Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / February 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Advice on monochrome process

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mark - 06 Feb 2006 19:07 GMT
I'm looking for comments on the following tentative archival
monochrome sheet film (4x5) and paper processing routines to see if
there are any issues or improvements I can make.  For now I will
standardize on T-Max 100 developed in water-jacked trays (I realize
temperature and consistent technique are critical), and for paper I
will normally use  fiber-based Oriental grade 2 developed  in Dektol.
I've surfed and read and besides a headache I found lots of opinions,
including this 1987 article by John Sexton on Tmax 100 processed at
75F, where he gives processing tips:

http://largeformatphotography.info/articles/sexton-tmax.html

I still have to determine my personal film speed/development time but
I have John Sexton's time/temp in here for now in case someone has an
opinion on the dilution/time/temp for normal development.

Processing T-Max 100 sheet film, normal development

Water presoak                  1-3 minutes @ ~75F
Developer:  T-MaxRS  1:15,        13 minutes @75F
Water Rinse                30 seconds
Fixer: TF-4 Rapid Fixer            5-6 minutes @~70F
Water Rinse (necessary?)
Kodak Hypo Clearing stock 1:4        3 minutes ~70F
Water Rinse (necessary?)
Archival Wash in Zone VI washer     15 minutes
Kokak Photo Flo ¼ cap in 16oz. distilled water

Processing fiber base paper with Selenium toning

Dektol  1:3                  2½  minutes @ 70F
Water Rinse                30 seconds
Fixer 1:  TF-4 Rapid Fix             1 minute ~70F
Water rinse                2 minutes
<Cold water storage>
Fixer 2:  TF-4                1 minutes ~70F
Kodak Rapid Selenium             3-5 minutes ~75F <-temp?
(1 part selenium:4 parts Hypo clearing working solutin) <- too weak?
Kodak Hypo Clearing stock 1:4        3 minutes ~70
Water rinse                3 minutes
Archival Wash in Zone VI washer     60 minutes

I'm not sure about the rapid fixer as opposed to Hypo going into the
selenium.  I appreciate any feedback because as you know there are
lots of methods and things may have changed  since the 30 year old
Ansel Adams and Fred Picker books were published!

Mark
UC - 06 Feb 2006 20:32 GMT
Use stop bath.

Use acid rapid fixer.

> I'm looking for comments on the following tentative archival
> monochrome sheet film (4x5) and paper processing routines to see if
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> Mark
Mark - 06 Feb 2006 21:49 GMT
Thanks UC.  Which rapid fixer would you recommend, and why acid rapid
fixer?  Does the PH of the fixer have bearing on the selenium?

>Use stop bath.
>
>Use acid rapid fixer.
UC - 06 Feb 2006 22:04 GMT
> Thanks UC.  Which rapid fixer would you recommend, and why acid rapid
> fixer?  Does the PH of the fixer have bearing on the selenium?

I use and recommend Kodak Rapid Fixer. Never use plain hypo! Acid stop
bath is necessary to preserve the acidity of the fixer (which breaks
down when developer is allowed to contaminate it) and to prevent
dichroic fog forming on the film. You really should use stop bath, and
if you do, you must use acid fixer. I tried using water stop bath and
ended up with problems, so I went back to acid stop and the problems
disappeared. I use PermaWash for hypo clearing. After washing, the film
or paper should be as neutral ph as the water it was washed in.

> >Use stop bath.
> >
> >Use acid rapid fixer.
Mark - 06 Feb 2006 22:35 GMT
Ok, so I would use Kodak Rapid Fixer (without adding any of the
hardener I assume) for film and paper.  

For film, are the water rinses before and after the hypo clearing
agent necessary?  

For paper, I'm wondering about the prints sitting in cold water
storage after being fixed once but not yet washed well.  It would be
nice to store prints at that point though and  finish up at the end of
the session.

