Ra4 safelight

I bought a ra4 safelight on eBay. It has exactly 580nm wavelenght. But even at the lowest brightness and indirect light my Pictures get Blue (when I Developed it without safelight it was not). But when I use the Filter ony my enlarger to get Rid of the Blue, I get the right colors for my picture. But I dont know If this is the right way to do. Do you always have to Filter the Blue away when you work with ra4 safelight or have I bought the wrong safelight with the wrong wavelenght? In some Forums I read that it should ne 589nm. I dont know If the 9nm makes much diffrence. I also work with exposure Times of 4-5 Seconds on my enlarger so that the paper is not in the darkroom light for to Long.

Btw I use the Ra4 Paper from Fotoimpex.

After years of working in total darkness I thought I would try using a safelight for color. I got the Kodak recommended filter for my old bullet safelight. Kept at the recommended distance I couldn’t make out anything, it was too dim- but no paper fogging. I just went back to working in total darkness, which wasn’t that hard, really.

I use a Wratten 10 or 10H, they have to be used indirect, I only use it to illuminate my time whe using my Nova slot processor.

Ian

In my experience a DUKA 10 or 50 works at a setting that allows you to see reasonably well. I recall it's sodium bulb emits, I think, a 589nm wavelength which seems 9 above your filter, so it would appear that 9 does make a difference

Others will say that even a DUKA does affect an RA4 print even if the users ( I and a few others here on Photrio who claim to have had success with it) may not see the effect

You will get a range of answers and you must decide. All I will add is this: the makers of the DUKA presumably tested their light with RA4 paper and found it did work at the correct illumination level. Had they not and it didn't work then it surprises me that they were able to sell so many and at what was quite an expensive price over quite a number of years


pentaxuser

Markpot said:

....In some Forums I read that it should ne 589nm. I dont know If the 9nm makes much diffrence. I also work with exposure Times of 4-5 Seconds on my enlarger so that the paper is not in the darkroom light for to Long.

Btw I use the Ra4 Paper from Fotoimpex.

Click to expand...

...9nm may not be the only difference. 589nm is the predominant wavelength from a Sodium vapour lamp - and it 's a line spectra, not something that's continuous and then filtered. Wotan used to make a small Na (approx beehive size) with a diaphragm control for brightness. Fully open, it was safe for multigrade bw papers and bright and easy to work under. Dimed right down it was fine with colour materials like Cibachrome or Kodak Ektafkex. Dim, but bright enough to navigate a darkroom without the need for feeling your way. Your 580nm lamp and whatever filter it has may be passing wavelengths that are causing fogging. 4-5 secs exposure is very short - too short for any dodging or burning.

I always do it in total darkness.

Markpot said:

I bought a ra4 safelight on eBay.

Click to expand...

Today's color paper is not suited for use with a safelight. The safelight levels it'll tolerate are so low that they're barely useful. At best you can turn on a very dim safelight for a few seconds, but even that is risky. Just work in the dark instead; it's not so bad once you get used to it.

Color safelights stem from the old days (prior to about 2003) when paper was much slower than today.

pentaxuser said:

the makers of the DUKA presumably tested their light with RA4 paper

Click to expand...

Not with today's digital papers. The DUKA lights originate far prior to those. Many people seem not to realize that the paper has changed, but their 1980s safelights are still the same.

Markpot said:

But when I use the Filter ony my enlarger to get Rid of the Blue, I get the right colors for my picture.

Click to expand...

That seems odd. But, if it works and lets you use your safelight, it's hardly an inconvenience.

koraks said:

Today's color paper is not suited for use with a safelight. The safelight levels it'll tolerate are so low that they're barely useful. At best you can turn on a very dim safelight for a few seconds, but even that is risky. Just work in the dark instead; it's not so bad once you get used to it.

Color safelights stem from the old days (prior to about 2003) when paper was much slower than today.



Not with today's digital papers. The DUKA lights originate far prior to those. Many people seem not to realize that the paper has changed, but their 1980s safelights are still the same.

Click to expand...

