First time RA4 - Chemical questions

[MattKing]

If SilverPixel do get back to you with an answer to your query, please share it here!

 

[brbo]

I'm not seeing developer starter available for purchase from freestyle, but wondering how necessary that is to the process? I see some posts on forums where people forego the developer starter and seem to have ok results.

My experience with RA-4 developer starters... I didn't need it with Kodak chemistry (Kodak Ektacolor RA4 RT/LU). When Kodak chemistry became unavailable I switched to FujiHunt Enviroprint (MP-60AC). No way of using that developer one-shot without a starter. Fuji mixing instructions explicitly mentions that MP-60AC needs 'Enviroprint General Developer Starter'. I bought the wrong one ('Enviroprint Universal Developer Starter'), but prints are still OK. I can also use Kodak's starter.

 

[ac123]

If SilverPixel do get back to you with an answer to your query, please share it here!

One of the reps at photo systems inc (who manufactures silver pixel chems and is beginning to manufacture kodak chems) told me that PSI/Silver Pixel do not manufacture starter and the majority of people who use these kits do not use a starter.

I asked about compatibility with kodak ektacolor RA starter, and she told me that it's possible that there are customers using this with third-party starter, but the majority of cases she has spoken with do not utilize a starter with these chemicals.

Going to give it a go and check out the results~

 

[DREW WILEY]

Kodak Ra/Rt and Silver Pixel seem identical. I have interchanged ingredients with complete success. When you use these chemicals one-shot and not replenished, it's all essentially a "starter". Just be certain you're buying the appropriate version if Kodak or Fuji-Hunt are involved. But Silver Pixel and Arista RA4 kits are oriented more to home darkroom users, and come with appropriate one-shot instructions. For Kodak, there are appropriate instructions too; but I can't remember if they're in the packaging or not. They are online if you hunt around long enough.

No optional stabilizer is needed with any of these if you're going one-shot, rather than a replenished roller transport processor.

 

[ac123]

Kodak Ra/Rt and Silver Pixel seem identical. I have interchanged them with complete success. When you use these chemicals one-shot and not replenished, it is all essentially a "starter".

It seems like even through the kodak chemicals still have the rochester address as manufacturer, the michigan-based PSI (who makes silver pixel) has taken over a lot of the production in recent years, (and were recently granted full licensing rights to kodak chemical production) - I would bet they're both made with really similar if not identical processes, really could be identical.

I would be interested to see if the Kodak A/B Blix is compatible with the silver pixel developer, since $200 for 100L of Blix (Kodak) is far cheaper than $100 for 20L of Blix (Silver Pixel). Kodak developer sadly seems is out of stock at the moment until more is manufactured later this year.

 

[koraks]

I would bet they're both made with really similar if not identical processes, really could be identical.

I agree; I didn't know it was PhotoSys who manufactured this Silver Pixel chemistry, but if it's them, I expect it to be the exact same stuff as Ektacolor.

When you use these chemicals one-shot and not replenished, it's all essentially a "starter".

Just to be clear, by starter, I mean the additional component added to a replenisher, with extra water, to turn a replenisher into a fresh tank solution. It seems from how you use the term you imply that 'starter' is the fresh tank solution. Note that this is not how the term is used in the product literature of Kodak or Fuji. Maybe you meant it the same way I do, IDK. In any case, I thought I'd clarify.
And thanks for confirming the Silver Pixel stuff is probably the same as Ektacolor; it makes good sense given the above.

I would be interested to see if the Kodak A/B Blix is compatible with the silver pixel developer

Developer and blix are separate steps. You can mix & match at will. The blix nor the paper gives a hoot what developer came first. Blix will blix, anyway. So feel free to buy whatever blix you like!

Kodak developer sadly seems is out of stock at the moment until more is manufactured later this year.

Looks like they (PhotoSys) were busy producing Silver Pixel first. They've also been busy starting up production of Kodak B&W chemistry together with Cinestill. I don't think Kodak has been making any Kodak chemistry for a long time now and PhotoSys is an entirely likely toll manufacturer also for this chemistry.

No optional stabilizer is needed with any of these

That's correct; no stabilizer is needed at all as long as the prints are washed. Stabilizer only serves as a stop-gap measure in washless processes like minilabs.

 

[brbo]

I agree; I didn't know it was PhotoSys who manufactured this Silver Pixel chemistry, but if it's them, I expect it to be the exact same stuff as Ektacolor.

Last Ektacolor RA4 chems that were available before they disappeared were made in China (for Sino Promise).

So, maybe this new Silver Pixel is the same as some previous Ektacolor version, but it's not the same as the last Ektacolor that was available.

