Reversal RA-4 experiment thread.

Use a good wash and then dry. Place them in dark envelopes such as the paper comes in and then finish processing at your convenience.

Continue by exposing to light, and then run the RA4 process with any modifications you have found to your liking.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Use a good wash and then dry. Place them in dark envelopes such as the paper comes in and then finish processing at your convenience.

Continue by exposing to light, and then run the RA4 process with any modifications you have found to your liking.

PE

Click to expand...

cool.

and thanks PE, I'll give it a try

I tried this with a new type of paper I haven't seen mentioned, well, really anywhere. Mitsubishi RA-4 paper. It's available super cheap from Ultrafineonline, but it is definitely expired and will not produce pure whites (slight yellowing) in normal RA-4. Haven't seen any obvious problems in RA-4 reversal though, but I mean this process is pretty experimental anyway so who knows.

(copy from a reddit post about it)


Made with Mitsubishi Color Paper. Process (all room temp in open trays, ~21C)

• Dektol 1+3, 800ml total with 5g of bromide to "pre-age" it -- 2 minutes in darkness, constant agitation
• Citric acid stop bath
• Re-expose and rinse (I found no difference between waiting 5 minutes for re-exposure and dunking it into color developer immediately after rinsing)
• Kodak RA-4 color developer -- 1.5 minutes
• Citric acid stop bath
• Kodak RA-4 Bleach-fix -- 1.5 minutes
• Rinse

Exposed at an 8x10 from Provia 400X. Exposure time of 22s, filtration: 110Y, 55M. Some dodging in the middle flower. Overall results are pretty impressive. I've not seen non-terrible prints from RA-4 reversal previously. Compared to Fuji CA this paper responds with significantly lower contrast (though still pretty high), and most importantly, with very small amounts of visible mottling which resembles film grain, rather than ugly blotches. Mottling that I'm still not sure isn't just my crappy grainy positives.

I also exposed a C-41 film positive for fun. The filtration on this surprisingly was thicker than the non-orange based E-6 film. I believe it was around 130Y and 90M. This may have just been due to the C-41 film having a lot of blue cast though. Contrast was not a problem at all with the C-41 film positive though, since C-41 film is naturally much lower contrast than E-6.

Here is an example print from the C-41 film (notice that some of the crappy color and color crossing are due to the C-41 film and not "missing" on the paper)

• Print: https://i.imgur.com/C6wUy5X.jpg
• DSLR scan from the film, for reference (with some color correction) https://i.imgur.com/Go12gJA.png

Very fine work. I also use the Mitsubishi paper that I got cheap from somewhere. Though luckily for me the paper is still good for printing negatives.

Pretty good stuff. Keep up the good work. I'm glad you are getting good results with Citric Acid.

The Mitsubishi stuff is an offshoot of the Sakura (Konishiroku) paper and film products. Kind of like the relation between 3M and Ferrania presently.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Pretty good stuff. Keep up the good work. I'm glad you are getting good results with Citric Acid.

The Mitsubishi stuff is an offshoot of the Sakura (Konishiroku) paper and film products. Kind of like the relation between 3M and Ferrania presently.

PE

Click to expand...

Honestly the citric acid was just because I ran out of household vinegar.

And also was really curious about the history. Interesting that it's related to Sakura. I'd never heard of Mitsubishi even being in the film/paper industry beforehand.


On another topic, I'm setup decently well enough to cut down small rolls of paper in darkness and tried to order a smaller roll (5"x288') of Kodak Endura. However, B&H contacted me 2 weeks after ordering and told me that they required a minimum order size of 4. So thus far, getting Kodak RA-4 paper is out of the question. It seems impossible to spend less than $300 to get a roll to my house, of any size. Does anyone know of an alternate source than B&H?

Another test run with RA-4 reversal, this time with fine grain medium format, so that film grain is not a question. Lets get down to it

Process:
* All in trays, room lights on after first stop bath
* First dev, 2m, room temp
* Citric acid stop bath
* Water rinse (sink)
* Kodak RA-4 developer, room temp, 1.5m (I think 2m is probably recommended here though for better saturation)
* Citric Acid stop bath
* Kodak bleach-fix, room temp, 1m

I did a ton of prints using a filter stack of Y90, M20, f/11, 10s, slightly smaller than 8x10 print. Basically I just modified the first developer each run to try to get a handle on the effects of each without more variables. Each print came out with some blue cast and slight over exposure but I didn't want to mess with the consistency of the tests so I left the exposure and filters the same. Order of tests:

* Dektol 1+3, 800ml (unmodified) -- Very high contrast, seemingly faster paper speed though without much more shadow detail than later runs with the same exposure
* +10ml 1% potassium iodide - This came out as a surprise, it seemed to fog the emulsion. Everything came out red including blacks, and highlights were significantly more blown than the unmodified version
* Remixed the developer to remove iodine
* +9.2g of bromide -- Significantly reduced contrast (but still high), significantly less blown highlights, slightly less shadow detail
* +400ml water (convert to Dektol 1+5) -- Very slightly more highlight detail, orange splotch on specific highlight area
* +4.6g bromide -- Same as the 400ml water addition, but orange splotch grew bigger
* +1m of dev time -- Orangle splotch went away, and print looked identical to the step for +9.2g of bromide
* 10g bromide (with +1m of dev time) -- All whites had a yellow tinge, though there was not a noticeable orange splotch. Overall detail looked the same though

My final print that got the best results was by remixing the developer and starting almost from scratch:

* f/11, 9s, Y120, M30
* Dektol 1+3, 150ml to make 600ml, added 7.5g bromide
* RA-4 dev for 2 minutes

Best result:


Image of raw slide (expired E100 VS so had some purple cast, unsure if that worked against me or not)


Crap cellphone pictures, so white balance is kinda screwy, but they each about match what it really looks like

Conclusion:

Mitsubishi RA-4 paper seems to be the only suitable paper with minimal artifacts. Even in the solid color areas in this print, there is no perceptible grain or mottle. There is a slight decrease in sharpness that may be due to the luster finish.. and of course, there is quite a bit of color crossing that can be hard to tame, as well as a very narrow exposure latitude and high contrast that makes highlight detail especially difficult. If I really cared about this print, I probably could've dodged and burned my way to having something close to what I wanted, these are all just straight prints and I'm lazy though.

I've discovered in previous tests that adding sulfite to the RA-4 developer can help to reduce contrast, but does so by attacking blacks, so I don't really consider it a good solution. Have not tried that with this paper yet though. If using Dektol as the first developer, significant dilution is not the answer to reducing contrast. It only really increases development time and too short of development times will result in orange/yellow whites. Bromide does seem to have a real effect on taming the contrast with Dektol, but it seems to top out at a point. Afterwards adding more bromide only slows development and will not reduce contrast further, nor adjust color balance. Adding bromide also reduces the amount of blue in the print, helping to cut down on the amount of yellow filtration needed, though a lot is still needed typically.

The response of the paper to exposure changes is extremely sensitive. At 10s the print looked somewhat overexposed, and at 8s the print looked somewhat underexposed. The adjusted time of 9s was perceptively different and looked about right, though still with some missing highlight and shadow detail compared to the slide. On B/W paper a 1s difference would be barely perceptible, but with this process it really requires a lot of testing and it seems like f-stop based exposure adjustments will not work here

This is pretty stunning compared to what I've seen in terms of RA4 reversal prints. Very interesting; that paper may be something special. Maybe I should try to get some of it; I'd sure like to play with it.

Does anybody know a source of this paper in EU? I would love to try some, but shipment from photo warehouse it prohibitive. Or we could organize a buying group (they sell 300 piece boxes!)

twelvetone12 said:

Or we could organize a buying group (they sell 300 piece boxes

Click to expand...

Depending on shopping costs within the EU (probably reasonable), I'm interested.

Since this paper is probably high in Chloride, the effect of Bromide in the developer should be huge. Usually, I work in the 100 - 1000 mg (0.1 - 1 g) /L of Bromide. And Iodide can totally kill the emulsions. Sulfite should be kept at 2 g/l or lower for contrast reduction or you do get reddish blacks.

I used my Dectol with no additives for the most part.

PE

I recall some thread somewhere here where someone got great results from Iodide in the first developer as a "pre-aging" step. Maybe I 10ml of 1% is just way too much though, might need a .1% solution instead. Also I'll try a less amount of bromide next time I do a run like 1g/L. Bromide is cheap, but when you're using 25g it adds up. iirc the amount of sulfite I used in the test was 1g. It didn't give reddish blacks, but compared side-by-side to a print without sulfite it was clear that the blacks weren't as black.

Interesting you use Dektol with no additives. One thing I didn't figure out is the effect of different development times. With the bromide addition it's not clear if I'm actually reducing contrast at the developer level, or just slowing down development and pulling it before the highlights are completely blown

Well, here is one of my results. One is cross processed from an Ektachrome original, and the other is an RA4 print from a hand made Internegative. I have the scan of the transparency as well and the same thing done as an Portra original around here somewhere.