Thanks, The date sounds crucial. I certainly wasn't printing with pre 2003 paper but I haven't done any RA4 recently in the last 4-5 years. So when was the last of the "safe" RA4 papers produced and what were the names of those papers. I take it from what you are saying that there are now no safe papers to be purchased now from any maker of paper but on the other hand today's colour papers can be used for a few seconds at a very dim illumination

Any idea what a few seconds consist of in terms of a number and what a very dim safelight consists of in terms of illumination? For instance, in case it helps, I can say that my case the illumination after the DUKA has been on and warmed up to its "safe" operating wavelength is too low to read anything but is high enough to see my way around the darkroom without bumping into anything and enables me to take the paper out of its box, place under the easel, remove from easel and place in a Nova slot processor across the room about another four feet from the light which is pointed to the ceiling

I cannot speak for tray developing as I have never tried this but were I to, the trays would be even further away from the light and covered by my body

I hope this helps you in terms of how long this might give me in terms of "safe" illumination

Finally can I ask if you know from experience that the DUKA's sodium 589 nm light does definitely fog even under dim illumination or is your statement based on what FUJI have said to you and if it is a FUJI statement then did Fuji say what it based its statement on i.e. is there source evidence that you can link to?

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

there are now no safe papers to be purchased now from any maker of paper but on the other hand today's colour papers can be used for a few seconds at a very dim illumination

Click to expand...

That's correct. The number of manufacturers is now down to two and both only produce papers for digital exposure. This means they're fast papers, and they do not have the requirement of safelight handling.

I'd encourage you to do your own testing. I cannot answer for you what works in your hands, in your darkroom and for your standards of what makes an acceptable print.

I have placed a few small bits of phosphorescent tape at some strategic places of my darkroom. I've put one to mark the developer and the stop bath slots of my nova processor. One on my foot pedal to trigger the exposure, one on the darkroom light switch. Very convenient and doesn't fog the paper.

fophem said:

I have placed a few small bits of phosphorescent tape at some strategic places of my darkroom.

Click to expand...

That's a great solution, I find. I also use something similar - at least I did in my previous darkroom. In my current space, only the phosphorescent tag on the foot pedal has remained. The rest of the space I find sufficiently navigable in the dark without visual aid. It helps to keep things somewhat tidy and in the same place.

A dim safelight may help even if it is only on when paper is not in risk of being exposed.
It helps you remain adapted to low light.

koraks said:

That's correct. The number of manufacturers is now down to two and both only produce papers for digital exposure. This means they're fast papers, and they do not have the requirement of safelight handling.

I'd encourage you to do your own testing. I cannot answer for you what works in your hands, in your darkroom and for your standards of what makes an acceptable print.

Click to expand...

Thanks As I understand things under an enlarger the current digital paper can be used at the normal range of enlarger exposure of several seconds so it is OK for a blast of quite bright light for several seconds? The older slower paper which I presume was the paper I was using as late as say 2010 needed about 3-5 secs for smaller sized prints such as 5x7. This sounds as if it about the same for digital paper under an enlarger or is it that current digital paper under an enlarger needs only, say a few tenths of a second such that only a digital timer accurate to as little as one tenth of a second will work? If it does need several seconds then what is it that makes the paper too fast for a sodium safelight at a low level of illumination?

pentaxuser

It starts to shifts to cyan long before you see fogging on the white borders. Maybe you never noticed this; I can only account for my own testing.

koraks said:

It starts to shifts to cyan long before you see fogging on the white borders. Maybe you never noticed this; I can only account for my own testing.

Click to expand...

Thanks. So with digital papers using a safelight of the DUKA variety there is a shift to cyan caused by the safelight but not caused by several seconds of a blast of Y+M? OK but I just wondered what it was about the 589 nm wavelength that starts the shift to cyan

Yes at times a slight shift to cyan can be difficult to see. There are often instances when even to the naked eye the sky in these latitudes( about 54 degrees N ) and at certain times of year looks slightly cyan anyway In my experience we seldom see that deep blue sky but the brain tells you that it is blue because we have been conditioned to think the sky is blue

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

but not caused by several seconds of a blast of Y+M?

Click to expand...

Yes, that too. Flashing works that way; give it a try.

pentaxuser said:

what it was about the 589 nm wavelength that starts the shift to cyan

Click to expand...

Only the cyan layer is sensitive to that wavelength. The sensitivity plots in the datasheet give some hints, and again, it's easy enough to test.

pentaxuser said:

Yes at times a slight shift to cyan can be difficult to see

Click to expand...

It's easy to miss unless you do side by side testing. Once you do that, there's a chance you'll avoid further use of a "safe"light.

