Can we talk about film?

[bunnspecial]

Might add my two cents. I've been processing my cinema film in the same Cinestill CS41 chemistry (dev+blix) that I use for my regular color negatives. Everyone says that if you do process cinema film in C41 chemistry, you should use a separate batch of developer just for the cinema film, because even if an alkaline bath is used beforehand to remove the remjet, there will always still be some residue left on the film that could contaminate the developer. I've been doing something that might not be for the faint of heart: after a baking soda bath to remove most of the remjet, I go into my completely dark and windowless bathroom, take the film out of the developing tank, put it in a basin of warm water, use a set of sponges to wipe the entire length of the film five times, and then spool the film back into the developing tank—all in the dark of course. Five was the the magic number I settled on after experimenting, to ensure that the remjet is indeed fully removed. Since I began doing this, I've never had a problem with remjet residue in the developer, the film always ends up completely clean, and I've never scratched the emulsion—this might just be good luck, or maybe it's because I've always been extra careful. The only problem is I often have to wash my bathroom floor afterward because there will be black spots all over the place, which sort of confirms that what I've been doing in the dark is indeed working.

Also, I'd really like to mix my own b&w developer, since I already mix all the other baths by myself, but metol is basically impossible to find in the chemistry shops here in Taiwan. Of course there's caffenol…

Thanks for your thoughts and comments.

You're not the first person to recommend the Cinestill kit, but I'm also stubborn and a masochist. As I mentioned, I'm leary of Blix chemistry even though I've used it before, mostly because I know that chemically bleaching and fixing are different enough processes that you need pretty tight control of your chemistry for both to work well at the same time.

I think with ECN-2, I'm motivated to go the DIY route as much as anything because Kodak has actually published an official recipe and there's no reverse engineering.

I'm fortunate as far as chemicals that-with full blessing-I can order through work(and charge to my personal account) and have the "real" chemical companies at hand. I cross shop with Artcraft and Formulary, but the most recently purchased bottle of Metol(100g) actually came out cheaper from Fisher than from Artcraft. It was close, but some other things I needed pushed Fisher over the edge.

I was actually a bit surprised to find that metol was as inexpensive as it was given that it's definitely venturing more into photography-specific chemistry. That's NOT the case for hydroquinone, which has a ton of uses outside photo developing(and was super cheap from Fisher). It actually was the case for phenidone also.

I did just have CD3 arrive from Artcraft chemicals today. I did track it down at some other suppliers(CAS 24567-76-8 if anyone wants an easy route to try for yourself) but the price I was seeing was like $80-something for 10g. That's compared to $30 for 100g from Artcraft.

I've actually not ever dealt with Remjet, so I appreciate your tips. Unfortunately for now, I don't have a true darkroom, so I'm going to be dealing with it the best I can. My initial plan is just to do a couple of rinses with Kodaks prescribed prewash+agitation(offhand I think it's sodium hydroxide and borax, but don't hold me to that). I may regret it, but I've had enough issues with film transport in my first 65mm roll that it's pretty firmly in the "test" category for me anyway . I just wish I'd used the expired 200T or the 50D I got cheap rather than the good, in date 250D. At least what should remain of Remjet is on the base side, so post-processing wash to clean up the remnants shouldn't be a HUGE deal, and if need be I can always start filtering my(reused) solutions before pouring them back into the bottle too.

I'll certainly report here about my results. While I'm at it, I'm waiting for a wet scan mount kit for my Coolscan 9000, which will let me scan 65/70mm film. I've done wet scanning on my V700 before and have been really pleased, so I'm SUPER excited that this option is out there for the 8000/9000. I'll probably end up dry mounting most of the time, but the key with the wet mount adapter is it lets you mount film wider than a standard 120 adapter(although the CCD is still only ~60mm wide, so it won't get more information, just let you mount wider film).

 

[piatigorsky]

I don't know the price difference, but I buy vitamin C tablets and just crush them. I couldn't find powdered anywhere the day I wanted to develop and I was too impatient to wait to order (at the time, I actually had real developer in transit already). I suppose the tablets have some sort of binder in them, but I haven't had any issues.

