getting started with color developing: seeking advice
Josh Carter
I've spent much of my evening researching what it takes to develop color
film, and while I think I'm starting to get a handle on it, I'm still
somewhat lost. I've read the FAQ, used The Link to some degree, and dug
through threads in this NG, but I haven't found a good
starting-from-scratch intro to color developing. Following are some
scattered questions, and if anyone can point out things I'm overlooking,
please tell me!
From what I understand so far, a Jobo film processor is somewhere between
a good idea and a necessity for color, as the temperature and agitation
must be controlled precisely. This brings me to my first question: if
making prints isn't an issue -- my destination for the film is a film
scanner -- would I be best served by a Jobo CPE-2 or DuoLab (or something
else entirely)? It seems the former is more flexible, but the latter is
cheaper. I'll probably use this almost exclusively for 35mm, one or two
rolls at a time. I might do some medium-format stuff, but certainly not
often.
My second question is on color processes: I see various names tossed
around, e.g. C-41. Is C-41 the usual standard for developing color
negatives? Are there others? If so, what are the pros and cons of each? I
imagine I'll be doing color negatives exclusively. I'd prefer something
that's fairly painless -- the harder to screw up the better. The C-41
thread started by Kenneth Reed earlier was very helpful in understanding
C-41 specifically; I just want to know if C-41 is the "normal" process to
use.
Third, am I being completely stupid for thinking about developing my own
color film? My motivations are, in rough order: not wanting to not hassle
with going to the photo lab, which is often very inconvenient; wanting to
have hands-on control of the fate of my film (for better or worse); and
just curiousity (this is a hobby, after all). Some in this NG have
commented that one-hour labs have a reputation for screwing up film, one
person in the C-41 thread said it was very cheap and easy to develop negs
at home, another person on a web site said it's much more expensive than a
one-hour lab and developing color at home is crazy.
And, finally, is there any equipment I'm overlooking? Let's say I get a
Jobo CPE-2 with 1520 film tank and a thermometer, or a DuoLab, which I
suppose would do the same thing, just cheaper. Then I'd need C-41
chemicals. How much does this typically cost per roll of film? Anything
else I need?
Thanks,
Josh
[FYI, some background: I'm frustrated with digital cameras which, despite
$1000 price tags, still can't work in diverse shooting environments.
Nothing on the market under $10,000 can approach my 20 year-old Nikon FE
in terms of flexibility or even speed of operation. (Nikon is coming out
with their D1, which positively rocks, but it's still $5,500. No thanks.)
I'm thinking about getting a film scanner and starting to shoot 35mm on
the FE when my Coolpix 950 won't cut it. I'm spoiled by digital, however,
and want to retain the ability to get my pictures *now* instead of hassle
with developing by a photo lab.]
William Laut
:
: From what I understand so far, a Jobo film processor is somewhere between
: a good idea and a necessity for color, as the temperature and agitation
: must be controlled precisely. This brings me to my first question: if
: making prints isn't an issue -- my destination for the film is a film
: scanner -- would I be best served by a Jobo CPE-2 or DuoLab (or something
: else entirely)? It seems the former is more flexible, but the latter is
: cheaper. I'll probably use this almost exclusively for 35mm, one or two
: rolls at a time. I might do some medium-format stuff, but certainly not
: often.
Developing color negative film at home is not much more difficult than B&W
film. The two particular things to remember is that you do NOT use a
water presoak, and that the temperature (at least during the developer)
must be maintained at 100F +/- 0.5 degree. For some of us (like myself),
a Jobo CPP-2 is the perfect answer because all of the tempering components
(like a tempering bath, heating element, digital thermostat) are all
contained in one convenient package. Others in this ng (Ron Spiers is the
first to come to mind) have used nothing more than a Styrofoam cooler with
a couple of aquarium heaters and a Nikkor stainless-steel tank, and have
obtained equally-excellent results.
