How much do you get out of Kodak Flexicolor?

[Patrick Robert James]

I didn't see the volumes on the back in the little type. Lol. Thanks Donald.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I didn't see the volumes on the back in the little type. Lol. Thanks Donald.

They did go out of their way to hide them on a couple of the bottles.

What astonished me was that the two bleach components and the fixer had foil seals under the lids -- but none of the developer components did, and the bottles weren't even close to full (though they seemed to contain the specified quantity). I guess it works okay, I'm scanning last night's processing run (first batch in the new tank solution) and the negatives seem okay (even though the Superia Xtra 400 was exposed around 2007 and the Top Crest/Ferrania 400 probably expired before 2010).

 

[Donald Qualls]

Something that occurred to me just now -- we talked about oxidation affecting the Flexicolor developer, making replenishment an iffy proposition.

How, then, does a kit developer last for 8-12 rolls, even in partially filled tanks with inversion agitation? For instance, my last C-41 was a Cinestill kit, which the seller lists as being able to process 8 rolls (more if you're willing to extend time and accept a slight loss of quality). And it did exactly that, failing only after the eight rolls and additionally being four months from mix date, despite using a Paterson tank (with all that trapped air) and inversion.

What's the difference between kit developers going 8 rolls and Kodak recommending one shot for small tanks? Or am I misremembering and the one-shot recommendation applies only to rotary processing like a Jobo?

 

[Mr Bill]

Something that occurred to me just now -- we talked about oxidation affecting the Flexicolor developer, making replenishment an iffy proposition.

How, then, does a kit developer last for 8-12 rolls, even in partially filled tanks with inversion agitation?

With respect to oxidation I'd hazard a guess that the inversion tanks are much less efficient than a Jobo at oxidizing the developer. And even a Jobo doesn't seem able to kill off C-41 developer in a single cycle.

When you use an inversion tank the air presumably stays in fairly large bubbles, and they pass through the developer solutions pretty quickly. So I presume that, giving the same ratio of air to developer volume, that the inversion tank produces much less oxidation than a Jobo, which is always spreading a thin film of developer on the tank walls. (I'm assuming that people understand the impact of bubble size: it's a matter of surface area to volume; as the bubble size increases it is less efficient at oxidizing the developer.) Maybe I'd better clarify, for the casual reader, that oxidation is a bad thing for developers; a system that oxidizes efficiently is a good developer killer (provided that there's enough oxygen to kill it).

If your question was more about getting a larger number of rolls through a given volume of developer, the obvious answer is that the developer is likely operating in a more-exhausted condition. If you're running a dozen "average" rolls per liter, and starting from a "standard" tank solution, a back of the envelope calculation indicates that the main restrainer, bromide ion, is gonna end up at about 150% of aim. That's huge in the world of process control. No reputable lab would operate in that condition. Now for someone who doesn't care about processing to spec, and who scans their work, well, they can probably get by with it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, that explains the official eight rolls capacity for most of the kits I've looked at (and the one I've used) -- that's about where your bromide starts to run well and truly out of spec.

But you had given an opinion that oxidation in a Paterson tank (maximum 1400 ml developer, minimum 100 to possibly 200 ml trapped air) with inversion might be enough to make a replenished tank solution go bad -- due to oxidation. Yet a kit developer can process at least eight rolls in that same environment, and still produce usable (if not perfectly in-control) negatives -- in fact, be operating well enough that those who aren't too picky can get up to another four rolls or so out of the stuff.

I'm pursuing this because, honestly, inverting my Paterson tank gives me a better feeling about the developer getting well exchanged around the film than twirling the stick. Yes, I got good-seeming results doing my first batch with new tank solution that way; yes, I developed film with swizzle stick agitation many years before I had a tank I could invert. But if a kit developer is good for eight or more rolls without being killed by excessive oxidation, how is inversion likely to be too much for a developer intended for replenishment?

Beyond that, 200 ml of air ought to contain only (0.2L/22.4L * ~29 Kg/Mole) about .26 g of air, of which about .05 g is oxygen, of which only a small fraction will actually manage to react with CD-4 in solution. IIRC, there's around 6 g of CD-4 in a liter of developer (though it's likely that a gram of oxygen can kill several grams of CD-4). There's also competition for the oxygen from the preservatives in the developer (though using them up is also a Bad Thing). All that to suggest that the ability of air trapped under the inversion cap on a Paterson tank to degrade the developer may not be that big a deal.

