The Ilfoprint and other similar processors by Agfa, Kodak and others, used a form of print 'developing' called 'Stabilisation Processing'. The special light sensitive printing paper, exposed in the normal way, had its developer incorporated into its emulsion. By passing it, using the mechanised processor, through a bath of alkali 'Activator' and subsequently through a 'Stabiliser' bath, the developed print emerged, still damp but fully processed, in only some 15-20seconds. Read below an article explaining one user's experiences. A further 'user experience' article can be found at the bottom of this web page.

Look further below for images of the ILFORD Ilfoprint, Ilfoprinter and the equivalent Agfa-Gevaert Rapidoprint stabilisation processors.

STABILISATION PROCESSING; taken from Petersen's Photographic Magazine 1973-07 Vol 2 Iss 3 (copy provided by Tamara Stäger)

About a year and a half ago, after having used an excellent college darkroom for four years, I moved into an apartment which had a beautiful room for a darkroom but no plumbing facilities or heat - the room was in the attic. Frustration isn't a word capable of describing how I felt.
After giving up ideas such as buckets and water pumps, I resigned myself fo the fact that it I were to do any printing at all it would have to be done with a stabilisation processor.

For some reason. I had always crticised stabilisation processing. But was I wrong! Now, after using a Stabilisation Processor for all my printing for almost two years, I'd never go back to conventional print processing.

Briefly, the process works like this. Conventional photographic paper is impregnated with non-alkaline developing agents during manufacture. These agents remain inert until processing. During processing, the paper first encounters a highly alkaline activator bath which effects immediate development. Next the paper meets a stabilizing bath which temporarily fixes the print. Since the stabiliser only renders the print as 'fixed' for a limited time, it will definitely fade at a future date unless fixed and washed conventionally.The chemistry involved is quite universal in nature With all continuous tone processors, any type of activator and any type of stabilizer may be used, since the only real requirement for the activator is that it be alkaline. Since there is little to oxidize in either bath, both last a long time.

Because development is so fast, it can be most efficiently done by machine. A machine offers the advantages of neatness and controlled processing time. Assuming the chemistry is fresh and the machine is running properly, over- and under-development of the paper should be impossible. The processing time for a piece of 8x10 inch paper is about 15 seconds, and the prints are air dry (depending on the relative humidity) in a few minutes. They dry perfectly flat, since minimal amounts of liquid are absorbed by the base.

So why doesn't everyone print with a stabilisation processor? Well, a lot of people do. Newspapers, the military, hospitals, magazines and industry use hundreds of machines. What's the catch? They're expensive. The least expensive machine on the market is Spiratone's, with a list price of $129.50 (price at July 1973) and the prices go from there into the neighbourhood of over $600.

There are two important reasons why everyone should print by stabilisation The first one, obviously, is convenience The second is print quality. Forget about the fact that the prints aren't permanent I have some that are as old as the processor and are still fine. The longevity of the prints depends on the humidity and the temperature of the environment in which they are stored. But there's no reason why you can't print a few hundred prints over the course of a few weeks or months (or days depending on your budget) and later set up a big tray of fixer and wash water in front of the TV and have a most relaxing afternoon permanently fixing and then washing the prints.

The speed with which you can print an awesome number of photographs is frightening At 15 seconds per print you can go through a 100-sheet box ol paper like fllm through a motorized camera The first night I set up my machine I had to force myself not to try to print all ol my negatives! The simphc1ty or the process is one of its strongest virtues. When I wanl to print, I insert two bottles of chemistry into the machine, plug it in and turn it on. That's it. When I've finished printing I remove the bottels, drain the chemistry back into them and take the machine downstairs to the kitchen for cleaning - merely rinsing the tray and rollers with luke warm water.

One very important convenience feature of the process is the compactness of the machine. Instead of taking up loads of valuable space with trays, I can process prints in less then half the space needed to process conventional prints.

You know it's conveneint - that's no earth-shaking news What made a true believer out of me and sundry friends and acquaintances is the print quality the system affords. Like every darkroom fanatic I am a victim of the compulsion to find the 'perfect print'. In the process of pursuing this goal I found stabilisation processing and lost some of the superstitious awe I had held for the art of pnnting. Why should stabilization processing be better for high-quality printing than conventional processing? The paper emulsions are nearly the same. Ideally all things being equal, there should be no distinguishable differences between conventionally processed and stabilisation processed prints. All things, however, are not equal in the darkroom and here the plot thickens.

The primary cause of poor print quality is under-development. In more than a year and a half of analysing prints sent to me for evaluation, the really lousy prints were always under-developed. With the consistent development of the stabilisation process, this defect is eliminated for all practical purposes. You put the paper in the machine and it comes out completely developed. What does this mean in terms of acquiring printing skill? It means that, using this system, you will quickly attain levels of printing perfection you had previously thought were beyond your grasp with conventional methods. Since development is consistent, you've got to make your exposure and exposure manipulations (dodging. etc.) right for the print to be good. The whole outcome of the session depends on your technique during exposure. All of the variables are in the exposure. You'll find yourself using them with new degrees of proficiency and accuracy with stabilisation processing.