From a cost-justification perspective, unless you are planning on
developing *lots of film*, it's pretty hard to justify ANY rotary
processor for only doing color negs when the local lab will develop your
film for you for only $3 a roll. Factor in the (IMO) high cost of
prepackaged C-41 kits, and it's a no-brainer: Mini-labs are the way to
go, unless none in your area can develop the film to your liking.
The only way you can get the cost of C-41 chemistry down is to purchase it
in large (25+ litre) kits, or mix it from bulk chemicals. The problem
with the former is that the developer may oxidize before you use the kit
up, incuring waste. The problem with the latter is the startup expense of
buying the chemicals and lab scales (not to mention reversing the formulas
for your own use. :-).
:
: My second question is on color processes: I see various names tossed
: around, e.g. C-41. Is C-41 the usual standard for developing color
: negatives? Are there others? If so, what are the pros and cons of each? I
: imagine I'll be doing color negatives exclusively. I'd prefer something
: that's fairly painless -- the harder to screw up the better. The C-41
: thread started by Kenneth Reed earlier was very helpful in understanding
: C-41 specifically; I just want to know if C-41 is the "normal" process to
: use.
:
At this time, C-41 is the *only* color neg process still in use, although
some specialty labs might custom-mix C-22 if you have film that's 20+
years old. (This does not include those who like to respool color movie
film. That stuff properly is developed in the ECN-2 process, and requires
removing the anti-halation backing, not to mention two different operating
temperatures within the process if you're going by the book.)
:
: Third, am I being completely stupid for thinking about developing my own
: color film? My motivations are, in rough order: not wanting to not hassle
: with going to the photo lab, which is often very inconvenient; wanting to
: have hands-on control of the fate of my film (for better or worse); and
: just curiousity (this is a hobby, after all).
:
"Stupid" is the wrong adjective. "Innocent" is perhaps better. Once the
novelty of developing your own color negs at home wears off, the photo lab
option will look increasingly attractive.
I, for one, have been down the same path you're stepping onto, and about
the only two reasons I've come up with for doing C-41 at home is:
A) I legitimately cannot wait for the photo lab to process the film.
B) I'm making slides from my color negs (with Vericolor Print Film)
and I'm attempting to ascertain the correct exposure and filtration,
thus I cannot wait for the 24-hour turnaround.
:
: Some in this NG have
: commented that one-hour labs have a reputation for screwing up film, one
: person in the C-41 thread said it was very cheap and easy to develop negs
: at home, another person on a web site said it's much more expensive than a
: one-hour lab and developing color at home is crazy.
:
Yes and no.
Yes, it is easy to develop C-41 at home, however I would not ascribe
"cheap" to it unless Kodak has a line of chemistry that will last long
enough for you to use it up before the developer oxidizes.
If you buy one-litre or one-quart kits, then yes, most assuredly C-41 will
always be more expensive than the one-hour lab.
As for the labs screwing up your film, that's where you have to find a lab
which is trustworthy. If the "lab" is a discount drugstore with a
Fujicolor mini-lab in the corner, and someone making minimum wage is
handling your film, then you'd be right to be concerned. I would heartily
recommend you stay away from there.
OTOH, if you can find a photostore/lab that has a *real lab* in the back
area, then you can probably trust your film with them. Ask them if you
could have a tour of their lab, and look at it for yourself. If it looks
like they've invested more than $100,000 in lab equipment, I'd doubt they
would screw up your negs.
:
: And, finally, is there any equipment I'm overlooking? Let's say I get a
: Jobo CPE-2 with 1520 film tank and a thermometer, or a DuoLab, which I
: suppose would do the same thing, just cheaper. Then I'd need C-41
: chemicals. How much does this typically cost per roll of film? Anything
: else I need?
:
At a minimum, you'll need a stainless-steel tank (for better heat
conductivity), a Styrofoam cooler, some aquarium heaters, and a *good*
process thermometer, such as the Kodak Process Thermometer, plus a
reasonable timer and some film clips, graduates, etc.
As for chemicals, I think the Kodak kit is called "Flexicolor," although I
could be wrong - too many years since I used the Kodak stuff. If they
sell the individual components (developer, blix, etc.) instead of as a
kit, all the better.