PE

So I ran out of Dektol and decided to just do a quick mix up of D-72, the "homemade version" of Dektol supposedly. I then used this in RA-4 reversal. Kept having weird color crossing in the session. Tried an experimental session tonight and figured out why. D-72 somehow will develop the yellow layer, causing whites to turn yellow. I believe this happens with Dektol as well, but to a significantly reduced extent.

D-72 is just Metol and HQ. Anyone know how this happens? I did a test by using a strong base solution (undiluted lith B) to ensure it wasn't color somehow being thrown off by the different pH, came out completely white. In these tests, in order to save time, I went directly from first dev to stop bath to bleach-fix. Adding a lot bromide to the D-72 reduced the yellowing, but I was not able to completely eliminate it. With a lot of bromide and more dilution, the yellowing would be reduced with very short development times (ie, 30s or less, too short to actually make a real image with).

D-72 is a very basic print developer, how is this even possible? and yes, I also did several tests doing a color dev step as well just to ensure that the color dev step didn't remove some mask or something, all the results were either identical, or the yellow was worse (due to incomplete first development).

I might try some different developers and maybe making my own formula tweaks, but if metol isn't safe then how?! Phenidone is closely related to color developers and may function as a weak color developer as well.

I figured out it's not that either are acting as an actual color developer, I guess... but some magic causes the yellow layer to fog without a color developer. The first developer absolutely must contain a small amount of iodine. I assume Dektol actually uses iodine partially as it's restrainer, unlike the D-72 formula. Not distinguishable in B/W printing, but color is very sensitive. The amount of iodine needed though is very precise. Too little iodine and the whites will go yellow/orange. Too much and blacks will be eroded into a dark red magenta. The length of development also will affect this though. Bromide addition looks to also still be required, but only to reduce development speed by enough that it can be done consistently. Too much bromide increases the length of development required to fully mask out whites... and combined with the iodine effect, it's very easy to go too far and have it so that there is no good middle point where blacks are not eroded and whites are clean. Also, I don't really understand how, but when there is more iodine in the first developer, it seems to massively increase the amount of time required for bleach-fix.

The amount of iodine required appears to be fixed to an amount of developing agent and/or alkali. ie, increasing developer dilution does not reduce the effect of the iodine on eroding blacks. I mixed a 1+1 D-72 solution to 300ml and added 45 drops of 1% iodine solution. This produced perfect crisp whites with a 2m development time, but also was very high contrast with highlights being considerably clipped. I added bromide to slow down dev and just 10 drops more iodine and the eroding blacks were obvious. This does appear to counteract the paper's tendency to have green shadow color crossing though, by shifting the lower values to magenta.

I'm still using Mitsubishi paper for all of these tests, and no matter what kind of crazy first dev setup I use I still never get mottle like with Fuji CA. This is the primary reason I'm not worrying about other papers yet, mitsubishi is cheap, easily available, and at least looks to be capable of great results

I used D72 with Endura and had no problems. I cannot speak for any other paper.

PE

This is very interesting. Is it possible to get a really great print from this procedure? Assuming fresh everything and a perfect original. These results look pretty darn good considering that the original had a color cast etc.
Someone like Adox (Kodak) should fund some development work and come up with a chemistry that works with a paper that they could cut and package. Kodak could call it Kodachrome

It's already possible to get fairly accurate color, but high contrast prints from it. If you somehow had a very low contrast slide it'd probably work great for it.. Controlling the contrast while keeping everything else good is the main challenge I'm having.

I have some Kodak paper in roll form (4"x100ft iirc) that I'll probably do some testing with when I can be bothered to cut it down to 4x5. Unsure of it's life in storage though so it could have some age fogging

earlz said:

It's already possible to get fairly accurate color, but high contrast prints from it. If you somehow had a very low contrast slide it'd probably work great for it.. Controlling the contrast while keeping everything else good is the main challenge I'm having.

I have some Kodak paper in roll form (4"x100ft iirc) that I'll probably do some testing with when I can be bothered to cut it down to 4x5. Unsure of it's life in storage though so it could have some age fogging

Click to expand...

Sounds like the old days with Cibachrome and Ektachrome paper. If you want to make prints shoot negatives. I do love slides.

mshchem said:

Sounds like the old days with Cibachrome and Ektachrome paper. If you want to make prints shoot negatives. I do love slides.

Click to expand...

