Printing 20x24 B&W With a Jobo 3063 Expert Drum

[tgtaylor]

Has anyone tried it that can comment? In particular, can you reuse the developer and fix and if so how many prints before discarding (the minimum volume for the 3036 is 300mL)? Is there any difference between a tray processed 20x24?

Thanks,

Thomas

[bob carnie]

Yes it will work.
I would give double fix and add up the paper usage as you would with tray process.
Time Temp exactly the same , you may find with the continuous agitation that the replenishment rates need to go up.
I would also suggest that there is reverse roller action so as not to get streaking.
As well You may want to hand agitate with a good inversion and twist motion for the first 15-30 seconds of development to make sure you get good distribution.


Has anyone tried it that can comment? In particular, can you reuse the developer and fix and if so how many prints before discarding (the minimum volume for the 3036 is 300mL)? Is there any difference between a tray processed 20x24?

Thanks,

Thomas

[tgtaylor]

Thanks for the reply Bob.

I'm using a CPA-2 with lift. My C-41 prints turn out great but I haven't printed beyond 16x20 and with the Jobo and never in B&W.

Thomas

[vinny]

I've been interested n this as well but have heard that fiber papers collapse onto themselves once they absorb chemicals. Any thoughts?

[tgtaylor]

The Jobo manual does not recommend processing fiber prints saying that the ridges on the tanks interior may scratch the print. Perhaps the back side of the paper could be scratched but it would be impossible for the emulsion side to be scratched as it faces inwards. It would also seem that there would be little movement of 20x24 sized paper.

Thomas

[bob carnie]

Very good point,
I would want to be using thicker paper or shorter dev time, I tray roll prints all the time and they do not collapse and I am using a 3.5 min dev
You may require to slow down the rotation as well .
I have found for the first minute the paper is very robust.

I've been interested n this as well but have heard that fiber papers collapse onto themselves once they absorb chemicals. Any thoughts?

[patrickjames]

Bob, by tray roll, do you mean like a scroll with two sides going back and forth?

I have been wanting to drum process larger prints. The collapsing of the fiber paper though has me thinking a screen might be a good idea to support the paper. Has anyone used a screen for this purpose?

[bob carnie]

I am not using trays when I use the roll method, I am using larger storage , under the bed plastic containers, 40 inches wide by 12 inches deep about 18 inches across.
We got ours from Home Depot. I mix in around 30 liters of chemicals for each step.

I put the whole roll in my hands, then totally immerse into the developer, pull up one end and roll it into itself, when I have travelled the whole roll I take the whole roll flip it and do it again for 3 1/2 min,, in total darkness works very well.
After two rolls I only then handle from the very edges as the paper does get softer.

Heavens forbid you ever rolled a joint , but if you have that would give you a bit of the idea how its done under chemicals.
Not that I condone Marajiwannnna , I'm just saying it could be like that.

hope the internet police do not break down my doors.


Bob, by tray roll, do you mean like a scroll with two sides going back and forth?

I have been wanting to drum process larger prints. The collapsing of the fiber paper though has me thinking a screen might be a good idea to support the paper. Has anyone used a screen for this purpose?

[hka]

I work many many years with the 3063 Drums on the Jobo CPP and also on the ATL.
With FB prints I never discovered any problem at all. Try to find a size that fixes between the ridges. Scratching prints is no issue. I use paper sizes up to 50*60cm (20*24") in RA4 and B&W. Rotation speed @25rpm. For proofprints I use the small Testdrum with a rotation speed of 75rpm. Developing time is for both the same.

[bob carnie]

Here is a shot of the above post showing the roll in hand and trays
I was very lucky to get Brad Pitt to be in the shot.

[sgreenberg]

Nice picture. Do you final wash the same way?


Here is a shot of the above post showing the roll in hand and trays
I was very lucky to get Brad Pitt to be in the shot.

[Monty McCutchen]

Here is a shot of the above post showing the roll in hand and trays
I was very lucky to get Brad Pitt to be in the shot.

