timlaux

Thank you all. It seems that Bill and Alan have, more or less, come to a similar conclusion that the swelling of the emulsion layers have an effect on the rate of reaction of the development process. Initially, I would have thought the presence of water (swollen film) might lead to over-development if I think of film as a kitchen sponge. A very dry sponge takes a while to initially absorb water and to become saturated. So, I figured dry film might act similarly. However, seems like dry film is pretty hydroscopic so it will tend to suck in developer solution upon contact. In this case, if the film is already pre-saturated with water, then displacing the water with developer requires some time, which may lead to slightly less development..though...how much can it really be?

Hi all,

 

Tonight, I plan on processing with Kodak C-41 chemistry for the first time. I noted that the Kodak z131 manual does not recommend a pre-soak stage for rotary tank processing. While I am using a Paterson tank, I feel their recommendation may still hold. As far as I know, the pre-soak stage is just bring the temperature of the tank and film up to 38C/100F. Here's their recommendation:

 

Do not immerse the film in a warm water pre-soak. Warm-up step is done by warming the outside of the tube with hot air or in a tempered water bath.

 

Some part of the emulsion runs off after the pre-soak. (I think the water is usually a blue-ish color.) On one hand, maybe those chemicals are really inteded to be their during development. On the other hand, seems like it might be good to keep those 'blue chemicals" out of the developer working solution. But, no science to back any of that.

 

Anyone have a more scientific answer?

 

Thanks!

I still have a pending account. This is a very confusing place to me: There seems to be such a big disconnect between the forum and photo sharing end. I was very excited about joining, but am loosing faith. Thanks.

Thank you for the lesson and for sharing your knowledge. I suppose doing process control at home is probably not really worth it, although it may depend on how much you do. In my case, I do not think I will ever exhaust the solutions, as in use up all of the reactants, within the manufacturer stated allowable storage times. If I only shoot 4-6 rolls in an 8 week period, mixing 1L at a time, then most likely will have plenty of overhead, in terms of chemical capacity.

 

That said, I am well aware that the performance of the solutions will be slightly different (worse) after each roll it processes. I can refer to the replenishing rates for a particular system to understand how much to discard and how much to add per roll. While sounds good in theory, I wonder if there's really much use ( in my case ) where I will probably only exhaust about 1/3 of the chemicals' potential before it needs to be discarded due to age.

 

Also, does anyone have input on whether Stabilizer III (with formalin) has much advantage over the Final Rinse stuff? Not particularly stoked about using formalin in my kitchen, or trying to properly dispose of it. But if negatives only rinsed in Final Rinse are likely to go bad in 10 years then maybe I'll reconsider?

Well, good for the bleach part, bad for the fixer part.

 

These sorts of bleach use iron (Fe) in either the +2 or +3 form. When it is a good bleach it's mostly in one form. As it is used it shifts to the other form, and has less spare bleaching reserve. But aerating it will convert mostly back to the "good" form, and the bleaching power is restored.

 

For the fixer part, though, sulfite ion is commonly used as a preservative. Sulfite is always eager to become oxidized (via exposure to air, etc.) to sulfate where it is no further help as a preservative. When all the sulfite is gone the fixer is subject to becoming sulfurized (bad).

 

In my view the only place where a C-41 blix (as opposed to separate bleach and fix) is for a small scale user who is throwing everything away after use. A commercial finisher would have to be nuts to use film blix as it 1) takes away the ability to stretch out the bleach usage, including regeneration and reuse, and 2) it makes it difficult to recover silver. If you don't care about these things then it can be sensible, at least initially.

 

As a note, I've read online about people saying that a certain film blix DOES hold up well. So it's possible that someone has so out a clever chemical system where the fixer part is not easily hurt. I dunno, I'm always skeptical about online comments.

 

Ps, these bad things about FILM blix don't hold for PAPER blix, which IS a useful and sensible way to go.

 

Thank you for your insights Bill. Makes perfect sense about why blix isn't used by commercial processors. I've see people make arguments that "Well the commerical processors use separate bleach and fix baths so it must be technically superior!" and others come back saying "It's not that blix is bad, it's just that it doesn't scale for commercial operations". Interesting points.