 

[Mr Bill]

But you had given an opinion that oxidation in a Paterson tank (maximum 1400 ml developer, minimum 100 to possibly 200 ml trapped air) with inversion might be enough to make a replenished tank solution go bad -- due to oxidation.

Hi, well actually my thinking is that this might be a good enough situation that replenishment WOULD be workable, even with inversion. But... using the swizzle stick would tilt things more in your favor with respect to oxidation because that slug of air isn't periodically passing through the developer.

I do share your opinion that inversion would likely give better agitation, and so is preferable in that respect. But... I have never specifically compared the two methods. So it's just a gut feeling. (My impression, perhaps mistaken, was that YOU felt comfortable with swizzle stick agitation; it's not something that I would personally recommend without qualification. Cuz I don't know if it's adequate.)

Honestly, if you had a color densitometer and some sort of control strips (either official or self-made), then I would have recommended that you try inversion agitation. But lacking this capability, and given my view that your primary intention was to determine if a replenished system was workable, well, I would say that the swizzle stick puts things more in your favor. So it's a bit of a quandry - do you want the best chance of having replenishment succeed, or do you want a better (presumably) quality of processing until the developer starts to (potentially) degrade from oxidation, which you are not in a good position, equipment-wise, to determine?

I would suggest that IF you are satisfied with the swizzle stick results, then stick with that until you can show that an LORR replenished system is functional.

I'll comment more a bit later (I'm a little tied up at the moment).

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I ordered a 50L package for something like $50 thinking "this is expensive" but I missed "x5" in the title, so I am sitting on 250L of it.

I can probably take some off your hands. I have enough at the moment, but will happily buy a pack from you when I need to refill.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I would suggest that IF you are satisfied with the swizzle stick results, then stick with that until you can show that an LORR replenished system is functional.

I'll comment more a bit later (I'm a little tied up at the moment).

For the first tank, 35mm, I found the swizzle stick results quite acceptable -- one of the images is in my gallery now (24x70 frame from 35mm in an RB67). I'll plan to continue this way -- as you note, I don't have the equipment to fine-track results changes if oxidation runs ahead of replenishment, and failing developer will most likely have much more effect on overall quality than barely-adequate agitation. I can always adjust the vigor and duration of agitation cycles, even when using the swizzle stick, perhaps even add some tank movement (circular sloshing, say). My main concern is about evenness across 120 -- but I guess I'll know more about that by Monday, since I have multiple rolls of 120 to process (and I need to shoot and process some more 35mm this weekend as well).

 

[Rowreidr]

Made my first batch of Flexicolor this weekend. Made all 5L of dev replenisher, 1.5L bleach replenisher, 1.5L fixer/replenisher, 1L 2% acetic stop, and 1L cinestill STAB. The dev replenisher was split into 3 x 1L wine pouches and frozen, 1.2L of working solution with dev starter, and 4 x 250cc of dev replenisher. The bleach and fixer were made into 1L working solutions (no bleach starter) and 500cc replenishers. Also thawed out an 8 month old 800cc Tetenol to compare a test roll, which are hanging. For the flexicolor, I am going with 21cc/30cc for dev replenisher (24/36 rolls), 52cc/69cc for bleach replenisher, and 35cc/50cc for fixer replenisher (from some random internet authorities), and will be doing at least 1 roll a week for as long as I can or until the developer dies.

Completely different observation. As someone else had mentioned, the A, B, and C for developer replenisher do not come sealed and leak air I had actually bought this set back in May and left it in the basement, upright, dark, and cool. When I looked at C, it looked lightly browner than I remembered (oxidized developer look). I have the option so, I went to Unique and bought another set and for sure the May batch C was a light weak tea color compared to the fresher C being a dilute lemonade color. I sealed and threw the new C into the freezer and made the May batch up. Final solution is very faint yellow (tetenal was a medium tea colored). Initial eyeballing of drying negatives from both developers (8 month Tetenal vs partially oxidized C) looks very similar.

 

[Donald Qualls]

From my recent experience, your tank solution will darken as you use it. This is partly due to dyes from the film, if you don't prewash, and partly from oxidation. So far (after half a dozen rolls) I don't see any change in activity. The real test of replenishment on this will be when I get close to the bottom of the first liter of replenisher -- if it's still working the same, I'll call it a victory and mix another liter of replenisher. If not, I'll start using it by capacity, 8 rolls to the liter of tank solution, like kit developer.

