Time to Stockpile Chemicals

[Photo Engineer]

How about "Doomsday Digital Image Preservation - with film!"?

PE

 

[newcan1]

I'm less concerned with availability than I am with price. And how will RA4 stand up to the newer "dry process" papers? And don't underestimate the probability that environmental laws will be tightened against chemical processes as digital processes take greater hold (and gain more lobbying power). I'm convinced such legal trends hastened film's demise.

 

[DREW WILEY]

As long as there's a steady stream of chrome film still going out, I don't see how the matching chem
would be in danger. Fuji wouldn't cut off their right hand to spite their left. And someone will still have an incentive to process it, even if film has to be shipped for processing. I wouldn't extrapolate
Toronto as a universal pattern! But it does seem logical that E6 would go before C41, that is, unless
Kodak totally tanks much sooner than expected. And even in that scenario, it would take a few years before neg film dries up (which Fuji could hypothetically revive). You can't predict just everything. For all I know, aliens could land and steal all the world's silicon chips, and then we'd
have nothing but film.

 

[wogster]

How about "Doomsday Digital Image Preservation - with film!"?

PE

There are a couple of ways to do this, one would be to use a laser to write digital information on B&W film, probably work best with the tabular-grain emulsions, you would need a write density no greater then 4 grains, this means a 25ISO or even a 10ISO film would work best, because the grains can be smaller. A reader would then consist of a scanner type mechanism that would read the image, and confirm whether a grain is ON (dark) or OFF (light). Lossless compression would be required, to minimize the amount of data stored.

The question becomes, how many grains could you get in a given size of film, it's easy to be a 40MB file from a modern digital camera, if you can compress that to half, it's 20MB, if your storage area is 24x36 mm that is an area of 864mm requiring 24,273 pixels per mm at 4 grains per pixel you would need 97,090 grains per square mm, I don't know if that is doable or not.

PE of all the people here, your most likely to know how many grains per mm a modern 25ISO B&W T-grain emulsion would have....

 

[Bob Carnie]

We are writing back digital files to film, have been doing so for a couple of years. Our purpose is for contact alt and contact silver purposes.
What we cannot do is provide a negative that can withstand enlarging. But for example with the same negative we have printed to 20 x24 optically and as well scanned and made film then contacted at the same size with equal quality of print on Ilford Warm Tone which is a glossy paper and unforgiving.
There are differences but they are not deal breakers.


Our main purpose for this silver film is archival purposes as any of the pictorio negatives we have seen 1. change in a couple of years 2. do not have the same blocking power.
and for those doing alt processes who will at some point need a service provider, who not only can produce the film but also uses it themselves for different processes .


Drew .. I am interested in dry chemicals , as indeed I plan to purchase a large quanitity of colour negative film and chemistry to match for at least 5-7 years of work, and not be bothered with price increases over that time... we have invested heavily in film cameras, scanners and output devices and would like to keep our work consistent with the gear we have. This project may require travel with a darkroom trailer much like Bill Schwab's and I want to be in a position to process as I go. May even bring the Carnie act close to your home town.
My wife and I tend to overshoot each time we go out and thinking that we would send it out to a local vendor to process is not an option financially , so scratch C41 chems sound very appealing.. I scratch mix most every thing else and I did not think C41 scratch mixing was an option until the posts in this thread point otherwise.

Basically as a lab owner , we get pricing that is very competitive for film, so a large purchase only makes sense.

 

[newcan1]

EDTA from Artcraft Chemicals.. $16.00/lb.
http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/pr...eneral-chemistry/a-m/edta-disodium-part-1130/

That's not the same as Ferric Ammonium EDTA that is used in Blix. For reasons that escape me, that is now only available in liquid form.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You cited EDTA in your post and the response was perfectly valid based on that.

There is EDTA solid, Disodium EDTA solid, Tetra Sodium EDTA solid and Sodium Ferric EDTA solid.

Then there is Ammoniium Ferric EDTA which is either solid (VERY expensive) or liquid (moderately expensive).

All are used in photography, and you can make the Ferric salts from EDTA.

