Archival permanence of cross-processed film

[doitashimashite]

Anybody here who can shine a light on the archival qualities of cross-processed film, as compared to the same film developed in the "usual" bath?

 

[Mike Wilde]

Some doubting here

I believe that Ron Mowrey (sp?); he goes by Photo Engineer on this site has mentioned, either here , or on other sites, that the dye couplers in the C-41 developer CD4 are tailored for negative dye stability, and that dye coupler in the E-6 colour developer and RA-4 developer, CD-3 are tailored for stability with their respective media.

We know that colour dyes will form when cross processing, but he has has misgivings about them being archival. There was also past commentary on the issues of difficulty of proper fixing of e-6, and the concern that a formaldehyde based final stabilization bath may be important for archival issues, even if it is not common due to current environmental issues.

On my own front, I have mis-misgivings about calling anything not straight black and white silver as archival. We know that even properly processed dyes fade. Well maybe not all - I think of Kodachrome off the top of my head as being very stable.

But I think that cross processing, while intriguing, and neat to 'play' with, is a long way from calling itself archival.

 

[Photo Engineer]

FYI, no photographic process is archival!

All I can say is that dyes produced from the wrong combination of coupler and developing agent may not be optimum for stability. I have run tests showing that CD4 and CD3 dyes from the same coupler can differ vastly in their fastness to light, heat and humidity. Other than that, I can't say.

For stabilizers, I know that formalin protects the magenta dye layer with some coupler - dye combinations and not others, and that formalin acts as an antifungal or antibacterial agent.

I have cross processed EPP in C41 and stored it for years with no problems, but that is no indication of what you might experience with more modern films.

PE

 

[Frank Webb]

Using CD4 instead of CD3

Anybody here who can shine a light on the archival qualities of cross-processed film, as compared to the same film developed in the "usual" bath?

I have been using CD4 for developing RA4 papers for quite some years beginning back in 1993 so this post about possible accelerated print deterioration has come as quite a surprise.
Reviewing my work to date from 1993 I would have to say that I cannot detect a difference to prints developed using CD3 to those using CD4. Most of my prints are stored in folders but I do have many hanging in frames and whilst there is a deterioration in colour balance due to exposure to indirect sunlight and room lights (which is to be expected), there is no immediate visual difference between those developed in CD3 (Kodak chemicals) and those developed in CD4. The prints stored in folders look just as good today as when they were printed.

I would have to agree with the comment that "anything produced in other than silver is hardly archival", I've never expected my colour prints will retain their colour balance beyond 50 years but at least there should still be a reasonable image after 50 years.

With my EP3 prints in frames it is noticeable that the yellow layer seems to deteriorate faster than the other layers.

Frank Webb

 

[srs5694]

Alternative methods of cross-processing...?

I've had a couple of idle thoughts about alternative methods of cross-processing E-6 film, and wonder if either has any merit, even in theory:

1. Use an E-6 kit, but skip the first developer and reversal bath. Presumably this would create a negative image similar to what you'd get in C-41 chemicals, but I don't know that for a fact.
2. Use a home-brew C-41 formula, but substitute CD-3 for CD-4. (I gather that CD-4 is about twice as active than CD-3, so you'd need twice as much CD-3 as CD-4.) I'm sure this would throw off other aspects of the formula, but as the goal is cross-processing weirdness anyhow, this may not be a big deal. The goal would simply be to form dyes that might be more stable.

Any thoughts on these ideas? Would either of them, even in theory, produce longer-lasting cross-processed negatives? Would there be other advantages or disadvantages?

As a side question, what would happen if you were to develop E-6 film in a B&W developer, stop it, expose it to light, and then run it through a C-41 process? I'm guessing you'd get a positive image, but perhaps with odd colors or contrast. I'm just wondering if this might be worth trying for whatever odd effects it might produce.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Here are facts:

1. CD4 is more polar than CD3. This means that the dyes formed have hue shifts, are oriented differently in the film, and have broader hues with CD4 compared to CD3.

2. CD4 is more active than CD3, but using 2x more CD3 is not the answer, as the reason is polarity and polarity trumps concentration in this case. The answer to making CD3 match CD4 is either to use benzyl alcohol or higher pH.

3. CD4 dyes, being oriented differently than CD3 dyes, are subject to more rapid dye fade. I ran many experiments along those lines when getting the patent on CD6 which is a variation of CD4 with its activity, but the polarity of CD3. This loss in dye stability is a fact. Therefore, couplers in C41 films are selected to be optimum with CD4.

4. E6 color developer goes to completion. It cannot be used as a negative color developer or it will totally fog the film and give a black dye image overall or at best a faint dye image.

Hows that for a list of reasons.

Way back when, I talked to Pat Dignan about this and he actually ran tests that confirmed my comment to him. He then went on to write an article about it just before his death. IDK if it was finally published.

PE