Assuming you've made the perfect print using your stabilisation processor, what then? Want to make 10 just like it? A thousand? You can. With your exposure and manipulations established, you can expose sheet after sheet of paper, feeding each into the insatiable rollers of the machine. The consistency of the processing is absolute. Hopefully, you're now convinced that stabilisation processing is the greatest thing to happen to photography since silver. Still, how can you justify the price of a machine which does nothing more, primarily, then develop prints when you can do the same for well under $10 using conventional material? Think of what you spend on other items of photographic equipment. Most SLR lenses are in the $100 - $200 price range; many are much more. Enlargers and enlarging lenses are costly. Assuming you are serious about black-and-white print quality, the price of a machine that's bound to increase your print quality, is of secondary importance.

Things can go wrong with the processing, causing under-development or various annoying print detects. Usually the causes for defects ot stabilised prints are very straightforward and easily remedied. Careful use of the machine and chemistry will eliminate a lot of fhem before they occur. One problem I've encountered is that the rollers get flat where they contact each other. To get them back into round, you should run the machine for a few minutes before you process any prints. Another problem is if the springs holding the rollers together aren't tight. Then you may find a minute gap between the rollers, which will result in uneven development. It's a simple matter to remove the springs and bend them so that they're tighter.

Because my darkroom is in the attic, and the attic isn't too well insulated, temperature is a big problem. The range ot stabilisation chemistry is supposedly 65° to 85°F, but 65°F is an optimistic lower limit. At, or below, this temperature I pre-heat my chemicals by sitting the bottles in a hot water bath.

You should keep an eye on the longevity of your solutions. The stabiliser will usually process 300 prints or so but the actrvator usually won't. When the activator is exhausted you'll find that your development is uneven, your print is lower than normal in contrast and the shadow density is very weak. Almost all activators I've used tend to flocculate (form a fluffy precipitate) on standing. As far as I've been able to ascertain, this doesn't affect the solutions' working ability, although it looks horrible, since if sticks to the sides of the bottles like mould. This may create marks on the prints' surfaces so it's a good idea to dump it if it isn't clear.

The most annoying problem with the process is activator / stabiliser contammation. The first time I used my machine I bumped it, and into the activator tray went the stabilizer. You don't have to worry about not knowing when this happens. You'll be driven from the darkroom by ammonia fumes and, on visually inspecting the chemical trays, you'll find that the activator contains a white precipitate where it has come into contact with the stabilizer. When this happens, drain the stabiliser back into the same bottle, discard all of the activator, clean the machine and start again. You can prevent this from happening by making sure that you mount the machine on a level surface, refraining from bumping bottles or machine, and cleaning your feeder caps so that they will cut off when they're supposed to and not overfill the trays.

One thing about stabilisa-ion processing which perplexes nearly all of its advocates is what do you do with the sticky prints as they emerge from the machine? There are many solutions to this problem, ranging from photo blotter books (don't use the same blotters for conventional prints), to racks, to air-type dryers. You should avoid using heat to dry stabilised prints since it accelerates the decomposition of the image. On dry days, the prints are stackable in a short while, but on humid days, they may stay sticky lor hours.

Most stabilisation papers are lower than "normal' papers in contrast because they contain residual chemicals. This situation is corrected, to a degree, when a stabilised print is fixed and washed normally and the residual chemistry is removed. To compensate for this slight loss in tonal scale, most stabilisation papers incorporate optical bnghteners, similar to those used In brightening laundry detergents. These brighteners are highly responsive to ultraviolet light and make the whites appear whiter, thus enhancing the apparent tonal range of the papers.

There are various ways of over-developing stabilisation papers, increasing contrast somewhat. You can pre-soak your paper in a tray full of activator then pass it through the machine. Some users claim that pre-soaking stabilisation paper in conventional developer and then stabilising it works well, but since many types of activators aren't compatible with water, this might not always work.

The idea of pre-soaking leads us into one of the most exciting aspects of the process - the use of a universal developer pre-soaking solution to make any paper capable of being processed in a stabilisation machine. At present, you can buy a formula which will do this Ellis Peck's Insta Print Plus. It's simple to use, but introduces a wet tray into the darkroom.

What does the future hold in store tor stabilisation processing? That is a question you, as consumers, must answer. Right now many producers of stabilisation materials are reluctant to get into the amateur market - they usually only supply stabilisation materials to their ''professional" or "graphic arts" dealerships. Even if you find a dealer that fits this category, you'll usually find him grossly understocked for the simple reason that he's scared to get stuck with outdated materials. There are many more manufacturers that I've listed in the accompanying charts but the fact is that some asked not to be even mentioned because they don't want to enter the non-professional market.

If this article makes me sound like a raving lunatic tor stabilisation processing, it's because that's precisely what I am.

The images below are taken from an ebay auction site in December 2006:

ILFOPRINT RAPID PRINT PROCESSOR Model 1502
Takes paper up to 15 inches (38cms) wide and uses a 240v single phase constantly rated geared motor. The example below was still working and in "lovely condition" in 2004. British made with high grade rubber rollers and stainless steel chassis throughout. Complete with automatic reservoir bottles. The Ilfoprint system was introduced in 1960 (sic; believed should read 1963). It was developed primarily for press photography and would deliver a 'black & white' damp dry stabilised print in about 40seconds. The print could be permanently fixed later (print made permanent) with a 20min soak in fixer followed by a 30min wash. It relied on a special paper that had the developing agent in the emulsion. The first bath of the machine was a caustic alkali solution that activated the developer. The second bath was a 'stabiliser'. Paper and activator no longer available in UK. Operation was very simple:
Fill up, switch on, feed papers.
At the end of the session: switch off, drain, wash rollers and chassis under running water.
Tip: Small pieces of paper should be fed in corner first.