PE

 

[newcan1]

Hi PE: My bad for not realizing I had not referenced Na Fe EDTA in my prior post. Sorry eclarke - you were correct to point out what is available at Artcraft.

PE, in a prior post (I don't have it to hand but looked at it this afternoon) you indicated that it would be difficult to remove to sodium ion if starting with one of the sodium EDTA variants. If there is a particular (inexpensive) EDTA one can start with to make the ferric salt from, I am sure several here (including me) would be interested to know what to do.

Also - Any idea why solid Na Fe EDTA has become so expensive? I still have 2LB of it that I bought from Rayco (no longer in existence) when I was living in England in the late '80's/early '90's. It was pretty cheap then. Is this another example of the enviro police driving us away from chemical industries and toward a digital utopia?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, you can get plain EDTA, the free acid form. You then carefully neutralize it with Ammonium Hydroxide and then you add Ferric Bromide or the like. You end up with Ferric Ammonium EDTA and Ammonium Bromide which is a good bleach or the starting point for a good blix!

You have to be careful, as the reactions are sometimes strong, and sometimes result in dilute solutions. I've done it in the lab though, albeit about in 1966 last. After than, EK had the liquid available internally.

Another route is possible, but not to us folk. It takes a full lab.

PE

 

[newcan1]

I recall from the other thread that the other route may involve ammonia gas and high pressures? We can skip that.

Are there other iron salts that could be used? I suspect that Ferric Bromide is not the cheapest.

It seems I have 100g of EDTA acid - also from Rayco - it might be fun to do an experiment.

By the way -- I assume that ferricyanide bleach may be out of the question for RA4 as it would discolor the paper?

 

[removed account4]

threads like this remind me how in danger color ( colour ) imaging is.
who knows how long the chemistry will be available for, and at what price ...

for reasons like this i will stick to coffee and soda and vit c and if i ever need color
i will do tri color work ... maybe i should buy 100LB of thiosulphate to make sure in my kids
lifetime if they ever want to do chemical based photography, they can ...

thanks for the wake up call!
john

 

[newcan1]

John if you do that, make sure it's anhydrous -- the crystalline version, used at about 12oz/litre, wouldn't last as long as you think! Or just buy more.

You can buy dry fixer chemistry, which is basically sod. thiosulfate anhydrous and sodium metabisulfite, a 1 gallon mix, for about $5. That's what I plan to stockpile, unless PE tells me such a mix is not stable!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, there is another route, and that is what I referred to in my last post. It involves lab scale work with high tech equipment.

Also, Hypo goes bad with keeping! Even solid hypo goes bad.

PE

 

[newcan1]

PE to make bleach as you described, could one use ferric chloride instead of ferric bromide? It seems to be much cheaper. Or ferric ammonium sulfate.

 

[wogster]

threads like this remind me how in danger color ( colour ) imaging is.
who knows how long the chemistry will be available for, and at what price ...

for reasons like this i will stick to coffee and soda and vit c and if i ever need color
i will do tri color work ... maybe i should buy 100LB of thiosulphate to make sure in my kids
lifetime if they ever want to do chemical based photography, they can ...

thanks for the wake up call!
john

Sodium thiosulphate has other uses in chemistry and medicine, so it's likely to be around for a while yet. One thing in B&W photography, they didn't develop new chemicals to make it work, they took existing chemicals and saw which ones would work.

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE to make bleach as you described, could one use ferric chloride instead of ferric bromide? It seems to be much cheaper. Or ferric ammonium sulfate.

There are advantages and disadvantages to every chemical. I've used Ferric Ammonium Sulfate, but Sulfate inhibits swell, so there is one big disadvantage.

You would have to experiment anyhow, to come up with the right mix. I suggest that you use published formulas.

PE

 

[mtjade2007]

I have a few boxes of C-41RA developer replenisher with Part C being too old and gone bad. That's a couple of hundred liters of developer gone bad. Recently I went ahead to mix 10 liters of it without part C. I also mixed the right amount of starter to it so it is a complete stock developer without part C. I took ome liter of this developer and added 5 grams of CD-4. The CD-4 powder is something that is ay least 25 years old that I bought in the 80'.