Finally, remember that this stuff should be regarded as "one-shot," in
that you use the stuff *once* and then pitch it, lest you incur color
shifts and other problems. IMO, of course.
: Thanks,
: Josh
:
You're quite welcome.
:
: [FYI, some background: I'm frustrated with digital cameras which, despite
: $1000 price tags, still can't work in diverse shooting environments.
: Nothing on the market under $10,000 can approach my 20 year-old Nikon FE
: in terms of flexibility or even speed of operation. (Nikon is coming out
: with their D1, which positively rocks, but it's still $5,500. No thanks.)
: I'm thinking about getting a film scanner and starting to shoot 35mm on
: the FE when my Coolpix 950 won't cut it. I'm spoiled by digital, however,
: and want to retain the ability to get my pictures *now* instead of hassle
: with developing by a photo lab.]
For the price of high-end digital cameras, you're better off sticking with
your Nikon camera, and spending the money on a nice film scanner like the
Nikon LS-2000. CCD technology still has a ways to go before it can hope
to match film as an origination medium. It's great for the limited
luminance range of a scanner, but it's still clueless and hopeless for
real-world lighting scenarios.
Bill
Paul and Paula Butzi
wrote:
<excellent stuff snipped>
>From a cost-justification perspective, unless you are planning on
>developing *lots of film*, it's pretty hard to justify ANY rotary
>processor for only doing color negs when the local lab will develop your
>film for you for only $3 a roll. Factor in the (IMO) high cost of
>prepackaged C-41 kits, and it's a no-brainer: Mini-labs are the way to
>go, unless none in your area can develop the film to your liking.
The sole exception, I think, is if you intend to scan your film. A
friend of mine found that virtually EVERY 35mm c-41 negative he has
has longitudinal scratches on the base which show up horribly when he
scans them. I checked my c-41 negatives - same thing. We use
different labs.
My theory is that the processors used to handle 35mm film run the
film lengthwise and scratching is nearly inevitable, but that for
normal printing scratches on the base side make little difference.
At least for the Nikon scanner my friend uses, it makes a lot of
difference, presumably because of the collimation of the light
source in the scanner.
I assume that a really good lab would be able to avoid these
scratches but to my knowledge, my friend has not found one.
But you're never going to run your own C-41 for less than the minilabs
can run it.
(I wholeheartedly agree with all the rest, which has been snipped as
well)
-Paul
--
Articles on B&W photography, camera and equipment reviews, and photographs at:
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi
William Laut
:
: The sole exception, I think, is if you intend to scan your film. A
: friend of mine found that virtually EVERY 35mm c-41 negative he has
: has longitudinal scratches on the base which show up horribly when he
: scans them. I checked my c-41 negatives - same thing. We use
: different labs.
This is interesting. I don't yet have a film scanner and thus have never
run into this problem, although hopefully in the near future I'll have one
and then can see how well our local lab does their processing.
Some of the newer-generation (and admittedly more expensive) scanners
employ orthoganal scanning techniques to recognize minute scratches and to
correct for them. The Nikon LS-2000 is the one that comes to mind.
:
: My theory is that the processors used to handle 35mm film run the
: film lengthwise and scratching is nearly inevitable, but that for
: normal printing scratches on the base side make little difference.
: At least for the Nikon scanner my friend uses, it makes a lot of
: difference, presumably because of the collimation of the light
: source in the scanner.
:
In the machines I am familiar with, a special rubber pulley is employed in
the various tanks to guide the film through the machine, and are
specifically designed so that neither the emulsion nor base ever come into
contact with anything (except around the sprockets).
The only place I can think of where scratches could occur is when the film
is dried. Some cheaper designs use squeegees to remove excess moisture,
whereas the better designs use a venturi air scoop to literally blast the
moisture off the film.
:
: I assume that a really good lab would be able to avoid these
: scratches but to my knowledge, my friend has not found one.
:
: But you're never going to run your own C-41 for less than the minilabs
: can run it.
