Kodak Gold 200 & Adox C41 kit - help with troubleshooting heavy colour casts

[koraks]

I'm still wondering though, how a pre-bath would prevent surge marks.

The magic keyword is 'wetting'. Agitation is also a factor, but working on a 'ceteris paribus' principle, I find that if the agitation is optimized for the reel & tank geometry, the addition of a prewash prevents problems I get without a prewash.

did you find out by experimentation?

Yes, bump head, analyze, adjust and evaluate.

The times for pouring and emptying may be too long for C41.

Depends on the tank but with Paterson and Jobo tanks this is in my experience not a problem.

 

[film4Me]

Depends on the tank but with Paterson and Jobo tanks this is in my experience not a problem.

It might be alberio's problem though.

 

[koraks]

No, it's not.

 

[albireo]

Hello both, it's actually an interesting idea probably?

With three stacked reels in my tank, and me pouring from a bottle and not from a jug (so rather slowly), I wonder if the reel sitting lowest ends up getting visibly more development than the top one.

I must admit I didn't notice significant differences at first glance between the three rolls, but I'll take a picture of the three negatives across a uniform background and sample the base+veil with the Photoshop dropper tool out of general interest.

Aside from that, I was planning on running a final experiment before going back to lab development.

Three rolls of Gold 200 from the same pack. Expose a colour checker on each roll.

Develop one with a fresh Adox C41 kit (minus the water stop) one with the Bellini/ArsImago kit and send the third to a good lab (I've been given a few pointers in another thread for great pro mail order labs in Germany).

Compare the three and stick with the best.

 

[koraks]

Hello both, it's actually an interesting idea probably?

No, think it through; you'll come to the conclusion that the effect you've observed is not consistent with a low fill rate problem.

Comparing the rolls sounds good; I expect this will exclude the fill rate issue as a possible cause. One reason why I expect this also is that you don't seem to have observed problems regarding unevenness on the same roll.

The 3-roll comparison is also a good idea. Be sure to use a proper stop bath or go from developer straight into bleach or blix. I prefer a stop bath because it reduces cross-contamination of the bleach or blix with developer. Especially with blix this should be prevented.

 

[lamerko]

• Temperature control: sous vide device clipped to container filled with water. Developer bottle, Blix bottle, and 1L water bottle set in sous-vide bath to reach temperature for 2hrs. Sous Vide set to 38.1

Those two hours seem like an awful lot to me. It's irrelevant to the problem, but still...

• Thermometer: I've used a Kaiser analogue thermometer as well as a baby fever digital thermometer to sample the temperature WITHIN the developer bottle and to double check the sous-vide is working fine. The two thermometers show a ~.3 C discrepancy. I set aside the Kaiser analogue and continued only with the digital fever thermometer, hoping it would be more accurate given planned usage scenarios (perhaps I'm wrong?)

I'm betting on the analog thermometer. I've seen scary things with the digital ones, which aren't so cheap...

• Temperature control: sous vide device clipped to container filled with water. Developer bottle, Blix bottle, and 1L water bottle set in sous-vide bath to reach temperature for 2hrs. Sous Vide set to 38.1

You can set a higher temperature - 38.5 even 39. Inside the tank the temperature is lower, but it depends on the environment.

Interestingly - this intermediate water bath is not present in the original Tetenal instructions

Look at the next page in the instructions - it talks about a stop bath

Also - something I've just realized, these instructions differ from the Adox one in another point - they mention a 'pre heat' not a 'pre bath' of the loaded tank.

There is quite a big discussion for/against. My personal opinion is that it is easier to bring the temperature within limits with a water bath. And that is how I proceed.

 

[vwalt]

I've no experience with 35mm film but I've had excellent results with 120 Portra souped in the ADOX C41 kit. I process at 30 degrees with a Heiland processor (no temperature control) and add 40 seconds for the temperature drop while developing (total time 8'40"). I blix for 7'30" and use a 5 minute pre-soak (no agitation) at 30 degrees. All chemicals including wash water kept in bath at 30 degrees.

Processing at 30 degrees gives substantial timing advantages in my opinion.

