thomas_l
Is the Tetenal RA4 room-temperature process no longer available? It’s not listed in any shop anymore, and it’s not on the Tetenal website either. I only started using RA4 last year, but I found the tray development method quite handy. Do we now have to switch to high-temperature processes? If so, what’s the best way to do it? A drum? A tray warmer? It all costs money, so I’m now thinking about the best way to go about it.
Best regards, Thomas
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Thomas,
We’re still giving it a go, but unfortunately our sales of this product have also fallen sharply in recent years.
However, you don’t necessarily have to go up to 38.5 degrees.
In principle, it’s a question of dilution and development time.
That’s why the RA Kit came with this table showing the different development times at different temperatures.
If you still have one, please scan it and upload it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if another RA4 monoconcentrate chemical from Tetenal, with the same level of dilution as the room-temperature kit and with a development time that matches the one stated on the sheet, didn’t ‘coincidentally’ produce the same results.
If not, you’d have to experiment your way to the right settings. I’d also recommend giving an ADOX colour kit a go if you fancy having a try.
Best regards,
Mirko
EDIT on 10/11/2010: I ‘checked’ with Tetenal and the Mono PK Kit (later the Colortec tray kit) did indeed have a different chemical composition to standard RA4 chemicals.
I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that our friends at Nova in England still manufacture those wonderful “Trimate” tray processors. I realise that, from a financial point of view, this isn’t an option for everyone, but we can offer them, and they allow you to use any RA-4 chemistry.
thomas_l
Hi Mirko!
I’ve uploaded the two pages. Is there anything relevant to be gleaned from them? I’m happy to give it a go and let you know how it goes, though it’ll take a bit of time as I’ll be away on business abroad for a month soon. But I’ll take some colour negative film with me this time and have a bit of material to work with.
Are sales of the RA4 kit really declining that much? I mean, the chemicals and paper aren’t cheap, but they’re not exactly sky-high either. Probably a lot of people still think that RA4 is complicated or particularly difficult. I believed that myself until a year ago and was then surprised to find that it isn’t any harder than B&W, even if it’s a bit of a struggle with exposure and filtering at the start. You just haven’t got the eye for it yet.
Best regards, Thomas
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
MirkoBoeddecker
Hi Thomas,
Could you take a photo of the labels on the bottles or note down how much was in each one?
The first attempt would be as follows:
Use the ADOX RA4 Mono-Concentrate Kit and perform dilution in the same ratio as the Tetenal Kit.
Off the top of my head, I’d guess that it’s a 100% richer solution (= half as much water as in the machine process).
Then apply the temperature table (i.e. pretend you still have the Tetenal product in the tray) and pop in the first sheet.
It should work without a starter. However, you may need to prime the ADOX chemicals or run a few sheets of colour paper through (in the light, to ensure thorough development).
You can use the error table to fine-tune the process (i.e. determine whether it’s over- or under-developed and re-optimise by adjusting the time). This should allow you to create a new temperature table.
If the required times turn out to be significantly longer (i.e. the time needed to get rid of the blue haze), I would make the solution even stronger and try to get closer to the Tetenal table. The same applies if the solution is too strong (base fog too high). In that case, simply add more water.
It should actually work like this. The 38.5 degrees is merely a constant to which all other parameters are aligned.
RA4 does not require 38.5 degrees. However, the aim was to make the processes as short and therefore as efficient as possible (in the minilab where the gum-chewing customer waits at the counter for their film, or in the large-scale lab where thousands of images pass through). Furthermore, they naturally wanted to be able to swap components between the C-41 and RA-4 machines, so they agreed to set this temperature constant for both C-41 and RA-4.
Good luck!
PS. Shall we send you a kit?
Rumpel
Hi Thomas,
Could you take a photo of the labels on the bottles or check how much was in each one?
[...]
Hello everyone,
I still have one pack in its original packaging and have taken some photos.
Best regards
Björn
EBerger
Hello Thomas,
First of all, thank you very much for raising this issue. I’m in exactly the same boat as you;
now that I’ve used up the last pack of Tetenal RA-4 room-temperature process,
I’m facing the same problem. Have you tried yet to see if it works with the ADOX kit at the
dilution suggested by Mirko? If so, please let us know here
. Now that the days are getting gloomier and shorter again, there’s more darkroom work
to be done. By the way, I almost forgot: about two weeks ago I got
in touch with Tetenal; a friendly gentleman explained to me that the
kit still available for machine processing is not suitable for the room-temperature process. No further
explanation was given.
Best regards
Eugen
thomas_l
Hello!
No, I haven’t tried it yet. It’ll be a while still, as I’m not coming back to Austria until next week. I’ll get round to it then.
I think we need to make it clearer that colour enlargement isn’t difficult. I reckon the reason so few people do it is because it seems too time-consuming.