 

[Rowreidr]

From my recent experience...r.

Thanks, For now I am trying prewashing to clear and using compressed gas for O2 displacement during dev storage AND while pouring developer into the tank, using the swizzle stick for agitation. For testing, I made a couple of rolls of Kodak 200, shooting the same scene with color and BW color charts. I'll just cut a frame or two off and add it to the reel of a 35mm roll, and then will compare with my baseline to see how fast IQ degrades

I too am not expecting this to work long term. Maybe if I were daily developing. But, I like not having to worry about how much time to add for each successive development and I like that I am not using/wasting the developer as a one shot, at least for now.

PS. I recently put 2+2 together and realized you are the Qualls in R3 monobath. Thanks for that! I went through a film canister pinhole phase during quarantine and due to the lack of a darkroom, I just transferred the exposed film into another film canister with homemade R3, in my changing bag.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Technically, I didn't have any direct contact with R3, other than to publish my method of making a monobath with rapid fixer -- and that, apparently, led to the resurgence of monobaths (there are three of them on the market now). Might have just been the right time.

Glad you got some enjoyment from the idea, though.

 

[unityofsaints]

If it helps, I have done the math and published it here. I have this PDF printed & laminated in my improvised "dark room". It's all production-tested

That link is dead

 

[Rowreidr]

So far, 6 rolls in, things are going fine. I can't developer every few days, so just doing a few rolls a week.

These are the numbers I used for making 1 L solutions (also in case I lose the paper I wrote everything on)

1L Developer replenisher: 854cc water, 80cc A, 43cc B, 23cc C
1L Developer working: 763cc replenisher, 207cc water, 30cc starter
or
1L Developer working no extra replen: 858cc water, 61cc A, 33cc B, 17.5cc C, 30cc starter
Replenishment rate: 21cc/24exp and 30cc/36exp(or 120)
Edit Z-131: 18-23cc/24exp and 25-38cc/120

1L Bleach replenisher: 400cc water, 200cc A, 400cc B
I did not use starter
Replenishment rate: 52cc/69cc
Edit Z-131: 48cc/24exp and 66cc/120

1L Fixer: 800cc water, 200cc fixer
Replenishmen rate 35cc/50cc
Edit Z-131: 48cc/24exp and 66cc/120

These could be wrong. I compiled from various sources, but did not keep track of which ones.

 

[Donald Qualls]

That matches well with my figures. Bleach and fixer are pretty easy, and work fine with no starter. The 763 ml stuck in my mind, and matches what I did. I think you're replenishing a little more than I am; I have a chart from Kodak publication Z-131 (Table 2-4) that gives different figures for slow (ISO 100-200) and fast (ISO 400-800) films, and I've been going by that chart. So far, I've processed nine rolls in my replenished tank solution since I mixed it in late September, but my rate will slow soon, I'm almost through my backlog and will be down to processing only as fast as I can (afford to) shoot -- but I'm using XP2 Super a good bit now for black and white, which contributes to my Flexicolor usage.

 

[Rowreidr]

Thanks Donald, I had seen people mention the Z-131, but never went through it myself until today. I have edited my post with what I think are the Z-131 LORR developing numbers. Looks like I was under replenishing the fix, but not too worried about that. My backlog has grown a little with the fall colors, so I should be able to keep this batch going into the winter, or until I kill it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't done replenishment on bleach and fixer, only on developer. The later steps I'll just use up and mix fresh, as I'm used to doing with fixer for B&W.

 

[Rowreidr]

I wanted to give 3 step replen a try, so I wouldn't have to increase time for any of the steps and to see if it would be viable at my shooting/developing velocity. Still have my doubts and still do a fun roll before doing the more important ones. Loaded 5 rolls this morning, started warming chemicals, but a leaking water pump for the heater put an end to that...

 

[Donald Qualls]

I look at it that I don't have to increase time for rapid fixer in B&W -- the standard time given is well past 2x clearing time for even pretty exhausted fixer. Use it for the listed capacity (16 rolls per liter) and toss it. Same goes for bleach. Nothing says you can't try replenishing, but the canonical process assumes regenerating and reusing bleach with replenishment, not just adding replenisher and discarding overflow. Fixer is expected to go through silver recovery before being replenished, if I've read that right.