Is he on his knees?

Monty

[bob carnie]

No , when the prints finish the first fix, we cut the prints out individually and then get second fix, hypo clear , tone and wash as would normal in large trays and vertical washers.


Nice picture. Do you final wash the same way?

[bob carnie]

Out of the woods comes the second part of the Abbot & Costello comedy team.
Listen you wisenheimer get back to doing something and stop trying to make fun of me.

Is he on his knees?

Monty

[patrickjames]

Thanks Bob for the info. I would prefer to do it that way, but space limitations and all...

[David Starr]

I've been interested in this as well but have heard that fiber papers collapse onto themselves once they absorb chemicals. Any thoughts?

I've done 16x20 B&W fiber prints in Jobo 2830 & 2840 connected drums without any problems. I couldn't tell any difference between drum & tray developed prints. I used double the recommended chemical volumes just to be on the safe side. I would imagine the big expert drum would work just as well.

[al olson]

Thanks Bob for the info. I would prefer to do it that way, but space limitations and all...

While I have a 20x24 tube that I can use on my Jobo, I seldom make prints larger than 16x20 because the paper is so floppy that it is easy to put a crimp in it. Besides, nothing larger than 16x20 will fit in my refrigerator.

However, if you used a 20" section of 8" ID PVC pipe, you could put the paper in the pipe and roll it in a 16x20 tray. The paper does not have to be totally submerged, but it should be quickly rolled initially so that it does not streak. I have done see-saw processing with PC in trays that were smaller than the paper.

I am thinking about the possibility of using wall paper trays for this. But maybe they are too narrow for an 8" pipe. I will have to check.

What would be the consequences if, after the wash, the print were left in the pipe until it is dry? Hmmm It would still be curled, but would it warp?

This would not be for high volume production such as Bob's but it is an interesting alternative.

The problem with the Jobo is that I only have two tubes that I can use for 16x20. Once a tube has been used it must be rinsed and dried down, and yet there is always water lurking in the corners and in the cap that will run across the next print to ruin it.

My procedure is to give them a couple of hours to air dry after I have dried the tube before using it again. Thus I only do a couple 16x20 prints every two hours. With the PVC pipe I would be able to have a dozen ready to go.

[tgtaylor]

I routinely process 8x10 C-41 prints with the CPA and to date have never had a problem with water damaging the next print. I have 2 8x10 test tanks and my procedure when printing is to take the processed print from the drum and walk it back to the bathroom where the dryer is located. It takes about 45 seconds for the print to dry and I walk it bake to the living room where I place it on the couch or coffee table to cool down and flatten. From there its back to the kitchen where the CPA is and rinse the tankand lid in hot water and dry both with paper towels and place them face down in a dish drying rack. I then inspect the 2d tank and lid and wipe any remaining water drops from them and its back back to the enlarger for the next print. It's a process and to date I have not lost a print due to water remaining in the tank.

I have processed several 16x20 C-41 prints with the 3063 tank without any problems. It's a large tank and I have only one so I carefully inspect the tank before re-using it. If any problems with water remaining in the tanks woud occur, either with the smaller or larger tanks, it would probably be due to water remaining in the lids. It's necessary to give them a good shake to dislodge the water.

I'm going to try the Jobo for 20x24 B&W RC prints but will use the trays to process fibre prints.

Thomas

[bob carnie]

If space is a concern and the rollers do not do the trick , a very old method that I used for colour printing back when I started in 1973 , was a K16 roller and mesh system, and or a Calumet basket system for larger prints and volumne.

The K16 was easy peasy, repeatable and we had one in a small sink in each closet size darkrooms we were assigned.
Chromega enlarger , small sink with good plumbing and the K 16 sitting in the sink.

basically The K16 had a smooth roller made of some type of aluminum that would not scratch the print as it rotated, the print would sit emulsion up in a pre soak tray on a mesh. The drum was internally heated and a tray in front was where you loaded in the chems. Start the timer lift the mesh with print onto the roller , when time up dump the quick dump tray in front and pour in the next chem, go through the whole process and Bobs your uncle the print was done, move to another room to wash and dry the print.