:
It's been awhile since I cost-analyzed it, but the closest I could come to
matching the price of a minilab was to mix the C-41 from scratch. Even
then, it took quite awhile to amortize the initial startup costs, let
alone the price of a Jobo CPP-2.
: (I wholeheartedly agree with all the rest, which has been snipped as
: well)
:
Thank you.
: -Paul
:
Bill
KHOwen
>From: jo...@spies.com (Josh Carter)
>Date: Fri, 30 July 1999 01:41 AM EDT
>Message-id: <josh-29079...@192.168.0.3>
>
>Hello all,
>
>I've spent much of my evening researching what it takes to develop color
>film, and while I think I'm starting to get a handle on it, I'm still
>somewhat lost. I've read the FAQ, used The Link to some degree, and dug
>through threads in this NG, but I haven't found a good
>starting-from-scratch intro to color developing. Following are some
>scattered questions, and if anyone can point out things I'm overlooking,
>please tell me!
>
I work for JOBO USA, the importer of Tetenal chemicals, so please consider my
comments accordingly.
You have already gotten a number of good responses, but I wanted to toss in my
two cents worth. Often the cost of C-41 chemicals will be higher than a local
lab, but not always. I just checked the LIST price of our Tetenal C-41 Press
Kit. The chemicals are powdered concentrates, but mix almost as easily as
instant coffee. Once mixed they are good for several months.
If you use the chemicals 1-shot, at list price, (and don't consider the cost of
hardware) your cost for a single roll would be about $2.60, based on 8 rolls
per liter, the average for Jobo tanks.
Our Tetenal instructions give suggested times for repeated use, but I would
only try that the same day as the initial use, since oxidation will set in
quickly after splashing around inside a rotating tank. But a 2nd or 3rd use
would obviously reduce your costs further.
As for considerations between the CPE-2 Plus and the DuoLab, your circumstances
make it a toss-up. All you need is film processing capability. As you have
already learned, the CPE would allow up to 5 rolls of 35 or 3 reels of 120, and
the DuoLab would handle 2 rolls of 35 or 1 reel of 120.
The main advantage of the Duolab for you would be the simpler temperature
settings. You simply set the thermostat at 38C and you will get it. No
tweaking needed.
If you have any questions regarding either machine or C-41 processing, I would
be happy to assist you. Also feel free to visit our web site at
www.jobo-usa.com to see more about our products.
Ken -- Jobo USA
sa...@jobo-usa.com
Jobo web site: http://www.jobo-usa.com
Josh Carter
well-taken and very helpful. I agree that developing my own color film
would be more a hassle than entertainment (after a while, at least), but
getting out to a photo lab I trust would also be a hassle. Sort of a
toss-up.
Ken writes:
> If you use the chemicals 1-shot, at list price, (and don't
> consider the cost of hardware) your cost for a single roll would
> be about $2.60, based on 8 rolls per liter, the average for Jobo
> tanks.
The 8 rolls per liter figure is very handy; that's something I didn't run
across when I was looking. Even at list price buying the 1-liter "press
kit," the chemicals come out a little under the cost of sending film to a
lab. Assuming I can buy a little under list price, and/or in larger
quantities, it looks the cost issues would also be a toss-up. It would
still take a long while to amortize the cost of the processor and other
hardware, but that's okay.
I think I have enough information to make a reasonable decision, which at
this point, is "maybe." I'm adding up the cost of getting back into film,
and wondering if I'd be shooting enough to make it worth the investment.
My Coolpix 950 camera is just good enough to keep me from giving up on
digital cameras completely, but there are certainly times where I curse it
and wish for my trusty manual-everything 35mm SLR. :) If I do wind up
buying a film scanner (prob. Minolta Scan Dual or Nikon LS-30), I think
there's a good chance I'll buy a Jobo CPE-2 or DuoLab, too.
Thanks again,
Josh
GREENSPAM
processing your own film. I shoot mainly 4x5 and I never have had film
processed outside of my darkroom. The cost in california is insane for film
developing (4x5).