The ILFOPRINTER 950C (taken from 'The Accountant' magazine for 28th September 1963).
The new Ilfoprint system will copy anything in black-and-white tone whether single or double-sided, opaque or translucent, and is suitable for the reproduction of the pages of magazines, any typed or handwritten matter, showcards, layouts, line drawings, screen and continuous tone images, etc. Translucent masters can be made for subsequent copying by the dyeline process and prints can also be produced from photographic black-and-white or colour negatives.

The Ilfoprinter, with push-button controls, is compact, soundly constructed and simple to operate. By means of a transistorised timer and a strong light source, exposure times are down to a second or two for the negative, and about three seconds for the positive.

The sensitised materials used have the developer built-in, so that only an activator and a stabiliser are necessary. The same grade of paper is used for both negative and positive copies and all operations are carried out in normal office lighting.The prints are produced as a strong blue/black image on a white (back)ground.

COPYING MACHINE (taken from International Business Equipment magazine for July/August 1964)
Ilford Ltd., Ilford, Essex, England, introduce the ILFOPRINTER 950C for fast, high quality document copying.

Key feature of the new system is the wide range of Ilfoprint papers, which incorporate a built-in developing agent, and the selection of machines for office copying and rapid print processing.

Easy to use, the llfoprinter 950C makes 'same-size' copies of opaque or double-sided originals from any colour including magazines and books. It can also be used for contact printing from continuous tone negatives. Maximum size of originals is 8.5 X 15 inches (21.6 x 35.6 cm) = Din A4.

Push-button exposure selection is combined with an electronic transistorised timer which automatically compensates for voltage fluctuation. The illumination is from eleven 60watt bulbs and the usual exposure times are between one and three seconds. According to the makers, the design and quality of the llfoprinter processing unit ensures results comparable with conventional photographic processing - yet the time on the 950C is cut to 12 seconds or less. Copies are touch-dry on delivery and can be used immediately.

From Alan Waller in July 2012, an ex-Ilford employee who worked on the Ilfoprint project from 1962-66.
Ilfoprint was launched in late 1963 at the Business Efficiency Exhibition at Olympia and, a few weeks later, at the Industrial Photographic and Television Exhibition at Earls Court. It was launched at the BEE because it was envisaged that document copying would be a major application. Ilfoprint copy paper consisted of a very slow emulsion coated on a 90 g/m² (I think) base. It could be handled in subdued tungsten light if you were quick.

The ILFOPRINTER 950C was a light box attached to a processor. A reflex paper negative was produced which could be contact printed any number of times onto the same paper. For multiple copies it was therefore cheaper than the silver diffusion transfer papers which were very popular at the time. (Gevacopy and Agfa Copyrapid shared this market. I don't think Ilfacopy was ever seriously marketed.) Ilfoprint for copying enjoyed little success in what was then a very competitive market.

The Ilfoprint enlarging papers proved useful in applications where speed of obtaining a print was more important than its permanence. The prints were not fixed but 'stabilised'. The stabiliser was ammonium thiocyanate which converted the undeveloped silver halide to a light-stable silver complex. Prints lasted for weeks or months but the stabiliser remaining in the unfixed, unwashed print tended to bleach the image. Ilfoprint was largely superseded in the darkroom by Ilfospeed which offered fast-enough processing and far superior image quality.

The most successful and longest-running application for Ilfoprint was Teletransmission Paper which was designed especially for the Muirhead K300 automatic facsimile receiver. This machine was extensively used by newspapers and agencies such as Associated Press.

In December 2022, I received permission from an ebay vendor to show the following ILFOPRINTER 950C images. My thanks to Gavin Ritchie for pointing out these images on ebay.

How did it work? 
Several of the 950C descriptions refer to it as a ‘Reflex Printer’ and state it is just as happy copying from opaque pages as from negatives.
But where is the Reflex part of the design? To the author of this web page, the term ‘Reflex’ suggests something like an Epidiascope (used to project images of opaque items or translucent items), but the 950C has nothing like the lens and projection system of such an item.

The 950C clearly has what looks very much like a conventional contact printer, illuminated from below by eleven (we are told) 60w bulbs – must have got hot!

Could it be that the printer offered two ways of working, depending upon the copying required? For simple negatives, the negative would lie on the glass plate and opaque photographic printing paper pressed down on top. The lights would come on, shining up through the negative and forming a latent positive image in the opaque Ilfoprint printing paper. After activator development and stabilisation, a positive image would be produced.

The novel part is how to copy an opaque object, like the page of a book? It's possible that for this process the photographic paper was a sensitised translucent film that served to make a negative image by being placed directly onto the glass and the book pressed onto it from above. The 'below glass' lights would then be switched on and would shine up through the translucent 'film', causing a 'reversal' negative image to form. Where the light went through the 'film' to the white surface of the book page, the page would reflect light back onto the Ilfoprint 'film' and the 'film' would be fully exposed, subsequently developing to black. Where the light went through the 'film' but 'hit' black print on the page being copied, the black print would not reflect so much light back onto the Ilfoprint 'film' and so the film would not be so exposed in those areas. Therefore, after processing the translucent 'film' would be a negative of the book page and could then be used, as in conventional contact printing, to produce the final positive copy; plus as many copies as required.

