Is RPL claiming that Portra 160 and Ektar are not archival?

[NortheastPhotographic]

http://www.richardphotolab.com/blog/find-your-film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons

"We rated Kodak Portra 160 at box speed. To Richard's surprise, this film was the most flexible of the color films tested—it looks great at a lot of different exposure settings, even underexposure (if you want a "moody" look)! We recommend scanning this film on the Noritsu. Kodak Portra 160 can produce digital artifacting when scanned on the Frontier due to the silver retention (which can also deteriorate the quality of your stored film negatives, yikes!)."

Silver retention? What are they on about?

 

[Eric Rose]

I don't believe any C41 film has ever been considered archival but I've been wrong before.

 

[MattKing]

"Silver retention" - sounds like they aren't processing it correctly.
And I love the reference to HP 5+ having "richer blacks".

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I don't believe any C41 film has ever been considered archival but I've been wrong before.

Well at least we got pigment prints if the marketing is to be believed.

 

[MattKing]

Well at least we got pigment prints if the marketing is to be believed.

Four colour carbon or three colour black and white separation negatives are the only sure things.

 

[Mr Bill]

Silver retention? What are they on about?

"Silver retention"problem, sounds like they aren't processing it correctly.

It might just be their marketing arm talking, so their customers think that they are getting an inside tip. Let me ask, would you have swallowed it if you didn't have Apug to turn to?

I'm quite certain I've been involved with more Portra 160 than they have, except that it was an earlier generation. Very clearly, if they have retained silver then Matt is right - it's a processing problem. The classic finisher tests are 1) inspect with an IR scope - the film should be perfectly clear (the color dyes are transparent to IR); the slightest trace of a ghost image means there is retained silver. 2) the control strips have a good method to check performance of the bleach, and 3), if one suspects that they might have a bleach/fix problem, then they should cut a test strip in half, give one half an extended bleach and fix, etc., then see if there is any visual (or measurable) difference between them; there should not be. There is no reason for Portra 160 to have any "normally" detectable retained silver, except by inadequate bleach and fix steps.

 

[Mr Bill]

I don't believe any C41 film has ever been considered archival but I've been wrong before.

Yep, actually ANSI removable their "archival" nomenclature many years ago. It was roughly replaced by "time to fade" to some defined endpoint under whatever storage condition. Your best source of info would probably be from Henry Wilhelm's book. At one time Kodak did publish some accelerated image stability test results, but I think it was prior to Portra.

Anything with dyes is general considered subject to fading; it's a matter of how much in what period of time. Wilhelm's book discusses this pretty thoroughly, but essentially film life when stored in the dark (and not affected by pollutants), and at moderate to lower humidity levels can be pretty well predicted by a set of so-called Arrhenius tests. The key to extended life is lower storage temperature.

I don't see how retained silver would affect life of the dyes, but I don't know of any actual such testing being done. Fwiw, Hollywood sometimes intentionally leaves some silver behind in an operational called (partial) "bleach bypass," by I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this.

 

[AgX]

THE expert here at Apug on silver retention is PE.

 

[Prest_400]

It might just be their marketing arm talking, so their customers think that they are getting an inside tip. Let me ask, would you have swallowed it if you didn't have Apug to turn to?

I'm quite certain I've been involved with more Portra 160 than they have, except that it was an earlier generation. Very clearly, if they have retained silver then Matt is right - it's a processing problem.

It's the thing with information, a misleading lead in a part of the chain could spread lots of misinformation.
Perhaps they confused it with grain aliasing? AFAIK scanning B&W film should lead to grainier results than an analog workflow because of exaggerated grain due to the digital sensor sampling and its interaction with the randomness of grain.

Agreed that PE is the expert here and worked on the antecessors of some film. He was heavily involved in Gold 400, so some of his knowledge may be present in our beloved Portra.
I recall searching about C41 archival qualities and I ended up on photo.net where PE and Ron Andrews did discuss the topic, there is good information there from Pre APUG and latter 2000s days.

 

[Rudeofus]

We all remember the endless flood of threads regarding TMAX's magenta hue, which PE traced back to a new sensitizer dye. This dye gives us the extra fine grain performance many have embraced, at the same time well established fixing procedures from old times have become insufficient. I would assume the same thing happened with Kodak's most modern emulsions (Ektar, Portra 160 and 400).

Are we 100% certain, that Richard's Photo Lab's process parameters were properly adjusted to these new emulsions? There's a good chance, that the tester indeed detected retained silver but was unable to address this flaw.

 

[Mr Bill]

THE expert here at Apug on silver retention is PE.