Best wishes from Kiev, Thomas
thomas_l
We’ve got the first results; I’ve just come back from the darkroom. I can’t say anything definitive yet, but one thing seems clear: it works with the 35°C chemicals at room temperature too.
Today I simply pretended I had the old Colortec room-temperature kit and developed at 21°C. I chose 21°C because the chemicals just happened to be at that temperature. With a development time of 1 minute, there is a distinct blue cast; with development times of 2 and 3 minutes, this blue cast disappears. Under the daylight lamp, the last two enlargements look fairly colour-accurate, but not quite.
In all the enlargements, I have a slight yellow cast; under the daylight lamp, it’s more of a greyish-yellowish tone, and this is also visible in areas that didn’t receive any exposure. I therefore suspect that the paper is no longer any good, or am I mistaken? I’ll get some new paper first and then carry on.
Best regards, Thomas
thomas_l
Hello!
So, another attempt with some new paper, and good news: it’s working! There is a very slight colour cast visible now, but I think that’s more likely down to the other batch of paper. I didn’t bother filtering it out today; I’ll have a look in daylight tomorrow instead. I tried developing for two and three minutes, but I can’t see any difference at all.
So basically, it’s quite simple with the chemicals: you just need to develop it a bit longer and it works. Next time I prepare a working solution, I’ll try using a stronger batch.
Best regards, Thomas
Gast
I’ll go and earn myself the golden spade. :spudnikwaving:
But I’m interested to know if there’s been any new information on this topic in the meantime?
?
I’d like to develop colour paper myself and am looking for RA 4 chemicals that work at around 20 degrees.
What about the bleach-fix bath? There was nothing mentioned about that. Has ADOX made a statement?
?
OLaf
thomas_l
I haven’t done any long-term tests – how could I, really? ;-) I just leave the paper in the developer for a bit longer. In principle, the process works even if you don’t stick to the exact temperature; you simply extend the development time. However, above a certain temperature the colours become dull; I haven’t tried it at exactly 20°, but the process works perfectly well at 25°, for example, whereas at around 16° it’s problematic... you just have to try it out. What doesn’t work are quite long exposure times; so I thought I’d just pop in a neutral density filter to allow for longer exposures. In any case, with the Fuji Crystal, this resulted in colour casts that couldn’t be corrected. I haven’t tested it with the Kodak yet. The short exposure times are quite a nuisance; the day before yesterday I enlarged RA 4 onto Fuji Crystal 18x24 from KB, and at f/11 I only had a 4-second exposure time, and I needed to dodge some areas but haven’t really managed it yet without it showing up
The process itself is straightforward; you can easily leave the paper in the developer for longer than specified, just make sure it isn’t too short. And one more thing is important: if you think you’ve filtered it correctly, be sure to dry the paper and view it in daylight, because that’s when you can sometimes see the blue, red, etc. – it’s quite a surprise.
Generally speaking, I find working with RA4 to be a relatively mindless, technically demanding process compared to black and white. The only reason I enjoy doing it now and then is because it’s simply lovely to have a photo that’s completely free of pixelation. When everything’s filtered out properly, the results are superb.
Gast
Thanks for this information. Unfortunately, there’s not much up-to-date information online about RA4 at room temperature. Most discussions refer to Diluprint chemicals, which used to be available. It’s a bit of a shame, really.
I don’t want to develop large quantities either, but there are special formats that aren’t suitable for lab processing. This includes my Horizont Panorama, which so far has only been used for black and white. But I fancy trying colour with it. Or perhaps a 35mm roll in a roll film camera and then deciding for myself what the filtering should be. Just creative experiments, really.
€
My last attempts were back in the day with Foma PM20 in the GDR. That was a long time ago…. The equipment is there: Opemus with a colour head, Jobo drum – just the chemicals are missing. I was thinking of 25 degrees to make it manageable.
€
I’ll have a play around with it in the autumn, when it gets dark again….
€
Thanks again
OLaf
hansjoachim
Hello Olaf, the response to your post makes it clear why the room-temperature process – which I also prefer – is no longer available. I’ve been Googling it from time to time, but without any success regarding the 20-degree method. The situation is even worse for slides (Ilfochrome); unfortunately, nothing works there anymore. Back to RA4: I cannot and will not maintain a room temperature of 35 degrees, nor do I intend to buy a machine. I am therefore considering a tray warmer, or experimenting based on the old Colortec process as described above. I am not particularly optimistic about the experiments, as the old process had a maximum temperature of 25 degrees – 10 degrees less than the current process. However, the results won’t be in until well into the autumn. By the way: the bleach-fix bath in the current Tetenal process is the same as the developer, i.e. 35 degrees.
hansjoachim
ContaxChris
I develop RA4 at room temperature (22 degrees) using Digibase chemicals (Monotype developer and bleach-fixer). After exposure, the paper (Fuji Crystal Archive) goes into the Jobo drum, which I rotate by hand on a Jobo roller. Developer and bleach-fixer for 120 seconds each, with a brief citric acid stop bath in between. The results are absolutely reproducible, and the colours are very good – by no means dull.
