Sistan/Ag-Stab destroyed most of my portfolio

[polyglot]

I'd had problems with a couple of Foma RC prints (there was a url link here which no longer exists) when framed, and Sistan was recommended as a good preventative measure. So I bought a bottle, made up a batch and processed basically my whole back-archives of B&W RC prints, including from other paper vendors.

Well, that was a Really Stupid thing to do, because it has destroyed over half of my prints with serious bleaching in disgusting dribbly patterns that formed over about 8 weeks in dark storage. I'm talking about the loss of hundreds of dollars of paper and hundreds of hours of darkroom work here - prints that were in perfect condition are now good only for the bin - and I am extremely angry about it. I'll post some scans tomorrow, but believe me, the damage varies from "a spot" to "catastrophic"; it seems to be increasing and I suspect that I am going to lose all of my RC B&W prints. About 6 years worth!

Consider yourself warned in the most dire fashion possible.

 

[mauro35]

Wow! That´s terrible! Sorry to hear what happened to you. I was myself considering to buy Sistan for my RC prints...hope we find out what went wrong. I can certainly understand how you feel.

 

[pentaxuser]

Sorry to hear about this. First time, I think, that I have heard of such a Sistan problem. I take it that you have notified the makers of this. Until we know more about the causes and whether this is a "one-off" or might affect many bottles of the stuff then I imagine any Sistan users here are now nervous

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

polyglot

sorry for your loss ... i lost negatives in a flood, and prints and books in a roof leak years ago and it stinks when things happen and are beyond your control.

how did you use the ag stab ? what dilution? did you soak the prints in water before you put them in the solution ? did you wash them afterwards ?
i have only heard positive things about the product, except for when it is used incorrectly
( not as recommended on film as a final rinse ) and it bleached / mottled the film.

maybe some of the chemists here on apug would have a better idea what happened ...

john

 

[pdeeh]

That is really horrible.

I've read many of your posts polyglot and you strike me as a knowledgeable and careful worker. I'm not suggesting that this is the cause of your problems, because I simply have no experience of this, but I note the following from Maco's page on AG-Stab in case it has the smallest bearing:

Too high a concentration of AG STAB can lead to stains which take some time to appear – particularly if prints are in close contact (store stacked).
Care should therefore be taken that both the fronts and backs of prints are wiped before drying to avoid partial over-concentration caused by dried spots of AG STAB

 

[David Allen]

That is terrible news! - what a disaster you must be fuming!

I know this will be of no help or comfort to you but I never trusted the concept of Sistan because I didn't like the idea of leaving a chemical in my print. Nevertheless, this does not help you and, far more importantly, goes totally against the manufacturers claims for their product. Was it the original Agfa version? or one of its successors? - I have noticed that a product called AG STAB (Sistan New) is currently being marketed that makes similar claims to the original Sistan: Sistan delivers for film or paper material a higher archival life.

The original instruction sheet that I saw stated that: 'Too high a concentration can cause stains that are visible only after some time - especially if the images are in close contact with each other. It is therefore important to ensure that the front and back sides of the images are well squeegeed before drying'. I took this to imply that it only works if all excess toner was removed and that the prints were individually stored or, mach better, placed into sealed exhibition frames.

So on to what can be done - especially as you have already lost so much work and dollars.

Firstly, separate all of your remaining useable prints using using some form of (plastic?) barrier that prevents any cross contamination between prints and then proceed as soon as you can to point two.

Secondly, I would suggest that you should take all of the remaining useable prints and wash them very thoroughly to remove as much of the Sistan as possible. At least with resin prints this will not be quite so tedious as with fibre.

Thirdly, can you contact the original supplier and claim compensation? - after all, the product is/was marketed as extending archival properties NOT ruining hundreds of prints.

I hope that you find a solution or some access to monetary compensation (I appreciate that this will not bring back all those years of work but at least you can buy paper to make them anew).

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[DannL.]

That statement "can cause stains that are visible only after some time", I find very scary. To me that translates into . . . 10 years after I have retired from darkroom work, and I find someone that's willing to show my work, upon retrieving my prints to have them matted and framed . . . . there's nothing left to show. I too would be furious. Is this Sistan product really necessary?

 

[tkamiya]

Very small samples, I know.... but I have a print mounted and framed that was treated with AGSab 3 years ago. It's doing fine. I have several more in storage, they are fine, too. I used MGIV FB for paper, and with standard archival processing.

I'd be curious to know what caused the staining in yours....

 

[Cybertrash]

I've a bottle of Sistan at home, bought on a whim. I've never used it and after reading this post I probably never will. I'm really sorry about the damage to your prints Polyglot, losing hard work in such a manner must be awful. I hope you still have the negatives in good condition.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have heard noting but good about this product and so I am shocked to hear of the results here. Have you contacted the company? Have you checked out your lab work flow?

