Unicolor Stabilzer sucks!

[Trainmaster]

Doing some C-41 today with their cheapo powder kit. So far I am impressed with the quality of their developer and blix. But the stabilzer is complete garbage!! And I'm using distilled to mix the stabilzer, but still got marks. I don't think Unicolor adds any kind of wetting agent to it, just yhe hexamine. Fortunately I had some old Tetenal on the shelf, and rescued my negs for the most part. So if you use the cheapo Unicolor kit, make your own stabilizer! Hope that will save some agnst for someone else out there!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

I have used the Unicolor C-41 kit for years and never had a problem with any part of it.

 

[gkardmw]

Trainmaster,

I agree with you - I always have crusty white crud on my negatives when I use the Unicolor. What would you use to make your own?


Dave

 

[Chris Douglas]

Yup

Ditto on the stabilizer, however, I add one ml of photoflo and the liquid sheets right off the negative. No spots.

 

[Kilgallb]

On the advice of PE, I mix the stabilizer in distilled water mixed with Kodak Photo-Flo 200 in the normal dilution. I also wipe my film with a squeegee. After that I have had no issues with the blotches.

 

[bvy]

Ditch the stabilizer and use Kodak Final Rinse. It's cheap, readily available, and it works.

 

[dabsond]

I mixed the stabilizer in distilled water. Use the stabilizer and follow up with photo flow. Works every time.

 

[Wayne]

I could be wrong but I think you should ad the photo-flo to the stabilizer rather than following up with it. Maybe PE can correct me, but somewhere I got that idea

 

[Rudeofus]

Trainmaster, I can assure you that Tetenal's STAB leaves very nasty marks, too, this issue is definitely not exclusive to Unicolor. There are good news, though:

1. These marks rarely show up in scans or print, and then only in very severe cases
2. The active ingredient in all these STAB formulations appears to be Formaldehyde, which binds tightly to the gelatin. Therefore it is safe to wipe your negs/slides clean with a fine sponge which is moist with distilled water.

Don't rewash your film with water+Photoflo, as this will likely diminish the germicidal effect of your STAB.

 

[mklw1954]

After getting plenty of water marks on 35mm film using my first Unicolor kit 4 years ago, I add 1/2 tsp. of PhotoFlo concentrate to 1 liter of stabilizer, and repeat every 8 rolls, and no water marks. I also use distilled water instead of tap water.

 

[markbarendt]

Ditch the stabilizer and use Kodak Final Rinse. It's cheap, readily available, and it works.

I mixed the stabilizer in distilled water. Use the stabilizer and follow up with photo flow. Works every time.

Stabilizer always needs to be last. PhotoFlo and LFN and the like will wash away the stabilizing chemicals, that's bad.

 

[Rudeofus]

Stabilizer always needs to be last. PhotoFlo and LFN and the like will wash away the stabilizing chemicals, that's bad.

Kodak's Final Rinse contains a bacteriostat, which is all you need with modern C-41 film. But you're right: PhotoFlo and LFN won't do it.

 

[markbarendt]

Kodak's Final Rinse contains a bacteriostat, which is all you need with modern C-41 film. But you're right: PhotoFlo and LFN won't do it.

Thanks for the verbiage check.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I use Unicolor, and when the film's been through the developing cycle and is washed, I use the stabilizer, but right at the end I gently wipe off the excess with a very soft rubber edge.
I never get any marks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

I use Unicolor, and when the film's been through the developing cycle and is washed, I use the stabilizer, but right at the end I gently wipe off the excess with a very soft rubber edge.
I never get any marks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use a damp sponge. Got the idea from PE. That actually helped solve my watermark problems with both C-41 and traditional B&W regardless of the specific final bath the film got.

 

[gzhuang]

Find some photo flo and use it after the stabilizer process. No wash required. Hang up to dry. You won't look back.

 

[trythis]

Find some photo flo and use it after the stabilizer process. No wash required. Hang up to dry. You won't look back.

Doesn't the photoflo could clean off the stabilizers that prevent mold and fungus ?


Sent with typotalk

 

[gzhuang]

Doesn't the photoflo could clean off the stabilizers that prevent mold and fungus ?


Sent with typotalk

Looks great to me. Another thing I think Unicolor doesn't go well with XP2.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Doesn't the photoflo could clean off the stabilizers that prevent mold and fungus ?

That's correct. Your film will still look great, but it will not last.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Looks great to me. Another thing I think Unicolor doesn't go well with XP2.

Sure, looks great today but the C-41 final rinse includes a biocide that keeps molds and fungus from growing.

Without the biocide your film will probably act much as a Petri dish in a science lab as the years pass.

 

[pentaxuser]

If the Unicolor kits goes well with other C41 films then I see no reason why it doesn't go well with XP2+. Perhaps the poster can say specifically what adverse effect he has seen with using Unicolor with XP2+ and why he is convinced that the effect wasn't or could not have been produced by something outwith the Unicolor process?

As far as I know this kit isn't available in the U.K. so it doesn't matter to me but it would be a pity if others are put off using this kit unless there a clearly a defect in it

pentaxuser

Thanks

 

[Kilgallb]

From PEs post on stabilizer. See the last paragraph he tells us to mix the stabilizer using premixed photo flo 200 instead of plain water.

