The definitive word (I hope) on color stabilzers!

[loccdor]

Regarding E-6, the Arista E-6 3-bath liquid kit, which seems to be the same kit Film Photography Project is selling, claims on the website https://www.freestylephoto.com/11861-Arista-Rapid-E-6-Slide-Developing-Kit-1-Quart :
"This kit uses First Developer, Color Developer, and a combined Beach/Fix (Blix) that does not require a stabilizer."

Is that claim legitimate?

 

[lamerko]

"combined Beach/Fix (Blix) that does not require a stabilizer" - this implies that the stabilizer is part of the blix. But at the same time, the MSDS doesn't mention such an ingredient anywhere, and it's usually nasty chemicals...

 

[koraks]

"combined Beach/Fix (Blix) that does not require a stabilizer" - this implies that the stabilizer is part of the blix.

In contemporary E6 processes AFAIK the stabilizer is part of the bre-bleach bath and it'll form formalin in-situ further on in the process. @Rudeofus has set me straight on this at some point.

Is that claim legitimate?

It sounds confused to me.
I'd go through the MSDS of the chemistry and determine what's going on, but odds are they're just leaving out the stabilizer because "heck, if people have faded slides a decade from now, they're never going to realize it's because we cut a corner or two in our chemistry."

Thanks for explanation. So it would mean that Kodak Vision films are inherently stable without need for a stabilizer.

Maybe. Maybe not. I wouldn't infer anything about the makeup of the film from the composition of processing chemistry that may or may not be optimized for that particular film.

 

[lamerko]

In contemporary E6 processes AFAIK the stabilizer is part of the bre-bleach bath and it'll form formalin in-situ further on in the process. @Rudeofus has set me straight on this at some point.

I checked the MSDS - no formaldehyde sources are listed. But on the other hand, they have mentioned other safer chemicals present in small quantity.

Maybe. Maybe not. I wouldn't infer anything about the makeup of the film from the composition of processing chemistry that may or may not be optimized for that particular film.

Interestingly, Kodak claims that Vision3 has very good archiveness

 

[Lachlan Young]

I think that Fuji reformulated its CD-3/ E-6 couplers much in the manner that CD-4/ C-41 couplers were (round about the arrival of RDP-III I suspect) - but that Kodak didn't (until E100 came along to relaunch Kodak transparency films) - and that this might have been a significant factor (amongst other reformulation needs) in their discontinuing all E-6 films in the first place, owing to the costs/ ROI involved in remaking the couplers.

 

[halfaman]

Thanks for explanation. So it would mean that Kodak Vision films are inherently stable without need for a stabilizer.

As it is C41 film if you read PE first entry of this post. Final rinse purpose is to prevent long term biological growth on film that will degrade the dyes and base ("eaten by bugs", as didactically described by PE). If you store the film under enviroment controlled conditions (periodic air filtering, temperature and humidity control), or simply don't care about film long term condition, you may skip the biocide part of the final rinse.

Also, the remark about Proxel GXL apparently refers not to the film, but to the specific baths where it is listed when the chemistry sits in the drums.

I don't think so.

 

[koraks]

As it is C41 film

For the record, but Kodak Vision3 is not C41 film.
The suspicions about archival stability of these ECN2 films if a proper stabilizer is not used is IMO justified because of what @Lachlan Young indicated above.

 

[Romanko]

Is there formalin in Bellini E6?

 

[Lachlan Young]

For the record, but Kodak Vision3 is not C41 film.
The suspicions about archival stability of these ECN2 films if a proper stabilizer is not used is IMO justified because of what @Lachlan Young indicated above.

ECN-2 will have been revised too - you can check the formulae for ECN-2's baths as Kodak publish the process recipes. It's possible that the reintroduction of E100 was only feasible because of that knowledge gained on ECN-2 CD-3 couplers.

 

[koraks]

Is there formalin in Bellini E6?

If there is, I can't find it in their SDS.

ECN-2 will have been revised too - you can check the formulae for ECN-2's baths as Kodak publish the process recipes. It's possible that the reintroduction of E100 was only feasible because of that knowledge gained on ECN-2 CD-3 couplers.

That's possible. It's also possible that this isn't the case. Fact is, we don't know.
Like I said earlier, I'm hesitant to assume something about the film based on specifications for the developer, especially when it comes to the need for a stabilizer.
I just don't know and so far have not heard of anyone with a direct link to Kodak comment on this.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If there is, I can't find it in their SDS.



That's possible. It's also possible that this isn't the case. Fact is, we don't know.
Like I said earlier, I'm hesitant to assume something about the film based on specifications for the developer, especially when it comes to the need for a stabilizer.
I just don't know and so far have not heard of anyone with a direct link to Kodak comment on this.

I was basing my comments on the specification for the ECN-2 stabiliser. And the Bellini kit has no noticeable Formalin smell.

 

[koraks]

I was basing my comments on the specification for the ECN-2 stabiliser.

I understand. Like I said, your hypothesis sounds plausible.

 

[lamerko]

I don't think so.