It is likely, from the descriptions of the Ilforprinter 950C, that the above opaque printing arrangement would work equally well with continuous tone originals, not just with black-and-white print, as in a book.

If anyone knows better how the Ilfoprinter 950C worked, please do e-mail (see my Home page) and let me know.

In the early 1970s (possibly earlier) Agfa-Gevaert sold a rapid printing system very similar to the Ilford's Ilfoprint.

The Agfa Rapidoprint LD 37 and 54 processors catered for different widths of paper. The 37 took 365 mm wide paper, just over 14 inches, and the 54 took 535mm wide paper, about 21 inches. They had two chemical bottles, placed upside down on the left of the processor, the G380B Activator and the G180B Stabilizer.

As with the Ilfoprint, its likely that the Raapidoprint used a caustic alkali solution to activate the developer; the developer was incorporated into the paper and became 'active' as the paper entered the processor through the first set of rollers and entered the caustic 'activator' bath. The second bath, the 'stabiliser', is likely to have been ammonium thiocyanate.

The illustration below is taken from the Rapidoprint instruction booklet, dated April 1974. That Instruction booklet can be downloaded here, and the Spares / Repair document can be downloaded here (both courtesy of Michael Talbert).

THE LATEST WORD IN STABILISATION PRINTING, by Cora Wright Kennedy; taken from Popular Photography, 1974-12 Vol 75 Iss 6 (copy provided by Tamara Stäger).

A lot of people ask me: "Is it really worth-while to turn to stabilisation processing?" In other words, is it a good idea to forsake conventional three-tray, wet, black-and- white print making? After about 4½ years with the newer method, my opinionated answer is that believe it or not, stabilisation processing, in the present state of the art, can, in many cases, give print enlargements that look just as good as those made the ordinary way. And it can give them to you a lot faster, without fuss and bother, permitting you to really concentrate on your image making, rather than being slowed down by ordinary photo processing mechanics.

15-20 seconds is all it takes me to process a sheet of exposed 8x10 inch stabilisation paper. I feed it face down, narrow end first, between two rollers of one of the two-bath stabilisation processors. These units are small, or relatively small, and made for table-top use. The enlarging paper looks like the regular variety, and also needs to be handled by the right safe-light, but it actually contains dry developing agents in its emulsion. After it is exposed (in the usual fashion, with a regular enlarger), it is fed into the machine where an activator solution develops the image almost instantaneously. And the stabilization bath (which comes next) renders it relatively stable to room light Then the stabilised damp-dry 8x10 emerges in approximately 15-20 seconds; the exact time depending on the machine. An 11x14 inch print usually complete in very little time more.

This might be attractive enough, but another lure is that no nearby water supply is required to get these stabilised prints. Consequently, you can print in one of a number of locations that is reasonably light tight. On top of all this, the damp print that emerges from the machine (having been squeegeed by the rollers) dries quickly in fairly dry weather. And, in my experience, resistance of these prints to artificial room light is rather good. In fact, some people even send the dry, stabilised prints, to the printer for use in books and other publications. I simply steer clear of sunlight and avoid direct room daylight (except briefly), in favour of examining prints by tungsten room light This freedom allows many of us to take our sweet time about making prints completely permanent. When we do, they actually become as permanent as enlargements made the conventional way.

So, after all this time of using stabilisation printing, I want to shout out loud that it can be extremely convenient. The cost, once you have the basic machine, is in the same ball park as conventional printing. Therefore, it's time to take a fresh look at the many processors, the paper and special chemicals available, and see what can be done. As we go over this, remember you may not want to desert regular processing completely. Good as stabilisation processing is, it doesn't meet all my needs. I still revert to conventional trays for roughly 10 to 15 percent of my work - when I want to stick to double-weight paper and need more contrast than stabilisation papers afford; also for special tones or surfaces. But limits or no, if you are at all typical, you may find yourself doing a larger and larger percentage of your printing via stabilisation.

WHICH PROCESSOR SHOULD YOU GET?
I don't want to drown you in technical data, but guide you gently to a machine that will be suitable for your wallet. Actually, any of the processors can fit the bill for intermittent use where you print from time to time and follow good technique. Since price is so often an overriding factor, many people start and stop at the neat SI49.95 price tag hanging on Spiratone's nice unit - which seems to stand up to use very well. But one of the curious facts of life is that there is a big gap between the price of the Spiratone machine and the next one up the line, which is the $400- $500 category. Six others are in the S500-S700 range. Somewhere up in the $400-plus range is where you are likely to find some features which you may or may not need. These include capacity to accept paper wider than 12inches, different or more convenient drain methods, to say nothing of units with really heavy-duty characteristics. For instance, one of the more expensive units may he preferable when the processor will be operated for rather long periods of time without stopping.

What does this mean? Some processors are actually made so you can leave them running half a day or all day if necessary - a consideration that isn't always relevant. No one claims that it is advisable to let the machine run unnecessarily. The very best technique in my opinion, is to turn the unit off after processing each print and turn it on again a few moments before inserting the next sheet of paper.

MORE ABOUT MACHINE INNARDS
Let's take a quick look inside the units. All the processors (in this article) are single-tray jobs with two basic sections, or have two trays. Each also uses activator and stabilizer solutions straight (undiluted) from plastic one-quart bottles in which the chemicals often come. Conveniently, each features automatic replenishment of solution by gravity feed, and automatic maintenance of solution levels, generally using the original quart chemical containers for these purposes.