I have gotten quite a few queries regarding color stabilizers and have therefore undertaken a project investigating them and trying to clarify them in one post.

Here goes.....

Cyan and Magenta couplers react with their respective dyes causing brown stains and loss of dye. This makes a print, slide or negative turn red or green with a brownish border or light areas that brown up. In addition, color materials have all of the silver removed during processing, and since silver is a biostat killing microorganisms, color materials can be "eaten by bugs".

Traditionally, formaldehyde was used to combat both problems. Formalin (Formaldehyde gas in solutions) was the answer. E6, E4, C41 and C22 processes for film used this and Ektaprint C and Ektaprint 3 used it as well.

Formalin reacted with the left over coupler and also the gelatin to form substances that resisted both coupler induced degradation and the bug attacks. But, it was found to be harmful to humans doing the processing (and perhaps afterwards). Now, formalin is used in the sizing of new clothing and in the finish of new furniture, but that did not matter to those who safeguard our health by force! So, Kodak undertook a project to eliminate the formalin from all stabilizers (Film and paper)

In the 60s, a paper stabilizer was citric acid at pH 4.5 with benzoic acid and sorbitol + formalin. A film stabilizer was formalin + Photo Flo 200 or the equivalent. When E6 and C41 rolled around, they kept the same stabilizer but paper eliminated the stabilizer by incorporating some of the stabilizing agents into the paper itself. So, C22 stab = C41 stab = E6 stab = E4 stab at about 1970. Remember this!!!!

Along the way, the "people who control us all" decided that formalin must go. Well, a coupler R&D program is expensive but a process R&D project is not so expensive, so the product with the most "weight" in sales got the biggest R&D share. That was C-41. A new family of couplers was introduced around 2000 and this family of couplers no longer needed Formalin. It was exclusive to C41. E6 OTOH, used the old couplers and embedded formalin in a bleach pre-bath that imbibed in a harmless version of formalin which was activated during processing.

So, we now have 4 stabilzers/final rinses.

Stabilzers C41 = E6 (pre about 2000) which contain formalin.

Final rinses (C41) which is a biocide and the functional equivalent of Photo Flo 200 only and E6 which requires a formalin precursor and a biocide and also both an anionic (I think) and non-ionic surfactant (that good old Photo Flo 200 again). The current E6 final rinse has a new ingredient which looks like an anionic surfactant. That is all I can say at this time.

Older E6 and C41 Stabilizers can be used for all films but the modern versions cannot be used with early films (pre ~2000) or must be used with a pre-bleach such as used in E6 to release formalin during bleaching. The E6 bleach is designed to do so.

Anyhow, the oldest expiration date that I can find on Stabilizer III for C41 is about 2003 so that kind of dates this solution. After that, a final rinse was used for C41.

At the present time an RA4 final rinse is also made. It is intended for processes with low or no wash and IMHO is courting disaster.

What does this mean? ALL C41 films made before about 2000 and all E6 films need formalin in sole form or another. Leave it out and your negatives and slides will turn green or red and may show a brown stain. If your process for these films does not contain formalin you will have problems in months, days or years. I cannot predict the failure rate. E6 processes without formalin or a pre-bleach bath will cause eventual problems whatever the date the films were made.

This applies (apparently) to both Fuji and Kodak products.

This does not address motion picture films and I would ask that this subject no be brought up in subsequent posts. Thanks.

How to make a formalin stabilzer? Easy!

Mix up Photo Flo 200 as directed on the bottle. To one liter of this add 3 - 10 ml of 37% Formalin solution. That is it. The reason for the spread is that I have found several formulas with values like that. I use 10 ml to be on the safe side.

Oh, and this type of fade is dependent on density and therefore is non-linear. It cannot be corrected by filtration or in Photo Shop scans. Sorry.

PE

 

[gzhuang]

If the Unicolor kits goes well with other C41 films then I see no reason why it doesn't go well with XP2+. Perhaps the poster can say specifically what adverse effect he has seen with using Unicolor with XP2+ and why he is convinced that the effect wasn't or could not have been produced by something outwith the Unicolor process?

As far as I know this kit isn't available in the U.K. so it doesn't matter to me but it would be a pity if others are put off using this kit unless there a clearly a defect in it

pentaxuser

Thanks

Applied the same processing technique for both Kodak CN and XP2. CN came out fine but XP2 was a no go.

 

[trythis]

Which is the image? Is that the no go or the good? Not arguing, just not sure what I'm looking at. Also curious why anyone would use c41 b+w when developing at home. Is there an advantage over regular b+w film?


Sent with typotalk

 

[markbarendt]

Applied the same processing technique for both Kodak CN and XP2. CN came out fine but XP2 was a no go.

I don't doubt that you had a one succeed and one fail, what I do doubt is that the XP-2 was the reason.

Was the XP-2 first or last through the chem's?

Were the rolls done in different batches of the chem's?

Were the powders divided then mixed to make the working chem's?

Was the water used to make the chem's the same both times? Was it distilled or tap?

Were the rolls shot at the same time, same camera, same setting?

How many rolls of XP-2 did you use?

Did you have the same problem with any rolls that were commercially processed?

What I'm getting at is that all the details matter.

The films available to us for many years now are and have been by far the most reliable part of our photographic system. If there's a problem with a given roll it is almost a given that something else is the issue.