Sistan/Ag-Stab destroyed most of my portfolio

[RalphLambrecht]

PE: any suggestions where to buy such a bleach? Specific product names?

pentaxuser: I haven't contacted anyone yet because I suspect the problem is how I used it, not any particular product defect. I think the conclusion here is "be super f***ing careful that you wipe every last drop off".

true!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Sistan is a silver stabilizer and not a toner nor is it sold as one
‘Sistan’ (f contains potassium thiocyanate, which provides protection, in addition to toning, in two ways. First, it converts residual silver halides to inert silver complexes, and while remaining in the emulsion, it converts mobile silver ions, created by pollutants attacking the silver image, to stable silver thiocyanate during the print’s life. The resulting silver compounds are transparent, light insensitive and chemically resistant thus protecting the image beyond toning. Alternative products are Fuji AgGuard and Tetenal Stabinal. Their main ingredients are different from Sistan’s, to which my experience is limited.
Silver image stabilizers are applied in a brief bath after archival washing. After this treatment, the print is not to be washed again. The stabilizer solution remains in the emulsion ready to react with any oxidized silver to prevent discoloration. Silver image stabilizers are not a replacement for toning, but offer additional image protection.

 

[MDR]

Regarding toning not all forms of toning are considererd archival and there is also some debate whether Selenium toning without a clearly visible color change is archival. The only 100% archival toners are Gold, Platinum, thiourea toner and sulfide Toners. Sistan is considered an alternative to toning but there is no harm if you use Selenium and Sistan for print protection. Another great and simple toner that is considered archival is Agfa Viradon.
Silver stabilizers like Sistan offer a better image protection than the average toner it is considered 100% archival and this was proven in numerous tests. The main Problem with Sistan is the Operator and too short washing times it reacts with fixer residues.

The steps for an archival prints are

1) Washing
1a) Wash with Hypo Clearing solution
1b) test with a residual Hypo test solution like Kodak HT2 or Formulary residual hypo test solution
3) Agfa Sistan (don't wash after sistan Treatment) or similar or tone in an archival toner (wash after toning)
2) dry in a chemical free Environment (the Darkroom isn't really the best place because of chemical fumes)
3) Storage store in a chemical free Environment in a acid free storage Box

 

[Marco Buonocore]

My process was:
- expose
- 2:00 develop in Multigrade 1+7ish in Jobo at 25C
- 0:30 stop (2% acetic) in Jobo at 25C
- 1:00 fix in 1+4 Rapid Fixer, Jobo at 25C
- 4:00 wash, Jobo at 25C, 6 changes of water
- quick splash of water on both sides of print under a tap (I don't trust the smooth Jobo drums to wash the back of the print well)
- slap print on bathroom mirror, wipe excess water off with hand and wait until basically-dry (back still damp)
- lay print flat on a cloth overnight to become totally dry
- pin to wall and/or put in archive box for between 0.25 and 5 years (no visible degradation, prints look great unless framed)
- treat in Sistan for about 2:00 at 1+20 dilution, room temp in a big plastic bucket outdoors
- wipe excess Sistan off with hands
- dry in the shade (no visible ill effects at this point)
- put in archive box for 2mo
- panic!

There seems to be no correlation between damage to the prints and age of the print in storage, nor the brand of paper (I have Foma, Kentmere, Ilford and Adox).

Ralph: as per my previous post, I think the problem is with insufficient squeegeeing of the Sistan because the shape of the damage seems to correlate with the shapes that drops or dribbles of Sistan would have taken after I wiped the prints off. It does concern me though that Sistan-as-absorbed-by-gelatin is OK/beneficial but a dribble on top of that is destructive.

Polyglot,

Thanks for posting your process.

I'll tell you what, that 4 minute wash seems really short. Have you ever tested that method of washing in a Jobo with an HT-2 test? I hope so; it doesn't seem like a great system to me. I'm also not familiar with this method of drying on a cloth. Face down or face up? The cloth seems like something tailor made to get contaminated. I've always dried RC paper hanging on a line with clips or clothespegs; it works so well I don't know why you would deviate from it.