Exposure was at box speed and whereas the negatives seem on the dense side they scan beautifully.

Attached snip of the negatives (note the bright orange mask) and an example of one negative after removing the mask in Lightroom

 

[koraks]

the negatives seem on the dense side

This is at least to a large extent due to generous exposure. Especially frames 3,4, 8 and 9 received at least 1 to 2 stops more exposure than necessary. As you observed, they can still scan just fine; the main drawback with overexposure to the extent shown in #8 is that you tend to get a lot of highlight blooming.

Processing at 30 degrees gives substantial timing advantages in my opinion.

It works, evidently, but there's also a penalty in terms of color fidelity. This may be entirely acceptable especially when scanning, however.

 

[vwalt]

Yes, I agree that they are somewhat over-exposed although it was certainly not my intention. I was in a rush (and a bit lazy) and metered off the (convenient) blue sky which I accepted as neutral grey. That was my mistake I think.

 

[koraks]

metered off the (convenient) blue sky which I accepted as neutral grey

That would have resulted in 1-2 stops underexposure.

 

[vwalt]

That would have resulted in 1-2 stops underexposure.

You mean over-exposure? Sky was dark blue

 

[koraks]

Not as dark as you think! The sky is generally lighter than the foreground. It's also illustrated in your negatives; the sky is denser than the subject matter in the foreground.

 

[lamerko]

You mean over-exposure? Sky was dark blue

This is like metering into a direct light source - all other objects in the scene will be a few stops underexposed.

 

[vwalt]

Not as dark as you think! The sky is generally lighter than the foreground. It's also illustrated in your negatives; the sky is denser than the subject matter in the foreground.

Hmmmm but that would then not explain why my negs are over-exposed unless my lightmeter is way off. Goint to check it.

 

[vwalt]

This is like metering into a direct light source - all other objects in the scene will be a few stops underexposed.

Surely not when you spot meter at 180 degrees from the sun?

 

[koraks]

Hmmmm but that would then not explain why my negs are over-exposed unless my lightmeter is way off. Goint to check it.

Exactly; something odd is going on with the metering. What kind of meter is it and how are you using it exactly?
Btw, I personally sometimes use the sky for metering too, but assume it'll be 1-2 stops brighter than the main subject (unless the main subject is the sky...), depending on the conditions.

 

[vwalt]

Exactly; something odd is going on with the metering. What kind of meter is it and how are you using it exactly?
Btw, I personally sometimes use the sky for metering too, but assume it'll be 1-2 stops brighter than the main subject (unless the main subject is the sky...), depending on the conditions.

Using a Digital Pentax spot meter, spot on sky opposite the sun.

I've a day off and nice weather so will shoot a roll metering with two different devices

Thanks for the interesting comments

 

[koraks]

OK, that approach should work, although as said, it would result in underexposure instead of overexposure. Maybe the shutter on this camera is (very) slow?

 

[albireo]

I've no experience with 35mm film but I've had excellent results with 120 Portra souped in the ADOX C41 kit. I process at 30 degrees with a Heiland processor (no temperature control) and add 40 seconds for the temperature drop while developing (total time 8'40"). I blix for 7'30" and use a 5 minute pre-soak (no agitation) at 30 degrees. All chemicals including wash water kept in bath at 30 degrees.

Processing at 30 degrees gives substantial timing advantages in my opinion.

Exposure was at box speed and whereas the negatives seem on the dense side they scan beautifully.

Attached snip of the negatives (note the bright orange mask) and an example of one negative after removing the mask in Lightroom View attachment 394091 View attachment 394092

Thank you Valt, obviously we don't have a common control negative so I can't directly compare yours with mine, but based purely on qualitative assessment of your images yours look ok. I do not know however if the mask of Portra 400 looks comparable to Gold 200.

I had excluded a priori the 30 degree C option as I could not find any mention of a 30 C mode in the Kodak C41 documents, so I didn't want to introduce other variables, but I have a roll of Gold in 120 waiting to be developed and I might give my kit one last try before dumping. This would be the second use though, so I'd have to extend the times accordingly.

