Diffusion Transfer Printing ("Polaroid" peel-apart) recipes

analogwisdom said:

I wish I could give an answer and be correct. I used it based off of the SDS I shared earlier in the thread, and because you told me to try replacing the AEEA.

I increased the TEA to around 4% because I figured that DEHA is less stable than the DMEHA that Polaroid used, so the increased concentration of TEA would help with stability. I also figured AEEA is too aggressive as a secondary solvent?

Click to expand...

I think Polaroid also switched to DEHA later on due to supply chain problems with DMEHA. (I may have misundersood that.)

analogwisdom said:

I could also be completely wrong and got lucky, I'm learning as I go.

Click to expand...

As the saying goes, the more you practice, the luckier you get.

On the subject of surface plates for experimental papers: Polaroid engineers used glass sheets. Not as rigid as a surface plate but smooth, and a lot lighter.

alecrmyers said:

On the subject of surface plates for experimental papers: Polaroid engineers used glass sheets. Not as rigid as a surface plate but smooth, and a lot lighter.

Click to expand...

I was considering using glass before I bought the surface plate.

AliExpress has an interesting option here:


A piece of float glass from a gallery or hardware store might be good enough, too.

analogwisdom said:

I was considering using glass before I bought the surface plate.

AliExpress has an interesting option here:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005972671788.html

A piece of float glass from a gallery or hardware store might be good enough, too.

Click to expand...

I read an interesting discussion about glass vs. surface plates on an engineering forum, from the engineer's point of view. Glass is smooth but not very flat. Even float glass. Also, not rigid so it assumes the curve of the table underneath. Unless it's very very thick - as thick as a surface plate - in which case it's still not flat, but at least it's flatness doesn't change. And then it's as heavy as a surface plate, and costs more. So engineers who want to hone things can't use glass - it has to be the machined granite.

Whether flatness is all that important or not, I still can't say.

Analogwisdom, Great work! Congratulation!
May I ask what you used to light the subjects for such a low iso?
I resorted to high power LEDs as i sold all my speedotron gear years ago, even had two 9600ws heads!

Qebs said:

Analogwisdom, Great work! Congratulation!
May I ask what you used to light the subjects for such a low iso?
I resorted to high power LEDs as i sold all my speedotron gear years ago, even had two 9600ws heads!

Click to expand...

A regular camera mount speedlight has enough power for 16 ISO film. My little nikon sb80dx is good to 9ft at f5.6 set to iso 16. I've been using it for both my polaroid and ra4 reversal experimentation.

Qebs said:

Analogwisdom, Great work! Congratulation!
May I ask what you used to light the subjects for such a low iso?
I resorted to high power LEDs as i sold all my speedotron gear years ago, even had two 9600ws heads!

Click to expand...

Thank you. My friend on the other side of the country took the photos, so I'm not sure about his exact lighting situation. I know he uses constant lights, though.

My first run at coating positives, success! Obviously there's a ton of room for improvement but I'm ecstatic either way.

This is a silica + Nickel Acetate/Sodium Sulfide/Zinc Acetate recipe, and then 2% gum arabic on top of that as a "stripping layer". My first attempt without the Gum Arabic caused the silica layer to delaminate. You can see a couple of places in this photo where it did that a tiny bit, near the face and left side of the photo.

The developer is my "type 2", which I never actually wrote the recipe of down. It's TBHQ-based with no superadditive developer.

The negative was a spare Polaroid 8x10 b&w negative I had on hand (640 iso). It was processed using the Polaroid 8x10 processor.

Very excited!

Here's the recipe for this receiver (I'm calling it Rx-01)

5mL Ludox HS-30 (+ 20 mL water, see below)
5mL 1% Sodium Sulfide
1mL 5% Nickel Acetate
1mL 20% Zinc Acetate (+ 5mL water, see below)
10% Polysorbate 20 (1-2 drops)

In a small beaker under continuous stirring, add 5mL Ludox to 20mL water. After 30 seconds, add 5mL 1% Na2S. After 30 seconds, add 1mL 5% Ni(Ace), drop by drop. The solution will turn dark grey or black. Immediately add 1mL 20% Zn(Ace) in 5mL water. Add 1-2 drops 10% polysorbate 20. Coat solution onto baryta paper (Adox Art Baryta) with 10µm coater bar.

When dry, coat layer of 2% Gum Arabic with 50µm coater bar.

Please use proper PPE + ventilation and dispose of all chemicals properly.

Hey all,
So, I tried Potassium Bromide tonight to help bring back some highlight detail.
The concentration was 0.54 mg/L of developer and still it was too much.
The image was very low contrast. I even tried stopping down to make sure I wasn't over exposing but blacks were muddy or and not very dark and high light detail was worse.

