My search-fu has failed me.

[Donald Qualls]

@Nodda Duma suggested I look in the archives for old advice from Photo Engineer about room temperature RA-4 processing. I searched -- Photrio search, Google search -- and found nothing relevant on this forum or from Ron/PE.

Based on Naked Photographer videos (@Greg Davis I'm talking about you), it seems as though it's just a matter of developing and blixing long enough, but I still have a couple questions (looking ahead; I just ordered a Colourtronic 8x10 daylight drum, haven't yet ordered paper or chemistry).

I see in Kodak's RA-4 documents that their recommendation runs from 27C to 36C, with longer process time at the lower temperatures (as expected). Can I reasonably presume that going down to 20C (or so -- my darkroom tends to run 17-19C) just requires processing even longer, because we're developing to completion? Also, is it possible or practical to use C-41 bleach and fixer vs. a blix? Longer life, and I have it already on hand.

Alternatively, it appears the Colourtronic drum was made to hold heat well, such that preheating the drum would let it stay warm long enough for processing at warmed chemistry temperatures. Tempering bath I've got (though my sous vide has an annoying blue display and status lights, so it would have to be off during paper handling). Is there a significant advantage to working at, say, 35C vs. room temperature, other than speed?

 

[pentaxuser]

Donald it might just be me but I find the Photrio search engine not to be particularly user friendly either. However I am sure I do recall PE mentioning in several threads that RA4 is fine down to 20C where it takes 2 mins but in RA4 as you say time as long as you reach the minimum time is not critical

I cannot recall what he about the use bleach + fix as opposed to blix

pentaxuser

 

[Nodda Duma]

He also specified which RA-4 set to use for tray processing. You want Ektacolor RA Paper Developer / Replenisher RT chemicals..he was specific about that

Kodak CAT# 841 5580 it’s the 10L kit

Ektacolor RA-4 uses Blix btw. I had bought the CAT # 891 5753 6.3L kit ... but looks like what’s available now is the 10L kit: Cat# 830 9031

keep the concentrates in your fridge, air squeezed out, etc etc so they keep as long as possible.. just keep in mind they’ll start to oxidize no matter what but the price is still decent even if you don’t use it all.


(I have these in my fridge, so I just went down and checked).

 

[Nodda Duma]

Btw post 3 in this thread.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-ektacolor-dev-starter.43534/

One tiny sentence .. each word solid gold.

Here was another post a few years later with some more info.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/room-temp-ra-4-in-trays.135546/

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, Developer/Replenisher, no starter needed, Bleach/Fix usually don't really need the starter. @Nodda Duma You're right -- just a sentence or two covers the territory, unless we're getting deep into the fine points of a process.

Room temp, extra time does no harm. Sulfite solution or peroxide added to paper developer to decrease or increase contrast, respectively (as demonstrated in one of Greg's videos). Paper box will have starting filter setup on the outside. I still want to get an RA-4 safelight, but I can start with getting to loading the drum in the dark. So, this weekend's project is setting up to swap between condenser lamp house and dichroic head on my D2, then put the old Zone VI cold light on the D5 at some point so I can send it to a new home and gain some working space. I'll order chemicals and paper next payday, and should be able to make my first RA-4 prints over Thanksgiving.

 

[pentaxuser]

He also specified which RA-4 set to use for tray processing. You want Ektacolor RA Paper Developer / Replenisher RT chemicals..he was specific about that

.

Ah, the key is Kodak chemicals. No others will do. Now I can't imagine why PE would say that I did expect at least a small smile icon at least

pentaxuser

 

[grat]

Ah, the key is Kodak chemicals. No others will do. Now I can't imagine why PE would say that I did expect at least a small smile icon at least

From quick skimming, it appears that other combinations give a yellow color cast.

Quick RA-4 room temperature chemicals

 

[Nodda Duma]

Fun discussion btw. Now I want to bust out some RA-4.

 

[pentaxuser]

From quick skimming, it appears that other combinations give a yellow color cast.

Quick RA-4 room temperature chemicals

This is from a 2009 thread and essentially one complainant. In that thread other users of the Tetenal kit reported no problems. Then it appears that Tetenal said it was revised its kit. Kodak had a problem with its 120 backing paper and revised that. These things happen.

Does your quote of "all other combinations" mean all kits except Kodak? This might be somewhat of a stretch in terms of a conclusion based on the evidence in this single 11 year old thread

Key to this question of whether any companies other than Kodak make kits that are satisfactory for room temp RA4 since 2009 is how many similar threads on non Kodak RA4 kits has there been since this one? Most companies will over the years have problems.