There are, of course, various arrangements inside the machines for the sets of rollers and gears as well as vanous differences. More often than not, however, the activator sections have two (or more) roller pairs, and this solution is picked up by bottom rollers and transferred onto the emulsion surface of the paper. There are, however, two exceptions; the Agfa-Gevaert Rapidopnnt LD 37 and LD 54, where a pair of initial, dry, feed-in rollers transports the paper. Then the activator is applied to the emulsion of the paper by two side-by-side rollers.

At the end, in all cases, rollers squeegee the pnnt and send it forth.

It is easy to drain off solutions left. This dram step may be done simply via drain tubes in the machine, but some processors provide draining directly into bottles one way or another. And with all units, only a small amount of housekeeping is needed to keep the equipment in good shape.

STABILIZATION PAPERS
If didn't take me long to decide that since I planned to make all of my good stabilisation prints permanent, there was only one sensible paper choice. This was double-weight paper, where the selection is more limited than with single-weight paper. Single-weight papers are much less good for post-stabilisation wet treatment because they tend to wrinkle or crack more easily, just as conventional single-weight papers do. So the bulk of my work is done with just one brand of double-weight stabilisation paper, Kodak Ektamatic SC, variable-contrast, glossy paper, that I matte dry. This paper, tonally and speed-wise, is in the Kodak Polycontrast family, achieving its contrast variations with the same Polycontrast filters Nos. 1-4, and is also designed basically for tungsten bulb enlargers. You get nch but somewhat warm blacks that become more neutral after fixing, an excellent tonal scale and clean whites. It's my first choice. My subjective impression is that perhaps about two, or two and a half years ago, the paper was noticeably improved, incorporating much richer blacks. At any rate, it seems a far better paper than when I first tried the double-weight version about three and a half yean ago.

Next, if you want to go graded, or want a more neutral black before fixing, or both, you could go to double-weight Ilford llfopnnt YR. This is an improved version of their previous llfoprint paper. The result is that tone is not quite as cold as it was before and whites which were on the cool, bluish side then, are now much cleaner, and blacks are quite neutral. This is an excellent paper, first introduced about two years ago, that stays cool after fixing, or gets just a trace cooler. However, one disadvantage is that double-weight 8x10 and 11x14 are only available in grades 2 and 3, with 2 being somewhat on the soft side, as it often is in stabilisation lines. And the 'oomph' that I liked so well in the older, now discontinued No.3 (which seemed closer to grade No. 4) has gone. The new llfoprint YR 3 is definitely of "moderate" contrast. On the plus side, you have a choice of glossy, semi-matte and velvet stipple surfaces So the Ilford YR paper may just fit the bill for you.

Still another interesting selection is Spiratone-Rapid. double-weight, graded stabilisation paper. This walks off with the low-cost honours. You get neutral blacks and warm whites, plus grades 2 and 3. Glossy or semi-matte are available for 11x14 inch, while semi-matte is the only double-weight choice for 8x10. It is interesting to note that the act of fixing reduces the warm tone considerably to "slight" for the semi-matte paper and to "moderate' for glossies which, in my experience with double-weight batches, were somewhat warmer than matte prints to begin with.

DOES STABILIZATION PRINTING COST MORE?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no! The big outlay, of course, is for the processor. So, many people take it for granted that the processing itself is more costly than conventional processing, but actually, once you've gotten the expense of the machine out of the way, the cost of double-weight stabilisation pnnts (including cost of fixing to make them permanent) can be less than for making conventional enlargements. Or they may just cost you a fraction. This surprises some. But it turns out to he the case whether I figure on the basis of what I actually pay, or use list prices. Another interesting point is that a quart of activator and a quart of stabilizer will process a lot of pnnts - about 200 to 300 according to some manufacturers. But figures vary, so check specifically with the maker of your chemicals. And note that the number of prints per quart goes down proportionately if a good number of prints with large white areas are processed. As a further guide, one manufacturer states that his figure of approximately 300 is for 8x10 inch prints where the exposed (black) areas equal 50 percent of the print. At any rate, no one should be turned off stabilisation processing because of cost per print.

PRINTS: FROM DAMP TO DRY
Air drying is usually recommended and it certainly is the most convenient method for the busy printer. While you are making other enlargements, air is busy doing its thing to dry out prints already made, and doing it
without attention from you or extra costly equipment. Just the same, I wouldn't mind this being faster at limes, though on dry days my favonte double-weight papers often dry out quickly enough - under 30 minutes, sometimes well under. When it's quite humid, however, prints can take a full half hour or more to dry. There may also be differences because of internal workings of the processor used, such as whether or not the paper goes through the stabilisation bath, and the efficiency of the rollers squeegeeing the emerging print. And, of course, there are some differences because of the papers themselves.

My own standard procedure is as follows. First I put fresh damp-dry prints face up on a table covered with clean paper. Then, as the table gets filled, I transfer some half-dry, less limp (reasonably flat) prints to a couple of wire letter files, standing on end, so air can continue the drying process in less space. This usually makes it easy to stay ahead of the game. Recently, however, I've added another technique for those aggravating damp days when prints tend to stack up and remain a bit tacky longer. I don't turn to my regular drum dryer, because it is not desirable to press anything on the still-tacky print surfaces. There's also the problem that chemicals in the prints will contaminate my dryer apron. What's more, I've found heat drying to any great degree can have a warming effect on the image tone of papers.