 

And I'd agree that my shot looks more underexposed than anything. I remember that I didn't actually meter for that shot in particular,but did a general meter reading a few minutes before to get an idea about the available light. But, I metered for +1 box speed, and it seems like this exposure is maybe at -2 stops underexposed. Having a hard time thinking that I was really off by 4 stops, but who knows.

Honestly that one might just be underexposure.

 

Regardless...I'm planning on re-stocking chemistry soon. I was mostly curious if anyone's used Kodak Flexicolor at home, whether you thought it was worth it, and if the shelf life of the unused chemicals was any good.

 

In part, I think that's mostly been answered.

 

Seems like it should be possible to do Flexicolor at home, just have to commit to shooting a lot of film to make it worth it!

I tried quite a few C41 kits in the past. The best that's still available is Tetenal's full 4 bath kit. Not impressed by their 'press' kit.

Tetenal definitely has a good reputation. Cinestill? Who knows? Johnny-come-latelies that might, or might not, deliver the goods.

 

Of all the C-41 kits, the best I ever used was produced by a small local company - actually a one-man operation. He supplied a lot of the minilabs in the area with their processing chemicals, and really knew his stuff. Unfortunately, he died, and so did his company.

 

If you can find a reliable local commercial processor, that's your best option. Home processing kits will always be more expensive for small and infrequent quantities of film. I had to invest in a rotary Jobo machine to get anywhere near the quality of a good commercial lab.

 

P.S. IME the Blix bath is the one most likely to give problems. It doesn't take much undissolved silver to completely ruin the quality of a colour neg. But then again it can often be re-bleached and fixed if you catch it before the film's been exposed to too much light.

 

Sounds like a Blix problem to me.

 

Thanks. Is that Tetenal 4 bath kit really available? I've never seen it. Only the "2-bath" (really a 3-bath) kit. Do you have a link?

 

In general, I think it's okay to "over-blix", right? Is there an upper-limit to how much you might blix passed the time noted on the instructions? Maybe another 30 seconds for a 6:30 Tetenal press C-41 blix?

 

The "real" ones use separate bleach and fixer. Oxygen is good for bleach. I am not sure if it is good for blix, though.

 

There should be no real grain, that is, no metal grains with sharp edges.

There are dye clouds which are fuzzy, and not so uniform, so sometimes are called grain.

 

If you see sharp edged metal grains, then it needs more blix.

(That is, with enough magnification.)

 

Thanks Glen. I'm just starting to learn about grain vs. dye clouds. My eye isn't really trained enough to know what is metal grain and what is dye cloud. I've attached a clip of an image which it seems most apparent.

 

Personally, I find it very difficult to judge the density of C41 films by eye.

 

XP2 might be easier, but don't judge compared to normal black and white films.

It still has the low gamma of other C41 films, so probably should print with a

number 4 VC filter. It is the low gamma that allows for the large exposure

latitude, but also complicates printing. Scanners in C41 mode should get

it right, but otherwise adjust the contrast after scanning.

 

I believe Fuji also sells C41 chemistry.

 

I'm using a Fuji X-T30 and Nikkor 105mm f/4 for scanning. I am using the Lightroom plugin Negative Lab Pro with the B&W profile. In general, it does a very good job with auto contrast and producing a very nice histogram.

 

Shadows were muddy and flat and the grain larger than I would've expected for 120 film. Still usable, but just felt like something was a little off.

 

And yes, I won't rule out under development, although this isn't exactly my first rodeo..but it's not like I'm developing every day for a living. I also won't rule out proper exposure in camera. Was not using a camera with a meter or auto-exposure, but as I mentioned, was still metering at +1 box speed.

 

Regardless of whether it was operator error (for this roll) or not, I'm probably going to need to swap out my chemistry soon anyway, as it's pushing about 5 months now. I know people have had reported 1 year or more with properly stored Tetenal, but I wonder how realistic that is.

 

Thanks!

Weak blix will leave silver in the negatives, so that they will be dark.

