Fibre based paper storage in a freezer?

[chiller]

I have the opportunity to purchase a 1.27mt [50inch] by 30.5 mt [100feet] roll of Agfa classic 111 Fibre based multicontrast paper.

Does anyone have experience with storing paper such as this for long term use?
I can cut the roll to give me 2x -- 25 inchesx100 feet so freezer storage is possibble.

Does this fibre based paper have developers built into the emulsion or is that usually only RC papers.

I can cut the roll into standard sizes but that defeats the idea of a variable sized paper supply.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Some modern papers contain deveoping agents. If this is so, then refrigeration will not help as much as with other photo products due to aerial oxidation of the developing agent.

Also, in general, FB papers don't keep as well as RC papers.

These are just comments from experience, as I have never had experience with this particular paper.

PE

 

[Travis Nunn]

...Also, in general, FB papers don't keep as well as RC papers...

That's kind of suprising. I had always just assumed FB would keep better.

 

[Photo Engineer]

That's kind of suprising. I had always just assumed FB would keep better.

Why?

The chemistry put into the emulsion layer and coated on RC stays there, on FB it gradually diffuses throughout the entire paper support. At the same time any chemicals in the RC stay put, but chemicals in the FB paper stock diffuse into the emulsion.

This imbalance created by gradual diffusion is the reason for the difference.

There are my reasons, learned by hard experience. I really would be interested in your reasoning to the contrary.

PE

 

[Peter Schrager]

Paper

I was always under the impression that it was the developer incorporated papers that were the one that did not last. I have a bunch of 15 year old Oriental that works just fine. Stored long term in a deep freezer.
Best, Peter

 

[chiller]

My uncertainty is whether Agfa incorporated developing agents in the emulsion of the Multicontrast 111 FB glossy.

 

[Travis Nunn]

Why?

The chemistry put into the emulsion layer and coated on RC stays there, on FB it gradually diffuses throughout the entire paper support. At the same time any chemicals in the RC stay put, but chemicals in the FB paper stock diffuse into the emulsion.

This imbalance created by gradual diffusion is the reason for the difference.

There are my reasons, learned by hard experience. I really would be interested in your reasoning to the contrary.

PE

Easy there chief. I wasn't trying to debate whether you are right or not. I'm sure you've forgotten more about photo chemistry than I'll ever know. The reason I assumed so is because I have used 10 year old FB that turned out just fine. I don't know if it was frozen, refrigerated or not, someone gave it to me. Couple that with a teacher beating it into my head that RC is not archival and there you have it. No need to get so defensive.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Chiller-I think they did but hopefully someone else will chime in here on the issue.
Peter

 

[Rlibersky]

I use alot of old fiber base paper some was bad, but most has been fine. Maybe some loss of contrst. I've only bought a few old RC papers , none has been good. I will have to qualify this by saying none of it has been newer then the 70's

 

[Petzi]

My uncertainty is whether Agfa incorporated developing agents in the emulsion of the Multicontrast 111 FB glossy.

This paper contains developer substances. Only a few papers don't. But it will still be good for several years if stored properly.

I wonder if the diffusion that Photo Engineer describes stops when the paper is deep frozen? Oxidization would also be slowed down in deep freeze, right? I am not a chemist but low temperature slows down pretty much any chemical process?

 

[Huub S]

This paper is very prone to fogging in my experience, even when frozen. Others have confirmed this with some comparative experiments. Expect a maximum storage time of less than two years before it turns grey.

 

[climbabout]

Myself and a friend have a supply of old portiga rapid - 1980's vintage that we have stored frozen for at least 15 years and we are still using it and it still prints beautifully. I have done no scientific testing to prove this other than to look at the prints hanging on my wall that I continue to produce with this beautiful paper. I will mourn the day when I open the last package, but that won't be for a while.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Easy there chief. I wasn't trying to debate whether you are right or not. I'm sure you've forgotten more about photo chemistry than I'll ever know. The reason I assumed so is because I have used 10 year old FB that turned out just fine. I don't know if it was frozen, refrigerated or not, someone gave it to me. Couple that with a teacher beating it into my head that RC is not archival and there you have it. No need to get so defensive.

Not defensive, curious. Sorry I gave the wrong impression. The reason for my curiosity is that I'm preparing a list of "myths" in B&W photography and this is near the top of the list.

In actual fact, RC prints are less archival than FB, but that seems to have slopped over to the raw stock keeping side of things and people then seem to think that print stability equates to raw stock stability, so I'm trying to collect information on this.

It is my expereience that any added 'developing agent' will reduce the raw stock keeping of any product by a considerable amount. The test for the presence of the reducing or developing agent is to take a sample into the light and put a drop or two of 5 - 10% sodium hydroxide on it. If it turns black or darkens in the light, it has a developer incorporated into it and will keep (in general) about 1/2 as long as a similar product without the developing agent.