Do you have any prints made in the same period - done with the same process - that were not treated with Sistan? I wonder how they fared? It might shed some light on the issue. If they're all okay, then one would suspect that the Sistan - or the application of the Sistan - was the problem.

An aside: why are you processing prints in the Jobo, anyways? Do you not have the space for tray processing? From my POV, it seems like a clunky approach. I can knock out a dozen of 8x10 RC prints in the time it takes you to process one sheet. Washing them all in a big tray or slot washer seems a lot more effective as well.

Again, my sympathies. It's every printer's nightmare. Sorry you're having to go through it.

 

[MartinP]

For RC papers, a four minute wash in running water should be perfectly adequate. Ilford, for example, suggest two minutes in their tech sheet for their RC products. It seems a bit unusual to use a Jobo for washing, unless there is no room for trays to suit 50cm paper, for example. With six changes of water it should be possible to do the job for coated papers, so long as the fill-and-drain time doesn't take up much of the time available of course.

Note that washing coated paper and fibre paper are very different processes, largely due to the plastic coating preventing the fixer soaking in to the paper base -- which is why the stuff was developed (pun intended) in the first place.

 

[removed account4]

rc prints have a tendency of "silvering out " ( metallic silver on the surface of the print )
if they are enclosed in a frame ( from what i have been told )
so if the prints are encapsulated there is a chance they will silver-out ...

 

[MDR]

Jobo drum processor correct I would wash the stuff under running water and not water changes Ilford advices Fresh, running water
Above 5°C/41°F 120sec. water changes are not as effective as fresh running water the running water washes the stuff away from the surface whereas water changes are diluting the solution but the paper is still soaked in a very diluted chemical solution. I would test it with HT2. Wiping off with Hands is also a nice way to tranfer chemicals you had on your Skin onto the paper. Do you use a fresh Cloth after each drying if not chemicals from a previous print can soak into the cloth. Framing could be the culprit the gases from the paper can't escape and attack the print, this will also happen to film. It it's no longer adviced to store films in plastic sleeves. Conservators had to learn this after a set of historically extremely important negatives was nearly destroyed after being stored in archival plastic sleeves. FB prints are less sucesible to gassing out as Film and RC paper. Many RC Paper have chemicals inbeded into the Emulsion for faster processing (source of gassing)

Also directly from the Agfa Source

Mixing instructions
For use 50 ml Sistan is diluted with 950 ml water.

The correctly processed and washed negatives are agitated for one minute in
Sistan solution after the final wash.
NB! Too high a Sistan concentration can lead to stains which
take some time to appear. Care should then be taken that the
fronts and backs of negatives are wiped before drying to avoid
partial over-concentration caused by dried drops of Sistan.

Again I am very sorry for your loss

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think the problem lies in how the prints were washed.

In a drum, where the back of the print is always in contact with the wall of the drum, you will not get an archival wash.

It is recommended to wash the prints in a tray with a tray siphon, for the stated length of time as recommended by the paper manufacturer. Even better if you have a dedicated print washer.

So sorry to hear of your troubles. I think you are trying to be a good citizen and conserve water as much as possible, from what I read about your process. Washing film and prints, however, really does require running water as it is a process of slowly removing the chemistry from the emulsion and the paper base. Even with RC paper this is a critical step to archival processing.

 

[pdeeh]

Washing film and prints, however, really does require running water as it is a process of slowly removing the chemistry from the emulsion and the paper base. Even with RC paper this is a critical step to archival processing.

There are a couple of very long "washing" threads which seem to suggest this simply isn't true.
It appears that washing can be adequate and archival without running water but that each individual must use the appropriate tests to establish that their own régime is washing their material sufficiently

 

[baachitraka]

I put 20gm of Sodium Sulfite in bath tub and let the prints soak for an hour and put them back in trays and change water every 30mins for four times.

Washing to remove the residual fixer is a diffusion process, so it may not require running water.

 

[David Lyga]

Perhaps this is nonsense on my part, but since everyone else has 'contributed', so I will also attempt to do so:

Four minutes wash with RC seems to not be the problem. But you have to get to the bottom of this.