I read somewhere that for Selenium toning you shouldn't dilute more
than 1:9 for full archival affect.   I think the 1:9 mentioned is with
clearing agent working solution

Mark

>> Thanks UC.  Which rapid fixer would you recommend, and why acid rapid
>> fixer?  Does the PH of the fixer have bearing on the selenium?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> >
>> >Use acid rapid fixer.
David Nebenzahl - 06 Feb 2006 22:45 GMT
Mark spake thus:

> For film, are the water rinses before and after the hypo clearing
> agent necessary?  

No, but they don't hurt. I rinse to make sure I get all that evil hypo out.

Signature

If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect
and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the
Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories,
then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—-
and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.

- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_

G- Blank - 06 Feb 2006 22:51 GMT
> For paper, I'm wondering about the prints sitting in cold water
> storage after being fixed once but not yet washed well.  It would be
> nice to store prints at that point though and  finish up at the end of
> the session.

I always do that up to 6-7 hours no problems, however for certain papers
leaving them sit overnight is a concern, frilled edges and overly
softened emulsions. I have seen emulsions come off in extreme soaking.

> I read somewhere that for Selenium toning you shouldn't dilute more
> than 1:9 for full archival affect.   I think the 1:9 mentioned is with
> clearing agent working solution

1 to 9 will certainly create a change in color-for alot of papers
depending on how long you tone. Michael A Smith
whom I know- professes that 1+64 is fine for Azo papers, I generally use
1+32 for minimal toning on FB papers of most types. This is one area
where it has a lot to do with personal taste, and although toning does
protect the image- washing adequately should mean you don't have to tone
the image. But lets just say its good practice. You can always tone a
print after the fact- twice fixed & washed one hour and then tone and
rewash another hour.

Signature

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

Lloyd Erlick - 07 Feb 2006 18:41 GMT
>I have seen emulsions come off in extreme soaking.

February 7, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

I once left some sheets soaking in my washer
for too long. I think I was fooled by the
temperature. Usually my place was quite
chilly, and the wash water was too. But it
was summer, and the water was significantly
warmer than I was used to. I left the prints
for about the maximum time I had established
for myself, but when I got there the sheets
were clean and white. They were so clean I
had to think - did I actually have pictures
there? But there, on the bottom of the
washer, that little skimpy pile of -- black
dust. The silver had fallen to the bottom.
The gelatin had dissolved and dispersed. I
wish I had filmed the whole process.

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

G- Blank - 07 Feb 2006 19:24 GMT
> >I have seen emulsions come off in extreme soaking.
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> net: www.heylloyd.com
> ________________________________

I am glad someone else has experienced this, awhile back
perhaps in a NG far far away I was derided for claiming emulsion comes
off with too much soaking. Thanks!

Signature

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

Lloyd Erlick - 07 Feb 2006 19:36 GMT
>I am glad someone else has experienced this, awhile back
>perhaps in a NG far far away I was derided for claiming emulsion comes
>off with too much soaking. Thanks!

February 7, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Well, who am I to say? I conducted no
scientific test. But I can't see any other
explanation. It was around the forty-eight
hour mark, if I recall. I actually put some
prints in the washer in the winter time to
compare, and they did not fall apart at
forty-eight hours. So I did test the
temperature factor, and I believe it is
crucial.

The black powder on the bottom was weird. All
my hard work...

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

Mike - 06 Feb 2006 22:59 GMT
> Thanks UC.  Which rapid fixer would you recommend, and why acid rapid
> fixer?  Does the PH of the fixer have bearing on the selenium?

UC only recommends his personal process, film, developer, etc.  

TF-4 is a fine fixer and, to my knowledge, allows you to go directly from
fix to KSRT. See the technical articles at www.heylloyd.com 

You also might want to post your original message to www.apug.org


Mark - 07 Feb 2006 03:29 GMT
>TF-4 is a fine fixer and, to my knowledge, allows you to go directly from
>fix to KSRT. See the technical articles at www.heylloyd.com 

Thanks for the Lloyd link - he's an interesting guy.  Lots of detail
and things to think about there.  He's definitely not into any acid in
his process.