I do, however, turn to a small hand hair-dryer that I own. I use it cautiously and very briefly (for 10-30 secs) to get each of my nearly dry prints bone dry in a hurry. If you try this, be sure to keep the dryer at least a foot (or a bit more) from the print and waft the business end continuously over print areas without stopping. This is quite convenient and, what's more, the brief amount of heat doesn't seem to have any noticeable warming effect on image tone in my prints. If this shows up with yours, move back farther, move the dryer more quickly or more evenly or both, and keep the times short.

WHAT ABOUT SOME OTHER PAPERS?
Any way I look at it, the double-weight stabilisation papers with clean whites don't go high enough in contrast for me. One answer could be to turn to some No.4 single-weight papers, or go even further as I sometimes do. Way up high on the contrast heap is Agfa-Gcvaert Rapidoprint TP 6, a photo-mechanical paper designed for use in stat cameras, that comes in single-weight only. It can. however, be used with continuous tone negatives and be processed in your two-solution stabiliser. One neat point about this off-beat paper is that it is actually a bit higher in contrast than Agfa-Gevaert's conventional Brovira No 6 paper that many of us like so well Another interesting point is that by preflashing a sheet of TP 6 to a very weak light (like a night light some two to three ft away) for a brief period of time, then using this paper to make the exposure, I can reduce contrast significantly without getting a fogged look. For instance, in my setup, if preflashing time is a couple of seconds, picture results look very much as they do with regular Brovira No 6. When I lengthen the pre- flashing time to four to five sec, pictures tend to have a No.5 grade look. So try this, and use these figures as a guide for your own experiments.

Note also that the Agfa-Gevaeri Rapidoprint TP 6 paper (which your dealer may have to order specially) calls for use of a red safelight, while tht light amber OC is recommended for Kodak Ektamatic paper or Ilford llfopint.

WHICH CHEMISTRY IS BEST?
When you talk to some manufacturers, you get the notion that the very best results come from using their papers with their matching chemistry. Undoubtedly this is a good way to proceed, and a safe one. It leaves you free and clear should the manufacturer make some significant but unannounced changes in his products. Just the same, what you do depends in part on the stabilisation paper you use.

I've mixed brands like crazy in my experiments, using this firm's pair of chemicals with that firm's paper. I've also tried out chemicals that are not made by any paper manufacturer. I've compared all results to papers processed in their matching chemistry, and here is what I've found:

First, on the mechanical side, Tm happy to report that there is a lot of interchangeability of quart bottles with different processing units. This is true despite the fact that the necks of Ektamatic and llfoprint quart bottles are noticeably differently threaded than the others. So most of the valve caps, alias feeder caps (that so many processors have, to provide automatic gravity feed of solutions and maintenance of levels), will actually fit a lot of different quart bottles.

There are. of course, some exceptions. In these cases you can still interchange freely if bottle necks are similar. But the cap of the Spiratone unit will not fit the differently threaded Ektamaltc and Ilfoprint bottles. Then you can just transfer the chemicals to empties that do fit the caps, or ignore the automatic feed in favor of feeding solutions by hand. I also noted that the current Ilford caps didn't fit all Spiratone bottles easily - just some - though despite uneasy fits at times there were no neck leaks. So be careful whenever the fit doesn't seem easy. Put the valve on tightly, then hold the combo over the sink, upside down, to make sure the neck joint is tight and doesn't leak.

Now to the nitty-gritty. Fortunately for a lot of us, almost any staabilisation chemistry made for continuous-tone, general printing, seems to work well and give good results with some papers. This includes Kodak Ektamatic SC paper that I use the most (in double-weight form) - though there are differences, of course. Some combinations give cooler results than others. With Ektamatic chemicals, for instance, you get somewhat warm, rich blacks on the unfixed print, while with Ilford and Spiratone chemistry (to mention just two others I use) initial tones are still rich but somewhat cooler, and may be preferred

Happily for me, the same freedom of chemical choice is available when I turn to Agfa-Gevaert Rapidoprint TP 6 single-weight paper that I resort to at times when much higher contrast is reqquired. Quite conveniently, then, I can process this paper in whatever chemicals I happen to have in the machine.

Ilford llfoprint paper aho seems to work well in a wide variety of chemical pairs. Yet because this paper features neutral blacks (even before fixing) I tend to like chemicals that reinforce such tonality like pairing Ilford with Spiratone. These seem to bring out the rich quality in the blacks, with Ilford chemistry having just the slightest edge, as far as I'm concerned.

l'm fussy about tonality and I'm about to be so again in discussing Spiratone double-weight papers. After considerable experimenting, I came to the very definite personal conclusion that I like prints best on these papers when Spiratone chemistry has been used. The telling point for me is that results tend to have more neutral blacks, whereas with my runner-up choices of Edwal HST and Ilford llfoprint chemicals, tonality, though very pleasant, is a trifle warmer. I thoroughly disliked the ultra-warm. often brownish and unpleasant results obtained by marrying Ektamatic chemistry with Spiratone double-weight papers. Therefore I'd give this combo a miss.

So bear all this in mind when you choose your chemicals. Avoid the deep down nuttiness of using one firm's activator solution and another's stabilising iquid.