The Calumet system sat in a darkroom size room and there were multiple baskets where you would put your exposed paper into, then the five slots filled with the appropriate chems. These slots were big enough to hold the basket 24inches by 28 inches approx. Connected to each basket was a nitrogen burst system which would provide some of the agitation just like an E6 or C41 dip dunk machine.
You would put the prints in the basket holders which were some sort of mesh to hold the prints. Start the timer and immerse the basket into the appropriate slot for the given process time. As time would run out you would move the basket to the next slot, after the process was done the whole basket was into the last slot and washed then prints out , basket put into a dry room and you could do more .
I think you could do something like 20-30 8x10 s at a time or five or six 20 x24 .s


Funny that was 40 years ago , and here we are still trying to come up with good solutions for small room design for printing and and processing , and Kodak and Calumet solved it dinasour years ago.
Is it a comment on our new world where good design and manufacturing has slipped past us or are we doing so little no one cares.

[Marco Annaratone]

I return to this old thread because I have been developing 16x20 FB paper on a 3063 drum and I have three questions.
1. I use about 700mL of developer (Adonal NE 1+7), stop and fix (each). Am I overdoing it? BTW, this is the same quantity I use to develop my 14x17 negatives and when I tried to reduce the quantity the negs were just really "tired."
2. Washing. How much / how long should I wash? Right now I wash for a total of 4 liters (a gallon +) for 4 minutes. That is, 8 x 500mL with each wash taking 30 seconds.
3. I read that some of you have developed 20x24 prints. I am very concerned that the lift is going to end up broken in two pieces in my hands with all this weight. In fact I have to help the lift by going under the drum with my right hand to help lift it, otherwise I *am* sure the lift will break apart. How did you manage with 20x24? Are you using much less chemistry (and hence see 1, above)?

Thanks!!!!!

Cheers

[vinny]

where did you get the idea that a 4 minute wash is sufficient for fiber paper? It's certainly not.
Marco, the lift should never be used with any expert drums as you're just asking for it. Most of us either have attached a lifting bar* or use a hand to lift heavy drums.
*i made mine out of a strip of aluminum bar and it's attached by two zip ties. It can slide in/out easily when I'm not using it. I have two sizes, one for the 3063 and one for film drums.

[Bruce Watson]

2. Washing. How much / how long should I wash? Right now I wash for a total of 4 liters (a gallon +) for 4 minutes. That is, 8 x 500mL with each wash taking 30 seconds.

You should wash until you remove sufficient fixer than your print passes a residual fixer test. If you aren't testing your process, you're just guessing and worse (hoping). Buy (or make) a kit, do the testing.

In general, the first wash can be very short, since all it's actually doing is getting the fixer that didn't drain but instead stuck to the walls of the tank. Thirty seconds to a minute should do it. The second wash is going to pick up some fixer from the print, but the print has a lot to give and will quickly reach equilibrium with the wash water. Say, a minute or so. The third was will pick up more from the print, but now the print has less to give, so it takes longer to reach equilibrium with the wash water. Say two minutes. Forth wash, double again to four minutes. Fifth wash, eight minutes. And so on. Why the doubling? Pulling the hypo from a fiber print is largely a diffusion process.

Somewhere in there it's probably wise to use a hypo clearing agent, especially for fiber based prints. At least it used to be. I haven't printed fiber darkroom prints in, holy cats! Decades.

Whatever workflow you decide on, run a test print through and then test it for residual hypo when your workflow is done. If you pass, great. If not, you'll need to add more washing. That's just the way it works.

[Oren Grad]

2. Washing. How much / how long should I wash? Right now I wash for a total of 4 liters (a gallon +) for 4 minutes. That is, 8 x 500mL with each wash taking 30 seconds.

