RA-4: stabilizer or final wash, what's the word...?

Hi all,
I was wondering what your take on washing vs. stabilizing in RA-4 is.

I have a Fujimoto CP31 with wash/dry module, and am considering upgrading to a CP51 (20x24 prints, Whoa! ). It comes with either a washer/dryer or stabilizer/dryer unit, and I am wondering what to look for.

Now, I've been reading up on the stabilizing process, it seems like it was invented for mini labs that didn't have access to drains and wanted to conserve water, and also read claims that using a stabilizer (instead of a final wash) would increase the life of a print. Are those claims true?
(I'll be processing fine art prints, so archival quality and longevity are importrant.)

Having always had a washer, it seems weird and counter-intuitive to simply run the processed print through a chemical solution and then immediately through a dryer.

What are your experiences/thoughts?

Also, I don't know what stabilzers consist of, is this a chemical that needs to be recycled or disposed of properly, and are there any health concerns with it?

As always: your thoughts are appreciated!
Imke

I've posted a note on this elsewhere recently.

The stabilzer for RA4 is a proprietary organic chemical. I would not leave silver salts in my paper prints and expect good stability. I believe that washing the prints well is really needed to do a good job.

I have no idea whether adding the final rinse will help stability of the images.

The original stabilizers used a buffer with a fungicide and an oxygen barrier along with UV absorbers to protect the color prints. This added 2x - 6x length to overall life of a print.

PE

Imke said:

Hi all,
I was wondering what your take on washing vs. stabilizing in RA-4 is.

I have a Fujimoto CP31 with wash/dry module, and am considering upgrading to a CP51 (20x24 prints, Whoa! ). It comes with either a washer/dryer or stabilizer/dryer unit, and I am wondering what to look for.

Now, I've been reading up on the stabilizing process, it seems like it was invented for mini labs that didn't have access to drains and wanted to conserve water, and also read claims that using a stabilizer (instead of a final wash) would increase the life of a print. Are those claims true?
(I'll be processing fine art prints, so archival quality and longevity are importrant.)

Having always had a washer, it seems weird and counter-intuitive to simply run the processed print through a chemical solution and then immediately through a dryer.

What are your experiences/thoughts?

Also, I don't know what stabilzers consist of, is this a chemical that needs to be recycled or disposed of properly, and are there any health concerns with it?

As always: your thoughts are appreciated!
Imke

Click to expand...

I use a Jobo drum until the blix stage then dunk in a water slot and transfer to a brightener slot in a Nova quad processor.I have used two kinds of brightener/stabiliser. The first from Nova in the U.K. I think Nova's product only mentioned its brightening effect. The second from Fotospeed also U.K.mentions stabilising and brightening. It actually makes a claim of achieving a 10% brightening effect. Both kinds dilute at 1:9 and both when diluted give the solution a slight blueish look. This I presume to be the brightener effect. I recall that some washing powders in the 1950s claimed to have the "blue whitener" added to give a special effect on white shirts. In the 1950 and some of the 60s a white shirt was de rigueur if you worked in an office.

Nova's instructions actually gave the number of 8 x 10 prints 1 litre of solution would cover.The number depended on whether the prints went straight from the blix to the brightener/stabiliser or was initially just dunked in water for about 20-30 seconds or given a full wash first for at least 1 minute. If you gave the print a full wash then the stabiliser/ brightener was very economical. Much less so if it went straight from blix to the stabiliser/brightener.

I have always used it so can't really say how different an unstabilised/nonbrightened print would be by comparison. Nor can I say how much it aids longevity of prints as I haven't been at it for long enough. I do it for cheap insurance and peace of mind. In 10-20 years from now I may want to look through old prints or show them to grandchildren I haven't yet got( "what was film, grandad?They'll ask) and wouldn't want to risk a problem.

If I do test prints for colour balance I don't bother but do notice that they seem to take longer to dry than prints put through the stabiliser/brightener. Initially such prints aren't noticeably any different to stabilised/brightened one. At least not to my eye but a reflectance instrument may say different. I haven't kept these long enough afterwards to compare the two.

If I was under pressure to produce prints at top speed and was running out of time to meet a deadline then avoidance of washing and the use of stabiliser would save a reasonable amount of time over an evening. It only takes a minute in the stabiliser/brightener and I can get two 8x 10s, each with 2 5 x8s on them in the Nova slot together.

Pentaxuser

Just FYI, the RA final rinse is not a brightener AFAIK.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Just FYI, the RA final rinse is not a brightener AFAIK.

PE

Click to expand...

PE, I wonder if you would mind looking at the attached scan of a print, and let me know what is likely to have caused the fading?

This photo is around 28 years old, and was given to me by my mother for some drastic photoshop retouching to try and save the print. There are a whole bunch of photos that are doing this, but some others of the same age appear to have escaped the demon and are still as good as new.

