RC and Hypo clear

[rmolson]

Arista Paper

I just opened a 250 sheet box of Arista Private Reserve VC RC getting ready for my winter printing sessions. I have used Arista paper before but not the Private Reserve. ,The PDF sheet says it takes toning well , which is great as most RC doesn’t seem to. But the sheet also says that they do not recommend any hypo clear or eliminator on any RC paper. This was news to me as I use hypo clear just to be safe and after toning .Do you suppose the same advice would apply to toned prints too?

 

[hpulley]

If I happen to be printing fiber and resin coated at the same time so I have a tray of hypo tray available then I'll use it on my RC to cut the wash time in half but if I'm just printing RC I don't bother with it since the wash time is already quite short.

 

[Vonder]

Arista Paper

I just opened a 250 sheet box of Arista Private Reserve VC RC getting ready for my winter printing sessions. I have used Arista paper before but not the Private Reserve. ,The PDF sheet says it takes toning well , which is great as most RC doesn’t seem to. But the sheet also says that they do not recommend any hypo clear or eliminator on any RC paper. This was news to me as I use hypo clear just to be safe and after toning .Do you suppose the same advice would apply to toned prints too?

I don't think there's any reason to use hypo after toning. I don't think it'd do anything, especially on prints that were already hypo'd.

I just used Fotospeed Selenium toner on that very same paper yesterday. Mine was the pearl finish variety. If you have a toned and non-toned print side by side you'll see a nice difference, but otherwise maybe not. It's subtle. The more noticable effect is an increase in apparent contrast.

 

[Ian C]

I believe the intent of the message is “We don’t recommend HCA with this paper [since it’s not necessary].”

It won’t hurt anything, but films and RC papers are essentially waterproof. Consequently they don’t absorb fixer except in the very thin emulsion layer. Fixer is easily removed from the emulsion by a simple water wash.

FB paper gets thoroughly soaked with processing chemicals. By treating a fixer soaked FB print with HCA the fixer retained inside the paper becomes much more water soluble and washes out faster and easier than otherwise.

 

[Jerevan]

I agree with Ian C. No need for RC papers. Ilford only mentions films and FB paper in the offical fact sheet for their Washaid (same function as Kodak HCA).

 

[hpulley]

Heico PermaWash mentions a 30s water, 30s HPW, 30s water wash for RC.

 

[Ian C]

That’s because Heico wants to maximize the sale of its product. It certainly won’t hurt and it can result in a modest reduction in washing time.

But properly washed in water alone, the fixer is completely removed from RC papers and films.

You need to decide if the marginally shorter wash time justifies the cost of the HCA.

Either way, the films and RC papers will have the same permanence insofar as fixer removal is concerned.

 

[hpulley]

Ilford could sell more WashAid if they told you their films and RC papers needed it too however... as I said above, I'll only use it on RC papers if I happen to have some on the go for fiber anyways and even then, only when I feel like it. Usually I just let the RC wash on their own and take them out, quickly before the corners start to come apart...

 

[Vaughn]

I agree with Ian. The HCA is primarily to help get the fix out of the paper fibers.

One does need to keep the wet time for RC prints reasonable. Since RC prints are resin coated paper, chemicals can seep into the paper through the edges, and be very difficult to wash out (they tend to migrate further in rather than wash out.)

 

[fschifano]

Agreed. There's absolutely no need to use a hypo clearing agent with RC papers for the reasons Ian C mentioned. The only time I use it for film is when I'm using Kodak's TMax films as the HCA helps remove the residual magenta dyes more easily. I never use it for RC papers since they wash out in as little as 5 minutes, and that's being generous. I always use it with FB papers. The only rason that you'll sometimes see a recommendation for HCA with RC papers is to spur sales of the product. Using it does no harm (except to one's pocketbook), but it does no appreciable good either.

 

[2F/2F]

Ilford could sell more WashAid if they told you their films and RC papers needed it too however... as I said above, I'll only use it on RC papers if I happen to have some on the go for fiber anyways and even then, only when I feel like it. Usually I just let the RC wash on their own and take them out, quickly before the corners start to come apart...

Ilford could certainly sell Washaid to me if it was simply available at all on the shelf at Freestyle, Samy's, or Calumet. That would be step number one. Step two would be that once it was there, I'd only buy it if it was competitively priced. It is exorbitant, considering that a five gallons worth of Kodak HCA working solution costs around six bucks; the Ilford version costs $16.50 for five liters of working solution. So, you can get 19 liters of the stuff for $6 from Kodak, or 5 liters of the stuff for $17 from Ilford. I have to ask who on Earth actually uses it at that price?

This does not even get into the generic HCAs that are even cheaper than Kodak's, or using raw chemicals.

 

[Vlad Soare]

I don't think there's any reason to use hypo after toning. I don't think it'd do anything, especially on prints that were already hypo'd.

Some selenium toners contain ammonium thiosulfate. I don't know why. They just do. If you know that your specific toner doesn't, then you won't need hypo-clear after toning.

In his toning book, Tim Rudman recommends against using hypo-clear with RC papers, because it makes washing too efficient, and he says that a tiny amount of residual thiosulfate is actually beneficial. He says that prints must be washed well, but not too well.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

HCA is a washing aid which helps to desorb thiosulfate and improve washing efficiency. Washing aids are not to be confused with hypo eliminators, which are no longer recommended, because ironically, small residual amounts of thiosulfate actually provide some level of image protection. In addition, hypo eliminators contain oxidizing agents that may attack the image.

