Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,222   Posts: 1,659,588   Online: 745
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64
  1. #21
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,869
    Images
    148
    Keith, I think part of the problem was smaller US companies tried to emulate the simplicity of the Photocolor products, but they didn't have photo-chemists skilled enough to do it.

    Tetenal did have the photo-chemists, so their products reflect this.

    Ian

  2. #22
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,456
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Keith, I think part of the problem was smaller US companies tried to emulate the simplicity of the Photocolor products, but they didn't have photo-chemists skilled enough to do it.

    Tetenal did have the photo-chemists, so their products reflect this.

    Ian
    The smaller US companies did have some excellent chemists, hired away from Kodak. Some came from GAF. These companies advertized in the Rochester Newspapers at the time and set up a group to do R&D.

    At the time though they got no takers from Kodak except for a few from the plant or Photo Tech who worked on B&W and had done no color work AFAIK.

    When our patent for a film blix issued, several of us were contacted by these companies. We turned them down.

    PE

  3. #23
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,869
    Images
    148
    In the UK I think things differed due to particularly good degree courses specialising in Photo-chemistry, at the University of London. Many Kodak & Ilford researchers passed through, including Mees, but others equally as able went to smaller companies.

    Ian

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,527
    PE and Ian Thanks for the answers. There are some imponderables still which may have to remain there forever but I note that at EK the blix problem was solved but just never implemented. Could it be that it was also solved at Tetenal as Ian has said or solved to the extent that any differences might take many years to manifest themselves?

    I don't know how long the present Tetenal formulation for C41 blix has been in use but knowing the potential issue involving blix you'd imagine that tetenal research chemists would either have tried accelerated tests to ascertain negative longevity and re-printability before launch or even set aside films which had been processed in both blix and separate bleach and fix since launch of its blix kits and would have periodically done test prints from both sets of negs to monitor differences, if any, over say 1 year, 5 years 10 years etc

    If Tetenal blix remains as good as or almost so as separate bleach and fix then the question remains why bother with separate chemicals and might the answer lie in the economics of large scale processing whereby blix is cheaper and easier for small scale amateur use but more expensive and not as convenient for large scale use such as even Jobos running on a small commercial scale or modern mini-lab production.

    In any commercial process as in money the saying the "good drives out the bad" usually applies and if blix was still demonstrably and appreciably inferior then you'd imagine that Tetenal woud have quietly dropped the blix kits and turned its attention to producing small bleach and fix kits for the small scale amateur. Could it be that in the final analysis that blix may be very marginally inferior but from a marketing point of view a blix kits for the smallscale user has certain advantages such as smaller boxes, less complexity and quicker so overall its more convenient.

    Looking at the Tetenal blix kit, I'd say it wins on all three aspects just mentioned and cynically or otherwise, the Tetenal marketing people might have calculated that few colour negs are ever going to be dug out and reprinted in the number of years in the future that it would take for the differences to begin to show.

    Just a little thinking aloud on my part


    pentaxuser

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    The unfortunate thing in this whole discussion is the near impossibility of getting Kodak C-41 kits of reasonable size in a reasonable manner in the US. I wish they just sold a small kit for home users. I don't really want to $150 to get enough bleach to make 50 gallons. Even if I did, I don't know where to order it from that will actually ship it...

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,932
    Images
    68
    pentaxuser,

    The 5 litre Fujihunt C-41 kit is excellent value at £32. The Tetenal kit is £40.

    http://www.firstcall-photographic.co...p/search/C-41/

    Tom.

  7. #27
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,869
    Images
    148
    UK retailers split Kodak minilab kits and they are very cheap

    Ian

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    Alas, I have not found a US retailer who will do this.

  9. #29
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,456
    Images
    65
    Ian;

    Firstoff, we have RIT here with an excellent photographic chemistry course. In fact, the Japanese sent their students here for years until comparable courses were set up at Chiba university. The courses here, according to an undersecretary of photoscience in Japan, were excellent, but the Japaneese surpassed that in the late 80s turning out the equivalent of 25 PhD photochemists per year. RIT never went above the MS program. Today, most of them are out on the street, having been laid off!

    Pentaxuser;

    As for the blix stability question, this has come up several times on APUG. People complain about the single part blix being cloudy or having a heavy precipitate and a sulfur odor. It is not my province to convince you, read those posts for yourself. This problem is not unknown and therefore not solved. I would not suggest a single part blix even though we could make one. It would still be poised on the edge of decomposition in one way or another I think. I have made compromises. Super Universal Fix VIII will work with Ammonium Ferric EDTA to make a usable film blix. Even so, it does not go all the way in providing the ability to keep as a single part kit.

    As for those who have seen good results with these kits or formulations, you usually only look at single results and not comparisons. It is here that I have done work that most have not. Making direct comparisons way back when I did that sort of stuff showed the differences to be real and visible even though the "other formulas" by themselves looked quite good.

    PE

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw View Post
    pentaxuser,

    The 5 litre Fujihunt C-41 kit is excellent value at £32. The Tetenal kit is £40.

    http://www.firstcall-photographic.co...p/search/C-41/

    Tom.
    Tom Thanks for this and taking the trouble to remind me of the kit that you had kindly mentioned before in another thread. What has been your experience with it in terms of longevity? I am thinking in terms of developer specifically. As I have understood things, bleach lasts half way to forever and fix lasts as long as B&W fix so my problem would probably be confined to developer. Unfortunately the Fuji-Hunt kit parts are not sold separately so I'd imagine that you end up buidling up excess quantities of bleach and fix unless the amounts in the kit are measured so that all three parts, dev, bleach and fix run out together.

    I had a look at the similar three part Tetenal kit sold by Nova. It works out at about £50 overall but it is bulk quantities and like its MORCO Kodak counter part probably works out quite cheaply per film but would require large volume processing.

    It seems to be a simple choice of (a) very small powder C41 as supplied by Silverprint doing as little as 4 films per pack but with the drawback of powder as described by PE (b) small amounts of liquid for 12-16 films as supplied by Tetenal but as a combined bleach/fix as blix or (c) larger amounts of 3 part kits with separate bleach and fix with possible developer wastage and an accumulation of bleach and fix.

    OR take the occasional colour film to the local mini-lab for processing. Even if I switched to B&W chromogenic such as Ilford XP2 Super I am not sure I could get throught the developer fast enough and I am not sure I want to switch to solely B&W chromogenic.

    So the info on your experience with the Fuji-Hunt kit in terms of the durability of the constituent parts would be useful.

    I think there is a real opening here for Matt who has just opened a new web shop. As others have said the small user is not catered for and whereas B&W dev lasts quite a long time, C41 developer is quite another thing.


    Thanks

    pentaxuser

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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