The chemicals are returned from the drum to the 1-litre bottle for regeneration.
Oh, and before development, I agitate with water for 2 minutes.
Gast
So Fred is still around after all. It’s great to know there are more people out there interested in colour processing in their own darkrooms.
?
But now a question for FOTOIMPEX: Can you also offer a 1-litre kit for RA4? I mean, the 5-litre pack is cheap, but it’ll take me five years to use it all up. And I don’t think the opened batch will last that long. Do FOTOIMPEX customers really have to switch to Digibase? Sometimes price isn’t the only thing that reduces the loss.
?
Regards,
OLaf
who today kicked off his 2013/14 darkroom season.
Gast
For anyone who’s a bit wary of colour, here’s a quick update. I gave it a go last night and the first two pieces of contact copying are sitting on my desk.
€
The RA4 process is fairly straightforward at 25 degrees. I kept the water temperature steady in a bowl.
I developed the film on an old Chibaroller in a Jobo Drum without a water jacket, just as I do with black-and-white film here. (For black-and-white, of course, only at 21°C)
€
The first test was bright red? :spudnikdizzy:? but after the third test strip, I had a perfectly decent base filtration.
So don’t worry, it’s all very simple!
€
Oh yes: I’d also developed the films myself in C41 a few days earlier, but at 38 degrees. I’d performed the dilution of the Digibase developer as a single-use developer and conducted the development for 5.30 mins (this was well described here:
http://www.aphog.de/forum/viewtopic.php?p=146168#p146168
). Getting the temperature right was a bit fiddly.
€
Unfortunately, one of the films has turned out rather dull/dense (I can hardly describe it) (400 ISO film, stored for 10 years). The 100 film, which had been lying around with exposure somewhere for about 8 years, looked much better. I developed both in one go. But with the right filtering, contact prints can be made from both. I don’t expect to get good pictures from these old relics. It was only the first attempt, after all.
€
So far
OLaf
Wolfgg
Hi Olaf,
Films with a sensitivity rating above 21 DIN (100 ASA) are problematic. That was already the case with the old Tri-X. If such a film isn’t ‘blessed’ with a substantial Schwarzschild effect, as was once the case with Agfpapan 400, for example, then the film dutifully accumulates all the radiation that manages to penetrate the packaging, particularly natural radioactivity. This then results in a gradually increasing fog, which renders the film unusable (‘everything so dense’: the image ends up entirely in the highlights). On a roll of Tri-X that had been left in the fridge for 10 years, I once measured a fog of 0.7d; the fog had therefore already prematurely consumed half of the characteristic curve.
Therefore: don’t buy expired high-speed films; it’s usually a waste of money.
Regards, Wolfgang
Gast
Hi Wolfgang,
Thanks for the explanation. I hadn’t bought the film either; as I said, it was just lying around in the loft and must have been exposed to a lot of heat over the summer.
What about the Agfa 100 slide film? Could it still be suitable for cross-processing – just for experimental purposes?
Olaf
Wolfgg
Hi Olaf,
I haven’t been able to access the forum since yesterday afternoon; the link fotolaborforum.eu is dead.
Agfa 100 colour slide film: there were films with different black-shield characteristics. The last one, the CT100 Precisa, had very good behaviour; it was even suitable for astrophotography (according to my tests, it only lost about half a stop at an exposure time of 30 minutes). However, due to the film’s good memory, the fog increased visibly when images were superimposed, which with reversal film means a loss of maximum black and thus of brilliance.
However, the fog that has already accumulated can be easily tested: cut off an unexposed section in the dark, ideally pull out the film tail another 5 cm in the dark, cut it off, place it in a canister and develop it normally like a black-and-white film (Rodinal etc. is sufficient) and fix it. After drying, the piece of film will show a black and a clear section. The black part indicates whether the development was thorough enough for the test, whilst the unexposed part reveals the fog. This makes it easy to determine for any over-exposed film whether it is still suitable for its intended purpose.
Regards, Wolfgang
Gast
Hello,
Thanks for the tip about the veiling test with Rodinal; I’ll give it a go.
Yesterday I made several 24x30 prints from 6x4.5 negatives. I worked at 25 degrees. Looking at the pictures, it seems as though the print has very high levels of granularity – insofar as one can talk about grain with colour.
They were images from an expired Kodak film. No idea what it was exactly, but certainly more than ASA 100 (120? or 160?). The film edge says Kodak GPX. The base fog was more dense than on the EKTAR 100 developed at the same time, which was new. Unfortunately, I haven’t enlarged any of the Ektar images yet; I’ll get round to that this week.
Could it be that the fog also causes coarser grain? The exposure time was almost twice as long as for the ‘fresh film’, and the filtration was also stronger. The result, however, has pleasant colours.
OLaf
