Fuji sells in the US as well. IDK if that kit is available here, I didn't look it up specifically, but if so, that is a good bet.
I get no payola from this endorsement.
A bit extreme for comments given for free, eh? Are we all legally responsible for endorsements we give? If I say I prefer fuji to kodak....
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Surely you jest!
Free or otherwise I would say!
Originally Posted by keithwms
But sometimes "identification" with a product, group or company, leads to unexpected behavour in defense of the group... and I must say there is some truth in what Ian wrote; I have seen it live and in person!
But the shortcommings of blixes vs the processes done separately are rather well known... I myself have known for years, and I was not even interested in it.
I think everyone could benefit if we went back to basics, and Ian or someone capable of speaking on behalf of ... uh what exact product are you defending Ian? - and that chemistry were discussed. Perhaps Ron might find something he missed by allowing it to slip under his radar. Or, Ian might find Kodak Research was pretty spot on after all.
Anyhow, what I am seeing is fuzziness here as to the exact products, their chemists, their research publications, the resulting product and an honest evaluation and comparison of product performance... by anyone.
Did Ian's group overcome the problem of blixes that Ron mentions and if so, how?
Can't any one provide a direct comparison, or, look at the chemistry in more depth? Where is that chemist now? (Is he still with us?) Perhaps he would like to comment?
In anycase, if we stick to methods, data and comparisons, things might remain more sane.
(Less interesting, but hey, we can't have everthing can we?! )
I never had any noticeable problems with the Tetenal C41 kit, but have moved on to using the Kodak kits several years ago. I have not done any side by side testing, but I seem to be getting negatives that print easier since the switch. Of course in that time I have changed many variables, from a new color head to several more years of experience printing. But some of the older negatives are still harder to print than they should be. I don't know if this is related to using a Blix or not.
It would be interesting to do a test to see if there are noticeable differences between the products. However this isn't something I really want to tackle at this time. I'd still be too worried about the keeping properties of the Blixed film to trust it, even if it looked exactly the same.
I am now out of Kodak Bleach III and have ordered some Trebla bleach III, which I will be trying in the next few weeks. At $110 for 20L it isn't cheap, but on a per film basis it's not bad at all (and I can get it shipped, unlike the Kodak product from the big photoshops). It says it can be replenished at 12ml/sqft, but I'm not sure how well that will work with the Jobo. I still need to do some research into how much it can be reused or replenished.
Just to clarify, a blix could result in
problems with color accuracy,
less or no archival stability
am I missing anything?
My strategy will be to use the 2 Unicolor C41 powdered kits to familiarize myself with the process/testing and then try to source the chemicals for the complete process with a bleach then fix. It will more than likely be cheaper per roll with bulk chemicals although I don't shoot massive amounts of c 41 material.
The results I got with my very first attempt at this with the Unicolor kit were quite nice with some Portra 160NC and it s*anned with very little color correction.
I do have an Artista E6 kit (those are all liquid I believe and use a blix also) that I haven't tried yet.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I say again;
Possible issues are sharpness, and color contamination along with some increase in grain when the image is magnified. There are no issues related to archival stability as far as I know if the process includes a good wash and a good stabizer or final rinse.
I just received my LIQUID Arista c-41 kitfrom Freestyle. It is a Blix kit but the is a 3 part liquid as is the developer. The stabilizer is only one part. All are concentrated and must be mixed to gether with water.
I hope to try processing some c-41 film today or tomorrow.
Photographers Formulary is soon to release a C-41 kit that has seperate bleach and fix. This is what I was told by them last week.
I thought I would try the Arista 3 part liquid kit for now.
Do you think the blix being 3 separate parts and being liquid will be better?
I get about 20 email messages or PMs each day and try to answer them. Sometimes 50% of them come from Ray who always gets an answer. I am not sure what Ray is referring to as "live and in person". The last time I saw him in person, we had a cordial discussion in which I showed him some of my hand coatings and he took some photos of me.
The point is that my answers are from the POV of a Kodak person because that is what I know and where I worked. I can't discuss Ilford or Agfa methodology because I never worked there. My information on their work is at best second hand. So, there is some "identification", but this does not mean endorsement nor approval. I do use Ilford B&W film and I have used Ilford B&W paper for years. I also used Kentmere until they vanished.
I cannot comment on the POV expressed by Ian, as I know nothing of it for all practical purposes.
In the subject of bleach then fix vs blixes, I rely on the backing of 6 companies mentioned above for their agreement in this area. The big companies don't make a blix for any film even though it is possible.
Originally Posted by Ray Rogers
Thank GOD. Someone else is aware of the problem. Thank you Ray. This was common knowledge years ago, as I said above and has generally faded out of the information stream current today.
Originally Posted by Ray Rogers
The data comparisons appear to be absent in the patent. I just skimmed it though. The data I read over says that the blixes that were not of the invention took 2x or more of the time to clear the film of silver and silver halide than the blixes of the invention. I would have to review the patent in more detail.
I can go on to say that the data was obtained, and was derived from x-ray fluorescence of silver retention and analysis of photomicrographs. If it were not available, the patent would not have issued.
It may be. IDK. If two of the parts are the reddish liquid, this will improve the chance of having a good blix. I am trying to gather information on this to explain it.
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
Blix A&B are clear but blix C is very dark brown/redish?
I had ask a similar question last week about trying to put together a specific list of kodak chemicals needed for C-41. I think a good list was compiled but the issue then became sourcing them.
B&H carries them but in store sales only.
The folks at Photographers Formulary said they were aware of the demand for the C-41 kit with seperate bleach and fix so that is why they were about to release it. They also said they will be able to ship.
I told them that there was quite a bit of interest here at APUG. Maybe if more of us would call and inquire they will release it soon???
Last edited by stradibarrius; 10-04-2009 at 11:25 AM. Click to view previous post history.