C41 for RA4 papers?

I know that RA4 chemistry can be used for film, but can C41 be used for papers?

RA-4 all the way: I do the following: with Kodak dev/repl RT (roller transport) I mix as specified, then dilute that 1 + 4. I process paper at ambient (80F) for 2 - 3 minutes. I develop color film (at 105F) from 12 minutes (for ISO 100) to 16 minutes (ISO 800). I store the chems (either diluted or not) in clear, plastic soda/juice bottles) and if filled to the very brim, never expire (despite what admonishment might transpire with that statement). It works for me and will work for anyone. That is the most hassle free way to process color. Everything I do is 'one shot'. Color dev is very capable of such dilution and what 'fails' first is not the exhaustion of the developer but, rather, the presence of bromide that the film gives off. With color development a tiny bit of bromide slows things down tremendously, unlike with the more attenuated effect with BW process.

Also, I do not use or buy the BLIX. I use regular or even more diluted stop bath, then fix, then use a solution of potassium ferricyanide for the film (1 gram per 20ml water). That clears the film nicely in about two minutes and you need only enough to evenly coat the film (just use wetting agent); as this bleaching is a process 'to finality' you do not have to worry about unevenness. (NOTE: if you want slightly more contrast omit the bleach, as the color coupler plus the silver already there will add to the contrast.) Then a brief fix again (same fix) for about 30 seconds, then wash and dry. For paper, similarly, I stop and fix, then into a potassium bromide bath (this time far less potent than for films: only 1 gram potassium ferricyanide in 100ml water. That for about 1 minute, then, again fix (same fix) for about 10 seconds. Wash and dry.

I cannot come up with a more economical way to do this. The ONLY 'color' chemical involved is the dev/repl RT because the potassium ferricyanide is also a BW chemical. I buy from pdisupply.com in Rochester, NY.

I now know that no one cares about accurate dye hues or good image stability by the way you want to abuse your film and paper during processing. You may as well do things digitally.

If you wonder why I say this, see my other posts on similar or identical topics.

PE

I confess that I am not up to the scientific parameters that PE is. But, what I said 'works' and could well be a nontheoretical 'solution' to the solution problem for people who shun utter scientific precision in favor of a simpler 'pragmatism'.

I fully respect PE's caveat and am actually happy he muddied the water, because my 'science' is certainly not pure. But, in the real world, sometimes 'really good enough' is good enough. I have held prints done like this for a decade or more and they still look good, if not excellent. My ego is not worth defending (is anyone's?) over 'my way' but my post was simply meant to provide an easier approach than strict science dictates and mandates. We learned to tolerate utter garbage from phamacy 'one hour' stops (most of the time due to unexposure by flashes that were 'sold' by stating that they were more powerful than they actually were); this method that I have proposed is much, much better than that. But, it must be admitted that PE really is the authority here (and I say that with truth and respect). I do not have all (if any?) of the true answers and I welcome both sides of the argument. Both sides are needed. Few here might really care about the last amount of precision and, with many years of experience that we (or most?) possess with the color process, how many really believe, today, that the earth would come to an end (as at least I once did) if we dare to let the temperature deviate so much as 1/2 degree from the designated 'rule'.

This forum is not definitive, but, instead, evolving and dynamic. Clarification and augmentation are essential ingredients for us to all grow, both intellectually and pragmatically. In this round-about way both of us are 'correct' (but I would slant my life's worth on PE's more theoretical approach in order to cover every last possibility.) My way is 'easier access'. - David Lyga.

olleorama said:

I know that RA4 chemistry can be used for film...

Click to expand...

Please be careful with what you say. This is only partially true and may mislead the unwary. Yes, RA-4 can develop film and C-41 can develop paper but you won't get proper results.

RPC

Hold on, Mr "Holy Crap" Davis, the pure whites don't show forth even with 'proper' development and blix. My way has NOTHING (and I have tested) to do with the purity of the white base. (But it was fun to thrash me, right?) - David Lyga.

The reason I asked was because I wanted to know. Just curious.

Photo Engineer said:

I now know that no one cares about accurate dye hues or good image stability by the way you want to abuse your film and paper during processing. You may as well do things digitally.

If you wonder why I say this, see my other posts on similar or identical topics.

PE

Click to expand...

If I might add that this also applies to using cine color negative films for srill camerra use. These films don't quite match the color papers. The problem cannot be solved with filtration during printing. But you can choose whether the small color cast will be in the highlights or the shadows of the print.

In the mass color printing trade (drugstores and the like) it was said that there were only 2 primary colors not 3; these were puke and burple. Puke was greenish yellow and burple was bluish purple. Bad prints were either too puke or too burble.