I hope you don't mind me saying - but your routine seems even 'sloppier' than mine and yet you get good results. I must be doing something really wrong.

Out of interest, do you have the batch number of the Adox kit you've used?

 

[MattKing]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Gold 200 now on Estar base?
A variation in the base material will likely make the mask look different to the human eye, even if it won't make a functional difference in the printing from the film - other than a change in base filtration.

 

[albireo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Gold 200 now on Estar base?
A variation in the base material will likely make the mask look different to the human eye, even if it won't make a functional difference in the printing from the film - other than a change in base filtration.

Just to be clear, Matt. The base colour was just a concurrent 'symptom' I decided to report. I'm not saying that what I'm getting, and that makes me unhappy, necessarily depends on the mask colour.

 

[MattKing]

Just to be clear, Matt. The base colour was just a concurrent 'symptom' I decided to report. I'm not saying that what I'm getting, and that makes me unhappy, necessarily depends on the mask colour.

Understood - but it seems to me that the base colour might be a symptom that is inherent in the film, not your process.

 

[vwalt]

Thank you Valt, obviously we don't have a common control negative so I can't directly compare yours with mine, but based purely on qualitative assessment of your images yours look ok. I do not know however if the mask of Portra 400 looks comparable to Gold 200.

I had excluded a priori the 30 degree C option as I could not find any mention of a 30 C mode in the Kodak C41 documents, so I didn't want to introduce other variables, but I have a roll of Gold in 120 waiting to be developed and I might give my kit one last try before dumping. This would be the second use though, so I'd have to extend the times accordingly.

I hope you don't mind me saying - but your routine seems even 'sloppier' than mine and yet you get good results. I must be doing something really wrong.

Out of interest, do you have the batch number of the Adox kit you've used?

@albireo: <I hope you don't mind me saying - but your routine seems even 'sloppier' than mine>

Haha, I don't mind at all

There is some rationale in my sloppiness

- I find the 3'15" base development time restrictively short

- At 30 degrees I can extend that to almost 9 minutes. I use a small Kindermann tank which is quite slow to fill so the longer time helps

- I use a TAS Heiland processor. Reason: because I have it and want to use it, it provides very consistent timing and rotation which is a big plus.

- Disadvantage of the Heiland: It's not temperature controlled so you lose temperature during development. In my setup, measured 2 degrees in 9 minutes. However the Heiland can be set to automatically compensate for that by extending the time.

I was out again yesterday (I'm documenting ancient fallen trees) and here is one example (Portra 800, exposed at box speed) developed at 30 degrees in ADOX C-TEK 41. The negative is slightly dense (overexposed) again. I'm still trying to find out the reason.

 

[albireo]

@albireo: <I hope you don't mind me saying - but your routine seems even 'sloppier' than mine>

Haha, I don't mind at all

There is some rationale in my sloppiness

- I find the 3'15" base development time restrictively short

- At 30 degrees I can extend that to almost 9 minutes. I use a small Kindermann tank which is quite slow to fill so the longer time helps

- I use a TAS Heiland processor. Reason: because I have it and want to use it, it provides very consistent timing and rotation which is a big plus.

- Disadvantage of the Heiland: It's not temperature controlled so you lose temperature during development. In my setup, measured 2 degrees in 9 minutes. However the Heiland can be set to automatically compensate for that by extending the time.

I was out again yesterday (I'm documenting ancient fallen trees) and here is one example (Portra 800, exposed at box speed) developed at 30 degrees in ADOX C-TEK 41. The negative is slightly dense (overexposed) again. I'm still trying to find out the reason. View attachment 394163 View attachment 394162

Thanks Walt - these things are of course personal preference and monitors etc play a role here, but do you notice a small cyan or perhaps greenish dominant in your example? Again, perhaps just personal preference or the impact of seeing this on my own monitor.

 

[albireo]

While I try to find the time to run my 'experiment' with a colour checker and three rolls from the same batch developed with three different methods I've exposed two rolls of Gold 200 in 120 on my Rolleiflex. I will develop one myself with the Adox C41 kit. The other one has been mailed to a pro lab which comes highly recommended. Curious to see what will be preferable.