There is little danger of over-washing FB prints without the use of hypo eliminators. However, over-washing is a risk with some RC papers, and the use of washing aid is, therefore, discouraged for RC processing.

That said, strong HCA solutions have the additional function to act as a toning stop bath after sulfide toning. I have used this successfully with fiber-base papers, but never tried it with RC papers, since after-toning is no issue with these papers.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have used this successfully with fiber-base papers, but never tried it with RC papers, since after-toning is no issue with these papers.

What do you mean by after toning? A change in the tone after the print is finished?


Steve.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Yes, direct sepia toners have a tendency to continue working while the print is in the wash. It's important either to stop the toning first, or to snatch the print from the toner before it achieves the desired color.
No such problem with indirect toners.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Vlad is correct.

 

[Ian Grant]

There is little danger of over-washing FB prints without the use of hypo eliminators. However, over-washing is a risk with some RC papers, and the use of washing aid is, therefore, discouraged for RC processing..

There can be serious issues over washing FB papers, first some have optical brighteners, they will be washed out and then the baryta can also begin to break down (over 2 hrs or longer). The result is a patchy paper base.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

There can be serious issues over washing FB papers, first some have optical brighteners, they will be washed out and then the baryta can also begin to break down (over 2 hrs or longer). The result is a patchy paper base.

Ian

Ian

Have you ever tested this? I have tried to wash out optical brighteners from MGIV-FB with overnight washes and couldn't. Actually, some people leave processed prints in water baths overnight without ill effect. On the other hand, displaying a print close to a window for a couple of years will easily render the optical brighteners useless.

I don't recommend extended washes for FB prints either, if it can be avoided, but it doesn't harm the print as it does with RC papers.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian

Have you ever tested this? I have tried to wash out optical brighteners from MGIV-FB with overnight washes and couldn't. Actually, some people leave processed prints in water baths overnight without ill effect. On the other hand, displaying a print close to a window for a couple of years will easily render the optical brighteners useless.

I don't recommend extended washes for FB prints either, if it can be avoided, but it doesn't harm the print as it does with RC papers.

I seem to remember that Simon Galley has posted that the optical brightener washes out of one of the Ilford FB papers, and it wasn't that long ago.

While I've not specifically tested for it I have seen patchy prints where some of the brightener has leeched out, maybe a 3 hour wash, and I've had the Baryta base break down with far too long a wash, about18 or 19 hours. But too hot a wash and they both leech out/break down very much faster.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I seem to remember that Simon Galley has posted that the optical brightener washes out of one of the Ilford FB papers, and it wasn't that long ago.

While I've not specifically tested for it I have seen patchy prints where some of the brightener has leeched out, maybe a 3 hour wash, and I've had the Baryta base break down with far too long a wash, about18 or 19 hours. But too hot a wash and they both leech out/break down very much faster.

Ian

It's easy enough to test for this. I'll throw a piece of MGIV-FB into the water tonight and compare it to an unwashed piece tomorrow.

 

[fschifano]

Yes, direct sepia toners have a tendency to continue working while the print is in the wash. It's important either to stop the toning first, or to snatch the print from the toner before it achieves the desired color.
No such problem with indirect toners.

Sometimes you can see that with selenium toner too. Not so much with RC papers, again because the base doesn't absorb any toner.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I seem to remember that Simon Galley has posted that the optical brightener washes out of one of the Ilford FB papers, and it wasn't that long ago.

While I've not specifically tested for it I have seen patchy prints where some of the brightener has leeched out, maybe a 3 hour wash, and I've had the Baryta base break down with far too long a wash, about18 or 19 hours. But too hot a wash and they both leech out/break down very much faster.

Ian

I have the paper in the water for 24h now. 12h ago I took half of it out. Now sign of any baryta break down so far. I'll leave half of what's left in for another 24h and take another look then. When it's all done, I'll take a look how much optical brightener has washed out at 12, 24 and 48h.

Stay tuned.

 

[ic-racer]

I guess it is history (but I still have some left) but Forte RC recommended a 20 min wash, and recommended wash aid if one wanted to wash for less time. Also, that paper curiously needed a lot of time in the fixer to clear.

 

[Vaughn]

It's easy enough to test for this. I'll throw a piece of MGIV-FB into the water tonight and compare it to an unwashed piece tomorrow.

Ralph, was the piece of MGIV-FB an unused piece, a very recent print, or an older print. Asking because that may influence the results due to hardening of the gelatin thru processing and time.

Vaughn

PS At a Friends of Photography workshop years ago, I believe Sexton talked about a meeting with an Ilford rep (along with some other notable photographers of the time). The talk worked its way to optical brighteners. According to the rep, the brighteners did wash out, but that it took a much longer time than people would normally keep the paper wet -- along the order of 30 minutes or so. The photographers were not amused.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph, was the piece of MGIV-FB an unused piece, a very recent print, or an older print. Asking because that may influence the results due to hardening of the gelatin thru processing and time. ...

It was an unexposed but fully processed (dev, stop, fix) piece of MGIV-FB.

... At a Friends of Photography workshop years ago, I believe Sexton talked about a meeting with an Ilford rep (along with some other notable photographers of the time). The talk worked its way to optical brighteners. According to the rep, the brighteners did wash out, but that it took a much longer time than people would normally keep the paper wet -- along the order of 30 minutes or so. The photographers were not amused.

I will be ready to post my results by tomorrow evening. From what I can see so far, the brighteners wash out but at a much slower rate than expected. I intent to show prints washed for 30 min (normal processing) and 12, 24 and 48 h.