 

As well as I know, developers last a lot longer unmixed.

 

Specifically, the developing agents oxidize much slower when they are not alkaline.

 

Best is to mix up a smaller amount from the concentrates, then use it quickly.

 

Years ago, I did E6 from Unicolor quart kits. I would mix up 240ml from concentrates,

do the two rolls that it was supposed to do, and then dispose of it. The concentrates

lasted at least a year from first to last.

 

Thank you. Interesting. I hadn't given much thought to the idea that "weak blix makes thin negatives" other than (I think) reading it somewhere else. And by dark, I assume you mean the negatives are dark, not the print/scans?

 

I found this thread on phototrio: Shelf life of Kodak Flexicolor SM Tank chemicals? There are some photos showing the LORR LU dev kit, final rinse, and fix/bleach. Kodak gives them all a 2 year (after manufacturing date) shelf life. To me, if they're willing to give them a 2 year expiration date, without particular storage instructions, then seems like they will hold up pretty well.

Unfortunately this has been something of an issue across time. I do not have control of the process, but will pass it along. No guarantee on the outcome. Sorry!

 

Hello Sandy. Sorry to hijack this thread from the OP, but I too have been waiting for approval for over 3 months now. I've tried contacting support via email, but no response. I tried uploading new photos but still pending. Thank you!

Hi all,

 

First off, I'm sorry about the length of this post. If you have any input, or can answer only one question, that would be awesome. I also hope this might be useful to other people reading.

 

I developed 7 rolls over 4 months in my last Tetenal C-41 powder press kit. Once mixed, all solutions were stored in brown glass bottles, in a dark refrigerator, with all air removed by adding marbles to the bottles to displace the air. The density of the last roll was a little bit thin. Could be a little underexposed, but I was already metering for ISO200 on IS400 film (XP-2 Super). So, I have reason to believe the blix might be shot. (3 of those rolls were Portra 800. I've read higher ISO films cause chemicals to wear out sooner.)

 

My main dilemma is that I don't shoot much at all. On average, I shoot about two rolls per month. I'm also the type who likes to develop as I go. I have all the equipment for developing and scanning, so at this point, it still makes more sense for me to continue developing at home, as I can still beat the per roll cost of most labs, and of course, I enjoy the process.

 

I'm between these two systems: Kodak Flexicolor LORR and CineStill CS41 Liquid.

 

---

 

CineStill CS41 Liquid:

Makes 1L

 

Dev A + Dev B + Dev C

Blix A + Blix B + Blix C (uses Ferric Ammonium EDTA, apparently better blixing agent than Ferric Sodium EDTA found in powder kits)

Stabilizer (Hexamine + Photoflo)

 

$35 shipped

 

Kodak Flexicolor LORR:

Makes 5L minimum (Fixer makes 25L, Bleach makes 10L)

 

Kodak Flexicolor LU Developer Replenisher (A+B+C) (to make 5L)- 823 1672

Kodak Flexicolor C-41 Developer Starter LORR (1.2L) - 660 1074

Kodak Flexicolor Bleach III Replenisher (to make 10L) - 660 0258

Kodak Flexicolor C-41 Bleach Starter (1.2L) - 660 1082

Kodak Flexicolor Fixer & Replenisher (to make 25L)- 660 0027

 

Kodak C-41 Final Rinse & Replenisher (to make 5L) - 867 3170

or (??)

Kodak Stabilizer III & Replenisher (to make 19L) - 196 5482

 

$100-120 shipped

 

---

 

First of all, do those Flexicolor chemicals look correct? Kodak seems to have discontinued many chemicals. Numbers have changed, and I'm not sure what's what.

 

If I hypothetically only made 5L working solution (even though most of the chemicals support 10-20L+), then the cost is $22/L.

 

To use up (almost) all of the chemicals, I'd need to buy 1 more bottle of Bleach III and 3 more packages of LU developer, which adds about $75 to the price. This allows me to make about 20L of working solution for about $175USD, so the cost is $9/L.

 

However, as I mentioned above that my throughput is quite low.

