Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,981   Posts: 1,632,897   Online: 1165
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Personally I think Kodak would do well with a kit that contains all of the chemicals required, but rather then sell based on size, sell based on capacity. For example a 10 roll kit, a 25 roll kit, maybe a 100 roll kit.... Really what the heck would I do with 570L of final rinse, when I process less then 12 rolls a year.....
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by wildbill View Post
    Fun, isn't it?
    I went to Calumet a couple years ago to get the necessary sm 41 stuff as I hadn't processed c41 before and after reading all the threads on it, was more confused than when I started. They didn't know what to sell me. I walked out with most of what I needed but as others have said, they didn't have it all. Now i use the rollei kits from freestyle.
    Yup, even some of the merchants who sell the chemicals don't understand what is needed, probably because most of their attention is focused on selling digicams. As a result, they don't know what to stock or how to advise a customer.

    I've used some small kits, and I've read good things about all of them. I'm just trying to get a lower cost of processing per roll, which will allow me shoot and process more rolls for the same amount of money. The Rollei Digibase kit at Freestyle has a 10 roll capacity. The kit plus shipping is $30. For 10 rolls, that's $3.00 per roll. I realize that you can get more than the specified capacity from most kits, but I prefer not to extend the designed capacity very much. It's just too risky. You can't reprocess a film to correct a problem caused by using exhausted chemistry.

    It should be possible to get per-roll costs down below a dollar by using bulk chemicals. The reality today is that if you want to do that, you have to pay in other ways.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    Personally I think Kodak would do well with a kit that contains all of the chemicals required, but rather then sell based on size, sell based on capacity. For example a 10 roll kit, a 25 roll kit, maybe a 100 roll kit.... Really what the heck would I do with 570L of final rinse, when I process less then 12 rolls a year.....
    Whether a kit is specified in liters or gallons or in number of rolls wouldn't matter to me. Usually both are provided by kit makers. The problem is that Kodak doesn't make any kits at all. They used to, but they dropped them years ago.

    By the way, Rollei Digibase apparently has kits in 10, 20, and 50 roll capacities. Freestyle only stocks the 10 roll kit. You do usually get economies of scale by buying larger kits. But this has to be balanced with the risk of not using them completely before they go bad, or cutting them down for one-shot use and keeping the concentrates preserved in between uses.

    The latter is required for the Kodak Flexicolor chemicals since they are only available in large volumes. If you are going to process one-shot, you might as well buy the chemicals in a way that gives you the greatest capacity for the cost. I was thinking that Kodak Flexicolor chemicals would be low cost winner in that scenario, but now I'm wondering if the Trebla FilmPac wouldn't be close enough that the ease of ordering would make up for any cost per roll difference. I haven't done the math, but it looks promising.

    On the other hand, Kodak Flexicolor chemicals are the real deal, and can be trusted to produce optimal results when used properly. That's another reason I am interested in working this out. But if it costs me $330 to $550 plus shipping just to get started, I have to consider other options.
    Last edited by SkipA; 08-12-2012 at 01:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,505
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by SkipA View Post
    Whether a kit is specified in liters or gallons or in number of rolls wouldn't matter to me. Usually both are provided by kit makers. The problem is that Kodak doesn't make any kits at all. They used to, but they dropped them years ago.
    Kodak doesn't even need to make kits - they just need to make individual components in appropriate volumes and provide up-to-date, understandable advice on what to order to those who want to assemble their own.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    I agree Matt. You wouldn't need a kit if the Flexicolor chemicals were available in smaller volumes matched to equivalent capacity, and all of the parts you needed were documented and stocked by retailers and distributors, and the ordering confusion could be straightened out. Then it would be a no-brainer.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, the state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,173
    Images
    17
    Dave

    "She's always out making pictures, She's always out making scenes.
    She's always out the window, When it comes to making Dreams.

    It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up."

    From It's All Mixed Up by The Cars

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    It's an alternative, Dave, I agree. It avoids the headaches, but at a high cost. That 1 liter kit is going to process 12 rolls. The cost of the kit plus shipping puts the per-roll cost at about $3.

  8. #18
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Kodak doesn't even need to make kits - they just need to make individual components in appropriate volumes and provide up-to-date, understandable advice on what to order to those who want to assemble their own.
    They have done it that way for decades in B&W. The real issue is that Kodak still thinks that most C41 film processors are large corporations that deal with thousands of rolls, rather then the little guy who processes his own at home. However those large corporations dealing in thousands of rolls are dropping like flies. So smaller quantities, with good instructions, for home use would make sense as a product line. Where more then 1 bottle of concentrate is needed, you put all the parts together with an instruction sheet in a box. Each one would have one side which tells you what other products you need to process film. I think some good sizes might be 1L, 2L, 5L, 10L, 25L, 1 (US) Gallon, 2 Gallons, 5 Gallons, 10 Gallons, 25 Gallons. This isn't the amount of concentrate, but what it makes up.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  9. #19
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    Skip, if you can source the Trebla stuff don't worry about quality.
    I am almost positive PE said Trebla is a company started by former Kodak chemists.employees.

  10. #20
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,095
    Images
    1
    I've used the Trebla stuff, its 1st rate IMO. Negatives were super clean(as they should be), and grain was just as good as a commercially(dip-n-dunk pro lab) processed roll would be.

    Its a trade-off though. Time-wise. What do you consider your time worth? I don't currently have space to store a Jobo CPA/CPP2, etc... IMO, that's the best way to process color film if you DIY. But if I did, I'd be using the Trebla, with no questions asked

    -Dan


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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