He has a point about processing prints to completion (instead of
holding a bunch for later toning) so he can keep adjusting exposure
for the final result.  But once you have it down and you want to make
some stock duplicates you may want to save the toning for later.  So
you would need cold storage.
Mike - 07 Feb 2006 04:51 GMT
>>TF-4 is a fine fixer and, to my knowledge, allows you to go directly from
>>fix to KSRT. See the technical articles at www.heylloyd.com 
>
> Thanks for the Lloyd link - he's an interesting guy.  Lots of detail
> and things to think about there.  He's definitely not into any acid in
> his process.

Lloyd's on this newsgroup and will probably pop his head in here :-)

Although I haven't adopted all his ideas, I really like his single-tray
processing.
Lloyd Erlick - 07 Feb 2006 18:57 GMT
>>TF-4 is a fine fixer and, to my knowledge, allows you to go directly from
>>fix to KSRT. See the technical articles at www.heylloyd.com 
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>holding a bunch for later toning) so he can keep adjusting exposure
>for the final result.  

*
But once you have it down and you want to
make
>some stock duplicates you may want to save the toning for later.  So
>you would need cold storage.
*

February 7, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Well, I'm sure it's a common practice. But I
find the whole thing a very delicate balance
at best, and if I wait for some future time,
the result of the toning will depend on a
different balance from the one I arranged
when I made the print.

Also, I think it's very easy for a wet print
to have its face very finely scratched by the
back of the print floating above it in the
toner, if one decides to do batch toning.
I've often noticed a faint, oval pattern of
tiny scratches on prints in galleries. Get in
close, observe the surface by very, very
oblique, skimming light. They hate it when
you touch the glass with your nose. Anyway, I
blame batch tray processing for these
occasional scratches. Maybe I'm wrong, but in
any case I just stick with a print until it
is finished. Then I put it in the washer. No
doubt it's a personality thing; I just hate
to have chores waiting for me, especially
ones that pile up while waiting. The more
prints, the less likely it is I'd ever get to
it at all ...

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

Lloyd Erlick - 07 Feb 2006 18:33 GMT
>Does the PH of the fixer have bearing on the selenium?

February 7, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

It certainly seems that way to me.

I've had a non-acid darkroom for several
years. No acid stop (I use water), and
non-acid fix.

When I stopped using acid, my selenium toner
stopped forming the dark precipitate that
causes it to become so murky. It remains
clear long-term.

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

UC - 07 Feb 2006 18:37 GMT
There is no reason to avoid acid stops and fixers. NONE.

> >Does the PH of the fixer have bearing on the selenium?
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> ________________________________
> --
Lloyd Erlick - 07 Feb 2006 19:08 GMT
February 7, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

I think it's only fair to let the original
poster know he's fallen in with a nest of old
curmudgeons who all insist on doing their
work in their own weird and idiosyncratic
ways. Many of the posters here do not do
darkroom work in ways that resemble the way
it is shown in most darkroom technique books.

However, the techniques developed by this
band of misfits might be easier, cheaper and
less work than the usual way.

Just to point out that everyone has to
exercise their own intelligence and powers of
analysis and judgment.

My advice to a new darkroom worker would be
to use single-tray processing, and work
non-acid. Briefly, my reasons are that it is
easier and cheaper than the usual way with
multiple trays and acetic or citric acid.
Mark - 07 Feb 2006 22:39 GMT
>I think it's only fair to let the original
>poster know he's fallen in with a nest of old
>curmudgeons who all insist on doing their
>work in their own weird and idiosyncratic
>ways.

>However, the techniques developed by this
>band of misfits might be easier, cheaper and
>less work than the usual way.

> Get in close, observe the surface by very, very
>oblique, skimming light. They hate it when
> you touch the glass with your nose.