 

According to Kodak (z131 document), the shelf life of the working solutions of most of their chemicals is about 2 months. One of my main questions is: What is the shelf life of the unmixed chemicals? I plan to only mix 1L at a time.

 

Based on using 1L every 2 months, I will use 6L in a year. It will take me 3.3 years to go through 20L of working solution. Are the chemicals stable enough, unmixed, to last that long? Or am I going to have to toss them sooner? The Bleach III and LU developer I can buy in the future as it's depleted, but how about the other stuff?

 

Another question: For processing new films like Portra, Pro400H, Ektar, XP2-Super, is there still an advantage to using formaldehyde based stabilizer (like Stabilizer III)? Or do most labs/people just use the "new" Kodak Final Rinse only? These two are interchangeable right? From what I understand, the Final Rinse does not include any anti-microbial/anti-fungal ingredient. For the most part, I'm just scanning these and not touching the negatives again.

 

 

Does anyone have any suggestions or feedback on my proposed methods? What's your experience.

 

Thank you!

Tim

Well, it doesn't look so great as a close-up with harsh lighting, but I'm pretty happy with it. This is my repair with 3M 850 tape.

 

A couple of notes:

1. Try to avoid touching the adhesive side of the tape with your fingers. The tape is quite sticky, but it's still tricky to get it to stick to the crusty old bellows material. So, maximize stickiness by minimizing finger contact with the adhesive side.
   
2. Cut strips of tape a little bit smaller than the width of one fold. (Maybe around 4-5mm.) 3/4" long strips was about right. (I used a 3/4" wide roll.)
   
3. I started on a fold on the top face of the bellows and stuck half of a strip down. I used closed tweezers and a Q-tip to apply light pressure to the tape to make it stick.
   
4. Then, I pulled the other half of the strip around the edge of the fold and stuck it down to the side face. Use the tweezers to keep the tape taught as you do this.
   
5. To keep the tape from coming loose, I applied some tape over the edges of the folds.
   
6. If experiencing difficulty getting the long strips to stick to the bellows material, try sticking a small square of tape down first, and then sticking the long strips to the starter tape. The tape sticks to itself very well.
   
7. I recommend applying this repair to both left and right sides of the bellows, even if the majority of the damage is on one side. The additional tape will make the bellows a little bit stiffer. If you apply the tape to one side only, then you'll notice that the folds will not compress equally as you rack the bellows in and out. The untouched side will compress more easily and the newly taped side will resist compression a little more. This may put some additional stress on the bellows, so I think it's probably best to do both sides.
   

 

Overall, I still have a few minor light leaks, but this definitely helped...It at least got me back to where I started before I ruined it.

 

Thanks everyone.

Thanks for the tips. Yesterday I shined a bright led light into the viewing lens hole and saw no light leaking through the taking lens bellows. The inner bellows and bottom of the outer bellows appear to be in perfect condition. But, the top of the outer bellows looks like it experienced some user abuse and/or some wear due to exposure to the elements (i.e. sun).

 

I’m going to keep my repair attempt “light” this time. You’d think I would’ve learned after my attempted 65mm repair.

Great! Thank you for the wonderful photos and captions. I’ll give it a check.

 

Update on the bellows. Ive scraped/cut away the damaged bellows material. It looks quite a bit worse than when I bought it. (sigh). I am hopeful that some careful rework will get it to a good place. The lesson learned here is to be extremely conservative in the amount of silicone RTV used, and perhaps to allow an even longer set time (48hrs perhaps)

 

I plan to try to repair with the 3M 850 tape.

 

Since the damage is around the bellows’ top two edges (on the corner folds), I’ll have to do some experimenting with the tape to see how to make a good repair.

Thank you for that great information. I’ll have to check it out every once in a while.

 

So far, I’ve only tried shooting on a tripod with this camera. I think I prefer working on a tripod anyway, because it’s challenging enough for me to find focus with the WLF, compared to some other cameras I’ve used. (I prefer split prism.) So, the stability of the tripod is nice.

Any particular part of the glass that is typically more prone to hazing than others? Front elements, rear elements?

 

The guy behind the counter warned me about haze in this lens, though this one looked clean to me (at the moment.) Off-gassing of oils maybe?