Honestly I've gotten some great results using ortho litho film as an internegative, "lith print" style development for very fine contrast control of the internegative, and then contact printing the internegative. Gives a really moody and unique feel out of slides that ended up having boring or bad colors (velvia with purple cast. ugh).. but of course, that only works for B/W printing, and is rather time consuming getting the negative right, especially since lith printing is pretty weird anyway (I usually make 3 that look good and the one I think looks best never works right)

I have some excellent RA4 reversal prints from slides. Some are in my gallery.

PE

I made my own first developer for RA-4 reversal, and the results are quite improved in terms of color balance and consistency, but I think I've pretty much hit my limits on reducing contrast with this paper.

Lets call the developer.. uhh, "RFD-1"

* 800ml of hot water
* sodium sulfite - 15g
* potassium carbonate - 15g
* HQ - 2g
* phenidone - 0.4g
* thiocyanate - 1g
* pot bromide - 1.7g
* iodide 1% - 1.4ml (1.5ml should be safe)
* fill with water to 1L

Usage: undiluted, room temperature (~22C), 3m development time with constant agitation. 2m will give slightly less contrast but also will have slightly warm grey whites and more green color crossing in shadows

The developer was designed to be a fairly alkaline developer for how much developing agent was actually in it (rather than resembling just a diluted developer). It was inspired by a combo of a homemade E-6 first developer recipe and a low contrast print developer. The amount of iodide and bromide was hand adjusted after mixing. I basically wanted something that would be low contrast, but also develop a good dmax (in negative). I also wanted something a bit more friendly than metol so I used phenidone. The amount of HQ is purposefully "inadequate" just so that it would behave mostly like a phenidone only developer, but with more stability and longevity, and also to further help dmax. The thiocyanate is another addition for improving dmax helping the whites "run away" a bit. The amount of bromide was initially 1g, but increased to 1.7g to slightly reduce tendency for highlights to clip at the 3m developing time.

The results were pretty surprising. It effectively makes the paper about 3/4 stops faster than D-72 with bromide/iodine and/or Dektol. It also requires a very different filter stack than I was using with Dektol/D-72, a lot less yellow and magenta filtration needed. With this, you will get some yellow looking stains around the edges of the print after the first developer. This appears to have no actual effect after color processing though.

The main benefits of this first developer is that it still pretty much minimizes as much contrast as possible from the high contrast RA-4 paper, but will also give very deep blacks, and brilliant whites. Color balance, and especially reproduction of the color green also seems to be a bit better compared to D-72/Dektol, though still not particularly great.

One other discovery. Color balance does not work the way one would expect. Removing yellow filtration will increase the amount of green. Decreasing magenta will increase the amount of blue. It can be really difficult to judge what the true results of a filtration change will be. Also, exposure latitude is still very narrow and even a minor filtration change like adding 5Y may require adjusting the exposure time.

Best print of the night processing:

* f/8, 8s
* 35M, 90Y
* 3m first developer, constant agitation
* 2m in color developer
* 2m in bleach-fix


Scanned print (edited the scan a bit to match the look of the print)

Nice. It's still pretty high in contrast -- not that I don't like it. It certainly has a striking look. For my own part, I had some success a few years back when I used a partially exhausted black and white paper developer for the first development. I got something very close to what I wanted but could never reproduce. Lots of effort went into "chemically exhausting" fresh developer.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/some-ra-4-reversal-success-today.156405/

I remember reading through that thread that months ago when I first started messing with RA-4 reversal. You were definitely onto something with chemical exhaustion. I believe this comes at least as close as possible to the method you discovered.. As I think about it, this developer matches the typical exhausted developer:

* Fair amount of bromide to slow development
* Relatively small amount of developing agents compared to the amount of alkalai
* Fair amount of iodide to help with color balance and prevent early yellow layer fogging

Compared to your 4 print tests on page 2 of that thread, I definitely have it at a much lower contrast level than your "fresh" print. It's hard to judge how much I've brought contrast down. Slide film of course is naturally contrasty as-is, and this was actually x-pro reversal processed slide film that I'm trying to print.. May explain some of the weirdness with color balancing actually. This is a DSLR scan of the raw slide with just basic white/black point setting. Definitely a boost in contrast causing some loss of both shadow and highlight detail, but there's not a ton of detail missing either. I'd say compared to B/W printing it's "only" a 1 or 1.5 grade contrast increase



Edit: I think if I use less development, or add more bromide I would get significantly lower contrast, but whites would also be as you say, not white but light grey. I have a print with more highlight detail, but color crossing was a bit worse as well along with whites being grey.

I read the recipe for RFD-1 with some interest; and looking at the post where you were talking about the whites going gray, wouldn't a touch of thiosulphate (fixer) help with this, like it does in clearing whites for B&W reversal FD?