Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,914   Posts: 1,584,700   Online: 722
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242

    Dignan NCF-41 Divided Color Negative Developer

    In the NOV/DEC 1995 issure of Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques
    Patrick Dignan wrote an article on a divided color negative developer. Everything in this article comes from that source.

    Patrick Dignan, sadly now deceased, was a pioneer in the formulation of color chemistry for the home darkroom worker in the United States. As such he had earned the respect of an extensive following of home darkroom workers in compounding their own color chemistry. This article is the result of work that he did...thank him not me.

    Of course as a divided developer there is al lteast two baths: Developing agent etc in bath A and the alkali etc in bath B. The reason for having two baths is that when the baths are combined oxidation starts with the predictable effect one must expect on shelf life. This type of developing practice of two...or more..baths has been long practiced in b&w for the same reasons. In the case present it is to provide a divided alternative to C-41 (Flexicolor) developer.

    A BATH:
    Water (distilled) 300milliliters
    Sodium Bisulphite .5 (1/2) gram I added (1/2) to prevent reading as 5 grams.
    CD-4 (Kodak developing agent) 5.5 grams
    Sodium Sulphite (anhy.) 4.5 grams
    Water (distilled) to make 500 milliliters
    ph at up to 75ºF: up to 6.5
    Time in A bath (including drain time): 3 min.


    B BATH
    Water (distilled): 500 milliliters
    Potassium Carbonate 53 grams
    Potassium Bromide .5 (1/2) gram
    Water (distilled) to make 1 liter.
    optional: Benzoitriazole (Kodak anti fog #2) 2 milligrams
    Ph at 75ºF: 11.8

    Time in B bath 6 minutes

    As you can see not a difficult formula to put together. There is no need to be able to measure any closer than 1/10th gram

    Shelf life has exceeded 1 year. Use an acetic acid stop bath. I, in lieu of anything else, I would recommend 20% vinegar to water
    Coventional bleach and fix or blix as otherwise used. 75ºF can be used with extended time.

    Since there is some carry over every time film is developed you will eventually find your self with insufficient stock to cover your film. That is when you will need to make more. The amount of time elasped from compounding should not matter. NEVER GET ANY B BATH INTO A BATH OR YOU WILL CAUSE THE A BATH TO START OXIDIZING.

    THIS DEVELOPER IS DESIGNED TO WORK WITHOUT A PREWET BATH
    Since the time in A bath is used only to absorb developing agent and because the agent will be fully utilized in B bath you can not over develop your color film.

    This is designed for tank processing. I do not see a method for use with a JOBO unless you reclaim your ingredients.

    Try this as it is aseasy and as economical as you will ever find.

  2. #11
    Murray Kelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD. Australia
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    429
    If you are uncomfortable discussing this on line please don't hesitate to PM me.
    Murray

  3. #12
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,547
    Images
    65
    Well, since I have not used this developer formulation, I have no suggestion as to where to put the HAS, nor do I have any suggestion as to how to change the pH.

    As for the formula itself, due to the fact that it is quite different than the actual formula, I can't tell you where to put the missing ingredient and how much to use. The actual formula does not use benzotriazole in any form, and it can harm C41 image formation, while KI is used to moderate the image formation control of the Iodide in the emulsions and the DIR coupler release.

    So, as a result, the contrast and color quality will be off as will be the edge effects. IDK which way I can only say that it will vary with each film type you use.

    PE

  4. #13
    Murray Kelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD. Australia
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    429
    OK - no benzo-triazole. Got that.
    You did say something was missing.
    What? Do I have to drag it out of you? :-)

    Murray

  5. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,547
    Images
    65
    Murray;

    I said KI was missing in the post above and HAS, and that BTAZ was not to be used. That is it. I have not used this formula and I have nothing further that would be useful to add.

    PE

  6. #15
    Murray Kelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD. Australia
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    429
    PE - did you exchange on this forum or are there pointers to the discussions? I missed the reference to KI - it was 2am here. Mid morning for you guys. It's all starting to fall into place.
    TU

    Murray

  7. #16
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,547
    Images
    65
    Murray;

    Look in my post #9 above where I refer to KI. I don't have the specific concentration, nor would I hazard a guess because this formula is too alien to me. I wouldn't use it myself.

    There are references on APUG to the exact non-split formula with KI.

    PE

  8. #17

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Murray Kelly View Post
    I am not in the professional business and therefore can accept 'acceptible' results and the idea of a home brew appeals greatly.
    If you're mainly interested in the developer because it's a home-brew formula, there are others that are likely to work better, such as: one, two, three. I've used both the Dignan formula and #1 in that list, and I get much better results from formula #1. I seem to recall reading something to suggest that #2 and/or #3 are closer to Kodak's "real" C-41, but as I'm satisfied with #1, that's what I'm continuing to use. I like the idea of the long shelf life and room temperature processing of NCF-41, but in my experience it just doesn't work reliably -- some rolls come out looking good, but others are far too thin, often with weird color shifts that are difficult to correct even digitally. If you want to experiment, of course, I won't discourage you, but if you want something that just plain works, I'd steer clear of NCF-41.

  9. #18
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,547
    Images
    65
    Three is more accurate and two cannot be reached.

    PE

  10. #19

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    The link to two I posted earlier works for me. Either it was temporarily down or there's some route-specific problem blocking it for you but not for me.

  11. #20
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,547
    Images
    65
    I can reach it now.

    Two and Three are the same formula but vary in using different hydroxyl amine types. No reall difference in result, but rather in keeping.

    PE

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin