Reversal print processing video..new approach

[Gerald C Koch]

A few years ago there was a film on APUG about a man in Japan that restores old faded photos. He bleaches them and then redevelops them. He uses a permanganate bleach. There appears no reason that such a bleach cannot be used for the reversal process above.

 

[removed account4]

i know what you mean gerald.
i was talking to a trained chemist about this stuff
and he seemed kind of stressed ... and has seen people get
burned with this stuff ...
peramgamate bleach can be used for this reversal process !
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PBR/pbr.html
it requires sodium bisulfate and then sodium bisulfite as a clearing bath.

 

[NedL]

One should not attempt to save the partially used bleach. Should it start to decompose the bottle will explode. The bottles used for concentrated hydrogen peroxide have a pressure relief vale in the cap.

I am a bit concerned that 35% peroxide is available over the counter. I have seen a demo where a drop was placed on a small pile of sawdust. The sawdust immediately caught fire. Had more peroxide been used the might have been an explosion. I have taught chemistry for several years and during this tine witnessed several bad accidents. All it takes is a moments inattention.

More reason to be careful, thanks for the information.

John and I are getting this process to work with 3% peroxide.
I just finished making one that I'm really pleased with.... hanging to dry right this moment.

 

[himself]

I really like the idea of the slow process, unfortunately I'd like a quicker process at the moment for a series of portraits where I'd like the sitter to see the process working..

In terms of toxicity, I can only get 12% by post here, and can't get anything over the counter (small town Wales, even 3% is hard to get in a shop), so I'm not too worried about any dangers. I do have some dichromate (for colour carbon printing), but would rather use peroxide for this process because of the environmental benefits. And I think as much as it has it's problems, the peroxide is far safer to use than the dichromate.


Don,
In terms of exact dev times and process with peroxide, I can give you some that don't seem to work : )

 

[removed account4]

I really like the idea of the slow process, unfortunately I'd like a quicker process at the moment for a series of portraits where I'd like the sitter to see the process working..

i can totally see that ... i mean 8 or a minute or 2 seconds vs 8 hours or three or 4 hours is a big difference
it must have been the same feeling people were having between wet plate ( short time ) and making a calotype>>salt print ,,,

 

[DonF]

I really like the idea of the slow process, unfortunately I'd like a quicker process at the moment for a series of portraits where I'd like the sitter to see the process working..

In terms of toxicity, I can only get 12% by post here, and can't get anything over the counter (small town Wales, even 3% is hard to get in a shop), so I'm not too worried about any dangers. I do have some dichromate (for colour carbon printing), but would rather use peroxide for this process because of the environmental benefits. And I think as much as it has it's problems, the peroxide is far safer to use than the dichromate.


Don,
In terms of exact dev times and process with peroxide, I can give you some that don't seem to work : )

I would appreciate that! With the 15% hydrogen peroxide, I use bleach times of 3-5 minutes. I never see it go as "white" (no visible image) as with the dichromate bleach, but perhaps I am not allowing enough time for it to work.

Don

 

[DonF]

More reason to be careful, thanks for the information.

John and I are getting this process to work with 3% peroxide.
I just finished making one that I'm really pleased with.... hanging to dry right this moment.

Picture please!

 

[removed account4]

this is from this weekend.
gloomy rainy windy day outside

when i get a chance i'll do another ...

 

[himself]

I would appreciate that! With the 15% hydrogen peroxide, I use bleach times of 3-5 minutes. I never see it go as "white" (no visible image) as with the dichromate bleach, but perhaps I am not allowing enough time for it to work.