Yeah, that's another point of consternation for me over here. I did some math a while back, and considering the dosage in the vitamin C tablets, the price of the tablets here, and the amount of vitamin C required in the caffenol recipes, it would cost more to get the amount of vitamin C (in tablet form) required for one liter of caffenol than to buy a one gallon pack of D76 powder. Not really worth it, since that one gallon pack of D76 is literally just a half-hour subway ride away from where I live!

 

[bunnspecial]

So Kodak is going to stop selling cinema film to resellers other than Cinestill. Maybe you already know this. But the little repackaging companies selling respooled stuff won't be able to anymore.

And I love caffenol!

I've been reading some discussion on it over at APUG.

You probably know this as well, but the real issue seems to be 35mm format film, and some have reported having zero issues ordering even single roll quantities of 8 and 16mm film.

Not to get too much into the weeds, and you may well know this Molly so I apologize if I'm repeating what you know, but part of the issue is that we're talking about two separate companies-Eastman Kodak(EK) and Kodak Alaris(KA). EK is more or less the remnants of the company founded by George Eastman(after bankruptcies, reorganizations, sell-offs, etc). They still have a lot of business ventures, but among them is the manufacture of light sensitive materials in what is probably the most advanced and capable manufacturing plant in the world for these sorts of things.

KA is an equity company formed out of a bankruptcy a few years ago that exists to market and distribute Eastman-Kodak made films for still photographic use(produced to their specifications by EK). With a few notable exceptions, KA has exclusive sales and distribution rights for still films.

EK continues to directly market/sell/distribute their other products, including cinema films.

Reportedly, there remains no issue with any individual buying 8mm and 16mm films even in single roll quantities.

The problem comes up specifically with 35mm. I think it came on KA's radar at least in part because their current retail price for Ektachrome E100 is $20+ a roll. E100D is quite literally the exact same emulsion(I don't think it has Remjet), just perforated with Bell and Howell perforations and sold in 400ft or 1000ft rolls. A 400ft roll of E100D is something like $520 direct from Kodak(don't hold me to that exact number) and can be cut and rolled into ~70 36 exposure rolls of still film. That's under $7.50 a roll, not counting the cost for the cartridges, etc(the 70 rolls number is already fudging a bit to allow for some wasted film-most people will say a 100ft roll of still film is good for 18-20 36 exposure rolls). I'm not sure if individual buyers were as much of a concern, but there are several small operations selling repackaged cinema Ektachrome for $10-15 a roll. I understand that's even more common in the UK and EU, where E100 runs closer to $30/roll.

With that said, all films are affected by this, including Vison3 films and Double-X, none of which have a direct still eqivalent(Portra films are derived from the same technology as Vision3, but Double-X is a dinosaur that's basically Super-XX transplanted straight from the 60s).

Cinestill managed to carve out a contract exception, but in a way their products really fall into a sort of unique/special order category for EK. Their color films are Vision3, but all are custom coated without Remjet. 35mm gets still-style perforations, and 120 is their real oddball given that someone wanting to make it at home can't cut a clean 120 width film from 65mm stock). Double-X doesn't have Remjet in any form, but their 35mm offering of this stock does have standard perforations and EK doesn't regularly make Double-X in anything wider than 35mm. I'm not the biggest fan of Cinestill for a couple of reasons, but have been buying Double-X 120 from them since they are the only choice for that.

Reportedly EK will still sell 35mm in small quantities if you can show you're actually shooting a movie with it, but at the same time there's a pretty small chance of a small volume user shooting 35mm. I think 400ft is something like 3-4 minutes at 24fps, so you need deep pockets to shoot anything of any significant length on 35mm.