This was printed on Koday paper by a lab.

Regards
Graham.

gbroadbridge said:

PE, I wonder if you would mind looking at the attached scan of a print, and let me know what is likely to have caused the fading?

This photo is around 28 years old, and was given to me by my mother for some drastic photoshop retouching to try and save the print. There are a whole bunch of photos that are doing this, but some others of the same age appear to have escaped the demon and are still as good as new.

This was printed on Koday paper by a lab.

Regards
Graham.

Click to expand...

That sure looks like Kodak paper from that era - HORRIBLE stuff! (at least by today's standards). Take a look at the Dead Link Removed web site and read the excellent article "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures"...

Graham, the problem is probably cyan dye fade, probably dark keeping and humidity. It sometimes took place if there was too much iron in the wash water.

Sometimes, if the leuco dye was formed, you could reverse it by a ferricyanide bleach and then a wash in water for about 10 mins for each step (bleach then wash) at room temp. A stabilzer would then be needed to rebuffer the print. Use citric acid at pH 4.5 for this.

If you decide to try that just use a tiny corner of the print to insure you avoid damage to the entire print if it does not work.

Bob, yes, dye stability was bad back then compared to now, but consider the fact that dye stability had improved orders of magnitude from early prints of the 40s, and that the paper you talk about was about 2x better than the previous paper (T1910 vs T1970 papers). Also, consider that Wilhelm is, just like everyone, 'hyping' his 'product'.

Yes, he is a good watchdog, but he knew that the papers were improving. He also was aware of the differences between Fuji, Agfa, Konica and Kodak products and didn't show how bad the non-Kodak products of the time were. That was interesting to all of us working on EK dye stability at the time.

Kodak had made a quantum leap in dye stability at the time and presented a major paper on the subject at a conference. Dr. R. J. Tuite made the presentation for which I helped supply part of the data. Fuji, Konica and Agfa papers of the same era were very bad for dye stability but Wilhelm chose to ignore those products. It was not until the Fuji "Crystal" papers that dye stability took another step forward, and Kodak then swung the balance with their "Endura" papers. So, it is a generational thing related to synthetic organic chemistry improving dyestuffs.

In the final analysis, you can 'prove' just about anything you want by selecting the product and the conditions.

When oxygen diffusion is important in dye fade, how does a high intensity light source relate fade to the real world when diffusion then becomes less important. How do long term heat and humidity really compare to accelerated heat / humidity tests. The best we can do is extrapolate and that is all we did at EK and what Wilhelm does.

Omitting the really really bad stuff and showing bad stuff only tends to bias things in peoples mind set. Dye stability has been bad. At the time, Kodak products were the least bad by a long margin, but Wilhelm chose to not show that part of the story to its fullest extent. It therefore concentrated the entire situation on Kodak.

PE

PE, thanks for sharing your knowledge! In just one thread I have learned more about paper than I have in 10 years combined. When you say "organic" I guess that means it can go down the drain? Total chemical novice here.

And pentaxuser, thanks for your insights!
It sounds like you have made the most reasonable choice by using a stabilizer AND a final wash. What irks me with the Fujimoto processor is that I have to make a choice between a stabilizer module (which results in a "waterless" wash, as there is no extra rinse after the stabalizer bath, it goes straight into the dryer) or a washer module, in which the prints get a generous wash before being dried, but there isn't an extra tank for a stabilizing solution.

A compromise would probably be to give the print an extra rinse in a tray with stabilizing bath after it comes out of the washer/dryer, and then blow-dry it. A pain in the neck for large prints, but probably the most feasible solution.

Imke

Imke, organic refers to chemicals which are primarlily based on carbon in their structure rather than other atoms. For example, we are orgainc being mainly carbon, but sand is not organic being silicon. A rock is not organic being mainly whatever a rock is.... The dyes in films and papers are termed organic because they are mainly carbon being derived from oil based products that we pump out of oil wells. These come from 'fossilized' organic material found on the earth many millions of years ago.

Etc.

Chemistry is broken down into fields such as organic, inorganic, physical, analytical and biochemstry among a host of others.

Sorry to ramble here.... But this is my equivalent of "a-wop-bubba-looba-ba-lop-bam-boo". And remember that its wham before bam except after boom!

PE

Imke said:

PE, thanks for sharing your knowledge! In just one thread I have learned more about paper than I have in 10 years combined. When you say "organic" I guess that means it can go down the drain? Total chemical novice here.

And pentaxuser, thanks for your insights!
It sounds like you have made the most reasonable choice by using a stabilizer AND a final wash. What irks me with the Fujimoto processor is that I have to make a choice between a stabilizer module (which results in a "waterless" wash, as there is no extra rinse after the stabalizer bath, it goes straight into the dryer) or a washer module, in which the prints get a generous wash before being dried, but there isn't an extra tank for a stabilizing solution.