I'm going to pile on here. In general, FB paper needs a much longer wash than RC paper. With FB paper, if you're not using a wash aid, you could need an hour or more. Even with a wash aid, depending on your fixing and toning habits, you could still need 20-30 minutes or more. I'll second Bruce's advice to run a residual hypo test, especially since manufacturer instructions for washing FB paper assume a tray or print washer with a steady flow, not a drum with a small number of water changes.

About the Lift: I use the Lift handle just to separate the Expert drum from the coupler, and then I take it the rest of the way by lifting the drum cradle from underneath. I broke one Lift handle before I understood how to use it properly; I don't want to break another.

[StoneNYC]

I'm going to pile on here. In general, FB paper needs a much longer wash than RC paper. With FB paper, if you're not using a wash aid, you could need an hour or more. Even with a wash aid, depending on your fixing and toning habits, you could still need 20-30 minutes or more. I'll second Bruce's advice to run a residual hypo test, especially since manufacturer instructions for washing FB paper assume a tray or print washer with a steady flow, not a drum with a small number of water changes.

About the Lift: I use the Lift handle just to separate the Expert drum from the coupler, and then I take it the rest of the way by lifting the drum cradle from underneath. I broke one Lift handle before I understood how to use it properly; I don't want to break another.

It really depends on the paper, if you read the instructions on the paper it tells you how much wash you need, Ilford doesn't need anywhere near 30 minutes with a hypo-clearing agent, so spouting those numbers when we don't know what paper the new poster is using giving timeframes is arbitrary...

For example... ILFORD

130977

[Kodachrome25]

I do 20x24 prints in a pair of 3063 drums on a motor base. I pre-rinse for a minute then go dark to pull the lid and make sure the print is on the walls of the drum real good. Then it is lights on and 300ml of one shot dektol, stop and two 4 minute fix baths.

I then rinse with 500ml x 10 starting at 30 seconds, 1, 2, 3, 4 and then 5 minutes for each remaining cycle. After I am done printing I hand wash all the prints one last time with running water in the holding tray, gently massaging and rotating each each print carefully to the top in a session that lasts about a half an hour.

Sometimes I will forgo the tray wash and use my 12 slot 16x20 print washer by removing half the dividers and carefully folding the 6 prints in half.

I think the drums are great, they allow me to print this size in a small apartment with great consistency.

[Lachlan 717]

Even with a wash aid, depending on your fixing and toning habits, you could still need 20-30 minutes or more.


...so spouting those numbers when we don't know what paper the new poster is using giving timeframes is arbitrary...

Seems that not taking notice of the word "could" is also arbitrary.

[Kodachrome25]

I forgot to add that my above workflow is for Ilford fiber.

[Oren Grad]

Seems that not taking notice of the word "could" is also arbitrary.

Exactly. Just to be clear, even if the OP is using Ilford paper, required wash time could be affected by various aspects of his technique. It's always best to do a residual fixer test to determine what is needed given one's local conditions and choice of materials and methods.

[vinny]

he's got 20yrs experience shooting film, and probably even more processing fiber prints in expert drums.......don't argue with him:)

[StoneNYC]

Exactly. Just to be clear, even if the OP is using Ilford paper, required wash time could be affected by various aspects of his technique. It's always best to do a residual fixer test to determine what is needed given one's local conditions and choice of materials and methods.

True, of course ultimately you should test to see if it works, I meant that I doubt someone like ilford would put times that weren't archival, that would be suicide.

Sorry if I was harsh yesterday.

[Fred L]

I think the key wording in the Ilford labelling that Stone posted is "Commercial Needs" which imo, is vastly different from artistic needs. I usually sacrifice one print and will test that throughout the wash cycle.

[John Layton]

Bob - as a variation of the rolling technique you describe above, how about first loading the print into a tube which is open on both ends - then sliding this tube into your Home Depot troughs, spinning the tube by hand in each trough? Might seem redundant...or maybe the best of tray and tube processing combined?

