What was R3 reversal process

[rbrigham]

Hi All

Dose anybody have any details on what the R3 reversal printing process for slides actually was

how did it differ from RA4 reversal
was the paper similar to RA4
what were the process steps
was it commonly done in home darkrooms or was it too complicated

I've got it in my head that it was just RA4 paper that was adjusted to not need the c41 orange mask but I don't know where I got that from

 

[John Salim]

Kodak 'Process R-3' was a colour reversal paper process ( positive - positive ) designed for making colour prints from colour transparencies.
It consisted of First Developer, Colour Developer and Bleach-Fix, and required Kodak Ektachrome Radiance III paper.
And yes it could be done at home using a consumer kit version of the process called R-3000.

Although it did the same thing as Ilford Cibachrome, it was a totally different ( and incompatible ) system.

Process RA-4 is a colour negative print system for making colour prints from colour negatives ( negative - negative ).


John S

 

[miha]

I've found a list of photo papers compatible with the R3 process in one of my photo books. Here it is: Agfa-Gevaert - agfachrome typ 63; Kodak - ektachrome 22; Labaphot - labachrome CRP; Tetenal - TT speed color typ 3. ... there was a time when photographers were spoiled for choice.

 

[DREW WILEY]

These were casually referred to as "R" prints (made from slides via reversal), versus those chromogenic "C" prints made from color negatives. But both involved color coupler dyes formed during processing. I wonder how many R prints have survived; their permanence characteristics were rather disappointing; but the C prints from that era weren't all that great in that respect either.

Cibachrome was the heir of catalytic (dye-destruction) print technology begun with Gasparcolor in the 30's. In that case, highly stable dyes were incorporated into the paper in advance, and then the unwanted dyes were removed after exposure with a strong acid bleach. The base material was not a paper at all, but a shiny polyester support. Ciba was far superior to R prints in terms of both permanence and look, and caught on with both commercial labs and amateur darkrooms. Now it's gone too.

 

[Mick Fagan]

In the 80's and somewhere into the mid to late 90's, the Kodak R3 process was a huge money spinner for Kodak.

In the graphic arts industry, magazines and especially retail catalogues that were the mainstay of department store chains and supermarket chains, had every product going into their magazine or catalogue photographed on transparency film (slide film). All of these slides were then used to make colour prints to an exact size of a tracing paper outline in a darkroom. The subsequent prints which were processed in an R3 processor were then pasted onto a master page, which was either the same size as the end product, or done at something like 150% of the end product.

This paste up was then re-photographed using a gallery camera, with roll film usually around 300mm in width, but could be up to 1000mm in width, with various width roll films available. From this single sheet of film (the master negative) the printer would use this to print the catalogue. If it was for four colour process, then the camera operator would take multiple exposures using a line ruled glass screen to make each colour negative halftone image. Any more detail and we could be here until Christmas, but you should get an idea.

When computers merged with imaging systems, the camera original transparency film was scanned with drum scanners or flatbed scanners, with the software electronically creating halftone film as an output. As a result the R3 process dropped off a cliff in the 90's; it never came back.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here process cameras and R prints were as dead as a Tasmanian Wolf even by the mid-80's. Scanning had already taken over, with the exception of cheap stat cameras in T-shirt shops and for casual signage purposes.

 

[mshchem]

In the 80's and somewhere into the mid to late 90's, the Kodak R3 process was a huge money spinner for Kodak.

In the graphic arts industry, magazines and especially retail catalogues that were the mainstay of department store chains and supermarket chains, had every product going into their magazine or catalogue photographed on transparency film (slide film). All of these slides were then used to make colour prints to an exact size of a tracing paper outline in a darkroom. The subsequent prints which were processed in an R3 processor were then pasted onto a master page, which was either the same size as the end product, or done at something like 150% of the end product.

This paste up was then re-photographed using a gallery camera, with roll film usually around 300mm in width, but could be up to 1000mm in width, with various width roll films available. From this single sheet of film (the master negative) the printer would use this to print the catalogue. If it was for four colour process, then the camera operator would take multiple exposures using a line ruled glass screen to make each colour negative halftone image. Any more detail and we could be here until Christmas, but you should get an idea.