I don't know that doing it the simple way would do any harm -- but I'm not one of the people who would know.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Following up on the original question of this thread -- tonight I processed rolls 10, 11, and 12, and replenished 80ml in my Flexicolor developer tank solution. Haven't scanned these yet; one roll has some obvious problems, but it's one of the OLD ones I've been working through; looks fogged. The others, a roll of expired but freshly exposed Superia X-Tra 400 and one of fresh XP2 Super, look fine to the eye. It'll be time to mix new bleach and fixer soon, according to Kodak's capacity (16 rolls per liter in each). Some of these have been 24 exposure rolls, though, so I should be safe running 18-20 (clearing time for a piece of B&W leader is still much less than a minute).

 

[Donald Qualls]

And following up further -- I think I may have to call the home C-41 replenishment experiment. My developer has changed color over the five weeks and 12 rolls (despite getting around half a liter of replenishment in a liter tank solution by this time), and the first roll I'm scanning from Sunday's three processed is very dim and grainy. New-to-me camera, so I'm not yet certain it's the developer (and the mystery roll was exposed years ago and has fog) -- the XP2 Super from that tank will be the decider.

Obviously, there's a possibility that this Loreo-built stereo camera is just underexposing -- but a number of the images were with flash, and they've all got low contrast and (in the scan) very grainy shadows, and the camera has as sticker on the inside of the door recommending ISO 200-400, implying it ought to produce good images with flash on a stop slower film than what I used (other rolls from this same box have been good quite recently).

That leads me to think I'll probably need to dump the developer, and start mixing fresh tank solution and running no more than eight rolls (perhaps as few as six) in each batch to maintain the quality of my negatives.

 

[Rowreidr]

My update: 4 week old chemistry, replenishing dev, bleach, and fix. Rolls 6-11, developed in a single steel and double loaded AP plastic tank x 2 in succession. I upped the time by 10 seconds for the double loaded roll, but I am pretty sure I did not agitate enough in all the steps. One of the double tanks had 2 rolls of Portra 400. The base came out different shades of orange, one a little darker, but not sure if it was the inner or the outer roll. I explained to an experienced friend, who suggested I aerate my bleach (which I had NOT been doing), so I've been vigorously shaking the bottle and airing it out. Quick and dirty dslr scans (negs still in sleeve, handheld, jpegs) seem ok. This weeks plans will be to test re-bleaching/fixing roll(s) from last weekend and to develop one of my test strips to compare with baseline.

I have maybe 50cc of old dev replen (batch #1) left and 1L of 4 week frozen dev replen (batch #2) thawing. Not sure if I have time for this, developing test strips in 6 film canister. Would like to test the current replenished working developer vs fresh made working developer made from leftover replen (batch #1) vs fresh made working developer made from new replen (batch #2) in both the current replenished bleach/fix vs freshly made bleach/fix. Would be nice if I could use real test strips and a densitometer...

Donald, why are you using 80mL for replen rate? Are you using non LORR developer or am I reading the wrong table or reading it wrong? I'd also appreciate it if you have any thoughts before I go through my test experiment.

Edit: all rolls were 120. The double loaded rolls in the AP tanks were put onto a single reel, 220 style.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I may have been premature in calling myself near the end of the experiment. By the time I came to the end of the roll from the Loreo stereo camera, I could see it wasn't any worse than other rolls of that same expired Superia -- pretty bad when underexposed, but reasonably okay when the film got enough light. I'll be scanning a mystery roll (the portion that had any images at all) tonight, and start on the decider XP2 Super roll most likely tomorrow.

I arrived at 80 ml for the last batch due to processing 1x36 exp and 2x24 exp (and added an addition 10% of the 24 exp. replenishement because one was labeled as 27 exp). That's (as I recall, not at home at present) 33.7 + 2x22.3 + 2 (for the 27 roll) = 80ml as close as I can measure.

 

[MattKing]

Donald:
Any chance you could spring for some new film? Just as a check of course

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have, recently -- just haven't shot any yet (it was all 120, and I mostly carry 35mm cameras even though I prefer medium format -- a matter of size/weight and faster lenses).

FWIW, all my XP2 Super is fresh dated -- but of course that says nothing about color balance/crossover that might come from exhausting developer.