A LOOK AT SOME PROCESSING GROUND RULES
Nothing is very difficult here if you use common sense and don't try to overwork your chemicals. It is usually recommended to feed paper into the machine 'narrow end first', probably because processing in this fashion tends to conteract the natural direction of curl of most papers. At any rate, everybody teaches it that way, and advises feeding most sheets of paper in squarely. Also, if you go for small prints, bear in mind minimum length figures.

Next, the effective processing range for acceptable results is given at 65-85°F by Kodak and Ilford, 65-80°F by Spiratone and about 60-77°F by Agfa-Gevaert for their Rapidoprint TP 6 paper, presumably all with their own chemistry. But I've used a variety of chemicals at 80°F and somewhat above, with good results. At times, with Ektamatic paper, the thermometer has hovered on 85°F.

If you do go too high in temperature, you can get image fog, mottle at times, and perhaps tone changes, while if you err on the low side, the manufacturers say you can get poor blacks and low contrast. The only trouble I ran into (in my double-weight tests) was with some Spiratone papers at nearly 80°F, when the simple expedient of cooling activator and stabilizer, by running a water jacket around the bottles of chemicals to reduce temperature, solved my problem.

Another important point is to keep the stabiliser level; use the leveling feel that are incorporated in many units. And try to avoid spilling any solutions. As instructions on the bottles warn, these liquids are strong. They should be kept away from contact with skin and eyes, and you should wash solutions off immediately with water. The activator is strongly caustic (alkaline), while the stabiliser is very acid. So even if I don't have any cuts on my fingers, either solution can make my skin sting sharply at times, especially where it is thin, as around the side of the nails.

Speaking of fingers, keep them clean and free of chemicals also, so you don't make marks on your paper. My approach here (and to prevent the print from flopping) is to use tongs to hold the end of the emerging pnnt lightly without pulling. Then it's wise also to use the tongs to transfer the print to a dean drying surface.

You might mistakenly use the wrong solution in the wrong tray section or tray. For this reason a lot of manufacturers colour-code bottles and valves. Black is most commonly used as the activator indicator, while red is for stabiliser. Bur not all coding is alike.

Next, you could contaminate the activator by letting some stabiliser get in it. Then you'll notice a strong, ammonia-like smell and there can be image fog as well. Another mistake is to let solutions get too low, despite the existence of gravity feed. The activator will be used up much faster than the stabiliser, so check both bottles and levels (if possible). The only time I've had trouble with streaks because of processing was when the activator solution got too low.

If you have a unit with tube drains, always check before filling the processor that the tubes are in the 'no drain' condition. Re-ember too, from time to time, to check your feeder valves (which most processors have). I do this occasionally before setting up. With a lot of units the check can be as simple as screwing the valve cap on tightly to a spare quart bottle (with water inside), then holding the combo upside-down over a sink. There should be no leak, or only a slight dripping at the end, which stops shortly.

Finally, though unopened bottles of chemicals last a long time, be sure they are not stored at high temperatures. As a general guide, try to keep these sealed containers (as well as opened ones, of course) under 100°F.

MORE TIPS FOR MAKING GOOD PRINTS
Beginners please note: since processing steps are standardised, it is important to become really proficient at burning in and dodging areas of the print, as well as suitably varying exposure. Furthermore, if you want to raise local contrast, you can turn to local bleaching of fixed prints. With experience, you may also want to do as I do at tines: gently nudge contrast upward in my negatives so they will be a better match for the paper. Most frequently I just increase (film) developing time about 20 to 25 percent above normal. But occasionally, with really flat, low-contrast subject matter on the entire roll, or flat lighting, or both, I may increase negative contrast in another fashion. Then I follow the classic shift of underexposing about one f-stop and giving about 50 percent more developing time than normal. Even so, my No.4 filter gets a good workout with double-weight Ektamatic paper

HOW LONG WILL UNFIXED PRINTS LAST?
That depends on how you treat them? The happy truth is that unfixed prints can last for quite a while if you observe a few basics. For the longest storage, prints should be kept in the dark, away from heat and humidity if possible. Then, under such storage conditions, you may notice no loss in quality over long periods of time, like months or longer.

The main problem besides heat and humidity is direct sunlight or some other light source giving off strong ultraviolet radiation. Then, under certain conditions, noticeable image degradation can show up in a relatively short span of time. It's hard to be specific, since there are many variables. What shows up first in tests is a slight graying or discoloration of white and lightened areas. How soon it occurs depends on the factors mentioned and the particular paper. For instance, when I ran some outdoor tests, slight changes were expectedly more noticeable on the clean white papers, with Ilfoprint having an edge over Ektamatic paper in resistance to light, and Rapidoprint TP 6 being somewhat more resistant still. So if you plan to do any viewing by shade or daylight you might run some tests for your paper, your part of the world, and the season of the year. It's easy with pieces of unexposed stabilisation paper that have been run through the processor. As a guide only, try 30 and 60 minute direct sun tests to convince your-self that sun viewing ts pretty much a 'no-no'.

Then try one, two, three, or four hour tests in bright outdoor shade, or at a work table near a window, extending times if necessary until you see changes.

As a result, people like myself tend to do print examination by artificial room light when we can, keeping any necessary exposure to room daylight sensibly brief. It's not hard to keep unfixed prints in closed, old enlarging paper boxes marked 'Unfixed'. When I don't do this, I often keep stabilised prints in folders, or sometimes just in piles (face down) away from any bright light source, for weeks without trouble showing up.