When computers merged with imaging systems, the camera original transparency film was scanned with drum scanners or flatbed scanners, with the software electronically creating halftone film as an output. As a result the R3 process dropped off a cliff in the 90's; it never came back.

I was unaware of this. Makes sense, I made Ektachrome prints and Cibachrome prints back in the prehistoric times. I remember getting some really nice snappy prints on the last version of the Ektachrome paper from Kodachrome slides.

Poor Tasmanian Wolf.

 

[mshchem]

Type 1993.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ciba was beautiful, but highly idiosyncratic in terms of color response. It was also expensive and needed supplementary masking. So it caught on like wildfire for display and personal art purposes, but would have been a bad candidate for commercial repro purposes. High end work was formerly done by the even more expensive dye transfer route, which was so malleable that some now look back on it as the Photoshop of past decades. Since much of that was for sake of temporary pre-press purposes, compromises in the dyes were inevitable. But also meant that different dye sets could be substituted, whether for sake of greater longevity, or greater ease of manipulation, or for certain color qualities. Technicolor was analogous in the realm of cinematic applications.

Today's equivalent of Cibachrome is Fujiflex Supergloss - actually an even better product with few if any color foibles. I've discussed it elsewhere.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Thylacine.

Thylacine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sharktooth]

I've got a couple of R prints hanging on my wall, and they've held up remarkably well. I think I printed them in the 80's, and I know I had to make masks for both of them. I was shooting a lot of Agfachrome 50S back in those days since the Agfa chemicals for that film could be processed at room temperature.

I dabbled a bit with Cibachrome, but it was just too expensive for large prints. The Kodak R papers and chemicals were much cheaper, and I used that for making display size images from transparency film. Although the R prints were probably made in the 80's, they weren't put on display till the early 2000's. I'm actually surprised they still look O.K. after 20 years on display. There's clearly some deterioration, but it's just subtle, not gross.

 

[mshchem]

Thylacine.

Thylacine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Humans destroy everything. Sad. I remember reading about these poor creatures when I was younger.

 

[John Salim]

To be honest I never saw many 'great looking' R types.
Ciba's could look absolutely fabulous if printed from properly exposed and processed low contrast transparencies.

In my opinion, the most 'natural looking' colour prints from transparencies came via internegatives.

John S

 

[DREW WILEY]

One didn't need low contrast transparencies for Ciba. Supplemental masking handled that, as well as a fair amount of color correction. Commercial internegative film is a thing of the past, and many labs did a poor job of it when it was routine. My own best color prints have come from carefully masked 8X10 chromes contacted onto 8X10 Portra 160 internegatives, then printed onto Fuji Supergloss - the same look as Ciba, but with much more accurate color, and easily RA4 processed. Of course, it can be done with smaller film originals too.

But it's laborious enough that I prioritize the bigger images; and in that case, it's getting darn expensive due to the significantly higher price of color sheet film these days. So I don't expect to make many more of these, and my routine color printing is now mainly directly from color neg originals onto various Fuji RA4 papers, sometimes with masking, often not. The combination of Ektar film and Fuji Supergloss is a marriage made in heaven.

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

R3 was all but gone by 2005 or so. Cibachrome, it's main competitor of sorts, in 2011 when the ilford switzerland factory closed.
as mentioned, both were pos to pos processes but were totally different in their implementation.
Ciba was most common in its super gloss malinex base but it was also made in other finishes like satin.
RA4 utilises different speed emulsions and a flipped stack with the blue sensitive layer being closest to the base rather than the furthest like in c41, e6 and other chromogenic films and papers.
this is why RA4 is not remotely daylight balanced. it can be corrected with heavy filtration when developed in a reversal process however

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ciba was a dramatic improvement over R printing, especially from a permanence standpoint. There was a "Pearl" RC version of Ciba, which was never very popular like the high gloss PET version. There was also a transparent version for sake of backlit displays.