Here is the current developer formula I'm using althought without the KBr.
Oh, and I'm using enlarging paper as my negative film as I hope to use
20x24" paper soon and I can't currently afford or justify waiting for the really expensive ilford once a year sale to buy actual film. Xray is out the question as I haven't found 20x24" sizes. I might try orthochromatic film as there is sizes up to aroudn 24x32" which my view camera can utilize. I might be using too much uracil but from my tests, it seems the original formula Alec posted was for xray negative film and paper negatives don't have enough easily accessible silver, thus you need more uracil.


43.6 mm of H2O
1.75g sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)
2.8 NaOH)
5.22g uracil pyrimidine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione
2.2 g diethylhydroxylamine (DEHA)
1.2 g aminoethylethanolamine (AEEA)
0.1g metol ( 4-methylamino)phenol sulphate )
I'm currently using the silica and Palladium Chloride receiver formula but soon will try the most recent posted receiver that Alec shared that resists fading. If image quality is worse, I will stick with the formulas I'm currently using but add the steps of using an air brush gun to spray a light coat of acetic acid on the print, letting it dry, then covering the print with an archival acrylic spray can varnish.

I'm also going to be trying Analogwisdoms, developer formula! Thanks so much for sharing!


Report on the motorized laminating machine:
I used this one but with custom chrome plated tool steel rollers.
Rollers were custom made by an Alibaba merchant in China.
For two rollers and them shipping back the original roller, it cost 1150 USD including shipping (which was 400 dollars)
The quotes I got from local machine shops were about anywhere from 1000-2000 for each roller.
The business profile of the company that made the rollers for me (if you're getting the same machine I can connect with their sales people and maybe you don't have to send them an example roller)


It took a bit of sanding to get the rollers back in the disassembled machine.
And it two three of us to install the really heavy new rollers, but you could probably get away with two people doing it.

I haven't yet gotten a good looking image from the laminating machine, as I only tested it tonight with the KBr containing developer.

Tomorrow I will try with the regular developer.
But I compared two prints, one processed with the manual roller I know I can get decent images from, and one from the new automatic/motorized process, and the image made with the motorized processor looks better. Less weird artifacts that I believe are because the polyeurethane rollers are squishy, and less weird lines, due to in consistent manual rolling.


Good luck everyone with your experiments!
And thanks again Alec for all you have shared and will continue to share.

Qebs said:

I might be using too much uracil but from my tests, it seems the original formula Alec posted was for xray negative film and paper negatives don't have enough easily accessible silver, thus you need more uracil.

Click to expand...

You might have more success switching to a Thiosulfate-based developer with paper negatives.

I finally measured the shutter speed of the Copal shutter in my camera, took some exposure measurements, and did some calculations: a sensible EI for the Fuji HR-U is about 1000 with the developer I last posted - if that's of interest to anyone.

Nice result @analogwisdom!

@alecrmyers : that's an awesome EI especially considering the fact that you get usable negatives from your process.

analogwisdom said:

My first attempt without the Gum Arabic caused the silica layer to delaminate.

Click to expand...

The silica takes 24-48 hours fully to harden. I have found that after that time it's almost impossible to remove the silica layer even if you wanted to.

alecrmyers said:

The silica takes 24-48 hours fully to harden. I have found that after that time it's almost impossible to remove the silica layer even if you wanted to.

Click to expand...

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for letting me know.

Do you think it's possible the gum Arabic layer actually did anything for me, or should I not bother?

Also, I found that the paper I'm using massively curls while drying. I'll have to figure out something to help with that.

Am I imagining that Polaroid film came with instructions about how to minimize curl? I think you're in good company.

analogwisdom said:

Do you think it's possible the gum Arabic layer actually did anything for me, or should I not bother?

Click to expand...

I think you established that it was protecting the raw silica. Whether it will be beneficial if you have hardened silica I don't know. I've not done any experiments with baryta type papers.

But if your goal is to breathe new life into the Polaroid processor I suspect you're going to have to get a working strip layer going.

Curiously, researching what's available from what the New55 project have left behind online (re-using the Polaroid physical process was an important part of their project), I don't think it was a big challenge for them.

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

Nice result @analogwisdom!

Click to expand...

Thank you

alecrmyers said:

Am I imagining that Polaroid film came with instructions about how to minimize curl? I think you're in good company.

Click to expand...

From what I've read, their solution with the earlier film was to include packs of cardboard with adhesive on one side for sticking the prints onto after development. Curling stopped being a huge problem around the early 80s, I think.

alecrmyers said:

But if your goal is to breathe new life into the Polaroid processor

Click to expand...