 

[koraks]

Thanks @brbo, that makes sense.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Koraks - yes that is indeed the case when you start with Kodak Ra/Rt specifically - it is a "starter formula" in the very sense I described it; and their dedicated replenisher for automated processors was labeled as such differently. And Ra/Rt appears to be chemically identical with the Silver Pixel and Arista kits intended for one shot use.

Whether or not there are any changes in the recently re-introduced Kodak formula, I haven't looked into yet.

And by saying I have successfully interchanged ingredients, I wasn't referring just to the distinction between Dev and Blix. I've substituted, for example, leftover component B from a Kodak kit right into components A & C from a Silver Pixel kit, etc. No difference. None of this is proprietary any more. But it is more convenient for me personally to stick with Silver Pixel,
which has been readily available.

It's a whole different story when working with alternate formulas like the Enviro-friendly version of Fuji RA4, or the hotrod tweak intended for Maxima only. I can't speak for that. And "room temp" options like Tetenal aren't the same either.

 

[brbo]

My Kodak Ektacolor developer starter (cat. 660 1090) has clear instructions for preparing tank solutions. For 1L of tank solution you add 25ml starter to 800ml of RA RT replenisher + 175ml water.

But, as I said, I couldn't see a difference in side-by-side test between working (tank) solutions prepared with starter or without.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have all the old Kodak Ekta RA mixing sheets and instructions in a binder somewhere. I doubt much has changed. It was just as simple as with Silver Pixel or Arista ingredients. Same proportions of A,B, and C developer. Same A and B blix recipe. No difference in protocol or developing time/temp at all.

 

[koraks]

or the hotrod tweak intended for Maxima only

Maxima requires 45 second dev and especially blix. The other papers are also suitable for quicker processing at around 25 seconds, as used in minilabs (1 minute from command to finished print). But the same chemistry can be used. Maxima doesn't blix out at such short times due to the thicker emulsion layers. For people like you and me this is inconsequential since we generally adhere to RA4 standards or even longer times (at reduced temperature).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ciba had a higher temp option too, for sake of fast development, but with a higher risk of damaging the emulsion - not to mention the toll on equipment with hotter sulfuric acid bleach! The whole point with using drums, however, is to have a somewhat slower time so that the factor of fill of drain time remains minor by comparison, improving consistency. I use 2 minutes for both Dev and Blix with RA4, for example (less time for rinses and stop bath). And I standardize on 30C/83F. It's nice to not be on the clock, and just work for myself. And didn't want to deal with a huge quantity of chemical volume at a time, even though I was offered a thru-put 50 inch wide Kreonite processor for free.

Wish us luck on this side of the Pond with respect to Maxima showing up sometime again!

 

[btaylor]

Getting back to the original question about Silver Pixel and starter, I have been using the product for some years now and since there was no recommendation from the manufacturer to use starter I have not.
I have had no issues, color balance remains consistent. I use a roller transport processor and replenish at a rate of 10ml per 8x10.
Photo Systems (the manufacturer) has been making high quality chemistry for many decades, I have never had an issue with their products (going all the way back to Unicolor chems in the ‘80s).

 

[ac123]

would anyone have recommendations for long term (1-2 months) storage of bulk chemicals? I'm printing one-shot in a drum.

Developer, it seems best to store un-mixed as concentrates and to mix only as needed for the day? I see it is pretty essential for the smallest bottle of the Developer to be kept in air-tight glass bottles. Would the other parts of the developer also need to be kept in air-tight bottles, or is there more room for some air on top here?

For blix, I'm seeing some conflicting info - am I able to mix this all at once and store as a mixed working solution? Or is this also best practice to store as A/B concentrates and mix for the day?

 

[koraks]

Would the other parts of the developer also need to be kept in air-tight bottles, or is there more room for some air on top here?

You can probably get away with a little air here.

Or is this also best practice to store as A/B concentrates and mix for the day?

Yes, this. Once mixed, blix has a limited lifetime.

 

[ac123]

Yes, this. Once mixed, blix has a limited lifetime.

Got it. And blix is also fairly sensitive to oxygen? Or air is less of a factor here than the developer?

 

[koraks]

And blix is also fairly sensitive to oxygen?

Yes and no. The fixer part of blix is sensitive to oxygen, the bleach part actually likes to be oxygenated. In big labs where they replenish and recondition the blix, they actively aerate it - but through replenishment, they also ensure that it remains within fairly tight tolerances. Interestingly, I've been told that you should agitate your blix once in a while as it apparently starts to precipitate out sooner if it's left to stand still. The precipitate is milky white, but due to the iron in the blix it looks more tan/ochre. If your blix becomes murky and you see this milky precipitate, it's dead.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I mix only enough Developer and Blix for a single day's session. That is the best insurance for optimal consistency with one shot usage. It's so easy to do, why not?