HOW TO MAKE PRINTS PERMANENT
One of the joys of this system is that much later (usually days or a week later for me) you can decide which well-stored stabilisation prints are worth making permanent. Another is that fixing and washing can be done in reasonably large batches. And when properly done, this will give you prints that are as permanent as ones made the conventional way.

Standard hardening fixers tend to be recommended, but for Kodak Ektamatic and Ilford llfoprint YR papers, I definitely advise use of a strong hardening fixer like Kodak (powdered) Fixer. This has more hardening property than any of their other packaged fixers, including their Rapid Fix used with the standard amount of hardener.

Don't pre-wet or wash unfixed pnnts at any stage before fixing. Doing this can render prints sensitive to light. Instead, put dry pnnts in the fixer one at a time, agitating each before you immerse the next print. Subsequent en masse agitation can be by the flip-flop method, where you lift one print up at a time from the bottom, and flop it over face down on top of the pile. Continue this rotation without stopping during the entire fixing time. Some directions are specific, some are not. Kodak, for instance, recommends an 8-12 minute fixing time with their powdered fixer and Ektamatic paper As a quantity guide, I often fix as many as 15 to 20 8x10 inch at a time in this constant agitation fashion, using a gallon of fixer in an 11x14 inch tray. Just to be on the safe side. I don't overwork my fixer. Furthermore, instinct tells me to just use the fixer for stabilisation prints and no others.

In addition, be sure subsequent processing steps are long enough. Despite some neutraliser manufacturers, I go for a two minute initial wash, two to three minutes in a hypo neutraliser and a final wash for 15 to 20 minutes. Drying can then be done in the normal fashion and treated prints can also be spotted and dry mounted.

A QUICK LOOK AT BLEACHING
As with standard papers, you are free to lighten certain print areas by bleaching. This is a big help in a field (like this) where the processing is standardised and you may need more contrast (especially in local areas) than the double-weight paper affords. For the less experienced, bleaching can be done right after fixing. The general idea is to print for rich blacks while trying to hold your lighter tones. If you can't, which ts often the case, you can bleach light to middle-gray area to make them lighter. This is done by combining a weak, pale-yellow solution of potassium ferricyande (made by putting some of the crystals in water) with the fixer that is actually in the print.

Some other useful tips: Blow on the print areas to be bleached, after removing it from the fixer, to get rid of surface liquid. Then bring a small amount of the ferricyanidc solution to the spot with a bamboo brush (having no metallic parts) or with a cotton swab on a thin stick (the kind you can buy). Work by repeated applications, immersing the print in the fixer each time around to stop the action, which continues a bit before it is stopped by the fixer. Note also, if you try to lighten dark areas moderately you're likely to get an unwanted faded or muddy look.

IS HOUSEKEEPING HARD?
You hear occasional rumors about how hard it is to keep your processor clean, but I don't agree. Its true, if you leave your chemical-filled machine sitting too long, you can get deposits on the rollers and elsewhere. But if you're reasonably careful about cleaning, and occasionally check the bottle valves (which most processors use), you should stay nicely out of trouble. It's a good idea, of course, to follow the manufacturer's use and cleaning instructions, if these are spelled out. However, if the manufacturer isn't too specific about some points, or you've lost the instruction manual, bear these differing bits of advice in mind.

First, it seems to be an okay thing to leave the machine filled for a couple of days at least, if you print each day. So you can go back to your still-filled unit after a good night's sleep. Some directions are to let the processor run a while the next day - say five minutes to dissolve any crystallized chemistry on some parts like the rubber rollers in most machines, then start printing again. And a 24-hour interval without use is often the general dividing line before it ts suggested that you drain and clean the entire unit. Other directions are not to leave any rubber rollers in the chemistry at night, when they aren't in use, but to remove and clean them.

To round out the picture, you'll find some units that are used daily in labs and offices are commonly drained and then thoroughly cleaned only at the end of the week. And this seems to be fine in many manufacturing quarters, though one firm at least recommends draining and cleaning after 400 8x10 inch prints have been processed, if this comes sooner. Yet under such conditions (and others too), there's no doubt that nightly cleaning of rubber rollers that are exposed to chemicals is a very sound idea. So if you're going to stretch the time between cleaning, be careful of the rubber rollers and dean them more frequently than might be thought absoluteiy necessary.

Bear in mind, too, that those rubber rollers do need a bit of additional special care, because they are somewhat porous. So when you dean them, do it as directed, or note these points. I use a soft nail brush and warm running water on rollers that I've removed from the processor. A gentle detergent is suggested by some, but not harsh soaps, abrasive cleaners, cleansing powders or pumice. The rollers should also be protected from grease and grime, even the oils coming from your hands. So don't clutch the rubber areas as you clean and dry them. Instead, hold the roller assembly by a non-rubber part. Be sure also to let the unit air dry, or dry it with a clean, lint-free doth before putting it away or using fresh chemicals.

One safeguard I take while working is to have a plastic sheet under the processor to protect my work surface. And with my units, a plastic dishpan goes on the floor, or on a low stool, to protect against drips while I drain solutions back into their respective bottles. Just use common sense, follow directions, and wash up after any spills. You soon get adept and stay trouble-free.