When first placed on the bathroom mirror I would have wiped the print, not with my hand, but with a paper towel, until absolutely no droplets were visible. Additionally, I would have used a wetting agent (even though Sistan purportedly has one within).

That said, my gut feeling (albeit with no experience with this product) is that your dilution is too concentrated. Also, perhaps worth mentioning again: (can't quote specific sources but it is well known): a tiny bit of sodium (ammonium) thiosulfate left on the print actually tends to deflect long term problems. This is why 'benefits' of hypo ELIMINATOR might have been refuted in the past, as contributing to future problems.

Read this:

http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00DCH1

On this photo.net thread, John Finch (seven comments down) states to dilute 2ml per liter of wash water. This is 1 + 499, amazingly more diluted than polyglot's attempt with 1 + 20. Also, another poster claimed that his negatives were ruined by blotches.

Sincerely, I cry with you, polyglot, but informing us has been both admirable and invaluable. - David Lyga

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Washing in the Jobo tube with a brief rinse afterward doesn't sound like a good idea to me, even with RC prints. When I was processing color in rotary drums with some regularity (C-prints and Cibachrome), I would still wash with running water in a tray.

 

[MDR]

David Lyga the source would be Ralph Steiner of RIT and is from a never published paper of his. Some agree some disagree. But the amount he is talking about is still below the hypo Level that can be detected by HT2. Ilford talks about around 0.015 – 0.02 g/m2 (0.15 – 0.2 ug/cm2). It should also be noted that this is meant for prints that are to be displayed for prints in storage every bit of hypo is too muc. Also I agree never ever use Hypo eliminator it is a case of the cure being worse than the illness. Also Hypo Clearing is not recommended for all RC Papers Kodak for instance advices against it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There are a couple of very long "washing" threads which seem to suggest this simply isn't true.
It appears that washing can be adequate and archival without running water but that each individual must use the appropriate tests to establish that their own régime is washing their material sufficiently

Perhaps.

RC paper has a lot in common with film, and if you read Greg Davis' thread about testing washing with film, maybe a few parallels could be drawn to RC paper.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I've been going by what Kodak's publications have been telling me, and later years Ilford's recommended washing procedures for fiber based papers. I don't use RC papers enough to know what is good etiquette or not.

I still think the problem relates to washing the prints in the drum.

 

[pdeeh]

ou read Greg Davis' thread about testing washing

Yes, I have, that is one of the threads I was referring to.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes, I have, that is one of the threads I was referring to.

In that thread it is pretty obvious that enough wash time and the use of HCA seems to be the ticket to properly washed film. The exception was 30 minutes running water with non-hardening fixer and no HCA.

I know Ilford only recommends a four minute wash time for RC papers (on their web site). Since the OP is washing for four minutes, something else must be going wrong.

But back to the original issue; I suspect the fact that the print is washed in the drum is the culprit. Only a residual hypo test will tell for sure.

 

[MattKing]

The only way I can see this being a problem due to the washing in the tubes would be if the damage was occurring due to transfer of residue from the back of one print to the front of another - stuff just doesn't normally migrate through the RC substrate.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Washing in a drum is very inefficient for removal of chemistry. You can test this with an RA4 process and the final wash or with C41 and the wash after the bleach. The wash remains colored for a looooong time.

Greg Davis' tests are very good. Ctein published an article on the necessity of leaving remaining hypo in prints for ultimate stability.

And now an interesting item: I am over 5 years into keeping/washing tests with various hypo solutions and one thing I have found is that formulas with thiocyanate keep BETTER over this 5 year period regardless of wash, when compared to the reference. No details will be given until I have more data, so don't send me messages asking me how. It is too soon to discuss this.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Drums work well for washing RA4 if you have some kind of ribs on the walls which allow water to circulate clear around the print and if you
change the water multiple times. But I'm paranoid, so do twice the recommended cumulative time, involving maybe six changes of water,
then might even tray rinse a tad afterwards. I feel a lot more comfortable about this than what the pro labs have typically done with their
roller-transport lines. I rarely use black and white RC paper, but when I do just give it a relatively short wash in one of the "archival" slot
washers which I use for fiber-based prints, following a general rinse. Seems to work fine. None of my own prints have shown signs of problems over the decades, but I have seen issues with numerous commercial lab prints. What I wonder about - just academically - is how
much B&W RC materials might have changed since some of these ideas and products were first afloat.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Drew, take a look at the wash water after 6 changes. Even with a ribbed tank, I have seen some red color. This is why I say what I did above, and why I use a tray wash on all of my prints (color and B&W) after using a Jobo for processing.