PE

 

[Travis Nunn]

I'd really like to see this list of myths once completed. It'd be interesting to see how many of them I've heard or have believed in the past.

That's one reason why this site is so valuable to me, I get to learn from people who actually have worked with photography a lot.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'd really like to see this list of myths once completed. It'd be interesting to see how many of them I've heard or have believed in the past.

That's one reason why this site is so valuable to me, I get to learn from people who actually have worked with photography a lot.

Thanks.

My color myths are on Photo Net. I've been working on the B&W myths for over a year, and my co-editor/co-author, Oskar Ojala, is probably getting impatient with me. He is a great guy. Apologies to Oskar.

My apologies as well to Sean and the rest of the APUG community, but that is the way things worked out. I use PN too.

PE

 

[Smudger]

Henry Wilhelm has some pretty savage comments on the stability of developer incorporated papers.
I would trust his research on this subject.

 

[Maine-iac]

This paper is very prone to fogging in my experience, even when frozen. Others have confirmed this with some comparative experiments. Expect a maximum storage time of less than two years before it turns grey.

I've got some 5-6 year-old MCC 111 that hasn't turned grey, and it's been stored in my darkroom at about 68F. Still good.

Although I can't swear to it, I did read somewhere in some sort of quasi-authoritative publication that this paper does not have developer incorporated into it.

Larry

 

[Albert]

I too do not believe this paper is prone to fogging other than the background radiation and heat induced fogging common to material with this high sensitivity (400 ASA). I've recently printed on some MCC of several years old and did not notice any fogging.
Keeping the paper in a freezer does not stop it from being exposed to background radiation anyway.

IMHO Even if the developer would be oxydized or absorbed by the paper, wich I strongly doubt. It would not matter much because common developers on the marked do contain all the ingredients for proper development. It just might take a bit longer to develop out.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I too do not believe this paper is prone to fogging other than the background radiation and heat induced fogging common to material with this high sensitivity (400 ASA). I've recently printed on some MCC of several years old and did not notice any fogging.
Keeping the paper in a freezer does not stop it from being exposed to background radiation anyway.

IMHO Even if the developer would be oxydized or absorbed by the paper, wich I strongly doubt. It would not matter much because common developers on the marked do contain all the ingredients for proper development. It just might take a bit longer to develop out.

Albert;

The problem with incorporated developers is that they are reducing agents. They gradually reduce silver halide to silver metal which leads to fog. Any incorporated reducing agent therefore is a fogging agent. Exposure of films or papers to these reducing agents will fog the material.

Papers are less sensitive to radiation than film due to their slower speed and finer grain.

Diffusion of chemistry throughout a coating and the support have been problems since the early days of photography. That is why paper support must be ultra pure and why the addenda level in FB products is generally higher than in RC products, to compensate for diffusion.

In color, diffusion between the multiple layers is often a severe problem. It is so severe that the chemistry has been ballasted with heavy chains of atoms to anchor them in place and prevent diffusion. Even so, diffusion takes place over time leading to deterioration through cross contamination of layers.

PE

 

[Ronald Moravec]

An Ilford employee told me that freezing would help by perhaps 6 months. Something is being done to the majority todays papers that shortens the shelf life to 2/3 years and that addative prevents freezing from prolonging the life.

You need to detirmine if the paper you contemplate contains the additive and you will have your answer.

I have some Polycontrast F expired in 1969 that is fine. The newer papers fog after 2 or three years from manufacture. Stored in the same place by the way.

 

[RJS]

This is moreof a question. When storing paperin a refrigerator/freezer how should it be wrapped? Film is eas - it comes in air tight packaging. But paper? Condensation?

 

[Photo Engineer]

This is moreof a question. When storing paperin a refrigerator/freezer how should it be wrapped? Film is eas - it comes in air tight packaging. But paper? Condensation?

All of the papers I have come in black plastic bags.

Wrapped and sealed in those bags then placed in the OB, I have had no problem with freeze thaw or refrigerate warm cycles with my papers.

PE

 

[Albert]

Photo Engineer,

If a paper already has the reducing agent incorporated then you should be able to develop it in just an alkaline solution isn't it? Would this not be a way to test if any developers are in the emulsion?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Photo Engineer,

If a paper already has the reducing agent incorporated then you should be able to develop it in just an alkaline solution isn't it? Would this not be a way to test if any developers are in the emulsion?

See my previous post on how to test for incorporated developer (reducing) agent. I said, fog the paper and then drop on some alkali. The paper should turn black.

It may be that this 'developer' is not there in sufficient quantity to allow development to completion or it may not even be a true developing agent. All I know is that it acts like one, causing formation of silver and causing poor keeping.

IDK what the purpose of it is in some current B&W papers. I have never tried to develop an image with just this incorporated chemical.

PE

 

[Petzi]

I think the purpose is to speed up development.