Maybe, but we ran something like a master roll of film every week or so, in fully seasoned processors, with the support of an on-site chem lab. And vastly greater amounts of paper which also has to be bleached and fixed. Let's just say that we were licensed formulary users from more than one major manufacturer, which entails a great deal of inside information.

Now that I think about it, I designed the bleach aeration system we used in our 50 ft/min cine processors. C-41 (and its bleach, which I think perhaps PE was intimately involved with) was new at the time, and our bleaching capability was falling off as we processed. I worked from Kodak recommendations with respect to bubble size; too small produces foam, which can build up and possibly overflow into. Too large and much of the air inside of the bubble doesn't contact the bleach, so is not effectively used. So the trick was to come up with an optimum hole size and placement, plus an airflow spec and pressure that would cover the surface of the bleach with pea-sized bubbles that pop easily. Then while running test film we pull samples for our lab to do analysis of the Fe3/Fe2 ratios to see if we're keeping up or losing ground.

So this is part of the real-world experience I have; I don't invent systems, but from the user standpoint I get them to work adequately. I don't invent analytical methods, but I use them. I have worked with the practical applications of these things on a very large scale. I'm gonna show a bit of arrogance here, and say, as the onetime QC manager of that outfit, with a staff of five or six people (including a full-time chemist), I kept a finger on the pulse of an outfit printing, inspecting, dust spotting and shipping A GREATER VOLUME OF PAPER IN ONE DAY than virtually ANYONE HERE HAS IN THEIR CAREER. (Give me an estimate of what you've done and I'll tell you how it compares.)

PE is a rarity, a treasure, and a terrific asset to both to Apug and home emulsion makers, in general. But at the same time, posters should see that it's dismissive to someone like me, who gives a comprehensive answer only to have someone say, "Well, the REAL EXPERT here is..."

It is not that difficult to remove "virtually" all (trace amounts may not come out) of the silver; all it really takes is following the instructions and knowing how to confirm. The need for "experts" can be reserved for more difficult problems.

 

[Mr Bill]

BTW, regarding image stability, I've also set up an abbreviated (single point) accelerated image stability programs, where we ran samples typically a couple times per year - mostly on paper which is what our customers bought. But I was introduced to the methods by Henry Wilhelm, the real champion of this sort of thing, before he was famous (I became acquainted while questioning a certain vendor's rep; he was on the same ANSI committee, representing his company, and told me that I needed to speak with Henry, who had a deep passion for this issue.) Additionally, I've seen various internal studies, and have even had a personal tour of the Kodak light-fade testing facility (a photo was published an IS&T Journal way back, by S. Anderson perhaps). One of the published Kodak papers (possibly the last released to the public?) partially reprinted in Wilhelm's book as I recall, showed Arrhenius plots for several of their films. As I specifically had test image samples of that film (I think VPSIII, but might have been II) with recorded density values, I was able to compare the real thing will the original projections. It was very nearly on the money at 20, 25, and 30 years. So this supports the idea that the Arrhenius predictions are legit within the humidity constaints. I wonder if someone is gonna surface, saying "the REAL EXPERT IS..."

 

[BrianShaw]

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

It might just be their marketing arm talking, so their customers think that they are getting an inside tip. Let me ask, would you have swallowed it if you didn't have Apug to turn to?

I'm quite certain I've been involved with more Portra 160 than they have, except that it was an earlier generation. Very clearly, if they have retained silver then Matt is right - it's a processing problem. The classic finisher tests are 1) inspect with an IR scope - the film should be perfectly clear (the color dyes are transparent to IR); the slightest trace of a ghost image means there is retained silver. 2) the control strips have a good method to check performance of the bleach, and 3), if one suspects that they might have a bleach/fix problem, then they should cut a test strip in half, give one half an extended bleach and fix, etc., then see if there is any visual (or measurable) difference between them; there should not be. There is no reason for Portra 160 to have any "normally" detectable retained silver, except by inadequate bleach and fix steps.

It's definitely something I've never heard of before... And I just have a hard time believing that Kodak has released two flawed emulsions that retain silver and degrade faster than others... So yes, I'm personally glad I have APUG to check with, because I don't believe RPL for a second. Scanning labs (I know because I'm starting one) like it when you use the Noritsu scanners. The Noritsu is much faster, and a fine scanner in it's own right. Fuji Frontiers have a reputation for better color though. All I'll say on that is that it's a subject of open debate. The Fuji's are also apparently much slower to scan, so I can see why a lab like RPL who does pretty high volume would say stuff to encourage people to use the faster scanner. My question would be, why not just say that about EVERY stock then? As for their processing, I have a hard time believing that they are doing it in a shoddy way. They're one of the prestige labs for wedding and portrait shooters, and have basically the highest prices. I think they use a dip/dunk system...