PE

 

[David Lyga]

PE, thanks for 'legitimizing' the tiny residue of thiosulfate. I knew that I had read this someplace. I am not a chemist, but it kind of provides a hindrance for other oxidation products in the atmosphere. I have to admit that with drums, when I started color back in the 70s, there WOULD be some blix color left after several 'washes' because, somehow, not all the wash water made it to the underside of the print. As a result, oftentimes, I would get cyan borders on the next print because the residual blix slightly, ever so slightly, contaminated the fresh developer. I learned fast to stop and blix in trays. - David Lyga

 

[DREW WILEY]

Actually, PE, I don't get any color coming off after the second drum rinse; but my drums aren't ordinary either. So I don't know what to make of this. But per that sistan stuff and B&W RC, I've never really bought into that. I'd have to know a helluva lot more than I do about what an RC coating means at this point in history, as well as what's behind the emulsion also. Allegedly UV has a lot to do with what might happen; but I've never used RC papers for anything other than casual commercial purposes, like prints intended for halftone reproduction of for use in marketing portfolios - never for my personal prints per se. Therefore I've never run my own battery of display tests like I have with various color papers.

 

[polyglot]

Guys, it's not the wash; give that one up already or do the diffusion-rate calculations and go argue in a washing thread. This is RC and not FB, you don't need to drown it for two hours and residual-hypo testing shows that my prints are sufficiently washed or maybe even over-washed. PE: I'm not talking about film; that gets a 10+ minute wash with about 20 changes (much more than the Ilford method suggests), and the water comes out completely clear by about halfway through. My film bases are completely clear, no trace of pink/purple/etc in Acros/TMY. Believe me, I can wash stuff.

As to "why Jobo?", it's space constraints. I can process 20x24" in it no worries but couldn't even put down two trays of that size. If I'm making lots of 8x10", I can process 6 at a time in it. It's not inefficient or ineffective, it uses less chemistry and it means I can work in my laundry with just a 650x2500mm bench that holds sink, Jobo and enlarger. And I can process C41+RA4 with good process control and no dying of fumes or amine sensitisation.

It's not contamination from the back of the print behind because the top print on each pile was often the worst affected. If it were fixer contamination from when the prints were originally processed, why did they keep absolutely perfectly for 5-6 years in the very same piles before I added any Sistan?

There are no ozone sources in the building, not even a CRT. Again, no degradation on prints stored in boxes for 5+ years without Sistan.

I'm buying a squeegee for my RC, re-printing a bunch of stuff on FB and calling it a day I think.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ok, FYI FB paper uses Baryta as the whitener. It reflects some portion of the UV. RC uses Titanox which absorbs almost all of the UV. Thus RC papers reflect back less UV into your print. And they contain inhibitors that prevent toxic atmospheric products from getting into the print from the backside.

As for washing, I use ribbed drums and do both FB and RC and of that, it is both color and B&W. I've always been able to find residual chemistry after the recommended wash in my Jobo and thus I keep a big 16x20 tray there for all prints. After an evening of 48 color prints, the water in the tray is faintly pink from retained blix and thus I give it another 10 minutes of wash with running water. Remember that each print that went into that tray was washed properly according to the process instructions

PE

 

[AgX]

As to "why Jobo?", it's space constraints. I can process 20x24" in it no worries but couldn't even put down two trays of that size. If I'm making lots of 8x10", I can process 6 at a time in it. It's not inefficient or ineffective, it uses less chemistry and it means I can work in my laundry with just a 650x2500mm bench that holds sink, Jobo and enlarger. And I can process C41+RA4 with good process control and no dying of fumes or amine sensitisation.

As alternative for RA-4 and RC-b&w prints you might consider roller-transport processors from Thermaphot. They are designed for a small footprint in your lab.