I haven't heard one way or another what the story is on 65mm film. It's so expensive and the quantities needed are so ludicrous I doubt many are buying it for still use. Yes I was talking about loading it directly into a camera, but the ecosystem even supporting that is pretty small with basically only one small company supporting it(and they've indicated that they're on good terms with Kodak and don't see film availability being an issue in the future).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I’m glad I’m not someone who was shooting a lot of film 20 years ago, because the landscape today would feel that much more grim. Very high prices and so much less choice. Kodak has such a huge chunk of the remaining production capacity and they remain seemingly cautious/ambivalent about it in spite of the film ‘revival.’ With reason, but the cost of setting up a new color film production line seems to be an insurmountable barrier (with, I suppose, the exception of Harmann if their Phoenix production line succeeds?)

So many of the ‘new’ or different films available to consumers are just repackaged Kodak or legacy film stocks and you have to dig figure that out.

I’m happy with the B&W options available though prices continue to climb. Cost seems the most likely barrier to a bigger film ‘revival.’

 

[mollyc]

I’m glad I’m not someone who was shooting a lot of film 20 years ago, because the landscape today would feel that much more grim. Very high prices and so much less choice. Kodak has such a huge chunk of the remaining production capacity and they remain seemingly cautious/ambivalent about it in spite of the film ‘revival.’ With reason, but the cost of setting up a new color film production line seems to be an insurmountable barrier (with, I suppose, the exception of Harmann if their Phoenix production line succeeds?)

So many of the ‘new’ or different films available to consumers are just repackaged Kodak or legacy film stocks and you have to dig figure that out.

I’m happy with the B&W options available though prices continue to climb. Cost seems the most likely barrier to a bigger film ‘revival.’

I'll give you the point on the lack of variety of available films. But film prices are actually quite low on a historical basis. You can't compare paying $5/roll in like the mid-90s without considering inflation. In that era you could walk into a 7/11 and get a candy bar for a quarter. Now it's like $2 (maybe, I actually don't know since I don't really buy candy bars - but I'm always shocked when I realize they aren't $0.25 anymore).

Here is a post on dpreview where someone compared film prices throughout the years. 2020 seemed to be the low point, but we aren't super far past that right now.

Re: 3 rolls of 35 mm film have cost me $168.00 including processing!: Film Photography Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Also, Kodak went off line for several weeks in November to upgrade their production machinery and are now back online, so they definitely aren't ambivalent about production. Here is the article about the pause, but it's been reported that the work is finished and production has resumed.

Eastman Kodak pauses all film production in November to ‘upgrade manufacturing plant’

All Kodak film production will be paused while improvements to manufacturing are made, Eastman Kodak has said (Pic: Khánh Hmoong/Flickr) Eastman Kodak has temporarily paused all film production in …

kosmofoto.com

 

[bunnspecial]

Honestly, getting into photography in the 2005-2010 timeframe as primarily a film photographer was a "best of times, worst of times" situation.

Some of the good points were that you had huge varieties of film at hand, and even if they weren't strictly current production most were still fresh enough to be perfectly useable.

If you wanted to move beyond the basic consumer C-41 films(Kodak Gold, Fuji Superia, and still some Agfa out there then) just the variety would make your head spin.

We're use to Kodak now having 3 Portra stocks(160, 400, 800), 5 other C-41 stocks(Ektar, Gold, Ultramax, ColorPlus, and the 100 speed one whose name is escaping me now) and a single E-6 stock(E100). There are 5 B&W stocks-TMX, TMY-2, TMZ P3200, TX, and if you shoot sheet film you have TXP320.

If I'd walked into my local camera store c. 2005 and wanted Kodak C-41 film, my options were, offhand,
Portra 160NC
Portra 160VC
Portra 400NC
Portra 400VC
Portra 400UC
Portra BW400CN
Portra 800
Ektar was on the market a few years later...
All that's in addition to the full 100/200/400/800 Gold line. Plus most of the above were available as regular catalog items in sheets up to 8x10, and a few even in 70mm.

