How much do you get out of Kodak Flexicolor?

I understand that since I'm hand developing my film that it's recommended to use the chemicals once. I have a paterson tank that takes 3 rolls and about 1 liter of fluid. So that means I'll only get 15 rolls out of 5 liters of solution?

Is that math correct?

Does anyone squeeze out more from their chemicals? 15 rolls seems like a disappointment for $140 worth of chemicals.

Using my Jobo I can easily develop 6 rolls of 35mm 36 exposure rolls or the equivalent from each 300 ml of solution. Obviously that is using rotary style processing and not inversion but i don't know why it couldn't work as well.

Sounds like I need a jobo to use less chemicals.

Jarrett said:

Sounds like I need a jobo to use less chemicals.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you couldn't do similar with your Paterson.

My Paterson allows me to develop one, two or three rolls at a time. By doing one roll at a time you could test how many rolls you could develop with 300ml of chemicals (I don't have my Paterson in front of me so I don't remember what it takes to develop one roll at a time.) By doing one roll at a time you would be able to figure out how many rolls you can get from a certain amount of solution in your tank. Time consuming in the beginning but at least you will know once you are done. I believe you can likely get a lot more films out of 1 liter than just 3.

You make 1L and reuse that for 12-16+ rolls and then dispose.

This guy made nice videos about mixing:
and using:

I'm from the world of hi-volume processing. If you replenish with a standard C-41 dev replenisher you get about 6 times that, roughly 18 or 20 rolls per liter. Or with LORR about double that. And every roll can meet tight specifications for the process.

You probably read table 3-3 in the Kodak Z-131 manual that states the unreplenished capacity of developer is about 4 rolls per liter. In my (considerable) experience Kodak tends to be conservative, meaning that they don't want you to have any problems. So they set a very safe reuse limit. If you read instructions from various other chemical suppliers they may suggest developing 2 or 3 times Kodak's number of rolls per liter. So that's sort of the situation. It depends on how tolerant you are with respect to the process, as well as the sort of subject matter you photograph. Developer gets "exhausted" based on the amount of silver developed, not on the number of rolls (this doesn't seem to be well-known among photographers). If you photograph things with primarily dark backgrounds the developer is not worked very hard - you can develop more rolls before quality suffers. But... if you always shoot light-colored scenes, snow scenes, for example, the development will exhaust much quicker.

Fwiw commercial processors using replenishment will periodically process a special test strip to measure the condition of the developer. And their developer tanks are large enough that a few oddball rolls are not enough to push it out of spec. So if the majority of the film were to suddenly become very demanding on the developer, the commercial processor would see the developer activity starting to go down, and they would simply increase the amount of replenisher. As a small-volume user you probably don't have those capabilities, so you're in the position of having to roll the dice and wonder, are these results good enough for me? If you stick with the Kodak guidelines you will probably never get into trouble. If you follow other recs to process more film you'll likely be ok most of the time. And the money you save may be worth the risk. So it's basically your call. Keep in mind that scanning your film gives you the ability to more or less fix a lot process problems.

Interesting videos. He states that developer has lasted a year but makes no mention of its exposure to air each time he uses it. OK he mixes 1L of each and the containers are 1L but presumably there is a small loss each time so there must be some air getting in the container. So, is it the case that a small amount of air doesn't matter with this kit or has he been lucky and really he should have broken the 1L down to small containers of say 250ml or 150ml if using a jobo processor. Even then when he pours the 150ml developer back into the 150ml container it will have lost some liquid but still be capable of developing another film. Is a shot of gas needed to cover the small amount of air now present and how long has he got to develop his second film - a year?

Finally he would then have 5 more bottles which have no air and have never been opened. so how long is their lives?

I don't know how long ago these videos were made so is this LORR B kit still the up-to-date kit or has it been superseded?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Jarrett said:

I understand that since I'm hand developing my film that it's recommended to use the chemicals once. I have a paterson tank that takes 3 rolls and about 1 liter of fluid. So that means I'll only get 15 rolls out of 5 liters of solution?

Is that math correct?