The bad tempered rodent never forgave Kodak for the backing paper problem. It was a company that had allegedly let him down completely and forever as far as he was concerned. It was essentially a company not worth bothering with but was this a reasonable conclusion to draw?

Something happened to our unfortunate 2009 poster who left us in 2013 and to the bad tempered rodent a few years later which no one wanted to happen, least of all the two companies Tetenal and Kodak but based on the evidence I don't think we can safely draw the conclusion that (a) no other company except Kodak can make an RA4 kit that does room temp prints satisfactorily or (b) that every other maker of 120 roll film other than Kodak will forever be OK and that Kodak will remain potentially "unsafe" in obtaining and maintaining OK 120 backing paper

pentaxuser

 

[grat]

This is from a 2009 thread and essentially one complainant. In that thread other users of the Tetenal kit reported no problems. Then it appears that Tetenal said it was revised its kit. Kodak had a problem with its 120 backing paper and revised that. These things happen.

Does your quote of "all other combinations" mean all kits except Kodak? This might be somewhat of a stretch in terms of a conclusion based on the evidence in this single 11 year old thread

First, if you're going to quote, please do so correctly-- I said "other combinations", not "all other combinations".

Secondly, I was responding to your comment about PE recommending Kodak chemicals-- which, since he apparently developed the version of blix in use by Kodak, makes sense (whether the formulation has changed in 11 years, I couldn't say).

Finally, PE (who I did not have the pleasure to know, sadly), indicated in the specific comment I linked to that he spent some time while developing the Kodak version of blix, compensating for the "yellow stain"-- so I presume it's a common issue with that particular chemistry.

Had I felt the rest of the thread to be relevant, I would have linked to the top of the thread. Since I was highlighting PE's post specifically, I linked to his post directly.

 

[gdavis]

Alternatively, it appears the Colourtronic drum was made to hold heat well, such that preheating the drum would let it stay warm long enough for processing at warmed chemistry temperatures. Tempering bath I've got (though my sous vide has an annoying blue display and status lights, so it would have to be off during paper handling). Is there a significant advantage to working at, say, 35C vs. room temperature, other than speed?

I don't even pre-heat the drum anymore, just warm up the chems. The kodak doc has some recommended adjustments for the "drift by" method based on ambient temperature. I just set the tempering bath to 108F, let dev and blix go for full 45 sec each before dumping. As long as you give it enough development (time and temp, trading off one for the other within reason), nailing the exact recommended time and temp isn't as important as consistency, just have to find the color pack that works for your process.

My "wet side" and "dry side" are in different rooms so I don't have the lights on the heater issue, but I would just throw something opaque over the top of it. Maybe a plastic cup, wrapped with gaffers tape or some cinefoil.

Fuji CA paper doesn't even give a recommended starting color pack and every box I've used so far has been different.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I don't want to put anything permanent over the display, I need to see that to adjust temp (sometimes I want 102F, sometimes I want 75F or 80F or 85F for Df96, occasionally I might want 68F for days when it's really nippy in the darkroom). What I might do is try to find a black drawstring bag to cover the head. However, if (as seems be the case) RA-4 works fine at 68F, I should be able to arrange for my darkroom to be that temperature, give or take a degree, whenever needed. For the winter, it'll probably run hot, and I can run the exhaust fan to draw air from the rest of the house. Consistent, I can do.

No starting filtration? Seems like a good reason to use Kodak paper, if there's a choice. I'd swear I've read Fuji papers list the starting filter pack, though. Difference between roll and sheets?

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply, grat. So what combinations in the sense of other RA4 kits in 2020 might be OK?

Thanks

pentaxusers

 

[Mr Bill]

@Nodda Duma suggested I look in the archives for old advice from Photo Engineer about room temperature RA-4 processing. I searched -- Photrio search, Google search -- and found nothing relevant on this forum or from Ron/PE.

There is some info in Ctein's book, Post Exposure, which is (or at least used to be) available for free download from his website. As I recall, someone here mentioned that the specific version of chems that he used is no longer available, so not directly pertinent. But I think that he had discussed in more detail how the results related to process control strips, etc. As I recall the control plots were significantly different from aim, but the printed results (after the appropriate color balance was made) were virtually identical to "in control" prints. Don't trust my iffy memory, though, best to refer to the book.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As with negatives, I don't much care about overall color shifts, those just require a change in filtration. As long as I'm not getting crossovers, it's fine -- and if development and subsequent processes are taken to completion (as they ought to be) I shouldn't even see much of that. I know (from Naked Photographer videos, and reading here) that a change in exposure time (close down aperture, expose longer, or equivalent) can result in color shifts, potentially requiring readjusting the filter pack after changing print size, among other things.