Gerald C Koch said:

If I might add that this also applies to using cine color negative films for srill camerra use. These films don't quite match the color papers. The problem cannot be solved with filtration during printing. But you can choose whether the small color cast will be in the highlights or the shadows of the print.

Click to expand...

ECN can be printed, in the proper manner, to give superb slides and prints. Stay tuned.

PE

I am glad to hear this as I was given over 400 ft of ECN color film. Years ago the Dignan Newletter always cautioned people about the problem with color casts. At that time their were several companies that sold respooled Kodak cine film and returned both slides and color prints. The problem was with the prints only.

When I was in college I developed and printed many rolls, It was dirt cheap.

David Lyga said:

RA-4 all the way: I do the following: with Kodak dev/repl RT (roller transport) I mix as specified, then dilute that 1 + 4. I process paper at ambient (80F) for 2 - 3 minutes. I develop color film (at 105F) from 12 minutes (for ISO 100) to 16 minutes (ISO 800). I store the chems (either diluted or not) in clear, plastic soda/juice bottles) and if filled to the very brim, never expire (despite what admonishment might transpire with that statement). It works for me and will work for anyone. That is the most hassle free way to process color. Everything I do is 'one shot'. Color dev is very capable of such dilution and what 'fails' first is not the exhaustion of the developer but, rather, the presence of bromide that the film gives off. With color development a tiny bit of bromide slows things down tremendously, unlike with the more attenuated effect with BW process.

Also, I do not use or buy the BLIX. I use regular or even more diluted stop bath, then fix, then use a solution of potassium ferricyanide for the film (1 gram per 20ml water). That clears the film nicely in about two minutes and you need only enough to evenly coat the film (just use wetting agent); as this bleaching is a process 'to finality' you do not have to worry about unevenness. (NOTE: if you want slightly more contrast omit the bleach, as the color coupler plus the silver already there will add to the contrast.) Then a brief fix again (same fix) for about 30 seconds, then wash and dry. For paper, similarly, I stop and fix, then into a potassium bromide bath (this time far less potent than for films: only 1 gram potassium ferricyanide in 100ml water. That for about 1 minute, then, again fix (same fix) for about 10 seconds. Wash and dry.

I cannot come up with a more economical way to do this. The ONLY 'color' chemical involved is the dev/repl RT because the potassium ferricyanide is also a BW chemical. I buy from pdisupply.com in Rochester, NY.

Click to expand...

Thanks so much David for this description, it was really inspiring to read this.

I think experimenting is the only way to truly learn anything about the materials at hand.

And I'm also curious what results people been getting from using C41 on paper.

Thank you iranzi: this is my method through endless experimentation and it works as well as the 'standard' way. I must say that it amazes me that it is 'OK' to develop film in coffee and, some have even inferred 'urinol' but, heaven forbid, if someone like David Lyga suggests a deviation from the Holy Grail. That manifests as absolutely sacreligious and iconoclastic. (Especially coming from me.)

Why is it considered almost 'obscene' to deviate from the promulgated norm unless such deviations are 'trendy', like using coffee as developer or using a Holga to get the 'desired' light leaks, both of which I consider BS? (I neither drink coffee nor use it as a developer and I do not think that random light leaks are 'artistic' like some 'wannabees' do.) But, perhaps, there was an alterior motive here and this deviation gave one '8 X 10 professional' the opportunity to declaim such nonsense which was coming from David Lyga.

I did not create the world and will not be the cause of its destruction, but with a highly mature RA-4 technology that is (yes it is) waning and going to be gone within our lifetimes, why is my deviation considered so 'counterproductive' and ridiculous? Perhaps my outspoken manner provides fuel to such castigation. Perhaps my 'queerness' authorizes, or at least aids, delegitimazation. I do not know, as everyone here is but an 'avatar', thus never has to worry about actually facing the human being that causes such angst. I am used to such treatment from first grade, onward, but have never bowed, obediently, to those who wish to see me conform to any proscribed norm. And I had to stay after school many a time solely because I was 'set up' by others who wished to provide a vehicle for their self-exoneration. It's fun to castigate someone whom one knows has little support. I fully belive that the moderator would NEVER come to the defense of someone so marginal like myself. However, if the roles were reversed, he would in a heartbeat. I know my place.

Remember, a truism is not always true, just readily accepted as such. Maybe truth should be more of a prerequisite than mere fashion.

Diluting the RA-4 developer does NOTHING to deviate from the wanted hues. I have tried both methods and the standard dilution is, of course, quicker: it takes only about 45 seconds development time (but if you give more time that will not change saturation much). My method is extremely economical (not all of us out there are well-financed and this could be a help to those who want to explore other ways to do things). Countless times I have advised how to prevent developer (diluted or NOT) from oxidation by storing in clear, plastic soda bottles, filled to the very rim, which do not 'breathe'. Little is heeded for my efforts and the questions KEEP coming up 'how long will such and such developer last?' Really, Mr Davis, is my projection so very harmful to the newbies out there (or is it really my OPINION that must summarily be 'cut down' by more 'legitimate' practitioners)? My intentions are not to 'molest' such virginity.