Don

So I decided to ditch writing funding applications and I'm off to the darkroom now, so I should have some more updates later.
But for the moment:

Ilford Multigrade RC paper (8x10) exposed at iso 1.5 (very dense neg)
dev Ilford multigrade 1:9 - 2 minutes (over developed)
12% Peroxide bleach + citric acid (1 teaspoon per 100ml of bleach) - 3 minutes (almost totally white)
re-exposed - window light, afternoon - 5 seconds
dev ilford multigrade (different bath to the first) - 1min 30sec - also in daylight

nicely exposed but no white

Ilford Multigrade RC paper (8x10) exposed at iso 1.5 (very dense neg)
dev Ilford multigrade 1:9 - 1.30 minutes
12% Peroxide bleach + citric acid (1 teaspoon per 100ml of bleach) - 3 minutes (almost totally white)
re-exposed - enlarger with 75watt bulb, f/8 @20 inches - 8 seconds
dev ilford multigrade (different bath to the first) - 1min 30sec
ilford rapid fix - 2 minutes (not worth doing longer)
(all of the above in safelight)

nicely exposed (dual exposure) and good whites

Ilford Multigrade RC paper (8x10) exposed at iso 1.5 (very dense neg)
dev Ilford multigrade 1:9 - 1.30 minute
12% Peroxide bleach + citric acid (1 teaspoon per 100ml of bleach) - 2 minutes (still almost totally white)
re-exposed - enlarger with 75watt bulb, f/8 @20 inches - 8 seconds
dev ilford multigrade (different bath to the first) - 1min 30sec
ilford rapid fix - 2 minutes (not worth doing longer)
(all of the above in safelight)

back to being nice exposure, but no white

Ilford Multigrade RC paper (8x10) exposed at iso 1.5 (very dense neg)
dev Ilford multigrade 1:9 - 1.30 minute
12% Peroxide bleach + citric acid (1 teaspoon per 100ml of bleach) - 3 minutes (still almost totally white)
re-exposed - enlarger with 75watt bulb, f/11 @20 inches - 8 seconds
dev ilford multigrade (different bath to the first) - 1min 30sec
ilford rapid fix - 2 minutes (not worth doing longer)
(all of the above in total dark)

pretty much nothing.

repeated this again with another image of same taken at same time, with re-exposure test strip at 2 second intervals - 2,4,6,8 - f/8

but still nothing.

All of these were done under the assumption that I had initially been overexposing the second exposure the first time I did it in daylight, which is why the second exposure times were getting shorter not longer. Correcting in the wrong direction I guess.

they all correspond to the order I added photos yesterday, and while there isn't a huge amount of variation in the process there, the results seem to be all over the place. There were also a couple of other attempts, with different initial exposure and then processed the same, but that didn't seem to make any difference other than the expected under/overexposed - for example the difference in top and bottom of image 2 I posted yesterday, top is 8 second exposure, bottom is 4 seconds.

Hope this helps.

*just a quick correction, it's actually 2/3 of a teaspoon citric acid per 100ml peroxide

 

[himself]

so a quick update.

I was able to make some new prints and scan them this afternoon.
Because I'm using 8x10 (still ilford MG RC), I sliced up the print and was able to do multiple test on the same image and original exposure.

The process was the same before, and the only variable was the length of second exposure, so:
dev 1:9 Ilford multigrade - 1.30min
rinse 30 seconds
bleach 12% peroxide 300ml + citric acid (2 teaspoons) - 3 min (or until mostly white, which actually took only about 1 minute on first test with new bleach, and then 3 min by last print)
rinse 30 seconds
re-expose for time as shown on test print below (enlarger set to 20" and f/4.5)
final dev by eye (usually about 1 min)
everything done under safelight except 3rd test, which was re-exposed by window light and developed in daylight. The final print, because it was so small, didn't bleach very evenly which is why it has such heavy brown stains)



The image isn't as brown in real life as scanned and looks more like the image below

So as you can see, the more re-exposure the better up to a point. 5 minutes produced the best whites, but by then it started to stain and the mottling is really evident.
2 minutes has very little mottling, but the whites are slightly darker, so I guess for me the correct time is somewhere between the 2 and 5 minutes.

I decided to make a full print with my other image (shot on the same day), and re-exposed it for 2 minutes. Everything else was the same.
The tones are pretty good and the highlights, while not super bright are nice.
One final and unexpected thing, the images despite initially having white highlights once dry have a definite warmtone to them. Nothing bad, but something worth being aware of.