It definitely is. I want to get ahold of someone at Polaroid and see if they'll sell me some of the raw things that'd make my life a lot easier: Negative envelopes + tabs (hell, if the price is right, pre-sleeved B&W negatives would be fantastic), the leader that pulls the assembly through the machine on the positive, etc. Being able to load + process without having to turn out the lights is most alluring, and Polaroid 8x10 is the easiest way to do that for me, especially since I already had the holder and processor.

alecrmyers said:

I think you established that it was protecting the raw silica. Whether it will be beneficial if you have hardened silica I don't know. I've not done any experiments with baryta type papers.

Click to expand...

You're right. I need to just trust my own results and experiment more!

analogwisdom said:

From what I've read, their solution with the earlier film was to include packs of cardboard with adhesive on one side for sticking the prints onto after development. Curling stopped being a huge problem around the early 80s, I think.


It definitely is. I want to get ahold of someone at Polaroid and see if they'll sell me some of the raw things that'd make my life a lot easier: Negative envelopes + tabs (hell, if the price is right, pre-sleeved B&W negatives would be fantastic), the leader that pulls the assembly through the machine on the positive, etc. Being able to load + process without having to turn out the lights is most alluring, and Polaroid 8x10 is the easiest way to do that for me, especially since I already had the holder and processor.


You're right. I need to just trust my own results and experiment more!

Click to expand...

One of the problems the New55 project had was making the accoutrements of the process: the envelopes, metal clips etc. They had an appeal out for "investors" to send in whatever metal clips they could find.

I'm open to correction but I don't think there's a Polaroid in existence that makes negative envelopes or tabs any more. The new Polaroid company makes only integral film at the factory they bought in the Netherlands.

Come over to the dark side (no pun intended). Abandon the limitations of 8x10 and the past Polaroid physical process. If not as a goal, at least as a means to an end: I'm doing 20-30 test prints a day at the moment, and you have no hope of building and processing that many assemblies to put through your processor in that time frame. If you want to make progress you're going to need a simpler and quicker way to test ideas, even if you later want to go back and retrofit them into the Polaroid machine.

alecrmyers said:

I'm open to correction but I don't think there's a Polaroid in existence that makes negative envelopes or tabs any more. The new Polaroid company makes only integral film at the factory they bought in the Netherlands.

Click to expand...

The new Polaroid company actually does still make 8x10: https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/film/8x10-film

It's an integral film, yes, but it's still designed to be compatible with the 8x10 holder and processor of old.



Original (Type 804) peel-apart, and modern B&W integral (brown envelope).

alecrmyers said:

If not as a goal, at least as a means to an end: I'm doing 20-30 test prints a day at the moment, and you have no hope of building and processing that many assemblies to put through your processor in that time frame. If you want to make progress you're going to need a simpler and quicker way to test ideas

Click to expand...

You're definitely correct on that front, I totally agree. Making a whole assembly every single time I want to test something got old after only the 2nd time. I need to buy a new laminator machine and pouch and scale down to 4x5, if only for testing purposes.

analogwisdom said:

The new Polaroid company actually does still make 8x10: https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/film/8x10-film

It's an integral film, yes, but it's still designed to be compatible with the 8x10 holder and processor of old.

Click to expand...

Oh! That's right. The one where the developer leaks out of the sides all the time, and you have to disassemble the "integral" product after processing.

For a pouch I'm using two 8.5x11 sheets of black plastic (polypropylene, I think) sold as report covers in the binding supplies section of a stationery store. They're hinged with a strip of mylar tape. I've been using the same pouch for months now. Just wipe it clean after each print, and give it a rinse every now and then. It's also mostly light proof.

Here it is, also showing the developer in the dispenser gun (Amazon, about $50 - 1ml is perfect for a 5x4 sheet). The positive is attached to a strip of 2" masking tape, the developer is squirted in a line along the tape and the negative is stuck to the top of the tape as shown.

(Obviously this is a previous-used negative, as this photo is in white light.)



The negative is folded over, the pouch cover folded over that, and then it's run through the processor. When it comes out the excess developer is left in a puddle between the bumps which force the rollers apart as they go through (I confess I stole that idea from Polaroid.)



This is the result of that exact positive sheet:



What I'm seeing here is good tonality, and reasonable density. I'm chasing issues with the silica laying on the paper leading to loss of density and increased grain.

This is a positive paper made with silver nucleation particles. Anyone who has some silver nitrate and gelatin handy might be interested in this one. I can publish it if asked.

alecrmyers said:

Oh! That's right. The one where the developer leaks out of the sides all the time, and you have to disassemble the "integral" product after processing.