Does anyone squeeze out more from their chemicals? 15 rolls seems like a disappointment for $140 worth of chemicals.

Click to expand...

using a Paterson tank is very inefficient. I use a jobo and routinely process either 2 rolls with 240ml, or 5-6 rolls with 600ml of working solution.

It the video the guys uses a bleach starter. Is that 100% needed? I keep reading two different answers. In the z131 it states, "It requires no mixing; it is packaged ready to use."

Jarrett said:

It the video the guys uses a bleach starter. Is that 100% needed? I keep reading two different answers. In the z131 it states, "It requires no mixing; it is packaged ready to use."

Click to expand...

I cannot swear to this as memory is often unreliable but I think that this was the first kit I had seen that needed a bleach starter, As I said earlier the key to a lot of what we see on the video is what does Kodak say in its LORR B instructions and are these the up-to-date Kodak kits.

Like most videos, they raise more questions than answers

Frankly by now I'd have expected some response to my questions in my first post

pentaxuser

Okay, here's a data point for you, @pentaxuser :

I bought a Cinestill Cs41 "simplified" kit (color developer, blix, final rinse, no "stabilizer" as such; they claim modern films don't need it). To date, I've processed four rolls in the one quart (= 950 ml) kit. One of those was long-expired, left-in-camera Kodak T400CN, so we can't say anything about color from it; the rest was Fuji -- two 35mm rolls of Superia 400 Xtra in the first tank, and one Superia 100 (120) (processed same tank/reel, same run as the T400CN). I haven't scanned or printed the Superia 100 yet, but I should get to it soon (new-old scanner is on the slow side, but at least it works correctly). Both rolls look "fully" developed. Cinestill claims I can process at least eight rolls in their quart kit, and if I'm willing to add 2% to the time for each roll processed, double that or more (though I'm on my own to monitor image quality beyond eight). I've read user reports of 16+ rolls -- but none by anyone who does the kind of critical color examination some of our users here can do (and I'm certainly not the one for that; I have trouble spotting crossover even when I know it's there).

You may have trouble getting reports on Flexicolor from users here, because Kodak doesn't make it easy to get their chemistry in less than mini-lab quantities. I used some, years ago, but didn't keep at it long enough to chase exhaustion -- I think I processed about eight rolls in a liter at that time, then switched to a home-mixed 2-bath C-41 (mainly because it was less temperature critical).

These were a recent set of videos I had seen, saw the OPs post, and passed on the links. I don't think the original youtuber is on phototrio. I am finishing a 2.5L C41 Tetanal kit and deciding between Fuji Hunt vs Flexicolor.

Just from doing a little more research today, the videos are recent, Jan and May of 2020. The chemicals he is using are the currently available chemicals that may or may not be in stock at Unique Photo in NJ, and were originally meant for high volume with replenishing. There is a set of SM tank Flexicolor chemistry, meant for small tank processing, but these seem harder to find. He and others are simply using the high volume chemistry in small volume tanks.

pentaxuser, Looks like he makes 1L of working solution developer and uses it like he would a press kit, i.e. use and then put back into his pink bottle, no replenishing, and he gets 20+ rolls from that. When he is talking about storing for over a year, he is talking about the concentrates. My understanding is that LORR C is the one that is susceptible to oxidation, easily displaced.

jarrett: The starters, developer and bleach, were intended for freshly mixed chemicals, to bring them closer to their equilibrium state in a high volume, regularly tested system. Developer starter contains a restrainer, bromine, which is not present in a freshly mixed batch of replenisher/developer, but accumulates as you develop film. I think of it as the 3:15 developing time is the equilibrium of a replenished system, i.e. you replace the amount of developer so you can always just use 3:15. Fresh replenisher/developer WITH starter will give you the 3:15 for your FIRST roll, but WITHOUT starter, it might only be 2:30. Someone may have figured out times for developer without starter, I just did not find in my short look.

Bleach starter is a pH buffer. Short answer, PE and other phototrio users says it is not necessary. I'm good with that.