OMG, if I can stop laughing I can get back to nailing down my process
and getting the damn camera out.
Mark - 07 Feb 2006 22:54 GMT
Yes, thanks Lloyd.  I read several of the articles on your website and
appreciate your posting all that info.  What do you use for
large-mouthed jars for emptying your trays?

>>Does the PH of the fixer have bearing on the selenium?
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>net: www.heylloyd.com
>________________________________
Lloyd Erlick - 08 Feb 2006 14:12 GMT
>What do you use for
>large-mouthed jars for emptying your trays?

February 8, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Speaking generically, I use some plastic jugs
that have four inch diameter mouths. They
will hold four liters.

Specifically, I bought the cheap cat food
that came in these jugs at the supermarket.
My cat has since died (old enough to vote!),
so I cast my eyes over the recycling garbage
once in a while and I find plastic jugs that
are suitable. I've collected a few extra lids
for convenience, too.

The idea is to use a jug with a wide enough
mouth that you can pour into it from a large
tray with no difficulty. The height of the
tray stand can be adjusted to suit the height
of the jugs in use. Lids that seal airtight
are necessary, too, so the working jug can
also be the storage jug. This saves work and
controls the number of containers in the
darkroom.

All this talk of jugs! Curmudgeons, indeed...

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

dan.c.quinn@att.net - 06 Feb 2006 22:21 GMT
> Processing fiber base paper
> Dekto 1:3
> Water rinse
> Fixer 1:  TF-4 Rapid Fix;  Mark

 Consider a hold after the developer rather than twixt
fix 1 and fix 2.
  As long as the print is neutral to alkaline when it hits
the KRST all is OK. Both S. and A. Thiosulfates,
unadulterated, are near neutral. Dan
Mark - 06 Feb 2006 22:45 GMT
I'd love to hold the prints after developing, but you know the room
lights would come on.  Are you saying the prints are safe after
stopping, or do you have a 'wet' paper safe?!

>> Processing fiber base paper
>> Dekto 1:3
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>the KRST all is OK. Both S. and A. Thiosulfates,
>unadulterated, are near neutral. Dan
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 07 Feb 2006 11:05 GMT
> I'd love to hold the prints after developing, but you know the room
> lights would come on.  Are you saying the prints are safe after
> stopping, or do you have a 'wet' paper safe?!

  Hold them in the stop. What do you mean by "... the room
lights would come on."?
  I process single tray using minimal volumes of
one-shot developer and very dilute one-shot fixer. The
very dilute fixer has sufficient volume to yield archival results
with one fix. I may or may not include a rinse twixt the developer
and fixer. If I were to hold I'd likely do it after the developer and
use a very dilute sulfite-bisulfite blend. The blend would be
a little acidic and good for up to four prints which would
go on to be batch fixed. Dan
Mark - 07 Feb 2006 12:56 GMT
Dan

>   Hold them in the stop. What do you mean by "... the room
>lights would come on."?

I meant if (when) I space out and turn the room lights on, the unfixed
prints might fog!

>   I process single tray using minimal volumes of
>one-shot developer and very dilute one-shot fixer. The
>very dilute fixer has sufficient volume to yield archival results
>with one fix. I may or may not include a rinse twixt the developer and fixer.

This single tray method makes a lot of sense.

> If I were to hold I'd likely do it after the developer and
>use a very dilute sulfite-bisulfite blend. The blend would be
>a little acidic and good for up to four prints which would
>go on to be batch fixed. Dan

If you tone what do you first use to neutralize the dilute acid in
your fixer, if anything?
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 07 Feb 2006 23:29 GMT
> Dan, I meant if (when) I space out and turn the
> room lights on, the unfixed prints might fog!

  You mean you may forget yourself. I think you
worry too much. Batch only a few and complete through
the fixer prior to any other activity. I use Graded papers.
The level of lighting in my darkroom is very high. I'm
not tempted to turn up the lights. You use VC?

