also accepts ALL the digital cards available today. I've used the old original Kodak enlarger for making 8x10s with RA-4. It always had problems if I remember right.

 

As for this 5 minute processing- I wouldnt touch it with a ten foot pole.

[canon_eos_rules]

This machine uses a proprietary, non-toxic, odor-free developing solution. The negs

(with full silver content intact) are scanned, but not fixed, hence the Picture CD only. I

betcha that Kodak just might replace all of its film drop-off boxes with these

contraptions within the next year and close most of what's left of the Qualex (yecch)

labs as a result. I also know that CVS/pharmacy is one of the initial customers and I

bet that more customers will be announced at the press conference at PMA this

Thursday. I'm betting that Target, Walgreens, Rite Aid, Safeway, (surprise!) the Big 4

amusement park operators (Disney, Cedar Fair, Universal, & Six Flags-all with Kodak

contracts), and possibly even Wal-Mart will also be customers.

 

BTW, I like the idea a lot-film developing in 5 minutes plus a CD that I'll actualy use?

Sign me up!

[25asa]

So you would throw away the original neg just to get a low rez CD just for convenience? Man what has this world come to...

[25asa]

Just in case you were just joking. Ha ha. :P

[freehueco]

<p>" <i>So much for progress?It sounds like a last ditch effort to keep the cadaver (consumer film use) alive.</i>"

 

<p> Tell that to the people who dropped off the 400+ rolls of film we processed yesterday..

[megan_mcnames]

Anyone that would use this is going to be a consumer that just wants there pictures fast and to show family and friends, they can make reprints and don't have any need for negatives. It sounds great to me and the pictures don't look too bad although you can't really tell because they're so small. If you want the best, consistant, reliable results you would be using a pro lab anyways. quite frankly I have worked in a walgreens lab and I know the pictures arent that good and lots of problems happen, especially with qualex. Consumers love things like this and I think it will be quite nice.

[bill_tuthill]

How low resolution is low rez? Sacrificing negatives for 1.5 Mp is

a lot different than sacrificing them for 8 Mp.

[rowland_mowrey]

Current color films and papers can withstand temperatures up to 120 deg F. without reticulation. It is up to you to find out if the process is satisfactory. Usually the bottom layer suffers from underdevelopment and the top layer goes into fog.

 

Pheny mercapto tetrazole usually fixes top layer fog and a water wash after development fixes underdevelopment of the bottom layer.

 

Don't shock the film by dev at 120 and then wash or bleach at 80 or 100. You will reticulate it. The shock is bad.

 

The higher temps were, as noted, due to customer requests for faster process times, and were made possible by new emulsion and process chemistry (like a better hardener).

 

It is useful to note that these processes and the films and papers are more friendly to the environment. No mercury or cadmium. Digital sensors on the other hand use nasty stuff such as arsenic and gallium. They are quite toxic. Anyone care to comment on that?

 

Reach me at wilf82@yahoo.com or on AIM as Tabini aiji ma.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>So you would throw away the original neg just to get a low rez CD just for convenience? Man what has this world come to...</cite>

 

<p>The target consumer for this new kiosk is probably the person who buys the cheapest focus-free compact camera they can find and whatever 800-speed film happens to be hanging nearby, or whatever disposable camera is on sale this week, and is therefore obviously shopping for price and convenience, not quality.</p>

[scott_eaton]

<I>Current color films and papers can withstand temperatures up to 120 deg F. without reticulation. </i><P>Provided you bath the film in a pre-soak and get it up to an intermediate temp. Obviously somebody has never had to scrub an E-6 processor when a roll of conventional B/W got run down it by mistake. Emulsion sure looks pretty stuck to the sides of the first developer tank.<P>

 

 

<I>The higher temps were, as noted, due to customer requests for faster process times, and were made possible by new emulsion and process chemistry </i><P>In the case of photographic paper it's achieved by incorporating some degree of developer in the emulsion itself, the drawback being increased contrast and decreased dye coupler interaction. Kodak RA-4 materials are distinctly 'hard looking' compared to previous long process EP-2, and Kodak has never figured out how to restore color saturation with short process papers. Kodak RA-4 color papers look much better if you lower the chemistry temp and increase first developer time.

 

<P><I>

(like a better hardener). </p></i>Where's the hardner in E-6, C-41 or RA-4?<P><I>

 

 

It is useful to note that these processes and the films and papers are more friendly to the environment.....Anyone care to comment on that? </i><P>Sure. Your funeral. Silver halide materials will always be among the most toxic of consumer goods, and although this process is much less hostile to the environment than conventional C-41 bleach/fix processing, the silver is still intact and not sitting in a silver recovery unit. This new process will also encourage the rapid disposal of consumer film, which last I checked was not not silver free. Then again, anybody who would choose this process over a 3-4megapixel digicam doesn't appear to have much common sense anyway. I'd also guess our fanatical film pundits would consider this destructive process more archival than digital {snicker}.<P> I'd also venture that the metal used in film cassettes constitutes more of an environmental hazard as they are disposed of by the hundreds of millions in landfills vs digital sensors which tend to remain in the camera.

[25asa]

Scott,

 

I thought Kodak as an example recycled the film canisters. We almost weekly send it off to them to do such that. I can't see sending it to them just to put into a land fill. Or is there something Im missing?