E6 looked even better, as I'd have my choice of
EPP(Ektachrome Plus)
EPT(Ektachrome Plus 64T)
E100G
E100GX
E100VC
E200
Elite Chrome 64T(very similar to EPT)
Elite Chrome 100(very similar but a bit lower contrast than EPP-IMO one of the best general purpose slide films ever made)
Elite Chrome 200

Not to mention K64 and K200(K25 was gone by then)

In B&W I could get
TMX
TMY-2
TMZ P3200
PX
TX
And even TXP320 in 220 rolls

Of all of the above, some was only available in certain formats, but the majority of these could be had in 35mm, 120, 220, and 4x5

I'm not going to pretend to list all the Fuji C-41 films, especially as I was never a heavy user of them, but they had in E6:

Sensia
Astia 100F
Provia 100F
Velvia(ISO 50/18º)
Velvia 100F

In the time since, the Velvia line has expanded, changed, contracted again, and now is back down to just Provia 100F, Velvia 50 and I think still Velvia 100 in Japan(but good luck finding any of them in stock now). The only totally unchanged one from then is Provia 100F.

At least since then, though, Ilford/Harman has not discontinued anything that I'm aware of but instead has added new. Ortho Plus has been "around" as a technical film, but offering it in roll film is relatively new, as is the data sheet geared more toward continuous tone work rather than high contrast work.

Back in those days, the local camera store would get $10-12 for most 35mm slide films, and B&H was about half that. I remember paying $5.xx at B&H for Velvia. 120 of any film type from any maker was usually 2/3 the cost of the comparable 35mm film, and 220 was usually about 1.5x the price of the same emulsion in 120. Most B&W films were under $5/roll even at the camera store, and if you were buying from B&H you were probably getting a multi-roll pack if you were spending over $10. I really miss being able to get 20 packs of film-in fact I still have a few 20 roll boxes of 35mm Velvia. It's hard to believe that a 20 pack then from B&H was less than a 5 pack today, and 20 roll boxes of 120 were under $100.

What I didn't appreciate at the time was that really the low prices we were seeing were unrealistically low. Kodak was still sitting on the legendary Building 39 with six coating lines that supressed 90s prices below historic norms, and when the film market collapsed in the late 90s/early 2000s, between consumers swtiching almost entirely to digital, the highest volume pros(PJs and the like) largely going digital, and finally digital getting good enough to woo even a lot of medium and large format hold-outs by the mid to late 2000s, Kodak had an albatross that could make film far faster than htey could sell it, and couldn't really be scaled down. Fuji has never been as "public" about their facilities/capabilities but it's not unreasonable to think that was happening with them too.

So, also in that period, emulsions were getting discontinued left, right, and center even with innovation continuing. The second generation Portra films, which I believe are based on Vision3 technology, slimmed the line down a lot. Current Portra 160 is basically 160NC-2, and Portra 400 is more or less 400VC-2. Ektar sort of filled the gap left by both 160NC and 400UC, but is definitely a different beast than the Portra films. I suspect that some other discontinuations in this period were Kodak finishing some stored master rolls and then not making any more of the film.

Inflation adjusted, I'd really believe late 2010s being a low point though. I remember when E100 was re-introduced, I REALLY wanted my local camera store to carry it, so had a handshake agreement to buy one brick of every shipment they ordered. I remember my first brick being $129.90(12.99 a roll), which was high especially considering that I could get a 5 roll box of Velvia for $50-something-dollars, but I'd gladly take those prices now. About the most expensive 120 films I remember B&H selling in those days were running ~$50 for a box of 5, and Tri-X was under $30. Now Tri-X is almost $50, and we won't even go there on slide film.

Still, though, I'm just glad we can get it, and I'm hoping that Kodak's recent expansion is a good sign of the market conditions.

 

[bunnspecial]

BTW, my first try with home made ECN-2(following Kodak recipes and using the ferricyanide bleach). This was on 65mm Vison3 250D.

Washing in Kodak's pre-wash, even with agitation, loosened but did not remove the Remjet. There's still enough hanging around that I really need to go back and re-wash it...

I need to get into a proper darkroom so that I do this off-reel...