Thanks again Orsetto for your advice.

 

I tried a popular recommended repair method with black RTV silicone, while the bellows were extended. I let the silicone cure for about 24 hours before pulling the bellows back in. 48 hour later, I tried racking bellows back out and discovered the folds were practically all stuck to each other now, which I did not expect. So, the holes became bigger holes, unfortunately.

 

The 3M 850 tape suggestion is also one I’ve seen. I’ll consider that next. I think I’ll need to remove the silicone/paper mess with an X-Acto blade first.

 

I am a hands-on electronics engineer by trade, so my confidence for fixing random things is typically pretty high, but in this case, maybe it’s a little too high, as it seems to be getting me into trouble.

 

Thanks.

Or, if anyone has a suggestion for an experienced Mamiya camera repair person/shop in the US, let me know. I’d be happy to send it to them.

 

Thanks.

Thanks kmac. I played with the colors and black point a little in Lightroom. (This is a DSLR scan.)

 

i think this is at f/8, thought a little more would be in focus but ultimately I don’t mind the soft background so much.

 

Always appreciate a critique.

 

The real exposure is actually lighter. I kind of liked the look of darker shadows. Usually I like light shadows, but thought it was a little more interesting darker. But my style of edit is constantly in flux, so who knows how I’ll re-envision this in the future.

Thanks again everyone. Well, I think the few photos I took came out alright, for not knowing what I'm doing...and especially with my "slow" lens.

 

Hi all,

 

For those who were following my recent Mamiya lens repair saga, I'm back at it again, ready to inevitably ruin another piece of gear. (Sarcasm, with a hint of truth.)

 

My (new to me) Mamiya C220 came with some holes/damage to the outer bellows, which was no problem for the wide/standard lenses which don't need much bellows extension, but I since picked up a cheap 135mm lens from my local camera store, I'll need to extend the bellows almost fully.

 

As far as I can tell, the inner bellows are in good shape. So, this might be a silly project to get involved with, but I'd like to know if anyone has any experience replacing the outer bellows on these. Apparently, there used to be a Mamiya users group with great detailed instructions, but that group is since lost. There are bellows available on eBay (of seemingly good quality) that I'm willing to try.

 

If you've ever done this repair, would you mind sharing the steps? Or, if you've done this repair, would you mind sharing some of the most important parts that a novice would likely get wrong the first time around?

 

Thank you!

 

Tim

Don't worry about the set screws for the plastic figure eight brace: 9 out of 10 Mamiya 65mm lenses are completely missing these set screws by now. The brace is held in place perfectly well from friction fit and the front barrels both being screwed into it.

 

Film can be advanced with the C220 body before or after shutter speed selection and/or shutter cocking: makes no difference. The single/multi switch is normally left on single, only set it to multi if you want to make a multiple exposure on the same frame of film. Usually if you cannot cock the shutter it means you already did it: if the knob is in the lower position the lens is cocked. There is no mechansm in the C220 body that can stop you from cocking an uncocked shutter, unless perhaps you attempt to do so while the shutter button is held down.

 

Normally, with the film advance set to "single", the interlocks work to prevent an accidental double exposure (after you press the shutter button to take a photo, the shutter button will lock until you advance the film again, preventing a double exposure). Some Mamiya TLRs have a bit of a "hair trigger" to the shutter button: it can be hyper-sensitive. If you're in the habit of keeping your thumb on the button in readiness to take the shot, the weight of your resting thumb can be enough to trip the double exposure lock before you actually take the intended photo.

 

Positioning your thumb near but not on the the shutter release button (or the bar its attached to) will help avoid this. If you discover the lock has been triggered before you can make your planned exposure, you can override the lock by switching from "single" to "multi", take the shot, advance the film, then switch back to "single" to reactivate the protection. You can also just leave the camera permanently set to "multi" to defeat the auto lock, but then you will need to remember to advance the film immediately after every shot to avoid unintentional double exposures.