In regards to number of rolls. As both Mr Bill and Donald Qualls have mentioned, if you need the highest quality, that can be reproducible, stick with the original guidelines. I split my 2.5L into 3 x 800cc aliquots. I did 16 rolls with the first and 14 rolls with the second one, both more than the suggested number. Like Donald, I don't have those special eyes that see subtle variations in color and I use digital post processing, so I don't mind pushing the number. I ended up freezing those chemicals, in case I want to test them down the line. I remember watching a video of someone who pushed it well past 30 rolls for a 1L kit, basically until he lost a roll. So depends on your priorities.

There is also a recent thread following the idea of mixing fresh from concentrate (Color Developer Starter, Color Developer Replenisher, and water) to equivalent of 1+9 dilution and using the result one-shot, which (economically) is roughly equivalent to processing ten rolls in 250 ml (35mm in a stainless reel/tank system). Upshot is, this is very economical (40 rolls from a liter equivalent of fresh mixed chemistry, and the concentrates keep well), but even with extra time, the diluted developer produces crossover, loss of speed, and loss of contrast (not to mention fairly vigorous arguments). I won't be doing this with my film, but some might find it acceptable. It seems to me that less dilution would produce less of the problems, but I'm not sure how close to full strength you'd have to go to get negatives that will print like those done in standard process -- perhaps 1+1 or 1+2. And one-shotting at even 1+2 (12 rolls in a liter) gains effectively nothing over reusing the fresh working solution.

Of course, if you process several rolls of C-41 a week, you could probably run actual replenishment with Flexicolor -- the developer that's easy to buy is replenisher, you only need starter when you mix a fresh working solution. So many ml of replenisher (diluted to working strength and stored as a stock solution) per roll -- if you process enough to keep ahead of oxidation, this is the economical way to work. With separate bleach and fixer (using the EDTA based bleach) and you can regenerate the bleach by bubbling air through it, or putting it in an oversize container and shaking vigorously, etc., and the Flexicolor fixer you can buy is its own replenisher, too. Final rinse can be reused a lot, and replenishes itself (needed mainly due to carry-off). Kodak's replenishment is aimed at mini-labs that do dozens of rolls a day -- but oxidation is the main enemy, so if you store the working developer and diluted replenisher in an impermeable bottle with zero airspace, you may be able to replenish for months at a time.

The big issue would be how to know if your developer is going off without test strips and the ability to read them. If you examine your negatives critically (making prints or high-quality scans) immediately after they're dry, you can probably spot trouble before it turns into blank film, at the very least. If my film budget (and available shooting/processing time) support this level of use, I'll probably give this a try.

Otherwise, it's likely that the most cost-effective way to use actual Flexicolor (as opposed to the various 1L C-41 kits that are easy to get) will be to mix a liter of working developer from concentrates, gas blanket the concentrates to prevent oxidation, and process eight-or-so rolls in that liter. The Flexicolor concentrates are already significantly cheaper per liter of working solution than the kits, and you get the added lifetime, quality, and cost benefits of separate bleach and fixer.

The Flexicolor developer kit available in the UK as standard from dealers makes 20L, this can then be divided into smaller contains which keep well. I've not seen the smaller 5L version here.

I use the flexicolor chems with a paterson tank and replenish with the rates stated in kodak Z-131 for tank developers. I get more than 5 rolls per liter of developer. maybe Im crazy, but results have been nothing but great for the last 8 years. so Im happy. the 20 liter developer from freestyle is $30 + (probably now) expensive shipping. still cheap though

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/3667805-Kodak-FlexiColor-C-41-Developer-Makes-20-Liters

john

Tom Kershaw said:

The Flexicolor developer kit available in the UK as standard from dealers makes 20L, this can then be divided into smaller contains which keep well. I've not seen the smaller 5L version here.

Click to expand...

I don't recall seeing 5L Flexicolor recently, either, and I'm in the USA. The Flexicolor chemistry I've seen has been in "to make" 5 gallons (19L) or 25 gallons (94L) sizes.