Fogging in the middle is from failed attempts at loading the film in an A70 back that was acting up. The frame spacing seems wide to me-I want to go back and compare it to how these backs space with the conventional sprocket and type 2 perf film.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I'll give you the point on the lack of variety of available films. But film prices are actually quite low on a historical basis.

Fair. I bought plenty of film back in the 90s for my point and shoot, of course. But I was no hobbyist, so I really don’t remember what it cost. And I wasn’t buying ‘pro’ film stock at any rate.

But back then you could go to any camera store (when such stores existed everywhere!) and had a lot of choice in terms of film. I remember seeing so many more varieties of Fuji and Kodak, not to mention Agfa and some other brands that no longer exist.

I suppose digital photography has really made photography exponentially cheaper, it’s easy to forget what I used to pay for my own photos….and I guess we should be grateful that any consumer film production survived the digital turn in the first place.

The loss of Superia X-Tra recently was a real disappointment, it was the first color I began shooting when I got back to using film and I liked the way it looked.

 

[bunnspecial]

But back then you could go to any camera store (when such stores existed everywhere!) and had a lot of choice in terms of film. I remember seeing so many more varieties of Fuji and Kodak, not to mention Agfa and some other brands that no longer exist.

I suppose digital photography has really made photography exponentially cheaper, it’s easy to forget what I used to pay for my own photos….and I guess we should be grateful that any consumer film production survived the digital turn in the first place.

The loss of Superia X-Tra recently was a real disappointment, it was the first color I began shooting when I got back to using film and I liked the way it looked.

Agfa actually still exists and still makes film, but they no longer market directly to consumers. AFAIK, they no longer make color. Rollei brand films, among others, are rebadged Agfa. There are a few companies using former Agfa coating machinery as well.

Pretty much all the extended red sensitivity films on the market now days(sometimes marketed as IR films, but not as IR sensitive in the vein of films like Kodak HIE) are based on Agfa Aviphot. I have a few prized 100ft rolls of it in 70mm..

Fuji is the big unknown at this point, with very few remaining stocks left in their portfolio. I don't think Fuji is making any color negative film. Acros II is made by Ilford. Their current consumer negative film is Kodak Gold under a different name. RVP-50 and RDP-III, and possibly also RVP-100, appear to be their remaining products but they really are trickling out. B&H had 120 RVP-50 in stock a week or two ago, and it sold out in a half hour. There are some rumors floating around the internet that Fuji is only cutting stock-piled master rolls and not coating anything new, but I tend to not believe that for a few reasons. I just think Fuji is dedicating most of their production capacity to Instax.

On the whole, though, I'm optimistic about the current outlook for film. I'd like to think that the current resurgence is more than just a trend and there's some staying power as an actual artistic choice/medium, but we will see. Global demand is pointing in the right direction, and if I'm not mistaken Hollywood is using more film than they were a decade ago. 4 minutes of movie on 35mm use more film than most still photographers will use in a year, so really in a way Hollywood continues to subsidise film for still photographers, even if there's no real cross-over on stocks used now(just shared production/coating facilities).

 

[mollyc]

@bunnspecial have you scanned any of these recent images that you can share?

 

[bunnspecial]

@bunnspecial have you scanned any of these recent images that you can share?

Not yet, no.

I'm actually without a way to scan 65/70mm at the moment. I am going to be getting my V700 out of storage next week, and can scan on that using the fluid mount(most likely dry unless I see a reason to wet scan).

As a better solution, I am also waiting on a fluid mount for my Coolscan 9000. Like the Epson mount, it can be used dry too. Neither 65 nor 70mm will work in any of the holders I have now for it.

I do have some scans of some recent 120 and 35mm I do need to share-just a matter of getting them off my Mac Pro and onto another computer...

 

[carylee2002]

Is there still any advantage of wet scanning anymore? You would think that software technology can get practically all the flaws out when editing your pics unless your source is really dirty.

 

[MajorFubar]

Is it OK to post photos of our gear here? I guess I'll find out.