It's just a strange thing to throw out there in a random blog post. If Ektar and P160 have a silver retention problem wouldn't it kind of merit it's own blog post so that people who rely on that stock know about the problem? I would think so. I personally don't believe RPL in this case...

Out of curiousity, what do you do that has you running so much film?

 

[ic-racer]

We recommend scanning this film on the Noritsu.

Why not just use a digital camera in the first place? Then scanning worries will be eliminated.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Why not just use a digital camera in the first place? Then scanning worries will be eliminated.

I'm going to leave it up to you to think your way out of this problem. There is a light at the end of this confounding maze, I hope you find it some day.

 

[trendland]

I don't believe any C41 film has ever been considered archival but I've been wrong before.

Arivval experts are discussing this item since decades.But discussing is not so correct for this.They are more reffering with final conclusions to the archival options with color prints and films.
So let us hear what the statement of authorisized archivals is (just from my mind) :
" Color prints and films are generally NOT archivable." Wow - that are bad facts..
They reffered to livetime of bw prints and films - "BW is archivable to 120 - max.180/200 years" (with archive conditions nowbody of us is able to handle .....extrem climate conditions in regard of light, constant temperatures,
devpoints/air humity, filtered air to avoid
dust particles a.s.o.)......
The only hope to each of us is the livetime wich is in concern to official archives : Everything less than 80years is
"NOT ARCHIVABLE"
Ok.......So we find out the time we have
fun with c-41 / E6 .....Less than 80years.
Strongly depending to conditions of storage that means better half the time

with regards

 

[Bob Carnie]

Maybe, but we ran something like a master roll of film every week or so, in fully seasoned processors, with the support of an on-site chem lab. And vastly greater amounts of paper which also has to be bleached and fixed. Let's just say that we were licensed formulary users from more than one major manufacturer, which entails a great deal of inside information.

Now that I think about it, I designed the bleach aeration system we used in our 50 ft/min cine processors. C-41 (and its bleach, which I think perhaps PE was intimately involved with) was new at the time, and our bleaching capability was falling off as we processed. I worked from Kodak recommendations with respect to bubble size; too small produces foam, which can build up and possibly overflow into. Too large and much of the air inside of the bubble doesn't contact the bleach, so is not effectively used. So the trick was to come up with an optimum hole size and placement, plus an airflow spec and pressure that would cover the surface of the bleach with pea-sized bubbles that pop easily. Then while running test film we pull samples for our lab to do analysis of the Fe3/Fe2 ratios to see if we're keeping up or losing ground.

So this is part of the real-world experience I have; I don't invent systems, but from the user standpoint I get them to work adequately. I don't invent analytical methods, but I use them. I have worked with the practical applications of these things on a very large scale. I'm gonna show a bit of arrogance here, and say, as the onetime QC manager of that outfit, with a staff of five or six people (including a full-time chemist), I kept a finger on the pulse of an outfit printing, inspecting, dust spotting and shipping A GREATER VOLUME OF PAPER IN ONE DAY than virtually ANYONE HERE HAS IN THEIR CAREER. (Give me an estimate of what you've done and I'll tell you how it compares.)

PE is a rarity, a treasure, and a terrific asset to both to Apug and home emulsion makers, in general. But at the same time, posters should see that it's dismissive to someone like me, who gives a comprehensive answer only to have someone say, "Well, the REAL EXPERT here is..."

It is not that difficult to remove "virtually" all (trace amounts may not come out) of the silver; all it really takes is following the instructions and knowing how to confirm. The need for "experts" can be reserved for more difficult problems.

>>>>>A GREATER VOLUME OF PAPER IN ONE DAY than virtually ANYONE HERE HAS IN THEIR CAREER. (Give me an estimate of what you've done and I'll tell you how it compares.)<<<<<<



Well not to be a braggart but when I worked at Jones and Morris Photo Murals I would personally expose and process over 5 - 100 ft 50 inch wide a day of colour paper RA4. and this would be the norm for months on end on the busy days and we did have a quality control department analysing the chemicals on a three hourbasis , E6 was a real concern for plotting and this was done on a hourly basis.
I really doubt that your above claim apply's to me as my paper supply room was a walk in freezer filled to the roof with colour paper, and I did this for over 15 years before I decided to start my one man pony show that I am still running today.
Custom Colour Lab- - Jones and Morris Photo Murals- BGM Colour Labs -Scarboro Colour Labs- Colourgenics. all these labs were the cream of Toronto printing industry during this period and I spent 3 years at each location .