Here's the final print

 

[DonF]

These look very, very good! It appears the extended second exposure time is beneficial. I also noticed that excessive secondary exposure will cause excessive density, but that's to be expected as the density of the dark areas of the reversed print are determined by the second exposure.

Did you see the dim positive image appear as the second exposure progressed?

Don

 

[himself]

These look very, very good! It appears the extended second exposure time is beneficial. I also noticed that excessive secondary exposure will cause excessive density, but that's to be expected as the density of the dark areas of the reversed print are determined by the second exposure.

Did you see the dim positive image appear as the second exposure progressed?

Don

Thanks and sure, more time the better. But I'm not sure yet how much difference there is between say 2,3,5 minutes, but considering how little difference there really is in person between 2 and 5 minutes, I wouldn't expect too much.

I should really do a larger resolution scan, but you can see the difference in tone and mottling here. 5 minutes is on the left.



No positive image I'm afraid, which is why I ended up stopping at 5 minutes to be honest.
You could say at a push, that what was left of the bleached negative got maybe a little denser and browner, but that would be looking for something for the sake of it probably.

I did try to photograph each stage, but unfortunately my safelight is just too dark.

 

[NedL]

Here are a couple of mine, made the "slow" way using 3% H2O2 and about 0.4% CA.

The first one did not bleach completely, there was faint image left along the two vertical sides after 1 hour, and you might be able to see that this led to a slight brownish stain along those edges:


Old Gravenstein par Ned, on ipernity

This one I bleached for 2-1/2 hours and I think it looks pretty nice.


Creek Oaks par Ned, on ipernity

Both were re-exposed with 15s green light and 22s blue light under my enlarger, set up at my pre-flashing height which is up near as high as it can go, f/8 with a 105mm lens.

I'm happy enough now that I'm just going to start making more of these and not fuss around too much more trying to refine with tests.

 

[NedL]

I told himself that I'd post this "checkerboard" test. It shows what these look like when they don't get enough re-exposure.

( The following were at f/11, not f/8 as above ):
In 3 horizontal stripes starting at the bottom, there were 10, 20 and 30 seconds of green light.
In 5 vertical stripes starting from the right, there were increasing amounts of blue light. ( I think it was 5, 10, 15, 20, 25s ).

So the lower right corner got the least total re-exposure and the upper left got the most. You can see the tones starting to appear.
What I'm using now is equivalent to a little more than the upper left corner.

 

[himself]

Ned,

great! the slow bleaching looks to definitely work just as well.
I'm also amazed by how short you re-exposure time is by comparison to mine.

and thanks for posting the checkerboard, it's helped me visualise the whole thing much better!
so looking at that, do you think then that the warmtone of mine is due to not enough bleaching?
the first test, is a little colder than the last.. the life of the bleach is very short if that's the case.

having asked that, like you I'm pretty happy with how it's come out, so I'm not going to fret about it too much.

 

[DonF]

Nice results, Ned. Thanks for taking the time to scan and post these.

I'm guess that the reason for the blue and green secondary exposure is primarily for contrast control, as you had mentioned to were using VC paper?

It is great to know 3% peroxide can be used in a pinch, even if it takes a while to work,

If I get some time today, I plan to take two identical flash exposure and process identivally, except for the bleach. I will bleach one with dichromate, the other with peroxide.

Best regards,

Don

 

[removed account4]

Here are a couple of mine, made the "slow" way using 3% H2O2 and about 0.4% CA.

The first one did not bleach completely, there was faint image left along the two vertical sides after 1 hour, and you might be able to see that this led to a slight brownish stain along those edges:


This one I bleached for 2-1/2 hours and I think it looks pretty nice.



Both were re-exposed with 15s green light and 22s blue light under my enlarger, set up at my pre-flashing height which is up near as high as it can go, f/8 with a 105mm lens.

