Any powdered kit that uses Sodium Ferric EDTA for bleaching and Sodium Thiosulfate for fixing is too weak for film and marginal for paper. The original kit for the Kodak Blix used Sodium Ferric EDTA and Ammonium Thiosulfate and was marginal for bleaching, which is why the Blix was reworked to use Ammonium Ferric EDTA. This was done with great effort as Ammonium Ferric EDTA was unknown commercially at the time..
I have to assume, due to the use of Sodium salts in my own Press Kit, that the kit you refer to uses Sodium salts as solid Ammonium salts are very very expensive and in the case of NH4FeEDTA, completely unknown on the market.
In this case then, that powdered Blix would be too slow to do an adequate job on film, but would work, given enough time, on paper.
Even with film, it will "appear" to work, but probably will leave some amount of silver behind as a neutral gray image that degrades dye hue and also messes with the sharpness and grain due to the granular nature and positioning of the silver specks.
I have examined these specks under a microscope and also printed with and without the proper bleaching. It gives somewhat the effect of bleach bypass processing in prints, with a grainier result than normal.
Would extending the blix times be a good practice with those kits?
Could an extended Blix time do any harm?
These are the ingredients on the Unicolor C41 Powder Kit
I recently purchased from freestyle and have done 4 roll so far.
Sodium Iron EDTA
Pleas excuse any inconsistancies but I copied the ingredients straight off the package but it is somewhat jumbled.
Extending the time does no harm and can do some good if Blixing is not sufficient.
The ingredients posted above are identical to an original version of the Kodak RA-4 Blix. It was marginal for paper and totally unsatisfactory with film.
Some gain can be gotten by reducing pH. The downside is that it becomes one-shot and the image stability may be questionable as the dyes are not tested with acidic pH values. We did test a pH 4.5 Blix, but it failed primarily due to longevity reasons.
I should rephrase my wish - by inexpensive I mean in hobby level quantities, not 50 gallons of the stuff.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I can tell you how to make your own RA-4 Blix and your own C-41 bleach and fix. That is about it.
I just lost a long far more detailed reply
Ron (PE) runs down just about every non Kodak or Fuji product, especially C41 / E6 blix, he's MR KODAK because he worked on them, which means sweet FA to the rest of the world.
If anyone mentions a non Kodak Blix then Ron rubbishes it or the company. Unicolor have been trading 40 years, sure I heard of problems with their blix that's nearly 30 years ago now, and I had problems with chemistry from another small company (still trading) around that time too.
But since the Internet came along I've never seen anyone with a problem. I've used Photocolor chemistry extensively (about 25 years), I worked as a Photo-chemist there were NO problems. I've also seen many thousands of prints (off Photocolor II negs) & slides made with Photocolor chemistry there were NO differences to Kodak, Fuji, Konica etc.
Photo Systems Inc, should read Ron's comments, he has ZERO knowledge of their current products and so they could sue him into oblivion . . . . . .
Last time I said that the company ceased trading Agfa DID begin a legal action . . . . . and the US company folded . . . . .
Kodak does not make a film compatible Blix. Nor do any of the major film or chemical companies.
I have mentioned no company names regarding film Blixes, except in the one quote about Pippard's Ferrania kit, just generic comments on Blixes for films. This has been a well known problem but has not been reported on for several years in the photo magazines. I have just commented positively on Trebla products which is producing a bleach then fix. Since I have also "endorsed" Fuji products, maybe Trebla and Fuji will pay my legal fees if any?
I admit to not having done any tests since I retired! I was not doing any before that, but was kept informed. Then again, by looking at the MSDS sheets, I see that the two part Blixes for film have not change substantially in the last 20+ years. In fact, the Kodak Bleach chemistry has changed more than most of the others. I have not looked up the single part Blixes for information. (see below)
I worked as a photo engineer for 32 years designing and testing photo materials of one sort or another.
I have added over and over again that if it works for you, then use it. As far as endorsing Kodak products, I do know that every type of color film Kodak sells is tested in authentic C-41 chemistry and is designed to develop, bleach, fix and "stabilze" in that chemistry. I can also say that Fuji chemistry matches Kodak's chemistry and follows the same process sequence. I cannot say that this is true of every other combination of color chemistry and color film. My tests when I worked on the project said "no". Basically, we have disclosed this in our patent. So, if I can be sued based on what is in a US patent, well then that goes beyond the pale.
Now, how does telling a published truth constitute anything legally actionable. The truth is this....
Kodak, Fuji, Trebla, Agfa, Konica, and Ferrania to name 6 major producers of chemistry, all make or made a Bleach then Fix process not a Blix process even though it was possible and would have given them a competetive advantage. The C-41 film family is designed and optimized by Kodak and Fuji for the true C-41 process. This is also true of the E6 film family and process.
People have complained about the single solution Blix here on APUG. This is a separate but related problem. If you get a Blix strong enough it may not be very stable.
We know what Bleach bypass looks like in C-41 type films. That is the extreme. A film Blix can give results that fall somewhere between good (normal) results and Bleach bypass. Sometimes, it requires enlargement to see the grain or sharpness problems, and sometimes it requires direct comparison to see the color problems. In any event, I have said this before as well. If you are happy with your results, then by all means use the process of choice.
I am not a corporation, I am a retired photo engineer expressing an opinion based on years of R&D experience in this field, and I am also a graduate chemist. Developers, blixes, fixes, films, emulsions and papers that I worked on or designed myself have been commerciallized. I will not speculate or comment on Ian's qualifications in this field.
Shipping to the US might be a problem
Originally Posted by hrst