Actually, there is no need to think so. The document is old, with no content changes, probably more than 30 years old. It is intended for the large laboratories that worked at the peak of motion picture cinema.
Let me draw your attention to the following:
1. On page 7-17, point 10 (point 11 on page 7-18 also) it says:

"The final rinse contains a wetting agent to promote more uniform wetting of the film strand prior to drying. The Proxel GXL or Spectrus NX106 controls biological growth in the tank."

Note, Proxel GXL is used to control microflora in tanks.
2. On page 7-27, Proxel GX is mentioned for Prebath PB-2. In fact, this is the same inscription that is also found under the final rinse. Kind of weird to start the process with that if it's about the film, isn't it? Everything would wash out of the emulsion in subsequent baths.
3. The Proxel GXL is part of the UL alternative bleaches. Why?
In summary - the Proxel GXL (can) have it in the pre-bath, bleach and final rinse (optional). With the clarification that it is for control of biological growth in the tank.

 

[loccdor]

This is the response I got from an email to Film Photography Project:

"In our experience, the most important key to long life with E6 is good washing. Formaldehyde used to be used but was discontinued when it was identified as a carcinogen. Hexamine is used in our original C41 kit. (Not in our new and recommended c-41/ecn2 kit)

I have never seen stabilizer used in E6 kits. Even the current Kodak E6 formula for the final rinse does not have a stabiliser. The basic ingredients are biocides to preserve the solution and wetting agents to prevent spots.

E6 films have improved stability from previous times. they generally will not fade in dark storage as long as they are properly washed during processing."

 

[halfaman]

Actually, there is no need to think so. The document is old, with no content changes, probably more than 30 years old. It is intended for the large laboratories that worked at the peak of motion picture cinema.
Let me draw your attention to the following:
1. On page 7-17, point 10 (point 11 on page 7-18 also) it says:

Note, Proxel GXL is used to control microflora in tanks.
2. On page 7-27, Proxel GX is mentioned for Prebath PB-2. In fact, this is the same inscription that is also found under the final rinse. Kind of weird to start the process with that if it's about the film, isn't it? Everything would wash out of the emulsion in subsequent baths.
3. The Proxel GXL is part of the UL alternative bleaches. Why?
In summary - the Proxel GXL (can) have it in the pre-bath, bleach and final rinse (optional). With the clarification that it is for control of biological growth in the tank.

Everything you mention is absolutely accurate. Unless there is some biological protection included in the movie film that survives the whole process (or it is developed somehow), I guess it is assumed that it will be stored in archival conditions.

 

[Rudeofus]

This is the response I got from an email to Film Photography Project:

"In our experience, the most important key to long life with E6 is good washing. Formaldehyde used to be used but was discontinued when it was identified as a carcinogen. Hexamine is used in our original C41 kit. (Not in our new and recommended c-41/ecn2 kit)

This is a quite unexpected response. The main claim to fame for Heamine is that it decomposes to Formaldehyde (and Ammonia) in water, so I have no idea, how a Hexamine solution could be any less carcinogenic than a similarly concentrated Formaline solution.

The biggest practical difference appears to be not so much the actual toxicity of final rinse, but the regulatory bodies who govern sales of chemistry to end users. It's the same nonsensical thinking as "We can't sell you Acetic Acid, because it's an acid, and that's bad for you, but why don't you buy Sodium Bisulfate instead? It's safe, because it's a salt and not an acid.".

If electronics industry was regulated like that, Thomas J. Watson's alleged quote would have actually been prophetic :-(

I have never seen stabilizer used in E6 kits. Even the current Kodak E6 formula for the final rinse does not have a stabiliser. The basic ingredients are biocides to preserve the solution and wetting agents to prevent spots.

I am quite sure, that Tetenal's final rinse contained either Formalin or Hexamine. You will not find either in 7-bath-kits, because they contain at least one of these compounds in their prebleach.

E6 films have improved stability from previous times. they generally will not fade in dark storage as long as they are properly washed during processing."

There's a chance, that both Kodak and Fuji quietly changed their E-6 couplers to no longer require Formalin, but they did not announce this anywhere I would read about this. There were always kits around with no final rinse, even when Kodak was quite clear that Formalin was needed, so some kits leaving out the Formalin is not really proof of anything IMHO.

 

[lamerko]

Everything you mention is absolutely accurate. Unless there is some biological protection included in the movie film that survives the whole process (or it is developed somehow), I guess it is assumed that it will be stored in archival conditions.

Yes, I agree that color film (unlike black and white) has no biological protection. This Proxel GXL fungicide appears to be a 20 percent benzisothiazolinone solution. But I'm not at all convinced that 0.7ml/litre of 20% benzisothiazolinone will have any lasting effect on the emulsion...

This is the response I got from an email to Film Photography Project:

"In our experience, the most important key to long life with E6 is good washing. Formaldehyde used to be used but was discontinued when it was identified as a carcinogen. Hexamine is used in our original C41 kit. (Not in our new and recommended c-41/ecn2 kit)

I have never seen stabilizer used in E6 kits. Even the current Kodak E6 formula for the final rinse does not have a stabiliser. The basic ingredients are biocides to preserve the solution and wetting agents to prevent spots.

