How long does the remaining 8 or 9 liters last?
Originally Posted by Bob-D659
So would it be safe for one to use a Fuji kit on Kodak films?
As I found that B&H offers a couple of kits from Fuji, as well as Tetenal.
Yes, that's what happens in many labs\ anyway,
Fuji and Kodak cross license C-41 and E-6. There will be no problems. AFAIK, there are no similar license agreements with any other companies.
Originally Posted by SoSideways
Above all, beware of any company offering a blix kit in one part. You stand a chance of having it spoiled by the time you pick it off the shelf. It should be a two part kit.
Also, color developer kits should be at least 3 parts for keeping.
PE & Ian. An interesting and well explained thread with useful correspondence. I am left with a number of questions:
While both Fuji and Kodak make both film and chems, I think we can all safely accept that either's products will produce indistinguishable results with either's products although in theory if the film is made for the developer then ideally this suggests that its Kodak chems for Kodak films and Fuji chems for Fuji films but this is probably so nitpicky as to be inconsequential. However it raises the question of "third party" chemical manufacturers who do not produce film. Such manufacturers/ sellers are:
Tetenal C41 and RA4; Fotospeed RA4; Nova(U.K.based) C41 and RA4 although Nova admits its liquid kits are essentially Tetenal kits. However it produces a powder C41 kit whose origins aren't mentioned. In this later category of powder comes Speedibrews( essentially one man called Michael Maunder) who still makes powder C41 and I think powder RA4 kits.
Interestingly while Fuji and Kodak confine themselves to separate C41 bleach and fix kits, Tetenal sell small liquid C41 kits which have blix. It begs the question: If C41 blix is OK why bother with making and selling separate kits of bleach and fix which Tetenal do and if combined blix is essentially OK but carries longer term issues then why not for the sake of the customer produce small separate bleach and fix kits. Fuji Hunt just about manages this with its 60-80 film kits although if you are an occasional user then even 60 film kits may "die" before you get through processing that many?
If we accept that Tetenal and Nova/Tetenal qualify as being the equivalent of Fuji/Kodak in terms of quality and Fotospeed RA4 meets the same standard, it leaves then one "maverick" that PE might caution against which is Speedibrews. Michael Maunder's kits are as far as I know entirely of his own making.
Yet Martin Reed of Silverprint still sells them and indeed I have used one of his kits and while I have yet to make prints from the film, it certainly looks OK. I cannot see Silverprint stocking Speedibrew C41 unless Martin was very happy that it qualifies as a proper C41 kit. It just wouldn't be worth his while to sell kits that might come back to haunt him in even the medium term when he also sells kits that are known meet all the standards.
I have also developed from the powder C41 kit from Nova and that too looked OK and printed OK. Maybe the difference between these powder kits and the Tetenal liquid blix kits and Fuji /Kodak separate chems kits lies several or even many years into the future should an attempt be made to print again from old films. However even were this to be true there is no way to know how long film processed in Kodak/Fuji C41 separate bleach and fix kits will last or is there?
PE In your research into the problems of C41 blix kits can you say what conclusions were arrived at in terms of longevity compared to separate bleach and fix processing.
This could be very important for users. It certainly is for me. If we knew how long a film might last processed in combined kit then we'd at least be in a position to decide whether the wastage of large separate chems quantities was a price worth paying depending on how long our film might last.
To be practical about this, I'd say at my age that I'd be happy with a film that will allow me to print from it satisfactorily in say 15-20 years. Even this may be hopelessly optimistic in terms of what my active lifespan might be :
Thanks for any answers and comments
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The problem is that Ron's experience at Kodak was with US kits using Blix. It's well known that Pip Pippard at Phototechnology overcame the issues with his formulation, there was a lot about this in the UK photo magazines at the time as people were sceptical at first. I remember discussing the issues with a senior Ilford research chemist (very early 80's) and they rated the Photocolor products including the Blix very highly, they had tested it thoroughly. The Tetenal Blix should be equally as good, these are highly reputable chemical companies not back street US bucket chemists
Ilford had been actively carrying out colour research, they had planned to try & break back into the colour market and initially sold re-badged Ilfocolor & Ilfochrome films, unfortunately they chose the wrong partner Sakura(Konica) and the films weren't as good as Agfa, Fuji & Kodak, or even 3M/Ferrania and the project failed. As you know there's the areaat Mobberley that was earmarked for a potentila clour coating line (building).