Storage life of the individual concentrates prior to mixing is a different story. Depends on how low the bottle gets, and how long it has been around. The "B" component of Dev tends to be the most susceptible.

 

[ac123]

Thanks for the info!

For the Dev B component, I was hoping to keep measured out in 23mL glass tubes (enough to mix a 1L session). All I've been able to find are these, though I'm wondering if the cork would be effective in keeping it airtight enough for a month or so? Or if I should try to stick to bottle and cap for Dev B

 

[koraks]

No, I wouldn't trust that cork in this application.

 

[ac123]

I was noticing recently that while using this enlarger, I tend to make most prints at what seems a larger than average number count, i.e. y80 m120 (as opposed to what others recommend to start - typically around y50 m50) and wanted to run a color balance test.

This was an image I was having trouble finding good color with.
The below print is at opposite ends cyan -> red - the left (cyan) exposure is at y170, m190.
the right (red) exposure is at y30, m50.
While this is a particularly "blue" photo (taken at dusk, on a lake) it seems like the extremely large # cyan color balance is far closer to correct than the red would be.
Is this normal & expected, for the color range to vary this high, to sometimes require this high of a color adjustment? Or might this be more unusual to be using this extreme of numbers? It makes it a bit difficult to pick a general starting point for all negatives.

Additionally, one issue I run into is the occasional streak lines on the print. I assume that this is from an improperly clean/dryed drum, as I process in a jobo, though I've seen some conflicting info that this particular mark can also appear as a result of not using a stop bath, which I am not. Wondering if this looks familiar or if anyone can advise?

Thanks for the help!

 

[koraks]

Is this normal & expected, for the color range to vary this high

Once the colors get seriously out of whack, I find that filter values seemingly affect the end result a lot less. Which means that you can dial in pretty extreme settings and things don't change around much. Whereas if you're working close to the correct color balance, a small filter adjustment does appear to make a big difference. It's probably a subjective/psychological thing, but I certainly do experience it that way.

Neither of those prints look true to life, btw. The left one has a pretty significant magenta cast and maybe a little bit much blue as well. However, if you were to adjust for this, the filter settings would still be pretty far "out there".

I see what appears to be a yellow discoloration to the paper whites around the image. It looks like some kind of fogging going on; enhancing the contrast on part of your example photo I get this:

It almost looks like if you're masking the paper on the easel with 0.5" borders and then mask the negative itself in the enlarger/negative carrier. That doesn't work too well as the exposed 'white' paper margin gets fogged easily. Stray light emanating from the enlarger head will make matters worse. Coincidentally, stray light (and safelight) will also wreak havoc on your color balance. Maybe something to (re-)check?

Additionally, one issue I run into is the occasional streak lines on the print. I assume that this is from an improperly clean/dryed drum

Yes, that's where I'd start, too. It takes only a tiny bit of blix contamination to get really weird effects.
Are you reusing your developer after it comes out of the drum? If so, your wacky color balance may be explained by blix contamination.
If you're not using a stop bath, it's easy enough to test what happens/if things improve if you do use one. Acetic acid is fine. For one shot, something like 0.5% is fine.
Alternatively/additionally, try processing your prints in trays at room temperature during one session and see how that goes. It's one easy way to eliminate drum-related problems.

 

[ac123]

I see what appears to be a yellow discoloration to the paper whites around the image. It looks like some kind of fogging going on; enhancing the contrast on part of your example photo I get this:
View attachment 368333
It almost looks like if you're masking the paper on the easel with 0.5" borders and then mask the negative itself in the enlarger/negative carrier. That doesn't work too well as the exposed 'white' paper margin gets fogged easily. Stray light emanating from the enlarger head will make matters worse. Coincidentally, stray light (and safelight) will also wreak havoc on your color balance. Maybe something to (re-)check?

That's currently how I'm printing it, and I am experiencing yellow fogging around the non-masked edges, especially on longer exposure times.

I'm printing on 8x10 paper with an easel with 0.5" borders, but enlarged smaller than the easel crop, to allow the entire 4x6 negative to print. I also like to see the borders of the negative to show the full frame / no crop. Are there adjustable easels designed to move the "crop", where I would be able to mask off the edges? Or is there another method of doing this to prevent this yellow light spill-off?

 

[koraks]

Are there adjustable easels designed to move the "crop", where I would be able to mask off the edges?

Yes, there are. Most easels have two blades that can be adjusted, and very fancy easels even can have four movable blades. In fact, easels without movable blades are rare.

Alternatively you could cut a mask from cardboard etc., but I admit it's a kludge.