may605 from Lloyd Erlick,

Usually I limit my developer working solution to two sessions. My
general pattern is to have a day of general work on some specific
pictures to establish my ideal way of making them. Then I would
probably have a day in which I produce the final prints, in however
many copies I need. The day of experimenting would probably be done
with the previous session's developer, if only a day or so had gone
by. The day of making final prints would be with a freshly mixed
working solution of developer. (I mix my developer directly to a
working solution from dry powder chemicals. I don't like to store
solutions if I can avoid it.)

I re-use my fixers until two-thirds the maximum number of prints have
been processed. I like to use sodium thiosulfate based fixer because
it has no smell issue, and it is relatively low capacity, so I can
more or less use it up without unduly long storage. Kodak mostly
specifies a maximum of twenty-five 8x10s or equivalent through each
liter of fixer. I like to make up three liters, because that is a
convenient volume for me. It implies seventy-five 8x10 prints, so two
thirds would be about fifty, which are equivalent to about twelve
16x20s. I use a double-bath setup for fixer, so in reality I only use
my fixer to one-third capacity, since I never promote my second fix to
first place because it is so cheap and easy to prepare fresh fix.
Anyway, I am hyper-conservative about my fixer use because I want no
chance of stains on my prints. Fixer is cheap, but each sheet of 16x20
costs me nearly five dollars.

I've never used dilute, one-shot solutions for making prints. Dan
Quinn calls it the LFP method (Least Fluid Practical). The single-tray
method is ideal for this type of work. It's even simpler, because
there is no need to pour solutions back into their storage containers.
The tray can simply be upended in the sink. So the huge difficulty of
pouring out of a tray back into a jug is removed. Sort of like Velcro
for the shoes instead of laces, such complicated things to tie up!!

But the LFP method has a significant advantage - no finished print has
been exposed to used chemicals. Every print is made with freshly mixed
solution, so no secondary products have had a chance to build up in
any of the solutions. In other words, the fixer never builds up silver
complexes due to more and more silver being removed from successive,
multiple sheets of paper. Washing prints should be as easy as it is
possible for it to be.

Don't forget that these techniques are merely refinements of the old
standby technique of many trays and stored solutions. I adopted the
single tray method because I find it less work. Cleanup is simpler,
and it eliminates the mid-process holding tank or tray.

I like to be able to view a print that I have fully toned, in case I
want to change the enlarger exposure on succeeding prints. I don't
like to store prints in a holding tray and tone them all in a batch
later. I'm sure to find the final print tone wrong that way. I also,
personally, hate to stack prints in a tray and shuffle them over and
over each other. I hate to see fine scratches on my prints when they
are dry and finished, and shuffling them while they are wet seems like
a sure way to scratch them to me. I've seen a pattern of very fine
scratches on gallery-displayed prints quite frequently, by observing
the surface of the print at close range, by very oblique light.
(Craning the neck and touching the glass with the nose may be
necessary...). Usually the scratches are in a vaguely oval pattern,
suggesting sloshing about in liquid. My overall "philosophy" of print
making is that the face of the wet print shall be touched by nothing
at all, except at extreme edges and corners. So the backsides of other
prints may not touch any print faces.

regards,
--le

Hi Lloyd,

The description seems a bit over the top to me.  In my case one of the great
joys of darkroom work is precisely the subtle smell imparted by an acid type
fixing solution.  I've worked for many years as an amateur (and for several
years professionally as a custom B&W printer in the 80s) surrounded by this
smell and without any respiratory ill effect whatsoever.

I compound all of my chemistry from scratch and so could select any fixer
type I desire.  I choose Kodak F-5 (wherever process-feasible) simply
because I enjoy the smell.  No other aspect of my darkroom work is more
powerful in its ability to mentally transport me back to my youth.

So I guess we're all different.

Ken

P.S.  Interesting story...

Last week I was volunteer teaching a class of 8th-graders (~14 years old)
how to build and use pinhole cameras.  We exposed paper negatives in
one-gallon paint cans and then made contact prints.

After his processing was complete one of the boys - Ben - came up to me and
asked about the smell on his hands after washing up.  I grinned and told him
it (the smell of F-5 fixer) was harmless and would last about 24 hours and
that he should consider it a badge of honor.  I said he had now taken his
rightful place in the long unbroken line of analog film/darkroom
photographers stretching back over 150+ years.

He looked at me suspiciously, then left.  I found out later that he had
subsequently searched out all of the other 8th-grade girls and had them
smell his honor-drenched F-5 hands.  Don't know if he got any dates out of
this novel approach, but I don't think that using an acid-based fixer to get
the girls is documented anywhere in Kodak's literature... <grin>

yes i learn formula from book.  i knew that f-5 smells, but i did not
know so serious it is.  thanks, i will switch to f-6!

dan.c.qu...@att.net wrote:

yes, it's my faults. 900 grams is for 20L solution.

thanks for those start points. but you missed dilution for 8x10, let'me
gues, a 1:2?

why do you think those other ingredients are of no use? you method only
use one ingredient in original F-5.

-
narke