If you can see it will have some effect on the paper. Leads you into all sorts of trouble.

koraks said:

Only the cyan layer is sensitive to that wavelength. The sensitivity plots in the datasheet give some hints, and again, it's easy enough to test.

Click to expand...

Thanks I think what I am asking is : What is it about the speed of the digital paper v the previously slower paper that makes the cyan layer in digital paper compared to the previous cyan layer sensitive to the wavelength at any safelight exposure or is it simply more sensitive than before, such that the shift to cyan begins at a much lower exposure level of the safelight?

In which case we are back my earlier question of whether there is any indication as to what the level of exposure is in terms of seconds/mins. It sounds as if there is no source of information on this such as Fuji or Kodak and it is as you suggest "trial and error" to find what that level is

Thanks

pentaxuser

I've used Thomas sodium lights with the color filters. It's on the other side of the room, I don't have paper out for more than a couple minutes. There's just no truly safe light.

To Matt's point, if you can maintain your dark vision, that can make a huge difference.

I love color printing, but I don't shoot much C negative film anymore.

pentaxuser said:

In which case we are back my earlier question of whether there is any indication as to what the level of exposure is in terms of seconds/mins. It sounds as if there is no source of information on this such as Fuji or Kodak and it is as you suggest "trial and error" to find what that level is

Click to expand...

Every darkroom is different. There's no published number of lux-seconds and it wouldn't make any sense to have such a number because it would be impossible to accurately measure it for the vast majority of users. Moreover, the manufacturer (Fuji) doesn't bother investigating this because darkroom printers represent a vanishingly small percentage of the total paper consumption.

So the solution here is to do your own testing instead of trying to inquisition an answer from someone that ultimately proves to be of little use to your own situation.

The indication is the point where you see color shifts happening in especially the highlights in an A/B pair of test prints. You can fairly easily establish how much safelight exposure the paper tolerates in your specific conditions. Keep in mind that there will be several stops of difference depending on where you perform this test in your darkroom as the illumination level will vary throughout the space.

If you feel this might be quite complicated and therefore difficult to establish with any certainty a safe illumination level, you will have reached what for me was the starting point of the whole thing: err to the side of safety and just learn to work in the dark. It's not that hard; pretty much anyone can manage it.

koraks said:

Every darkroom is different. There's no published number of lux-seconds and it wouldn't make any sense to have such a number because it would be impossible to accurately measure it for the vast majority of users. Moreover, the manufacturer (Fuji) doesn't bother investigating this because darkroom printers represent a vanishingly small percentage of the total paper consumption.

So the solution here is to do your own testing instead of trying to inquisition an answer from someone that ultimately proves to be of little use to your own situation.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's well said!!

The paper spec sheets wisely recommend TOTAL DARKNESS. In terms of room lighting, by the time you get a dense enough recommended filter over the light it's necessarily so dim and so far away that it's useless except for telling you which end of the room is which. Overhead sodium vapor lights are likely to fog the paper.

What I do keep on hand, either in a pocket or hanging around my neck, is a tiny amber Jobo Minilux light which can be briefly turned on to check something nearby. I've tested it up to 12 seconds within a few inches of Fuji RA4 paper without fogging it. I don't know the threshold limit. They also made a brighter Maxilux, which should be kept further away. Both of these sometimes turn up on the used market at reasonable pricing. And I don't know if anyone makes a more modern substitute for these or not. They are quite simple devices.

Since filters fade over time, and safelight performance can vary, it never was realistic to provide anything other than the most general conservative recommendations for use of any or these options. It has always been the case that you need to test the parameters for yourself - makes no difference whether a commercial lab or home darkroom in that respect.

DREW WILEY said:

I've tested it up to 12 seconds within a few inches of Fuji RA4 paper without fogging it.

Click to expand...

The paper will shift color in the image area long before it starts to fog. The difference is several stops; i.e. if fog appears ar 12 seconds, noticeable color shifts may already be present at 3 seconds or less. I assume you've included this in your testing. 12 seconds at a few inches sounds way too long to me, but IDK, maybe your Minilux is so extremely dim that it's safe.

What do you think about buying a smart-home-led-lamp that you can connect with the phone and then set your own wavelenght of 589nm and set the brightness very low. Does this maybe work? Bc this would be less expensive than buying a color safelight from eBay and also have the risk that it maybe hast the wrong wavelenght.