For a pouch I'm using two 8.5x11 sheets of black plastic (polypropylene, I think) sold as report covers in the binding supplies section of a stationery store. They're hinged with a strip of mylar tape. I've been using the same pouch for months now. Just wipe it clean after each print, and give it a rinse every now and then. It's also mostly light proof.

Here it is, also showing the developer in the dispenser gun (Amazon, about $50 - 1ml is perfect for a 5x4 sheet). The positive is attached to a strip of 2" masking tape, the developer is squirted in a line along the tape and the negative is stuck to the top of the tape as shown.

(Obviously this is a previous-used negative, as this photo is in white light.)

View attachment 416832

The negative is folded over, the pouch cover folded over that, and then it's run through the processor. When it comes out the excess developer is left in a puddle between the bumps which force the rollers apart as they go through (I confess I stole that idea from Polaroid.)

View attachment 416833

This is the result of that exact positive sheet:

View attachment 416831

What I'm seeing here is good tonality, and reasonable density. I'm chasing issues with the silica laying on the paper leading to loss of density and increased grain.

This is a positive paper made with silver nucleation particles. Anyone who has some silver nitrate and gelatin handy might be interested in this one. I can publish it if asked.

Click to expand...

I have the gelatin and silver nitrate...please post so can try this

Ok...

This is based on intelligence that the coated Polaroid product used a silver product called mild silver protein (MSP) or argyrol. That isn't widely available any more, but based on a long-expired patent for the manufacture of MSP, I came up with this:

5g 3% gelatin
50mg NaOH
100mg AgNO3 (dissolved in a few drops of water)

You get a brown, snotty mess. Blend well - two or three minutes on a stir plate gives you a more homogeneous grey suspension.

150-200mg (5 drops) of this into 10ml of Silica sol
Add 2 drops 1% NaS, look for a darkening as silver sulphide forms
add 2 drops of PS20 10% for plating

Plate on your favourite paper at 1 micron/10 micron/25 micron at your pleasure.

The silver suspension keeps for at least a few days.

For reference I called this paper number 252.

This is the best I've been able to get with the Cellulose Acetate (CA)/palladium coating, so far:



This is with Dimezone S in the developer. It appears to give a speed increase over Metol when used on CA paper, but first tests suggest a loss of density on silica.

Hi,
I've paused testing with Potassium Bromide.
I went back to the formulas I've used in the past.
Strangely enough, sometimes I got black snow flakes in the receiver after adding the NaBH4.
I think it's contamination from previous mixing of the receiver.
The stir magnetic bars seems to trap the converted form of Pd.



Anyways, now I've noticed, where developer sits, it's clean, whites are bright, and blacks are black (as good as i've seen). In the developed areas there is this grey overcast or tone. Things look muddy. Blacks don't look black and whites look muddy. Oh, and this is with a new paper negative. Everything else was with ilford, now I'm trying multitone paper.
I've noticed this before with ilford paper, but it wasn't this bad.

I'm getting advice from Chatgpt, and it says that I should do the following:

SUMMARY — SAFE ADJUSTMENT TABLE​

Component	Change
Polymer (CMC/HEC)	+25–35%
PdCl₂	−20%
Metol	−20–30%
DEHA	−15%
Borohydride / dithionite	−50% or remove

Can I get a sanity check?

Does anyone have any other recommendations?

I‘ll say it again. ChatGPT is not a worthwhile resource for this kind of thing.

Poat your recipe(s) and everyone can take a look.

analogwisdom said:

You might have more success switching to a Thiosulfate-based developer with paper negatives.

Click to expand...

Thanks analogwisdom, I think I didn't try thiosulfate as, if I recall, the resultant images are more brown/sepia toned, though I did buy a toner I haven't tried. hmmmm

You're probably right Alec, I just don't feel comfortable posting too many questions. I would feel like I was spamming the thread.

As requested:
I'm using Multitone RC paper as my negative and Plastic paper from Yupo as my positive.

Developer:
43 grams of H20
2.8 grams of NaOH
1.75 grams of CMC
5.2 grams of Uracil
1.2 grams of AEEA
2.2 grams of DEHA
0.1 grams of Metol

Receiver Part A:
10 grams of H20
100 drops of HCl
0.02 grams of PdCl2
10 grams of H20

Receiver Part B:
20 grams of Silica
2-3 drops of 10% PVP
100 drops of Part A
0.01 grams of NaBH4

From a visual stand point, it looks like the developer is over developing where the developer sits for a few moments as I syringe it on to the positive print.
Is it exhausting by the time I start putting the negative/positive/dev. sandwhich through the processor?