Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Does color film corrupt D-76?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:14 pm    Post subject: Does color film corrupt D-76? Reply with quote

I have some old rolls I could try cross-process. But does it trash the developer in some way?


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Does color film corrupt D-76? Reply with quote

kansalliskala wrote:
I have some old rolls I could try cross-process. But does it trash the developer in some way?


Most developers get trashed anyway, developers that are reuseable are few and usually they don't work all that well from the second time on.


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have developed C-41 in BW chems - RO9, Celer-Stellar, Paterson FX-39, those are all one shot.

Results are mixed, sometimes not bad, sometimes awful.


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Results are mixed, sometimes not bad, sometimes awful.


Did you try over- / under-expose / -process?


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I took the darkroom course, three years ago, the teacher told us this:
If you're into darkroom because you care about your photography, follow these steps:

- always fresh developer (reuse only if meaningless roll, like lens/camera test roll)

- stop bath can be reused to death, as long as it has some little power it's ok, but never wash longer than 30" if stop is old, pour in fixer asap.

- always fresh fixer, or at the most longer, one week old. Used fixer older than one week belongs to the trash tank (with the exception of hardening fixers that keep longer)

- do rinse shortly with simple water before using hypo clearing agent

- last washing bath in distilled water with a couple drops liquid soap or antistatic agent.

I still follow these rules and never got problems (except when I messed things up for distraction).


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just tried normal exposure. I had better results with stand dev than normal.

Tonality is usually quite ugly, my best results were with Celer-Stellar normal dev or RO9 1:100 stand for 60mins.

If light is good, you can have some not bad results, these are all in Celer-Stellar, cheap long expired colour films of unknown manufacture, Truprint and Jessops brands:






I use these long-expired cheap brand C-41 films in BW chems to test cameras.


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I use these long-expired cheap brand C-41 films in BW chems to test cameras.


That is something similiar I intend to. If something interesting / artistic pops up, it is just bonus.

I think your results are not bad at all.


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those are the best results I got, the average was rather less good, but it works to test cameras, I have loads of these cheap C-41 films, many came with old cameras from charity shops, it saves the good BW stock for proper work.

I have a thread on C-41 in BW:

http://forum.mflenses.com/cheap-expired-c-41-films-in-bw-chemicals-t48646.html


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How did you figure out the developing times, Ian? Trial and error, or did you have any guide info?


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used the time stated for XP2 which is a C-41 film. C-41 as you know is a locked down process so what works for one C-41 film should work for them all. I tried 200 and 400 speed films with the same times and the results were the same, no under or over development. I'll have to dig my notes out to give you exact timings and dilutions.


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some samples, overexposed 1 stop, underprocessed (by accident, but good one).

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1233231.html#1233231


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ian: #1 and #2 are good images.


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheers Martin.