I'm happy enough now that I'm just going to start making more of these and not fuss around too much more trying to refine with tests.

fantastic stuff ned !
im not using color'ed light just a room light, and i'm not pre flashing &c ( just using 20+ year old paper ) and no ferri
your positives have a nice clarity and detail to them, the mid tones at the base of the trees sing ...

im guessing my prints would have bleach faster if i didnt' have 2 prints in a small tray ...

unfortunaetly ive had too much stuff going on to make another exposure or 2, maybe i'll do something in this vein tomorrow ( or 2nite ) when i come up for air ..

 

[DonF]

Here are a few reversal prints my daughter and I shot today. While waiting for additional peroxide to arrive, we used the remainder of the potassium dichromate bleach which stubbornly refuses to stop working! All outdoor exposures were based off an EV14 exposure of f/11 at 1/2 second. I took a reading of the EV at the various shooting locations and adjusted that exposure by the EV difference, It worked well. even for very overcast late afternoon conditions.

Again, complete first development to completion was very important to avoid dark mottling and patches from appearing after the second development. Bleaching in the dichromate bleach completed in 15-30 seconds. Second exposure was 1-2 minutes under a 60 watt LED daylight balanced flood bulb. I used 1 + 1 Dektol developer.

Best,

Don

Portrait at f/32 with 4800WS of studio flash.

Same exposure.

Solitary bee nesting box near local nature center.

Closeup of wildflowers under very overcast lighting.

Challenging exposure into the sun in meadow.

A bit overexposed image of son-in-law and daughter, again into the sun.

We feel we are getting a handle on the reversal process.

Best,

Don

 

[NedL]

I think you're getting a handle on it too!

 

[himself]

Don,

looks like you've got the process with dichromate down, it'll be interesting to see how your results with peroxide compare!

 

[removed account4]

Don,

looks like you've got the process with dichromate down, it'll be interesting to see how your results with peroxide compare!

+1 !

really great stuff you have been doing, and it seems a bit less finicky than tintypes ( either wet or dry )

 

[DonF]

Thanks, all!

Here's a scan of a less-successful shot. The dark patches seems 100% related to not developing sufficiently the first time. Dektol 1+1 needs 90 seconds, minimum. The first development SHOULD look too dark if exposure is correct. Some image should be visible at the completion of development, though, although the shot of the couple in the field looked totally black until after bleaching and the second fogging exposure. It was quite over-exposed, but gave a usable result.

Btw, I think the faint positive image that appears during the second fogging exposure is due to the developing agents in the Arista graded RC paper. It will act as a printing-out process with extended exposure. YMMV with seeing this, depending upon the paper used. It's a convenient way to judge the completion of the fogging exposure, though.

Best,

Don

 

[NedL]

Hi Don, please confirm that was dichromate bleach.

I haven't seen a faint positive image yet during re-exposure.

 

[removed account4]

Hi Don, please confirm that was dichromate bleach.

I haven't seen a faint positive image yet during re-exposure.

+1

 

[DonF]

Hi Don, please confirm that was dichromate bleach.

I haven't seen a faint positive image yet during re-exposure.

Yes, that is with the potassium dichromate/sulfuric acid bleach (Kodak R-9 formula using battery acid adjusted for concentration). The positive image appears 100% of the time and is clean if the first development was done to completion, about 2 minutes.

When I have used hydrogen peroxide/citric acid, I didn't seem to get to 100% bleaching, yet the reversal seems complete at the end. After exposure to light, I normally get a mottled positive with peroxide. The mottling largely vanishes in the second development and the blacks darken. I think the incomplete bleaching of peroxide may mask the positive image appearance, or perhaps there is some chemical fogging process going on that acts along with the second fogging exposure?

As I have mentioned, you can see in Joe's earlier videos where he did the second development in room light, there is a clear positive image present before development. I did not see the appearance of the paper straight from the bleach before exposure to room light, but I conjecture that the positive image became distinct after the room lights were turned on.

Best,

Don