Rest assured that Mr Davis's test will be 'extremely unbiased' because, surely, he has no alterior motive to deviate from forthrightness. - David Lyga

see below, sorry

No slander implied or intended, Greg. I said that your results would be 'forthright'. (Need I be even more obsequious?)

I have no computer so your results cannot be (readily) visually challenged and I am therefore, yet easier to refute. But we all welcome such refutation if such manifests. I am not unchallengeable. - David Lyga

David;

Greg's experiments have been so well conducted that I have had to modify many of my statements on fixing and washing as the results he got were clear and undeniable.

But, there is one thing common to Greg's data and your process data. That is image stability. Processing in coffee will not change the overall image stability of a B&W image. It is, after all, Silver! However, fixing and washing tests have the disadvantage of changing image stability and this may not be apparent for years. The use of a hypo test kit and a silver test kit will help pinpoint any residual problem.

In color, the change in image stability by using CD-4 instead of CD-3 cannot be tested except by draconian, lengthy and expensive tests. You are introducing this type of problem. In addition, the change in dye hue cannot be easily tested except by the use of a spectrophotometer. Again, this is something that our eyes may not see well in the film or paper print, but does surely degrade (or substantially change) color. So, your experience at "good" pictures might not pass the test of time, nor that of a good eye for color.

PE

David Lyga said:

Thank you iranzi: this is my method through endless experimentation and it works as well as the 'standard' way.

Click to expand...

Does this mean you have conducted densitometry on your method? If so, what were the results? Did it meet C-41 standards?

I have experimented with Dignan's room temperature divided developer for color negatives and while the results may be acceptable to some, I conducted densitometry on the results and the cyan curve had low contrast that was visible to me in the prints, along with overall low contrast. This certainly would not be acceptable to many. And the results varied from film to film. I can only imagine what your method is doing to the curves.

Greg;

Run an RA4 test strip in the C41 process as well, using David's suggested workflow.

PE

PE, I have no issue with you concerning the theoretical underpinning on CD-3 vs CD-4. But I do have prints made over the past ten years and can honestly say that there has been no change in hue or contrast. Maybe what Kodak says publicly is overly conservative and, in the back room, they know that people like myself will want other ways to work and so make 'slack' into their formulae. I do not know but that is a possibility. Of course the color prints are not kept in sunlight, as we all know not to do.

Note: bleaching slightly lowers contrast but also provides a somewhat thinner (easier to print) base. Sometimes if contrast is deficient (too little exposure) I stop with the first fix and print like that.

All the posted stuff having gotten me riled might have provided a definitive answer to a problem I had been having: sporadic 'greenish base' problem for years, cropping up unexpectedly, and was driving me crazy. Yesterday I decided to find out once and for all what the problem was. The negs are still printable with a greenish base but I hated the sickly green cast. And lately it happened more than not. I knew that it was not a contamination problem and I knew that it was not a light leak problem. PE, I need your confirmation here on the following finding:

I finally thought and thought about this and tried to mentally assert that the problem might be with the rehalogenization. PE, when one uses Potassium Ferricyanide (PF) solely in solution without fixer, should that bleaching be done in the dark? Might this slight fogging I was experiencing be analogous to when one places a piece of unexposed BW paper under light and about 15 minutes later it starts to turn slightly brown without development? When silver metal is turned back into salts (halides) should the process be done in the dark? I think yes now. Yesterday I tried several processing episodes with color negs and purposely after fixation, made sure that the bleaching was done in total darkness. Then, also in total darkness I refixed for a minute, then room light. Each and every time the base was beautiful orange as it should have been. Did I find my answer PE (or someone else with such theoretical knowledge)?

Clarification about my work flow: first when I say that you can store the dev indefinitely I mean any dilution you wish: either concentrates themselves, dilution per Kodak, or MY dilution (which is Kodak's dilution plus four times water). It makes no difference and partial quantities are, of couse, OK. Just always remember that the part A and part B MUST be air tight (filled to the rim of the soda/juice plastic bottle; use glass marbles or use tiny 50ml liquor bottles, with the metal caps, to even out the odd amounts). Part C is not vulnerable to oxidation but should NEVER be stored in plastic soda/juice bottles as the extreme alkalinity will eat away at the plastic: either store in glass or in the original Kodak container. Of course, mixed per Kodak or mixed per David Lyga will allow storage in the soda bottles.