You can click on my website to see what I am doing today, tomorrow teaching a workshop on Gum Bichromate Printing.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

1. Can we stop with the "who's processed more" pissing match guys? I think my OP is enough for us to discuss, and nobody cares how much of anything you've done.

2. On the subject of C41 archivability... I guess I would simply define it within it's own limitations. If you can expect Portra film to last X years, I would be concerned if they started saying a different X for different stocks within the same family. I don't expect my Portra negatives to be as reliable as a properly processed roll/sheet of B&W film, but I do expect it to last as long as other C41 films.

 

[trendland]

Before PE is replying this ...
I forget to say : If the films (and prints) are developed/fixed/washed with 100%
correctness AND with official methods
(original E6/c41/RA-4 process)

with regards

PS : The use of different homebrew methots is MOSTLY/ALLWAYS outside official specifications therfore the expexted livetime is like an experiment with unnown end.

 

[FujiLove]

Waiting for PE...

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

So, I just talked to a 2nd lab and they actually reported the same problem. The issue is the Digital ICE, so when they have to scan P160 on a Fuji Frontier they turn off ICE and dust by hand.

 

[Prest_400]

So, I just talked to a 2nd lab and they actually reported the same problem. The issue is the Digital ICE, so when they have to scan P160 on a Fuji Frontier they turn off ICE and dust by hand.

Interesting.
BTW I anecdotically found that Portra 400 scans better on my flatbed (V600) compared to P160. I had a run of 120 C41 kodak scanned on a frontier (TIFF large nonetheless) and there is some sampling artifacting (aliasing/jagged edges), but I doubt it is this same issue. But perhaps a Fuji software thing?

Nikon's ICE on the Coolscan 9000 worked on Kodachrome, which gave ICE problems due to an IR sensitive cyan dye (IIRC).

 

[trendland]

>>>>>A GREATER VOLUME OF PAPER IN ONE DAY than virtually ANYONE HERE HAS IN THEIR CAREER. (Give me an estimate of what you've done and I'll tell you how it compares.)<<<<<<



Well not to be a braggart but when I worked at Jones and Morris Photo Murals I would personally expose and process over 5 - 100 ft 50 inch wide a day of colour paper RA4. and this would be the norm for months on end on the busy days and we did have a quality control department analysing the chemicals on a three hourbasis , E6 was a real concern for plotting and this was done on a hourly basis.
I really doubt that your above claim apply's to me as my paper supply room was a walk in freezer filled to the roof with colour paper, and I did this for over 15 years before I decided to start my one man pony show that I am still running today.
Custom Colour Lab- - Jones and Morris Photo Murals- BGM Colour Labs -Scarboro Colour Labs- Colourgenics. all these labs were the cream of Toronto printing industry during this period and I spent 3 years at each location .

You can click on my website to see what I am doing today, tomorrow teaching a workshop on Gum Bichromate Printing.

Well - Bob what you mentioned here shows to me that you indeed have worked in a lab with a phantastic reputation.That is great !
But we all know in the past have been labs with rather bad work !
I personaly worked in a film lab (motion film) and I saw the opposite side!
The corectness of developing was given of cause - otherwise it can't work to these special kind of clients .
But let me say : mostly ......
I remember very well the chemist in charge as a guy with extrem problems to that time.AND with great respect to his proffession I noticed that the companies
leaders never acepted his expertise.
The chemicals in use were ran outside there livetime ......ALLWAYS !
They were exausted but he has to replunish and replunish and replunish them. Due to economical reasons.
It was a bit like "thanksgiving" to him when he was allowed to set up complete new chemicals (after month)
And during the whole time between he was in permanent trubble with analysing all the bath and with modifications because the bosses sayd : No new chemicals at this time - no way !!!!
- what a Horror Job !
But the quality from developing was good
The standard was given from his talent of enormious implovisation.
Other labs without such experts reaches sometimes very bad quality due to same
reasons : economical issues....

with regards

Todays problems in labs are sometimes due to volontiers wich were told :"Please
change the chemicals - here are the canisters."

Bath1 Prewash / Bath 2 Fixer / Bad 3 Devell...... Oh what about the Blix the canister is not filled correctly

with regards

PS : nice results first fix then developed
UNBELEAVABLE

 

[pentaxuser]

It is as simple as this if I have read the article properly: Portra 160 is a great film but clearly has a silver retention problem but no worries as long as you use a Noritsu and not a Frontier for scanning.

I recall informative adverts in the 1950s about washing machines in the U.K. needing "White Tide" washing powder rather than other makes of washing powder to ensure that moms would get soccer shirts clean enough so they wouldn't feel ashamed to send their boys to soccer training.

All perfectly straightforward to me

pentaxuser