> >    I process single tray using minimal volumes of
> > one-shot developer and very dilute one-shot fixer. A single
> > very dilute fixer with sufficient volume will yield archival results.
> > I may or may not include a rinse twixt the developer and fixer.
>
> This single tray method makes a lot of sense.

  Saves a lot of room. Makes possible many tray processes
for which nobody has enough room. To make it sing use one-shot
chemistry. In the tray then throw away! Minimal solution volumes
and more than usual dilutions give good chemical milage. Likely
a best method for those with a few prints to do.

> > If I were to hold I'd likely do it after the developer and
> >use a very dilute sulfite-bisulfite blend. The blend would be
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> If you tone what do you first use to neutralize the dilute acid
> in your fixer, if anything?

  I'll likely post process tone when I get around to toning. I'm
quite sure I'll live long enough. The nearest thing to acid in
my processing is unadulterated sodium thiosulfate fixer;
ph most usually 6.8 to 6.9. A little sulfite will lift
the ph to 9 plus. Dan
Mark - 08 Feb 2006 00:01 GMT
>The level of lighting in my darkroom is very high. I'm
>not tempted to turn up the lights. You use VC?

No, graded FB.  

>> > I process single tray using minimal volumes of
>> > one-shot developer

What volume of developer would you use for, say, an 8x10? 16x20?  I'd
be concerned with enough to cover the print, weighed against how much
unexhausted developer is going down the drain.  I like the idea though
- seems efficient.

>>  and very dilute one-shot fixer. A single
>>  very dilute fixer with sufficient volume will yield archival results.

How dilute is your fixer?

I do have an older Jobo CPP-2 (I think that's the model) so if I were
to go 1-shot that might be the way to go, at least when it comes to
developing the T-Max sheet film.  
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 09 Feb 2006 00:30 GMT
> >The level of lighting in my darkroom is very high. I'm
> >not tempted to turn up the lights. You use VC?
>
> No, graded FB.

  Graded. Graded paper safelighing can be of an orange-ish
yellow hue and brighter than VC. Perhaps you've some of
those one-size-fits-all filters installed?

> >> > I process single tray using minimal volumes of
> >> > one-shot developer
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> unexhausted developer is going down the drain.  I like the idea though -
> seems efficient.

  Consider this: A liter of working strength Ilford Multigrade at
the 1:9 dilution will process 50 8 x 10s. That's according to Ilford.
Ilford goes on to say that the same 100 ml of concentrate at a 1:14
dilution will process 60 8 x 10s. That's 2 ml of concentrate per 8 x
10 at the 50 print dilution; at 1:9, 20 ml of working strength.
4 ml at 1:29 should work well; 1/4 liter. Allow 5 minutes.
 Trial and error what ever developers you do use. Use a Flat bottom
tray and perhaps pre-wet the paper. Lesser volumes require it.
 UPS delivered a few darkroom items last week. Two flat bottom
trays were ordered but two with big, long, lenghwise ridges,
were in the box. Bother.

> >>  and very dilute one-shot fixer. A single very
> >>  dilute fixer with sufficient volume will yield archival results.
>
> How dilute is your fixer?

  An Archival fix must contain a low per unit volume amount of
silver. For an 8 x 10 FB use 71/2 ml of A. Thio. concentrate or that
many grams of S. Thio. anhydrous in no less than a 250 ml solution.
I agitate by folding the print over itself rear to front and right to
left.
With that well lite Graded Paper tray I can easily see first
emergance and the development progress. Dan
Lloyd Erlick - 08 Feb 2006 14:23 GMT
>> If you tone what do you first use to neutralize the dilute acid
>> in your fixer, if anything?

