Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,946   Posts: 1,585,857   Online: 1047
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: C-22 Found film

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    11

    C-22 Found film

    Over the years I've been collecting old cameras and where they still contain film I've tried to develop it. I've had reasonable success using the cold HC110 process developed by members of the Found Film group.

    http://foundfilm.livejournal.com/3045.html

    Until now I have been storing any C-22 materials I've found against the day when I could develop them in color. I think I'm close to being able to do that.

    Late last year I bought an old Kodak 1 Gallon 2 part C-22 developer kit from Ebay. It consists of two liquid chemicals, Part A and Part B that are both still liquid and of the right approximate volume.

    First question: How likely is it that this developer will still work? I'm assuming that my biggest problem with be with the CD-3 in the small amber bottle, but the liquid inside looks ok (I haven't broken the seal to examine it further.)

    John Shriver tried a similar kit back in 2011 but in his case most of the components were dry powder. Does liquid developer make it more or less likely to to still be good?

    http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/i...p/t-85589.html

    My plan is to develop the film in low temperature HC110, scan the silver image, then use a Rehal Ferricyanide bleach to "turn" the film back into a form I can develop as C-22. This is the technique used in Kodak's AE-31 technical document.

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consu...s/pdf/ae31.pdf

    Question 2: I need to re-expose the film after bleaching but before developing as color. Is it possible to overexpose the film at this point or is the only concern that the film be evenly exposed?

    Question 3: Would developing in Hc110 or at lower temperature compromise the chances of subsequently getting a color image. Final C-22 processing would be at the correct temperature.

    I realize that the technique given in AE31 is intended as an "emergency rescue" for people that have accidentally developed color film as B&W and as such they are probably happy with any color image but I was wondering if anyone who has tried it can tell me how badly the technique degrades things vs going straight to color chemistry?
    Last edited by fletch2; 02-18-2014 at 01:18 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,263
    Images
    58
    This is definitely a job for PE!!!!

  3. #3
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,013
    Images
    227
    I wouldn't know for sure but I can't imagine in any way that the chemistry is any good...

    Just FYI I've read other posts (a few years ago but can't find them now) where someone developed C-22 in C-41 at 68 degrees for 20 minutes for the first developer (and as normal for the rest) with reasonably good results, the lower temp has to do with how the emulsion for C-22 can't handle heat at the same temperature.

    I plan to try this soon but haven't yet....
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    11
    I think opinion on that is divided. Reading around the net there seems to be a lot of people with "friends" that have made C-41 chemicals work, then there are people that look at the chemistry and point out that C-41 has the wrong developer (CD-4 vs CD-3) and lacks the Benzyl alcohol needed to make the dyes work, and uses the wrong type of bleach…

    I'm going to try the C-22 chemistry and see what happens.

  5. #5
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,013
    Images
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by fletch2 View Post
    I think opinion on that is divided. Reading around the net there seems to be a lot of people with "friends" that have made C-41 chemicals work, then there are people that look at the chemistry and point out that C-41 has the wrong developer (CD-4 vs CD-3) and lacks the Benzyl alcohol needed to make the dyes work, and uses the wrong type of bleach…

    I'm going to try the C-22 chemistry and see what happens.
    *shrug* fair enough.

    You should re-bottle it in 250ml bottles and sell it on eBay for an exorbitant price if it works
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Estonia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    181
    You could source the exact recipe and mix the chemicals from powder. I did the same for ECN2 and it was not very hard. CD3 is cheap and plentyful in the 'states too, unlike in Europe.

  7. #7
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,560
    Images
    65
    Here are the answers in order:

    1. Kodak never made an all liquid kit for C-22. Therefore it should be powder AFAIK. In any case, the developer part would only keep for about 5 years max as a liquid anyhow and as a solid for about 8 - 10 years.

    2. There is no bleaching before color development in C-22. It is Develop, stop, harden, bleach, fix, stabilize with washes between each step. This is not a reversal film.

    3. The C-22 process ran at 75 F. Running lower risks compromising the color quality altogether, and using HC110 as a developer in a color process is pointless.

    Now, these answers are based on your premise that you want color images. If not, then by all means use the Kodak instructions or others that have given good results.

    PE

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Here are the answers in order:

    1. Kodak never made an all liquid kit for C-22. Therefore it should be powder AFAIK. In any case, the developer part would only keep for about 5 years max as a liquid anyhow and as a solid for about 8 - 10 years.
    I have it in front of me. I can't find any Kodak documentation on it except for their hazardous chemicals listings

    http://msdssearchengine.com/local_msds.php?id=186133
    http://msdssearchengine.com/local_msds.php?id=72491

    What's interesting is the date the registration was made

    Product ID:187 9824 LIQUID DEVELOPER, PROCESS C-22, PART A
    MSDS Date:01/07/1999

    1999 is a LONG time after C-22 went away.

    2. There is no bleaching before color development in C-22. It is Develop, stop, harden, bleach, fix, stabilize with washes between each step. This is not a reversal film.
    I may not have been clear. My intent is to develop as B&W first using HC110, scan the result. Then use a rehab bleach/re-expose as per AE-31 and process again as color. This is found film if possible I want to make sure there is something on it before worrying about color chemistry.
    Last edited by fletch2; 02-19-2014 at 05:07 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #9
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,214
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    *shrug* fair enough.

    You should re-bottle it in 250ml bottles and sell it on eBay for an exorbitant price if it works
    Only if he can put in glass bottles with old fashion looking labels.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Blue Mountains, AU
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by fletch2 View Post
    I have it in front of me. I can't find any Kodak documentation on it except for their hazardous chemicals listings

    http://msdssearchengine.com/local_msds.php?id=186133
    http://msdssearchengine.com/local_msds.php?id=72491

    What's interesting is the date the registration was made

    Product ID:187 9824 LIQUID DEVELOPER, PROCESS C-22, PART A
    MSDS Date:01/07/1999

    1999 is a LONG time after C-22 went away.



    I may not have been clear. My intent is to develop as B&W first using HC110, scan the result. Then use a rehab bleach/re-expose as per AE-31 and process again as color. This is found film if possible I want to make sure there is something on it before worrying about color chemistry.
    Unless I'm missing something here the date on the MSDS you linked is 01/04/1984?

    Product ID:187 9824,LIQUID DEVELOPER,PROC C-22,PART A
    MSDS Date:01/04/1984
    Or were you meaning to link to this MSDS: http://msdssearchengine.com/local_msds.php?id=104419 ?

    Product ID:187 9824 LIQUID DEVELOPER, PROCESS C-22, PART A
    MSDS Date:01/07/1999
    Last edited by septim; 02-19-2014 at 06:23 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Shooting film doesn't make me a hipster, it makes me someone who takes photos...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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