 

Thanks orsetto. I wonder if I have the "hair trigger" problem that you suggested. In general, yes, I usually do apply light "pre"-pressure to shutter release on all cameras I've shot on, mainly to avoid camera shake. It is tempting to leave it on multi, but obviously we know the potential problem with that.

 

I developed the roll today. So far the negatives look promising. I took 3 at 0.5sec and 1sec, 4 at 1/30 and 1/60, and 3 at 1/250 and 1/500. Hopefull that's a good test. Oh...and I got 2 blank exposures! I think that was from me tricking the camera into thinking I took a shot, when I didn't.

 

Exposure looks pretty good so far. We'll see when I scan them.

 

Thanks!

Thanks kmac and andy. My ignorance is glowing. I "cleaned" off the greasy stuff on the cocking ring the first time I opened it. 2 of 4 set screws that hold the front elements in place, into the figure-eight plastic piece, no longer have any plastic to thread into. I'm a little worried I'll have no set screws left if I open it again!

 

Sounds like I ought to.

 

I took my first roll of 12 exposures yesterday. They are in the Paterson tank now, will develop later. I feel like I'm messing up something with the order of operations for the film advance, shutter, and single/multi switch. A few times the shutter lever seemed locked and/or I couldn't cock the shutter and I wonder if I goofed up something. I don't know. Hoping it's operator error and not the lens.

 

If the pictures come out alright, I think I'll open it one more time and put a little 15-40W oil on the ring. Fingers crossed.

 

Still feel like I put too much oil on the pivots!

 

Interesting ideas about the aerosol cleaner. Anything I hit with CRC, I cleaned with IPA after, hopefully removing any residue or oxidation layer..hopefully..

Interesting discussion!

 

An update on my project. Yesterday, I disassembled the 65mm for the 4th time. I noticed, after my 3rd reassembly, that the shutter leaves were getting stuck about 10-20% of the time, and that they were most likely sluggish...so no good for fast shutter speeds.

 

I started with thoroughly flushing the shutter leaves with 99% "electronics grade" IPA. I found that using Q-tips/cotton swabs just resulted in strands of cotton getting caught on the edges of the shutter leaves. So, I opted to use Kimwipes (popular in electronics and chemistry labs). I cut them into smaller pieces so they would fit in the lens barrel. I use the Q-tips to apply light pressure to the Kimwipes. Kimwipes are virtually lint free.

 

This seems to work okay, but still jamming occasionally. So, I went against my better judgement and sprayed a little CRC QD electronics cleaner (from auto parts store), and worked the shutter several dozen times. According to some other forum discussions, this stuff is safe on plastics and lens coatings. (We'll see when I develop the film.) The QD stuff is definitely a much better solvent than IPA. However, it still seemed to leave a few rainbow splotches, so I did one final round of IPA and Kimwipes.

 

It's now firing 100% again!

 

Next, I removed the slow speed mechanism (also for the 4th time), threw it in a container of Naphtha, agitated it for about 2-3 minutes. Then I removed it, liberally sprayed it with CRC QD, hoping the compressed air might dislodge any final pieces of grit. Then, finished off in IPA bathe. I applied a miniscule amount of oil to the pivot points, though I feel that if any of you were to see my work, you'd still think it was too much.

 

I reassembled and...same thing, still running about 1.6-1.7x marked speed. I tried twiddling with the mechanism's two set screws (mainly the top one), but really could not get much change at all. I also experimented with varying the pressure applied from the brass-colored retaining ring upon reassembly, but that didn't seem to have an effect.

 

---

 

In the process, I some how knocked a "straight spring" (I think) on the left-hand side, near the shutter release lever. I think I moved it back into the right position, but my confidence is not that high. All I know now is that sometimes the shutter will refuse to cock, but once I partially depress the shutter release lever, it sets it loose, and the shutter cocks fine again. Not sure what I might have goofed up there.

 

Regarding oiling the shutter cocking ring, I did not oil it...Where should it be oiled? I suppose the only real option is on the teeth?

 

I'm a little bit hesitant to crack it open again, since it seems to be in a relatively good working state, with a quirk or two, and needing exposure compensation. I just want to shoot now!

 

Thanks everyone.