Another main difference was that Ciba was a chromolytic dye-destruction process, rather than a chromogenic reversal system. That allowed for high quality Azo dyes to be pre-incorporated into the emulsion, and the unexposed dyes to be bleached out with a strong sulfuric acid solution. That characteristic is evident by black borders on the print, not white. The underlying concept goes clear back to Gasparcolor in the 1930's.

 

[Samu]

Ciba was a dramatic improvement over R printing, especially from a permanence standpoint. There was a "Pearl" RC version of Ciba, which was never very popular like the high gloss PET version. There was also a transparent version for sake of backlit displays.

Another main difference was that Ciba was a chromolytic dye-destruction process, rather than a chromogenic reversal system. That allowed for high quality Azo dyes to be pre-incorporated into the emulsion, and the unexposed dyes to be bleached out with a strong sulfuric acid solution. That characteristic is evident by black borders on the print, not white. The underlying concept goes clear back to Gasparcolor in the 1930's.

I personally loved the pearl version of Ciba. I have never liked super glossy prints in any process very much. Even today, I mostly use matte DP II. and velvet or pearl RC black and white papers - both Foma and Ilford. This kind of look is what I personally prefer in most occasions. But Cibachrome was expensive even in the heyday of film. Now, with the prices of E6 films being high due to the virtual monopoly of Kodak Alaris, and the (unfortunate) shift to scanning, I doubt there could be enough demand for Ciba, although I would personally buy it, should it be still available. I really liked this stuff.

I am not sure, since it was long time ago, but I recall that in the beginning of 90´s, there was a pearl version of Ciba, which was coated on PET base, not RC. It was already the era of Cibachrome-A II.

The borders would be black in any reversal image - irrespective on the method (except for reversing a scanned image by a computer, and printing on C-type or inkjet). Even in slide film, unexposed areas are black. This was also true with Kodak´s R-type papers.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, there was no deliberate pearl version of PET Cibachrome. There was a "flawed" batch, which somehow came out that way. It had more sheen than the pearl RC version, but not full gloss. It was absolutely lovely; but they made no attempt to replicate it, and claimed there was something wrong with the gelatin. I have a few 11X14 prints from that.

Fujiflex Supergloss is a superior medium to Cibachrome in several respects; but of course, you can't print chromes directly onto it. What made so many Cibas beautiful were actually its repro idiosyncrasies. It was awfully expensive for big labs in terms of facilities maintenance and worker health due to the strong sulfuric acid bleach. We small batch workers could simply drain the bleach into a bucket containing baking soda to neutralize it. I did the processing outdoors in drums. The amateur version substituted sulfamic acid powder, which was safer to handle.

 

[bewilson]

Here are my notes on the R-3/R-3000 chemistry, back when it was obtainable and I used it. I loved the Velvia/Fuji Type-35 combo for landscape work. It comes from https://photos.kf7k.com/chemistries.asp