On the analog-photography front I'm a bit of an Olympus-holic, which all goes back to my dad's Olympus OM10QD which he owned when I was an impressionable young teen. I now have six Olympus SLRs (pictured below), plus a 35RC rangefinder, a Trip 35, and a Yashica FRII, which was the camera my dad owned directly before the OM10QD.



I was always impressed by how Olympus cameras did things just a little bit differently, such as having the shutter-speed dial round the throat of the lens aperture so that speed/aperture/focus could all be adjusted with one hand with the camera to your eye. Of that collection, my most recent aquisition has been the M1 on the top left, which took me years to find in great condition. My most treasured would be my Dad's OM10QD (top right) and my OM4Ti (bottom right) which i purshased second hand for £350 in 2001 and was the camera I took into hospital to take photos of my premature twins in their incubators in February 2002. The OM10QD needs a fresh lens cap because I dropped the original overboard a boat in Torquay, Devon, England, in July 2000, taking this shot (film was the much-missed Fuji Sensia):

 

[bunnspecial]

Is there still any advantage of wet scanning anymore? You would think that software technology can get practically all the flaws out when editing your pics unless your source is really dirty.

It has its place, although for me isn't a first line technique. With that said, when I was still primarily using my V700, my first wet scans of transparencies I'd scanned many times before absolutely blew me away.

The absolute best thing for any workflow is scrupulously clean film in perfect condition, and scanned in a holder that manages to keep it perfectly flat without glass.

After that, for color film, Digital ICE, preferably with the hardware implementation like Nikon used(where the IR channel gets captured along with the the other RGB channels, not Epson where it's a separate scan pass) is the next best thing. I should say too that I'm referring to real ICE, not the other algorithms in software like Vuescan that use the IR channel scan but not the ICE algorithms. Of course too Kodachrome is off limits for ICE in most scanners, and real B&W off limits for all.

If film flatness is an issue, dry glass scanning is an option, but of course Newton Rings are always a problem unless you use AN glass. Done right, and with reasonably dense film, resolution loss is minimal, but most scanners can't use ICE with AN glass(thank you Nikon CS 9000!). I've still seen thin film give Newton Rings on the emulsion side, and the choice there is either deal with them or deal with the resolution loss of AN glass on the emulsion side.

Fluid mounting solves all the potential ills of dry glass mounting, basically makes dust a non-issue, and in my experience it will minimize the appearance of scratches and other emulsion defects. It's not a "magic bullet" but it's a solution for specific situations, especially with B&W film. That's why I'm quite excited to learn that there's an aftermarket option for the 9000.

With that said, my real reference to both the fluid mount for the V700 and for the 9000 is that both systems CAN be used dry, and both offer a lot more flexibility on film size than pretty much any other option. On the V700, using the fluid bed dry, which I've done, is ultimately a better option for several reasons than scanning directly on the scanner glass, not the least of which is that it lets you use the "film scanning" lens in the scanner. I could probably accomplish the same thing with the Nikon scanner and the rotating Nikon glass holder, but what I'm paying for the custom fluid mount holder is 1/3 of what the Nikon glass holder sells for.

 

[bunnspecial]

I've been getting a bit more adventurous recently with doing my own processing.

C41 is expensive and inconvenient any way I do it(unless I go the Wal-mart route and don't get my negatives back in 35mm). E6 is awful these days-it's expensive, few and far between, quality is inconsistent, and it's often slow on top of that(I'm still waiting to get some back I sent off in November).

I've been a bit reluctant to do either at home because most of the home kits are 2 bath for C-41 or 3 bath for E6. Finding formulae for home-brew developers is not easy either. There was a post on Reddit a while back where someone used HC110(A) for first developer followed by light reversal and then ECN-2. I thought it had merit as ECN-2 and E6 both use the same color developer(CD-3, as opposed to CD-4 in C-41). I tried a tweak of that with a purpose-made E6 first developer, and got images but they left a lot to be desired.