>   I'll likely post process tone when I get around to toning. I'm
>quite sure I'll live long enough. The nearest thing to acid in
>my processing is unadulterated sodium thiosulfate fixer;
>ph most usually 6.8 to 6.9. A little sulfite will lift
>the ph to 9 plus. Dan

February 8, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

I hope you live long enough too! I want to be
there when they unwrap your mummified body
and you spring up saying you still had to go
tone your prints...

For quite a while after I had removed acid
from my fixer, I still had problems with my
selenium toner due to the residual acid. As
long as I had acid in my process, it was
impossible to remove enough before selenium
toning. The black precipitate still formed,
only a bit more slowly. When I removed acid
entirely, the black precipitate stopped
forming.

For my purposes, it is impossible to
'neutralize' acid. Some remains. I find it
much better to simply not use acid in the
darkroom. This is cheaper and easier.

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

Lloyd Erlick - 08 Feb 2006 15:15 GMT
>For quite a while after I had removed acid
>from my fixer, I still had problems with my
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>entirely, the black precipitate stopped
>forming.

February 8, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

The quote above is ambiguous. I should have
pointed out that I was speaking of removing
acid from my fixer but not from my stop bath.

The residual I mention was residual acid from
my stop bath, even though I rinsed in plain
water after the stop and before the fixer. I
was speaking of a time when I was still
experimenting with the removal of acid from
my process.

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

Mark - 08 Feb 2006 17:37 GMT
I have a 15 year old supply of Zone VI "print and film fixer" in
original sealed plasic bags.   There is no ingredient list, but can
anyone confirm that it is a non-hardening fixer (and that it's still
good)?  Also have bags of Zone VI hypo.  

Also, I have 2 bottles of equally old KRST concentrate, one of which
had been partially used but I had squeezed the air out.  I assume if
it still tones then it hasn't changed in any way that might effect
it's stabilizing qualities.

Thanks,
Mark
UC - 07 Feb 2006 23:06 GMT
You MUST use an acid stop bath to prevent contamination of the fixer
with developer. ACID!
ACID stop!

ACID fixer!

RAPID FIXER!

No plain hypo, no alkaline fixer.

> > Processing fiber base paper
> > Dekto 1:3
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the KRST all is OK. Both S. and A. Thiosulfates,
> unadulterated, are near neutral. Dan
Richard Knoppow - 06 Feb 2006 23:39 GMT
> I'm looking for comments on the following tentative
> archival
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> Mark

  I am not convinced about pre-soaks. There is really no
necessity for them.
  T-Max RS is a good developer similar to other Phenidone
and Hydroquinone developers like Ilford Microphen. The
normal dilution is 1 part concentrate to 4 parts water. This
stock can be diluted 1:1 with water to get longer
development times. For normal tanks development times of
around 6 minutes minimum are desirable to insure uniform
development. Also longer times are easier to control. Follow
the times and agitation technique in the Kodak data booklet
when starting. The charts are for a target contrast about
right for contact printing or diffusion enlarging. In a
condenser enlarger it may be desirable to reduce negative
contrast by about one paper grade. For T-Max film this
requires about a %20 to %25 reduction of time and a
consequent increase of about 3/4 stop of exposure. T-Max
gains contrast faster than conventional films so its
important to have good control of development rate.
  I am also not convinced about so called alkaline
processing. An acid stop bath will stop development
instantly. If you want to use a water rinse it should
consist of two or three changes of water with vigorous
agitation. About three minutes are needed to remove the bulk
of the developer from the emulsion.
  T-Max will fix in Sodium Thiosulfate fixer but a two bath
system is necessary to insure complete fixing. Total fixing
time of about 10 to 12 minutes is necessary with half the
time in each bath. For faster fixing use a "Rapid" fixer at
film strength. There is some controversey as to whether a
two bath fixing system is needed when using rapid fixer. I
prefer to use one because it insures complete fixing. You
can use a non-hardening fixer if you choose. T-Max emulsion
is similar to color film emulsion in that it is hardened to
take 100F processing and does not really need hardening in
the fixing bath.
  A rinse between fixer and wash aid is not necessary but
the capacity of the wash aid is considerably extended with
the rinse. I use wash aid as a one shot so a rinse is of no
consequence.
  Kodak recommends 1 to 2 minutes treatment in Kodak Hypo
Clearing Agent followed by a five minute wash. This is
sufficient. If you are going to treat your negatives with
Kodak Brown Toner to protect the image a longer wash is
permissible. The reason for limiting the wash time is that a
very small trace of hypo left in the emulsion has been found
to act as a stabilizer, helping to prevent oxidation of the
silver. The toner is a much more effective treatment and is
the current standard method for microfilm. Kodak Rapid
Selenium Toner at high dilutions has been found not to
provide adequate protection.
  When toning film or prints in KBT use a solution of 10%
sodium sulfite, or stock strength KHCA as a stop/clearing
bath. This will prevent after toning in the wash and prevent
staining. A one minute treatment is enough.