R-3000. Kodak's process to print from slides. The Radiance III paper is as contrasty as Ilfochrome, but the process is cheaper and easier to use. I find that peoples faces are much easier to do than Ilfochrome, The greens are almost as intense, and blues are easier to saturate. The downside: it's not as sharp as Ilfochrome or RA-4. Uses 130 mL chemicals per step, rinses are 250 mL. Processing instructions, 38 °C​ Description​ Timer Settings (adjusted for 10 sec. drain)​ Prerinse (wet)​ Get paper well wetted​ 30​ First Developer​ Much like a B&W developer​ 65​ Wash x 4​ Remove developer​ 20​ Color Developer​ Contains the reversal agent, exposes and develops the reversed image​ 230​ Wash​ Removes developer​ 30​ Blix (Bleach-Fix)​ same as in E-6, only the bleach and fix are combined into the same solution​ 110​ Rinse x3​ wash out the chemicals​ 20​ I love the R-3 chemistry, in combination with Fuji's Type-35 paper. Wonderful stuff. I find that printing Velvia is a joy with this combination! Most of the time I can get most any transparency printed very well in two tries. There is a major problem, however: R-3000 is no longer being made. You can still get part of the chemicals from B&H photo/video, (as of January 2002) but they won't ship the color developer. Instead I have purchased the R-3 chemistry set, intended for pro labs using continuous- or roller-transport processors. The smallest R-3 set is for 12.5 gallons, but it's easy to deal with as only two components are subject to air oxidation: the 1st developer (which comes in a 4 gallon cubitainer, so if you buy a spigot you can dispense directly out of that without introducing air, so it should keep for at least a year with on-and-off usage) and Part B of the color developer (which I divide into smaller glass bottles for long-term storage; 150 ml will go into a gallon of working solution). I bought the R-3 set from Roger Newsham at International Supplies, 1-888-IMAGE-65 ext. 250 for about $350 delivered. Here is how R-3 works: from the concentrates you make the replenishment solutions (the concentrates will make a total of 12.5 gallons of replenisher solution while the color developer set will make 25 gallons of replenisher), see table below. The replenishment solution is used for two things: making the beginning solution, and replenishing used solutions. Replentisher Solution​ water​ Part A​ Part B​ Part C​ Dilute to:​ 1st Developer​ 1/2 gal​ 1216 ml​ -​ -​ 1 gallon​ Color Developer​ 1/2 gal​ 152​ 152​ 304​ 1 gallon​ Bleach/Fix (blix)​ 1/2 gal​ 585​ 437​ -​ 1 gallon​ To make the working solutions, you need to use the replenisher plus a little bit of starter solution, used to add the chemicals that are normally added to the solutions by the emulsion itself during processing: Working Solution​ Replenisher​ Starter​ Dilute to:​ 1st Developer​ 995 ml​ 5 ml​ 1 L​ Color Developer​ 800 ml​ 7.5 ml​ 1 L​ Blix​ 1 L​ -​ 1 L​ The real advantage of using R-3 over R-3000 is replenishment. The chemistry is meant to be reused, as long as you add some of the replenishing solution to compensate for the amount of chemicals that are used during processing. You need to collect all the processing chemicals as they come out of the processor. To replenish these used solutions, use the table below. The replenishment volumes are adjusted for loss of potency after handling. Working Solution​ Used Solution​ Replenisher​ Total Volume​ 1st Developer​ 500 ml​ 500 ml​ 1 L​ Color Developer​ 500 ml​ 500 ml​ 1 L​ Blix​ 650 ml​ 350 ml​ 1 L​ Thus, once the working solution is made, you can run a liter of chemicals through the machine but only use up 340/240 ml of your replenisher solution: you can process a whole lot with a 12.5 gal set (if you manage to process enough that you never have to remake the working solutions from starters, you can process 700 16x20" or 2800 8x10" prints!). I print 16x20's most of the time (it's so easy to print that I find hat doing test 8x10's isn't worth it). Processing instructions, 38 °C​ Description​ Timer Settings (adjusted for 10 sec. drain)​ Prerinse (wet)​ Get paper well wetted​ 30​ First Developer​ Much like a B&W developer​ 65​ Wash x 4​ Remove developer​ 20​ Reversal Exposure​ Exposes the undeveloped silver​ 30​ Color Developer​ Develops the reversed image​ 230​ Wash​ Removes developer​ 30​ Blix (Bleach-Fix)​ same as in E-6, only the bleach and fix are combined into the same solution​ 110​ Rinse x3​ wash out the chemicals​ 20​

 

[mshchem]

I know I made some Ektachrome prints. .seems like it was a earlier version. Cibachrome was my favorite. Still had to be an eventually illuminated transparency. My Dad's old flashbulb lit photos printed great.

 

[Samu]

Basically. it was a process similar to any color reversal process. Actually, the most similar process there exists for today, is the "simplified" or "Tetenal press kit" 3 step E-6 process. although these are not exchangeable. It included a chemical reversal included in the color developer as the 3 bath E6 kits of today do. It also used combined blix. RA-4 os a ;later invention from 1990's. So. the papers and chemistry were closer to those used for the then standard negative paper process EP-2.

I don't remember this process as very popular in Europe in the heyday of film. We had Cibachrome, and most of prints from slides made professionally were made on negative paper theough internegatives.