Right now I'm on the fence between building either a tube-and-roller system or large open trays for 30x40 prints. Both pose problems. Trays with huge size, risk of folding, etc. - single tube in logistics of pouring/emptying/pouring...etc. Seems that a series of plastic troughs would work well with a single, open tube loaded with a print - then finally a large holding bath/wash tray at the end. Comments?

[John Layton]

PS - sorry for some reason I thought I'd posted at the bottom of page one, just after Bob Carnie's post. Now I will read the rest of this!

[tgtaylor]

I think that if you're going to process B&W Fiber with the 3063, you need to use HCA before the final rinse and wash. Otherwise you will have to run the processor for an hour or more. Me? I use HCA followed by a rinse (Kodachrome's rinse set-out above sounds good to me.) After the rinse, a final wash of at least 20 minutes in the processor with 20 changes of water (1 each minute).

Alternatively, you could put the print face down in a 20x24 print tray in the bathtub tilt it slightly so that water runs out at one corner only and open the facet to allow only a small stream to exit the tray. This is how I wash salt prints when I only make one print except that I use a smaller tray in the kitchen sink instead. Once the flow is satisfactory, you can walk away and do something else like processing another salt print for the next 40 minutes (with the washing and toning it takes that long). Place something across the tray at flow corner to keep the print from flowing over the edge. I use one the the bars that came with my 11x14 Versalab washer.

Thomas

[StoneNYC]

I think the key wording in the Ilford labelling that Stone posted is "Commercial Needs" which imo, is vastly different from artistic needs. I usually sacrifice one print and will test that throughout the wash cycle.

Bob does commercial work... Commercial work means non-amateur = archival, etc. That's my impression, ilford wouldn't give times that would mean failed quality, it's COMMERCIAL suicide. IMO of course.

[bob carnie]

I like the large trays the best as handling the paper in them is easy (relative to ones darkroom size) not sure about the spinning of the paper in tube in tray, i would be worried about the paper overlapping and not getting enough chemistry flow.

I am very fast when it comes to scrolling and the paper is very controllable in the first 30 seconds so getting chemistry on fast is easy .. also I use a deep chemistry in trough situation, probably not practical for casual use...
I just saw a thread on APUG I think where a dude in Europe was putting prints in large vertical tubes and spinning very large prints and he seemed to be doing ok.
I do have a video on how we do the large prints in the troughs.. I will be using it on my web site and when I put it together I will post.

John open trays if you have space and the height is right is IMHO the best... but you need space.

regards
Bob

Bob - as a variation of the rolling technique you describe above, how about first loading the print into a tube which is open on both ends - then sliding this tube into your Home Depot troughs, spinning the tube by hand in each trough? Might seem redundant...or maybe the best of tray and tube processing combined?

Right now I'm on the fence between building either a tube-and-roller system or large open trays for 30x40 prints. Both pose problems. Trays with huge size, risk of folding, etc. - single tube in logistics of pouring/emptying/pouring...etc. Seems that a series of plastic troughs would work well with a single, open tube loaded with a print - then finally a large holding bath/wash tray at the end. Comments?

[Marco Annaratone]

Thanks everybody.

Right now I am using Fomabrom and Fomalux (Variant 111), easy to find at Fotoimpex here in Berlin, Germany. I am new to using fiber-based paper (in case some of you hasn’t realized it :-) ) and Foma has pretty affordable papers. I may move to other brands (i.e., Ilford) later on.

First, I just bought a tray for 20x24 for the very last wash. I cannot afford a wet darkroom and in spite of having lots of space my one sink is barely a couple of square feet. I will put together the soup for a Kodak HT1A residual hypo test (too expensive to buy it from US or UK - read shipping costs - and strangely enough I was not able to find it here) and just do it: this makes a lot of sense.