 

[gdavis]

I don't want to put anything permanent over the display, I need to see that to adjust temp (sometimes I want 102F, sometimes I want 75F or 80F or 85F for Df96, occasionally I might want 68F for days when it's really nippy in the darkroom). What I might do is try to find a black drawstring bag to cover the head. However, if (as seems be the case) RA-4 works fine at 68F, I should be able to arrange for my darkroom to be that temperature, give or take a degree, whenever needed. For the winter, it'll probably run hot, and I can run the exhaust fan to draw air from the rest of the house. Consistent, I can do.

No starting filtration? Seems like a good reason to use Kodak paper, if there's a choice. I'd swear I've read Fuji papers list the starting filter pack, though. Difference between roll and sheets?

What permanent? Just flip a cup upside down and drop over the top of the heater. The tape around the cup is just in case the cups not opaque enough. The bag sounds like a good idea if you have one though. I'm sure you can figure it out

I actually have a tempering bath setup for my 8x10 and 11x14 tubes to maintain temp during processing, so I kept everything right on until I started doing 16x20. That's when I started abandoning the bath for the tubes and didn't really see much difference, but I've kept the bath for the chems since it's simple enough. I didn't see much point in going full room temp. I can see it for trays, but didn't want to go that route for various reasons.

I've only found Kodak paper in rolls which may or may not bother you. I wouldn't base my choice on whether or not they provide a starting value, you're likely going to have to tweak it anyway. I've seen lots of claims that Fuji provided a starting filtration but as far a I can gather, it's been quite a few years since they did (not since I started printing RA-4). I don't know if it's a sheets vs rolls thing, I've only used sheets, but I don't see why that would matter.

I've seen recommendations from 40y / 40m to 50y / 50m so I split the difference and did 45y / 45m which worked out quite well for CA I, but CA II that's currently being sold is more like 80y / 50m for me.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yeah, rule of thumb seems to be in the region of 40-50y, 40-50m as a starting point if you don't have a better clue. As you say, I'll figure it out. Soon.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Oh and another important tip: use fresh/unexpired color paper.

Don’t try to make expired colored paper work. You’ll be more frustrated than a good gin and tonic with no one to share it with.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've never owned color paper, so I don't have a paper safe full from last darkroom (as is the case with B&W paper -- half a box or more of Grade 3 and same of multigrade -- but also a fresh box of Arista multigrade).

 

[Mr Bill]

I know (from Naked Photographer videos, and reading here) that a change in exposure time (close down aperture, expose longer, or equivalent) can result in color shifts, potentially requiring readjusting the filter pack after changing print size, among other things.

That effect was well-known in commercial labs, even in all the one-hour labs from the mid-1980s and all through the 1990s, for sure. But most of the people probably didn't recognize it for what it (largely) was, but rather as a procedure to set up different film types on their machines. What they did was to get a set of printer setup negatives from Kodak, or whoever. The setup negs include a "normal" exposure, plus one or two stops underexposed and one or two stops overexposed. The lab carefully hand balances each negative using the built-in system in their printers. With this printing info the printer system internally calculates what is known as "printer slope," and henceforth will automatically correct for this.

I truly don't know how great the effect is, having always worked with slope-controlled machines. You could probably work out a manual set of corrections if you were so inclined, or try to stick to a constant exposure time. Just by recognizing the potential issue gets you halfway there. Ps, if you haven't already downloaded Ctein's book, you ought to do so. I would think that he has covered this topic.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I couldn't download the book when the link was posted -- I was at work. Doing so now, then I need to refresh myself on how to sideload or email to my Kindle.

And wow -- anyone who dedicates a non-fiction book to Ray Bradbury, then has a quote from the Flying Karamazov Brothers as an epigraph can't be a bad sort...

Given how fast color papers are, I might just aim to make 8x10 prints at f/16, to let me open up to f/8 at 16x20 (and there won't be anything bigger than that, the paper starts getting really expensive after that, plus that's the biggest trays I have). If (as seems to be the case) I can't depend on Crystal Archive even having starting filter values on the box, never mind having the same starting filters each box, I won't know that I can depend on the printer slope holding from box to box, either.