Fotospeed do, I found their E6 MSDS when we were discussing the use of HQMS for home brewed colour processes yesterday. You can download it from their site as a PDF file.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
It's fair to say Keith that virtually all the kits in the UK that had bad test reports where imports from the US, that goes for E6 & C41.
Ian, back in September 2000, I had a week at Lakeland photographic holidays.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
The guest films were processed there, using Tetenal 3 bath E6 kits and a basic Jobo CPE2+ with lift and the results were excellent.
I wasn`t aware of HQMS as a developing agent until it was mentioned yesterday by PE, so I did a Google search to find out a bit more about it, hence the Fotospeed msds.
Well, I'll try to answer as much as I can.
1. Kodak and Fuji cross license meaning they make identical kits. This results in the ability to use either film in either process. The dyes formed are different though, but the balance remains the same. Kodak adjust color paper sensitivity to account for both types of dyes, but AFAIK (and reports here seem to bear this out) Fuji does not.
2. Some kits are better than others. A blix is an oxidiant and reductant mixture that begins to spoil the minute the parts are mixed. Therefore, a single part kit, mixed at the plant will begin spoiling. Of course there are ways around this, and I would have to see the MSDS to even attempt to say whether any company has come close. I know that we solved the problem, but never used it at EK.
3. Powder kits are weak due to the fact that Ammonium Ferric EDTA is not available as a solid, nor is there a good source of solid Ammonium Thiosulfate which does not turn into slush rapidly. Some companies sell it, but it is very expensive. So, powder kits are sodium based and thus much weaker and slower than the ammonium kits. HINT: this is why Kodak went to liquid kits for blix, bleach and (years ago) fix. Ammonium salts are better!
4. If you make a bleach and a fix, these solutions can be as much as 50% more concentrated than when you mix the two into a blix. This is why most film blixes fail. They are more dilute. Here is an example. Let us say we have 50% solutions of ammonium hypo and ammonium ferric EDTA and mix them. They are now 25%. If we used them individually as is, they would be 50%. Now, this is for illustration only, but should give you an idea of the problem. And, often, using with longer times just does not work! It has to do with solvation of silver particles encapsulated within a big glob of dye and coupler. I have watched motion picture photo micrography of this process. It can leave up to 10% or so of the silver behind degrading color and increasing grain.
5. Some of you pay a premium for using an RA - Room Temperature kit. Well, in fact, RA chemistry can be used with Endura at room temperature all by itself. Interestingly, back in the 90s, these kits used formulas published by Pat Dignan to achieve this. To do it, they used CD-4 in place of CD-3. This causes broader dyes which give muddier colors and also gives significantly worse dye stability with color paper dyes (not with authentic C-41 dyes though). This is just a fact of chemistry and nothing inherent in C41 vs RA or EP3 or whatever process. I talked to Pat about that, and he retracted his Rapid Access formulas that used CD-4. However, if you see a color paper kit using CD-4, it will yield very inferior results.
As an added item, the Photospeed MSDS does list HQMS-K salt. But, I caution you that other ingredients not listed may or may not be present and therefore may or may not be present but necessary for proper operation and that is the problem with an MSDS. Some of the proper ingredients are present in a high enough concentration to require listing and I don't see them. Are they somehow not on the list due to laws pertaining where the MSDS is filed? IDK. So, I can feel good and bad at the same time. Missing from the sheet for example is the citrazinic acid in the color developer, the phosphate buffer (required in many countries), and the auxiliary developer in the first developer.
Make of it what you wish. I don't care what chemistry or formulation you use. I'm merely putting up information gleaned from my experiences.
Last edited by Photo Engineer; 07-27-2009 at 03:39 PM. Click to view previous post history.