I looked around for an alkaline fixer *readily* and *consistently* available in Europe (Moersch makes one) but I am getting the impression that it is not really a mainstream solution. Those sharing the same Continent: please jump in if I am wrong. As a newbie I am also reluctant to follow a less travelled road.

So, I will go the standard route with an acid fixer and hypo-eliminator bath (e.g., Ilford Washaid).

Finally, I don’t know whether to go through a final silver stabilizer bath or not (e.g., Agfa Sistan): I read contradictory comments, including warnings from Jobo (but no official document is cited) that it is not recommended as it may be tricky to remove from the Jobo funnel and end up contaminating the baths (that I really do not get it).

[Toyon]

Thanks everybody.

Right now I am using Fomabrom and Fomalux (Variant 111), easy to find at Fotoimpex here in Berlin, Germany. I am new to using fiber-based paper (in case some of you hasn’t realized it :-) ) and Foma has pretty affordable papers. I may move to other brands (i.e., Ilford) later on.

First, I just bought a tray for 20x24 for the very last wash. I cannot afford a wet darkroom and in spite of having lots of space my one sink is barely a couple of square feet. I will put together the soup for a Kodak HT1A residual hypo test (too expensive to buy it from US or UK - read shipping costs - and strangely enough I was not able to find it here) and just do it: this makes a lot of sense.

I looked around for an alkaline fixer *readily* and *consistently* available in Europe (Moersch makes one) but I am getting the impression that it is not really a mainstream solution. Those sharing the same Continent: please jump in if I am wrong. As a newbie I am also reluctant to follow a less travelled road.

So, I will go the standard route with an acid fixer and hypo-eliminator bath (e.g., Ilford Washaid).

Finally, I don’t know whether to go through a final silver stabilizer bath or not (e.g., Agfa Sistan): I read contradictory comments, including warnings from Jobo (but no official document is cited) that it is not recommended as it may be tricky to remove from the Jobo funnel and end up contaminating the baths (that I really do not get it).

So why are you using film developer (Adonal/Rodinal) to develop paper?

[Marco Annaratone]

I meant Adotol NE, not Adonal NE. Thanks for catching it.

[StoneNYC]

So why are you using film developer (Adonal/Rodinal) to develop paper?

Rodinal is both, it was used as a paper developer since its inception.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I doubt someone like ilford would put times that weren't archival..."Archival" is an undefined, meaningless term in this discussion.


...that would be suicide...Ilford sells lots of RC paper. Whatever ambiguous definition of "archival" one decides to adopt, RC certainly doesn't meet it. I guess HARMAN is suicidal. :)


...Commercial work means non-amateur = archival, etc. That's my impression, ilford wouldn't give times that would mean failed quality, it's COMMERCIAL suicide...In 2015, most photographers, not even going so far as to include the general public, don't give much thought to print life expectancy, if they make prints at all. It's not a significant part of what they consider "quality." Mark McCormick-Goodhart struggles to obtain enough support for even starting a test of Epson's new ink set. HARMAN's sales roll on regardless, and most of its customers purchase RC paper. Noble consideration of permanence was never a commercial driver; it's not now either.

Whichever combination of local water quality and wash aid (or lack thereof) Marco uses, I concur that he should give his prints their final wash off the processor for whatever time residual hypo testing indicates is necessary. I also strongly suggest he not use currently available Sistan or Sistan-like products on the processor, if at all.

More than a dozen years ago Scott Jones worked on how best to process fiber based black and white prints in a Jobo drum. Here are some of his threads:


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005PED


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Rix


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Wv8


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005StJ

I'm not sure whether further searching would reveal any updates he might have posted to address larger prints.

[StoneNYC]

Also, the FOMA papers I've tried were thinner than Ilford, it MAY collapse on you more easily in the tank, from my experience anyway it was "floppier" than Ilford (which I preferred in tray development).

[Michael R]

I looked around for an alkaline fixer *readily* and *consistently* available in Europe (Moersch makes one) but I am getting the impression that it is not really a mainstream solution. Those sharing the same Continent: please jump in if I am wrong. As a newbie I am also reluctant to follow a less travelled road.