E6 films have improved stability from previous times. they generally will not fade in dark storage as long as they are properly washed during processing."

It's weird and maybe a little frivolous.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The change in ECN-2 process couplers seems to have happened before September 2001. There is a Technical Information Bulletin (Tib5200) from Kodak explicitly stating that running cinema Ektachrome (at that time VNF-1 process - essentially E-4, including the TBAB nasty) through ECN-2 could cause various issues - including issues with magenta dye stability in VNF emulsions (the stabiliser for it includes 3.5ml/ L of Formalin and ECN-2 does not). When the couplers were changed in ECN-2 is unclear - in 2001 there was a mixture of Vision (late 90's to very early 2000's) and EXR (early 90s) emulsions in the range, so the update may have happened midlife for some of them.

 

[loccdor]

benzisothiazolinone

That takes me back to when I was a kid reading the ingredients on Shampoo bottles.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm a bit puzzled by the debate. EU regulations are generally more stringent than in the US. And there have been very strong regulations demanding the phase-out of formaldehyde as an ingredient for several decades now in the US. As the predominant driver of these categories of developer, Kodak would have been forced to comply rather early. Manufacturers of plywood in the US were the largest affected category, and that's one reason most of our plywood now comes from China instead, where a lot of formaldehyde-based glue is still being used.

Minor ingredients considered innocuous to health do not need to be MSDS listed. That would hypothetically include substitute fungicides with no known health risks.

 

[koraks]

I'm a bit puzzled by the debate.

OK, how come? Your post doesn't explain it for me, at least.

substitute fungicides

The discussion is not so much about fungicides though. It's also about dye and unreacted coupler stabilization.

If you meant to say "I assume Kodak et al. figured this out somehow because they were forced to abstain from formaldehyde" - well, maybe, but we don't know, that's the point.

There is a Technical Information Bulletin (Tib5200) from Kodak explicitly stating that running cinema Ektachrome (at that time VNF-1 process - essentially E-4, including the TBAB nasty) through ECN-2 could cause various issues - including issues with magenta dye stability

Yes, so the optimist in me would interpret that document as meaning "ECN2 films in 2001 did not require a stabilizer bath, but Ektachrome did". The pessimist would interpret it as "dye stability for Ektachrome was a concern, but for ECN2 it somehow wasn't". This 'somehow' can also mean that it was deemed acceptable that ECN2 films had a more rapid rate of fading and staining.

This is of course separate from the question whether a formalin stabilizer may have additional benefits over whatever measures may have been taken to improve dye stability by other means. To the best of my knowledge, nothing was said about that in this thread or elsewhere in Photrio; only that using a formalin stabilizer wouldn't hurt.

I think the debate is 'puzzling' to some because of the inherent uncertainty and the fact that all we know has to be indirectly implied from piecemeal information.

 

[Lachlan Young]

This 'somehow' can also mean that it was deemed acceptable that ECN2 films had a more rapid rate of fading and staining.

It was ECN-2 that will have had far higher priority for dye stability than VNF-1 ever did. If you think about what those processes were intended to be used for (cinema neg - where camera negs may need to be printed from years later, versus rapid newsgathering - VNF is literally 'Video News Film') it should be obvious. That VNF survived using a modified E-4 as long as it did says more about it having other contexts of use that were significant enough for continued production (or that it had cross-reference to some aerial recon/ mapping films and could be run in similar continuous drive machines) that outweighed the cost/ benefits of switching to E-6. What is also worth noting about ECN/ ECP and VNF processes is that they all have aspects to them that indicate they were intended for industrial usage only (with readily available PPE and fume/ dust extraction), as they use components that would be regarded as potentially problematic or dangerous in home/ amateur usage.

. To the best of my knowledge, nothing was said about that in this thread or elsewhere in Photrio; only that using a formalin stabilizer wouldn't hurt

Formalin stabiliser won't hurt the new couplers - but the new stabiliser isn't ideal for long term stability with the old couplers, that's all there is to it. What it meant was that the new couplers could be essentially seamlessly introduced into the market.

 

[ags2mikon]

If what Lachlan said, "Formalin stabiliser won't hurt the new couplers" is true then if you feel safe using formalin stabilizer keep doing it. Or did I miss something?

 

[Rudeofus]

Formalin stabiliser won't hurt the new couplers - but the new stabiliser isn't ideal for long term stability with the old couplers, that's all there is to it. What it meant was that the new couplers could be essentially seamlessly introduced into the market.

Let's not forget, that Formalin in the E-6 final rinse is a thing exclusively for 3 bath kits. AFAIK Kodak never produced such kits, and PE was strongly opposed to them. "Stabilizers in final rinse" are a thing exclusively for introductory amateur kits.

Since the official E-6 process still uses Formaldehyde in the prebleach, it's extremely unlikely, that any E-6 material would not be able to handle Formalin in a stabilizer.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What are your grounds for claiming Formaldehyde is still being used in E6? So far, I haven't seen it MSDS listed in any E6 brand here in the US, and would be shocked if I did find it.