The changes you see may be recoverable, as the silver has gone nowhere. It is still there but in altered form. Maybe we can help with a procedure that reverses the destruction. If you are willing to sacrifice a print to an untried procedure, we might get you some saved prints out of this.

PE

 

[Ian C]

The MSDS of Adostab lists the chemical components. Possibly it might give a clue as to what happened.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/adox/Adox_Adostab.pdf

 

[NedL]

I'm truly sorry to hear that Polyglot. Reading your post made me cringe.

 

[summicron1]

never heard of this product before, and I suspect I'm glad I haven't.

The bigger question to me is what is causing the bronzing you saw that you wanted to avoid, and you may wish to look into this further. The only times I ever saw this on RC prints I made was when I framed them under plastic instead of glass and when I taped prints to my cubicle wall at work where they were exposed to all the chemicals outgassing from the carpeting, cubicles and editors lurking around.

RC prints in my darkroom, or in albums at home, have shown none over 30-plus years of storage, and this storage consists of sitting on a shelf in a darkroom that is unventillated, pretty sloppy actually. Many of the fiber based drug store prints my parents had made back in the 40s still look like new despite being stored in those old black paper photo albums.

So look around. What are your prints exposed to? Carpets, chinese-made wall board?

Deepest sympathy for the loss. It could be worse. You still have the negatives.

We had a guy in the museum yesterday who was looking to scan wildlife prints for a friend -- the prints (digital, so-so color copies) are all his friend has left of some pretty serious wildlife shooting after a hard drive crash.

 

[Jim Noel]

Another good reason t stay away from RC "paper". Support the production of fiber based paper.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I have heard noting but good about this product and so I am shocked to hear of the results here. Have you contacted the company? Have you checked out your lab work flow?

The changes you see may be recoverable, as the silver has gone nowhere. It is still there but in altered form. Maybe we can help with a procedure that reverses the destruction. If you are willing to sacrifice a print to an untried procedure, we might get you some saved prints out of this.

PE

I've used it for years, though not on everything, and never had a problem. I've always used it on freshly made prints. Photo Engineer, could the difference be in treating already aging prints? I hope you can come up with an explanation and solution.

 

[pentaxuser]

Another good reason t stay away from RC "paper". Support the production of fiber based paper.

It may be slightly premature to draw any conclusions on the RC/ Sistan as things stand. At the very least I thrust that we aren't going to go down the "RC bad and FB good" road

pentaxuser

 

[pdeeh]

Quite

 

[Photo Engineer]

I've used it for years, though not on everything, and never had a problem. I've always used it on freshly made prints. Photo Engineer, could the difference be in treating already aging prints? I hope you can come up with an explanation and solution.

IDK what this problem is. It is totally new to me and as you say, you have never had a problem. I have never heard of anyone with a problem, and in the industry Thiocyanate treatment (which this is), is a common preservation for silver prints. It should work fine.

I'm wondering if toning was used.

PE

 

[cliveh]

never heard of this product before, and I suspect I'm glad I haven't.

The bigger question to me is what is causing the bronzing you saw that you wanted to avoid

+1 as that was my first thought and I have never seen bronzing on RC paper, but have never used the paper you mention. My sympathy for your loss.

 

[MDR]

Agfa Sistan can and does cause stains if you use it in a too high concentration this problem can be compounded by using speed drying (RC print dryer) and not wiping the excess solution of the print. I am sorry for your loss.

Agfa Sistan or toning is recommended treatment in case of print bronzing.

 

[polyglot]

Well, here's an example, and probably one of the worst. Some of them are just a 4mm spot in the corner. I think it's clear that I probably didn't squeegee the prints well enough and that a little liquid has dried onto the surface.

Dilution was as directed (1+20) and they were properly dried before going into an archive box.

I will try re-development in the hope that the silver can be brought back but I suspect not easily - the whole point of this stuff is to tightly bind free silver ions into a very stable salt. If anyone (PE?) can suggest a chemical that will free the ions up for the developer to reduce them to metal, I'd very much like to hear about it.

 

[cliveh]

Have you thought about simplifying your process so you don't need all these crap chemicals?

 

[polyglot]

And every single one of my 16x20s was badly affected. The ones exposed to air (top of a pile or otherwise exposed) have strong sulfurous-looking yellowing on them too.

 

[MartinP]

A charcoal sketch with the right sort of charcoal, on the right sort of rock, in the right sort of cave has been proven to be archival, but I don't think that is a practical alternative to Polyglot's photography at the moment. (to Clive )

Was there any toning or other extra processing carried out on the prints when they were originally made? (to Polyglot)

 

[polyglot]

No toning, just develop, stop, fix, rinse. Sistan was done months/years later to the dried prints.

At least I have all my darkroom notes and can reproduce these all pretty quickly in theory.

(there's a reason cliveh is on my ignore list; if you don't quote him then I won't need to see whatever bullshit he's posted this time)