Alkaline rapid fixers are fine. They have high capacity, excellent keeping properties, and will tend to help decrease wash times. The Moersch product is mildly alkaline and I would not hesitate to use it.

[Oren Grad]

I also strongly suggest he not use currently available Sistan or Sistan-like products on the processor, if at all.

+1. If you must use Sistan, Adostab or equivalent, do NOT put it into your machine. It's designed to soak into the emulsion and stay there, not to react immediately with with the image silver with the residual being washed out. It's formulated with a wetting agent and intended for tray use.

[StoneNYC]

+1. If you must use Sistan, Adostab or equivalent, do NOT put it into your machine. It's designed to soak into the emulsion and stay there, not to react immediately with with the image silver with the residual being washed out. It's formulated with a wetting agent and intended for tray use.

Are you supposed to use Sistan/Abostab with prints or film? Is this a replacement for toning? I still haven't fully understood what it does as a stabilizer.

[Drew Wiley]

You could certainly develop any paper you wish inside a rotating log bark shredder or even an ordinary washing machine, but neither of those options would be
classified as archival either!

[Oren Grad]

Are you supposed to use Sistan/Abostab with prints or film? Is this a replacement for toning? I still haven't fully understood what it does as a stabilizer.

You can use it with both film and paper. It's not a replacement for toning, in the sense that it does not change the color of the image nor does it affect Dmax.

Sistan is a solution of potassium thiocyanate with a wetting agent. It's used as the last processing step, after the wash. The thiocyanate soaks into the emulsion and stays there when the negative or print dries. The thiocyanate will form a complex with any silver ions resulting from oxidation, creating silver thiocyanate which is colorless and reasonably stable, thereby preventing bronzing or other discoloration that could result from having silver ions reacting with other emulsion components or contaminants.

Although many people have used Sistan successfully, there is a risk associated with it. If an excessive concentration of thiocyanate is left in or on the paper when it is dry, it's possible for stains to appear at some indefinite point in the future. AFAIK there is no way to be sure in advance that this will not happen, so one is in effect trading one risk for another.

There has been some discussion of Sistan here and at APUG, which you might be able to find through the search engine.

[StoneNYC]

You can use it with both film and paper. It's not a replacement for toning, in the sense that it does not change the color of the image nor does it affect Dmax.

Sistan is a solution of potassium thiocyanate with a wetting agent. It's used as the last processing step, after the wash. The thiocyanate soaks into the emulsion and stays there when the negative or print dries. The thiocyanate will form a complex with any silver ions resulting from oxidation, creating silver thiocyanate which is colorless and reasonably stable, thereby preventing bronzing or other discoloration that could result from having silver ions reacting with other emulsion components or contaminants.

Although many people have used Sistan successfully, there is a risk associated with it. If an excessive concentration of thiocyanate is left in or on the paper when it is dry, it's possible for stains to appear at some indefinite point in the future. AFAIK there is no way to be sure in advance that this will not happen, so one is in effect trading one risk for another.

There has been some discussion of Sistan here and at APUG, which you might be able to find through the search engine.

Thanks

[Marco Annaratone]

In 2015, most photographers, not even going so far as to include the general public, don't give much thought to print life expectancy, if they make prints at all.

I do not mean to go OT, but the statement above is so incredibly true (100% my experience as well) that I cannot underline it strongly enough. I do not know about other photographers, but all - and I mean all - of the (many) gallery owners and customers I talked to (at least in Continental Europe) consider the issue of life expectancy of a photo as something largely irrelevant. Don't care? Don't understand the potential severity of the problem? I have no clue. In some cases we are even talking about prints in the many tens of thousands of USD - not mine, I am sorry to say, and by a humongous shot :-) .

BTW, thanks to those who answered my cry for help, including those in recent posts who clarified once and for all the Sistan-saga. I just bought a really big tray just in case I want to use it.

Cheers!