I used this one liter developer and developed quite a few Kodak Ektar 100, Portra VC, Fuji NPS and even a few rolls of Kodak VPS-3 and a roll of Pro100. All were 220 except the Ektar that was a 120. I developed the Ektar first and it was the very best negative I ever produced. I proceeded to reuse the developer and see at which point it would crap out on me. I think I developed a total of 10 rolls of 220 and a roll of 120 (Ektar). I was very surprised that the colors were all acceptable with no obvious color crossover that makes scanning difficult.

The first 4 rolls I developed at 3 min 15 sec standard time at 100 degree F. The rest I extended the time to 3 min 30 sec. I used 470 ml each time for 2 rolls of 220. My processor is a Jobo ATL-2300.

So what I am getting at is old CD-4 powder does last 25 years long or longer. I kept it in a plastic bottle all these years and it looks grey today. But it works great still. Now I am on a quest to buy 500 grams or 1 kg. Where can I get it at a good price?

If you have part C gone bad from your C-41 developer don't throw it away.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, since most of the sulfite is in part C, there will be some degree of problem, but you might not see it easily.

PE

 

[mtjade2007]

Thanks and what Can I do about it, PE? I hate to waste so much otherwise good chemicals into the drain.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, look at the posted C41 developer formulas and then put in some sulfite to match that in the formulas. I would test part A and part B for sulfite by adding some acid to it and sniffing. It would only take a few drops of the concentrates and a few drops of acid. If you smell sulfur dioxide, then there is some on those parts. If there is, use less in part C.

Here is an example. Lets say that you need 10 g/l total Sodium Sulfite. If you smell no SO2 odor in parts A and B when acid is added,, then add 10 g/l to the final formula. Adjust the pH. If you smell SO2 when you add acid, then add 5g/l Sodium Sulfite. Adjust he pH.

To adjust the pH, you will need some Sodium Hydroxide solution or some Acetic Acid solution depending on the final pH.

Good luck.

PE

 

[mtjade2007]

Thanks again, PE. I just looked at the bottles of the C-41RA LORR replenisher that I have. It says the Part A bottle contains Potassium Carbonate, the Part B bottle contains Hydroxylamine Sulfate and the Part C contains CD4 and Sodium Bisulfite. Does this mean I need 5 gram/l to add to the solution after mixing 5 grams of CD4 into it? The Part B bottle has Sulfate in it. I don't have a PH meter. I don't think I am capable of adjusting PH. I believe these bottles contains more chemicals not shown on the labels.

The developer without adding Sulfate somehow had worked very well for me. What would happen if I continue to use it as is? You said it may be hard to see the difference but what is the difference? I think getting bulk CD4 is already a challenge. I may just consume all the CD4 I have then forget about the remaining stock pile of the developer with bad Part C.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You will probably need the entire quantity of Sodium Sulfite indicated in the formula. I don't have it in front of me right now.

But, pH is critical. CD4 is an acid salt of an organic base, but the part C is the free base of CD4 with Bisulfite. So..... I cannot give you exact figures. Kodak Powders and Solution division had it figured out based on their formulas, but I, alas, do not.

PE

 

[mtjade2007]

OK, I will look up the C-41 formula and see how much Soldium Sulfite will be needed. It is a cheap chemical and easy to get. The hard part will be adjusting PH without a PH meter. Actually I have one but the probe is shot. I tried to learn how to use one and found it not so trivial to calibrate it. I also got test strips but the accuracy will be questionable. Any tips for adjusting PH without a PH meter? Thanks a lot, PE.

 

[Photo Engineer]

No thoughts on this.

A pH meter is easy to calibrate and use though. One button to calibrate and another to use.

Good luck.

PE

 

[mtjade2007]

Maybe I overlooked how simple it is to use a PH meter. I remember I had to get a standard (PH = 7.0) liquid and had the probe sunk in it at all time as the storage. But over time that standard liquid would be contaminated and had to be replaced. I tried distilled water as a calibration point of PH 7.0. It never worked that way. Any way, I will do more research about using a PH meter. I do have one with a very large meter (analog) on it.