Yes thanks all What struck me as strange was that for a high volume user which is what the kits seems to be for He actually does it in what seem to be a bedroom but if he finds no problems with such a big kit then OK and while his facilities seem "amateurish" it may be that he does get through a litre of developer fairly quickly. I had thought that his mention of a year referred to his opened and mixed developer which he used in a 1L Paterson tank and then returned to the 1L container but there should be a small loss each time he pours back, should there not so an air gap starts to appear? The problem was he simply just didn't mention this so we have no way of knowing whether this is because the gap hasn't affected the developer's strength or he in fact has a means of excluding air, It just would have been useful had he mentioned what he did

As you have confirmed, for normal processing a bleach starter is not required and it can be re-activated by vigorous shaking to re-introduce air.

I am sure there will be something in Photrio somewhere such info is not always easy to find, so is it possible to use B&W fix instead of C41 fix and is so at what ratio?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Donald Qualls said:

but none by anyone who does the kind of critical color examination some of our users here can do (and I'm certainly not the one for that; I have trouble spotting crossover even when I know it's there).

Click to expand...

Rowreidr said:

Like Donald, I don't have those special eyes that see subtle variations in color and I use digital post processing, so I don't mind pushing the number.

Click to expand...

I think that unless you specifically have some sort of color blindness, which I think something like 5 or 10% of males do, you guys can more than likely see fine differences. Offhand, I don't know of a good way to test for it though, without some sort of special test. (We used the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-hue test, I think it was called, which is great for this sort of thing, but costs the better part of a thousand (US) dollars.)

You do need good lighting, too. Here's a little story about that. Someone had asked me to fill in overseeing the end of the 100-hue test on an employee; they're gonna run past the end of the normal workday. So sure, I'm gonna be here late anyway. They finished the test and left while I wrote down the scores. At the end, just for kicks, I thought I'll do the test myself on just one rack of colors. It's just a little game, to see if I can get it perfect. Now I know that if I'm very careful and double check that I can get a perfect score. But otherwise I'm likely to switch a pair of the color caps. (People who are really really good can just go right down the line, bam, bam, bam, and get every one right, no doubt about it.) So I'm going down the line then suddenly run into four or five caps that I CANNOT tell apart. So the first thing I think (knowing that I, visually, have the ability to do this) is OMG, these color caps have faded. That means the test is no longer valid, etc., and all their recent tests are likewise invalid. But then I get an idea; it's still light outside so I open the blinds to let in outdoor light. PRESTO! I can tell the caps apart again.

Skipping most of the details the problem was that the lamps in the office didn't have full-spectral output. (Apparently in the product life of this particular bulb the specs had changed, it becoming a more "eco-friendly" bulb, but keeping the same part #.) Under the deficient light I CAN tell many of the color caps apart, but certain groups look identical to me.

So if you wanna do critical evaluation of color reproduction details in a print, I often suggest to people that they do a "reality check" by viewing with outdoor light.

Another note regarding ability to see fine color differences, on probably dozens of occasions I would hear from IT people in the company, working on certain studio-related projects, the same thing, "I can't tell color apart, the way all 'you guys' can." If we were near a color both with some sort of test going on, I might ask, are you sure? Then I'd lay out a pair of prints - same portrait subjects with slightly different color balance. Fundamentally they look nearly identical. So I might say, look at the skin tones here: does one of the prints seem a little more blue (or whatever it is) than the other? And most of the time they'll point to one - the correct one - and say this one. So I say, see, you CAN tell them apart. So a lot of the time it's simply a case of knowing what to look for, or perhaps HOW to look for it.

Mr Bill said:

... it's simply a case of knowing what to look for, or perhaps HOW to look for it.

Click to expand...

This is me, not enough experience or guidance. I am not in the imaging field and the internet can only do so much.

Mr Bill said:

I think that unless you specifically have some sort of color blindness, which I think something like 5 or 10% of males do, you guys can more than likely see fine differences.

Click to expand...