Kodak-branded C-41 kits are available again, and actually quite affordable, so I've processed a bunch of C-41 in that. I'm reluctant to show any of those as they're mostly family images, but have been happy. As a bonus, I had a roll of Techpan I'd shot and was at a loss for how to process given that I didn't have an Technidol, but a lot of people recommend using C-41 developer for it. I was also pleased with that.

There is a nice 1L, moderately priced 6 bath E6 kit available from the Italian company Bellini. I mixed it up yesterday and processed a few rolls of film, and I'm super happy with it.

Here's one-a night photo from our snow a few weeks ago. This is on Provia 100F. I don't remember my exposure data, but I bracketed exposures of several seconds to account for reciprocity failure. This was with a Hasselblad 150mm Sonnar, showing itself with the 5 bladed aperture(by biggest criticism of a lot of Hasselblad lenses) and a lot of internal reflection. It makes me wonder if the T* version of the lens would have handled this better, but I think in this case the various internal reflections add to the image.

Not the most artistic work by any means, but I do like it...

I'm still waiting on my wet mount adapter for the 9000 to be finished so that I can scan some 65 and 70mm film, although I did buy a cheap Epson 4990 since I wasn't able to retrieve my V700 at Christmas like I'd intended.

 

[mackmgg]

So far I’ve been pretty happy with the Cinestill CS41 kit. Unless you’re developing a lot it’s significantly cheaper than the Kodak kit (the Kodak one has a reasonably short shelf life considering it only comes in 2.5L and up). I still send E6 out, and sometimes C41 as well if I’m busy or lazy. I’m lucky enough to have a local camera store (Mike’s Camera) which is pretty cheap and usually same or next day for C41. Takes a bit longer for E6, though last time it was still only a week (except I didn’t notice their call so I didn’t actually pick up the film for over a month, oops). Haven’t tried E6 at home yet, and with how expensive the film is I don’t know that I’ll try it any time soon.

Here’s one I shot this weekend on Gold 200:

 

[bunnspecial]

So far I’ve been pretty happy with the Cinestill CS41 kit. Unless you’re developing a lot it’s significantly cheaper than the Kodak kit (the Kodak one has a reasonably short shelf life considering it only comes in 2.5L and up). I still send E6 out, and sometimes C41 as well if I’m busy or lazy. I’m lucky enough to have a local camera store (Mike’s Camera) which is pretty cheap and usually same or next day for C41. Takes a bit longer for E6, though last time it was still only a week (except I didn’t notice their call so I didn’t actually pick up the film for over a month, oops). Haven’t tried E6 at home yet, and with how expensive the film is I don’t know that I’ll try it any time soon.

That's a great photo!

I've used a few Blix-based kits over the years and I've never been completely happy with them. The Kodak kit is one of the few options out there that doesn't use Blix.

A 5L Kodak kit is ~$85 from Freestyle. I only mixed 1L for my first round from it, and the opened concentrate is rated for several months after opening, so I feel pretty sure I can use up enough to make it worthwhile. We'll see how that actually plays out longer term. I'm going to be mixing my second liter of it this week most likely(I have a few more rolls to develop, including 2x 220 rolls) so I'm already nearly at a wash compared to the $33 Cinestill kit. We'll see longer term, but I'm optimistic about the value of this one aside from it being a my preferred type of chemistry.

I probably should be ashamed of the amount of frozen slide film I have and have never shot. I actually had to dig to find some in-date just for checking out the Bellini kit. I felt that I could afford to "waste" a roll or two nailing it down, and the $55 kit comes out ahead even at 4 rolls processed for me.

 

[mackmgg]

That's a great photo!

I've used a few Blix-based kits over the years and I've never been completely happy with them. The Kodak kit is one of the few options out there that doesn't use Blix.