Affirmation: again, my agitation is 'ferris wheel': the plastic tank is half filled and turned on its side in a tempered water bath (105F) and continuously turned on its side during dev, stop, fix. After fix, I inspect (magnifying glass with neg held up to a light bulb) the negs and cut them into three frame lengths (I like these shorter lengths). Then, without even rinsing, I turn off all lights and place them in the PF bath, one 'three frame' lenght at a time. I use a small, plastic 'tray' that a pen and pencil set came in and measures about 1.5 inch by 6 inches. I need only about 20ml of the PF bath to do the whole roll. It is a bit tedious but not difficult. Why use a pint of PF bleach to do what takes far less? (Not affluent here!) Then refix for about a minute in the SAME fix. Then lights and final inspection, wash, last rinse few drops of wetting agent or dish liquid, then dry by hanging up above bathtub.

For printing paper (80 F) , my dilution works fine: use 2 to 3 minutes at ambient (MY 'ambient' is 80F as I am always cold). CAPACITY: do not even try to use less than an average of 100ml of MY dilutions per 80 sq inches of paper. A little more is maybe better. My stop bath for ALL PHOTO PROCESSES (color, BW, film, paper) is only 0.5ml glacial acetic acid per liter (or 18 of the 28% acetic acid per liter). At these incredible dilutions the job is well done but do not try to use, again, less than the absolute minimum of 100ml per 80 sq inches of paper or film.

For those buying the dev/repl RT this following will be very helpful for mixing:

the 10 liter size (makes 50 liters according to my dilution) has the following concentrated quantities in ML: A is 500ml, B is 230ml, C is 500ml

the 25 gallon size (makes 125 US gallons according to my dilution) is: A is 2370ml X 2 = 4740ml total, B is 1422ml X 2 = 2844ml total, C is 2370ml X 2 = 4740ml total

Obviously, living in a 12 ft X 12 ft efficiency I do not mix all at once!!

Astute observers will note that the 'B' proportion is slightly different between the 10 liter size and the 25 gallon size. Why? don't know but I double checked and it is: on the 10 liter size the B has less than 50% the volume as A or C. In the 25 gallon size the B has MORE than 50% the volume as A or C. Just that way.

Also, please note that my recommendations are not the Rock of Gibraltar: they can be tweeked. For example you can dilute even further and give more time or dilute LESS and spend less time developing. I like to push things to the limit and see how much I can 'extract' from a process. This developer is very potent. - David Lyga

If you're spending hard-earned money (not to mention precious spare time, which can't be replaced...) on equipment, travel, film and paper, model fees, and all the rest, it doesn't seem logical to run the risk of messing everything up by not the using correct chemicals and procedures for processing.

(I understand, of course, that some people enjoy experimenting as part of our hobby. I do too, (in my case trying out long-outdated and obsolete films), but I keep that as a totally separate interest from trying to produce the best photographs I can.)

Oh, rest assured that I use only a tiny part of what I buy for 'experimentation' before I mix the whole lot. For example, someone wanting to try my way without wasting material can buy the 10 liter size, then draw out only 5ml of A, 2.3ml of B, 5ml of C and make only 500ml of MY developer. If decided that this is 'not the way to go' he still has most of the unadulterated developer concentrates to mix per Kodak. Likewise, when testing either film or paper I do not check whole rolls or whole sheets, but only a tiny part: maybe an inch of the film or a 2" X 2" piece of paper. Same results; far less waste and cost.

I think that you would be very surprised to see what I can get out of Vericolor that 'expired' in 1983. (I also pick up pennies from sidewalks but never stiff waiters or cab drivers when I have to indulge in such: it is called 'frugality' vs 'cheapness'). - David Lyga

You seemed to have solved your "greenish base" problem by fixing, bleaching, then fixing again. Why don't you do just it the correct way and bleach first, then fix?

RPC

Ferricyanide, when placed in contact with developer, gives instant FOG due to oxidation and coupling. Therefore ALL color processes that use Ferricyanide must use a good wash and clear after the color developer. This clear is an acid stop bath with some Sulfite in it.

The Ferricyanide must always contain Bromide and is best when acid.

And, when conducting image keeping tests, I have had people swear to me that the image was unchanged until I showed them a check example that had been frozen while the test print had been stressed with light, heat, humidity or all 3.

PE

Thank you PE. I almost got it right but you clarified further. I always wondered what the bromide was for. Any indication of the proportions of PF, PB and SS? Thank you. - David Lyga

Greg Davis said:

If I wanted to do my own accelerated stress/aging test at home, who should I talk to about setting something up and doing it properly? Your friends at GEH?

Click to expand...

The Image Permanence Institute at RIT is the place to go for this type of test.

https://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/

PE