I'm definitely not a dichromat -- I can distinguish colors about as well as anyone can, and you can't slip a Dvorine plate by me with any reasonable trick (certain colors of light can make anyone fail, but they'd have to be far enough off to be obvious). I just don't, even under good light or on a very good monitor, see what people call crossover at a glance. If I'm told it's there, I can, with care, confirm it -- but seeing (for instance) magenta highlights and green shadows (especially if they're the least bit subtle) doesn't look wrong to my eye. I can't call a color cast without a color correct reference to compare against, either, though I'd bet a set of viewing filters under a full spectrum inspection lamp would let me do so with near 100% accuracy.

Rowreidr said:

This is me, not enough experience or guidance. I am not in the imaging field and the internet can only do so much.

Click to expand...

If you've learned how to color balance something like a portrait to a relatively fine degree then you should be able to see a color cross in the skin tones. Basically you can look at the midtones and get to your best balance. Then, from that image, look at the skin highlights. If they're difficult to isolate cut a hole in a piece of white paper and lay it over the print. Now, decide what you would do to improve that skintone. If you have trouble deciding, ask yourself, "are the highlights either cool (a bluish or cyan color) or warm (yellowish or red)? If you decide that it's already good, then fine - there's no crossover from skin midtones to highlights. Then do the same thing with the flesh shadows.

Basically if you think a different color correction is needed for a highlight vs midtone vs shadow area, in a tone that should be the same, then there's a color cross in that color.

If you have a hard time deciding what skin tone is best, try printing a color ringaround in small increments. (Do plus and minus increments for each of red, green, and blue.) Then see if you can decide which is best. Or maybe you have two that seem equally good. Make sure to focus on the same tone, say the midtones, so that you are not misled by a crossover.

That's pretty much all there is to it - it doesn't take a magical capability or anything. Just an ability to color balance a print with some precision.

There is one thing to be careful of, you need a good, well-controlled image. My background is largely in studio portrait work, where we light with electronic flash. Every light has essentially the same characteristics. In his last post Donald referred to green shadows. Well, if you shoot an outdoor portrait of someone standing in the grass, you are most likely gonna get greenish shadows. So these don't indicate a color cross in the film/paper system - they indicate green light filling in the shade. And the viewer expects, perhaps subconsciously, to see this, so it looks natural. So if you want to examine for color crosses you should start with a well-controlled image - no conflicting lighting colors.

What does one do with the Developer Starter? I have the 20L flexicolor box with ABC, but the Kodak Alaris instructions are vague as to when one uses the starter additive. Do I add the 30ml to a liter of mixed or omit it all together?

He did not mention increasing the development time between runs, when he reuses the 1L working developer solution. Does he always use 3:15 time?

I have been watching this thread from the side because I am always interested in what happens when lab/minilab chemicals are used in a home environment. I too came from a commercial processing background.
(BTW in case any of you are wondering what the guy means by saying "what's the craic(crack)?" it means "how's it going/what's happening?")

The video is very good but it doesn't address the shelf life of partly full concentrate bottles.
I am of the opinion, there is a reason why Kodak don't give clear info about home use of their lab chemicals. They are designed to be used in a commercial lab environment and with home mixing it is too easy to make a mistake. Also the volume of liquids involved means the chemicals were designed for high volume processing so I would imagine you would need to be developing a lot of films (maybe I am missing something).

I remember Fuji supplying a C41 starter kit, but each chemical had the starter built in and it made up a tank solution ready for use. Again it was designed for commercial use only.

Last night I finally sat down and read Kodak Z131 cover-to-cover. It answered most questions I had but it was thin on chemical reuse, because the focus is on high-volume processing and replenishment is always the answer. Then I read CIS-211 "Flexicolor for small tanks" and it answered all of my remaining questions.

However, when I visit uniquiephoto, looks like they only have LORR chemicals. I do not see Flexicolor for Small Tanks (one-use) and I also can't find the regular (non-LORR) Flexicolor developer replenisher or non-LORR starter on Uniquephoto.

Then, on freestyle, I find this:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/3667805-Kodak-FlexiColor-C-41-Developer-Makes-20-Liters

But there is no starter... Is this the "small tank one-shot developer" from CIS-211? It's annoying that Z131 never mentions CAT numbers of chems.