A 5L Kodak kit is ~$85 from Freestyle. I only mixed 1L for my first round from it, and the opened concentrate is rated for several months after opening, so I feel pretty sure I can use up enough to make it worthwhile. We'll see how that actually plays out longer term. I'm going to be mixing my second liter of it this week most likely(I have a few more rolls to develop, including 2x 220 rolls) so I'm already nearly at a wash compared to the $33 Cinestill kit. We'll see longer term, but I'm optimistic about the value of this one aside from it being a my preferred type of chemistry.

I probably should be ashamed of the amount of frozen slide film I have and have never shot. I actually had to dig to find some in-date just for checking out the Bellini kit. I felt that I could afford to "waste" a roll or two nailing it down, and the $55 kit comes out ahead even at 4 rolls processed for me.

Thanks!

So far I haven’t had issues with a Blix, but I guess I’ve never tried the separate bleach and fix to compare against!

The nice thing at least is the Kodak bleach/fixer have much longer shelf lives than the developer. So even once the developer expires you could buy the Cinestill Cd41 which is only $15 and then use the Kodak bleach and fixer instead of a whole new Kodak kit if you’ve still got some left.

Based on my last kit I ended up developing about 10 rolls before it expired, so at $3/roll it’s not bad but I just saw Cinestill now sells a 500ml kit rated for 12 rolls for half the price of the 1L kit. If I get a similar number out of my current kit I think that’s what I may do next time. The downside being I could only develop 1 roll at a time with only 500ml in a Patterson tank. I guess I just need to shoot and develop more film! Sure does go fast when I use my 6x9 camera at only 8 shots per roll…

 

[bunnspecial]

Thanks!

So far I haven’t had issues with a Blix, but I guess I’ve never tried the separate bleach and fix to compare against!

The nice thing at least is the Kodak bleach/fixer have much longer shelf lives than the developer. So even once the developer expires you could buy the Cinestill Cd41 which is only $15 and then use the Kodak bleach and fixer instead of a whole new Kodak kit if you’ve still got some left.

Based on my last kit I ended up developing about 10 rolls before it expired, so at $3/roll it’s not bad but I just saw Cinestill now sells a 500ml kit rated for 12 rolls for half the price of the 1L kit. If I get a similar number out of my current kit I think that’s what I may do next time. The downside being I could only develop 1 roll at a time with only 500ml in a Patterson tank. I guess I just need to shoot and develop more film! Sure does go fast when I use my 6x9 camera at only 8 shots per roll…

One of my issues with blix is that it's difficult for one solution to do two jobs well. Bleach and fix are somewhat compatible as bleach likes acidic conditions and fixer can work over a wide range of pHs, but bleach also loves air(you can actually partial regenerate it by shaking the bottle) and air is somewhat detrimental to fix.

As a nice bonus to using separate kits, Kodak Flexicolor III Fix is honestly one of the all around best fixers on the market. If you do B&W also, it's a wonderful B&W fix. It keeps forever, is cheap for volume, and it's near neutral. Most B&W targeted rapid fixers tend toward acidic, but neutral and basic fixes actually have quite a few advantages(among them easier washing as higher pHs increase gelatin swell). So, I've actually put off mixing a fresh batch of B&W-specific fixer and have been using the C-41 fixer for everything since mixing the kit. I probably am at close to exhaustion on it, but I certainly got my money's worth.

The Kodak developer can be replenished if you want to go that route, although replenisher is only sold in large enough quantities that it doesn't make sense unless you're doing high volumes. The Kodak kit is 3 concentrates for the developer, and IIRC for best storage the CD-4 is kept more or less separate from everything else as it has a short life in an active developer.

It is a shame that Kodak doesn't give you 2x the volume of developer in the kit as they do the other chemistry, though. I've been told that even conservative capacities for the kit are that the bleach and fix are good for about twice as much film as the developer, and of course as you point out it is the one to go off.

I've considered buying some of the Bellini C-41 developer too.

I just wish I could find a GOOD recipe for scratch mix C-41 developer. CD-4 is easy enough to get, and I'd expect there's nothing else particularly exotic in it, but I've not seen a proper one. I don't have the facilities to really analyze the Kodak working solutions...