A compromise would probably be to give the print an extra rinse in a tray with stabilizing bath after it comes out of the washer/dryer, and then blow-dry it. A pain in the neck for large prints, but probably the most feasible solution.

Imke

Click to expand...

It is interesting that both brightener/stabilisers I have used /do use have in capital letters on their instructions to the effect DO NOT PLACE IN WATER AFTER STABILISER. Whatever the stabiliser/brightener does is at best not improved by a later rinse and at worst may negate the effects of the stabiliser/brightener. If it is in capitals then it is likely to be the latter effect. At least that would be my conclusion from it.

Pentaxuser

PE: LOL!
Thanks for making it all clear, especially the wham, bam and boom.

And pentaxuser: thanks for making it all clearer, I wasn't aware of that fact, and would have thunk there'd be a way to incorporate all, washing and stabilizing, into one. Now I just have to make the choice.

Cheers,
Imke

Just resurrecting this thread - any further thoughts or experience on this stuff? I am considering something like using stabilizer in my CP-31. I don't have a drain and supply line in my darkroom yet, so have been doing an improvised pseudo-wash: I have a 5 gallon Phototherm tempering bath I fill with water. The output from the recirculating pump I feed to the CP-31 W/D module in lieu of a real fresh water supply. From there it drains back to the phtootherm tempering bath. So, a recycled wash if you will. Not great, I know. I also run the 3rd bath of the CP-31 as a water wash, so that helps too hopefully.

Would it be worth considering using stabilizer instead of water in the recycled 5-gallon wash I do now? I know ultimately the right answer is putting in a hot/cold fresh water supply and a real drain but in a basement that's a fair bit of work, not to mention somewhat tricky, especially the drain.

Thanks!
-Ed

You MUST run either a final rinse or stabilzer in E6 and C41 to have proper image stability. Use Stabilizer for older C41 films and for E6 films. If you do not, the rules stated at the beginning still apply to final image stability.

PE

Is it completely safe to use RA4 stabilizer in a Jobo drum? Does it wash out without leaving any residue?

RA4 has no stabilizer and if I was not in such a hurry I would have included that above as it was the thrust of the main post.

PE

I have Tetenal's WL stabilizer, which I was told is to be used in a machine where the prints aren't washed at all (WaterLess?). I guess it doesn't hurt if I run a thoroughly washed print through it. Are you saying it's completely unnecessary to do so? Is it safe for use in a print drum?

Yes, that is true, but the commercial RA process chemistry has no stabilizer. If you have the special chemistry needed by all means use the stabilizer. Just remember that there are then chemicals in the print that can be less than good on your fingers, if you pet chews on prints, and last but not least, the lack of a final wash does diminish image stability. This is the result of having no wash at all.

PE

PE,

Thank you, that clears it up a lot. I have standard 3-part developer with CD-3 and 2-part bleachfix and run it at 37-38ºC, so I guess that's no special chemistry. And the prints are thoroughly washed, which should then make the stabilizer unneeded. Again, thanks for clarifying.

d_rookie

Thanks for the info PE. I was talking about RA4 stabilizer, yes. Sounds like that's not really needed if you do a decent wash.

Does Permawash help at all, in the case of limited (recycled wash water) washing? I know my recycling of the wash water is not ideal and just wondering if I should worry much about that.

-Ed

Permawash or any other wash aid or even photo flo are not recommended for color papers. The actual stabilizing agents are built into the paper. Among other things, they absorb UV light and absorb atmospheric Oxygen that cause fade.

I use RA-RT developer replenisher and use it from 68F - 100 F with no problems (20C to 38C).

PE

Resurrecting an old thread here.. this is an important topic. Why is photo flo not recommended for colour paper, and would a solution of formaldehyde in water help image stability?

-thanks, 1kgcoffee

If you carefully read the immediate thread post to your thread post, you will find your question is fully answered. As in, "the stabilising agents required are built in to the paper," thereby negating any other procedure.

Sometimes the obvious, isn't that obvious when you are gleaning as much information as you can on any subject.

Mick.

Not missed, but my confusion lies in the colour stabilizers thread stickied at the top of the page.

Formaldehyde was pulled out of use because of concerns that it might be mutagenic, even though newer stabilizers are inferior and supposedly built into the emulsion, but may not have the same preservation power as older stabilizers. I'm wondering if the same applies to paper as does to film, that additional stabilizer in the form of formaldehyde would help preserve it (bind to uncoupled dyes?) Or if it would react badly with the paper over the long term and have the opposite effect?

The regular stuff might be good enough, but if we can use extra stabilizers in the same way we use synthetic oils in vehicles, why not? The only limit is commercial use of these stabilizers.

You only need a good wash actually. For ultimate stability, the final wash is suggested. It is basically a fungicide.

PE

Thankyou, PE.