  For fiber paper:
  Dektol should not be diluted more than 1:2. While older
instructions show dilutions up to 1:4 the higher dilutions
have less capacity and tend to produce weak blacks. Kodak
recommends 2 minutes as a target time for most of its (all
discontinued now) fiber papers. Varying the development time
can make up to some degree for errors in exposure but the
range is not great.
  Again, I don't like water rinses and think they really
have no advantage.
  Paper fixes out faster than you think but Dave Valvo,
formerly a division manager at Kodak, tells me that longer
fixing times are necessary for fiber paper because of small
amounts of halide which gets into the substrate. You can
check for completeness of fixing by using a Sodium sulfide
test solution or a 1:9 dilution of Kodak Rapid Selenium
Toner (works only where prints are well washed). Neither
solution should produce a visible stain after a 3 minute
period.
   KHCA will neutralize the acid in acid fixing baths
eliminating the advantage of shorter washing times of
alkaline or neutral baths. Treat double weight paper for 3
to 4 minutes as specified. The short wash times following
this treatment are due to the same consideration of residual
hypo above.
   For best permenance treat prints with Kodak Brown Toner.
KBT, and other Polysulfide toners, tone all densities evenly
so that partial toning provides protection to all parts of
the image. The use of KRST at 1:19, as long recommended, has
been found to leave the light density parts of the image
with insufficient protection. If used at a dilution of no
more than 1:9, and for a minimuj of three minutes, KRST will
tone print highlights sufficiently to protect them but will
cause a noticable change in image color. AT this time there
is no really effective treatment which does not change the
appearance of the image to some extent. Agfa Sistan (now
discontinued) is a stablizing agent (Potassium thiocyanate
in a wetting agent) which provides significant protection
without any change in image color or density but it is not
as effective as a toner.
  Any sulfiding toner or KRST will provide excellent image
protection if allowd to tone to completion, however, this
results in a sepia color print.
  Rapid fixer has relatively little advantage for print
emulsions but may be convenient. As for film use a two bath
system to insure complete fixing. The capacity of a single
sodium thiosulfate bath for archival fixing is extremely
limited, Kodak and Ilford give figures of 10 8x10 prints per
_gallon_. A two bath system will extend this from 4 to 10
times. The use of KHCA will further extend the capicity
because it makes some otherwise insoluble halide soluble.
  Conventional processing with fresh chemicals will result
in film and prints capable of 'archival" life. However, for
long term survival storage is very important. Even properly
processed materials are still vulnerable to strong oxidizers
and sulifdes in the atmosphere.
  Another toner suitable for image protection is Gold. Gold
toners are standard for microfilm but are expensive. Gold
tends toward a blue image. On neutral or cold tone papers it
produces a little intensification with little color change.
On warm tone papers it tends toward a more vivid blue but
never as vivid as Iron-blue toner.

  To summarize: If you follow conventional processing and
use conventional materials you will have pretty permanent
results. Its simply not necessary to jump through hoops or
use unusual procedures or solutions.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

UC - 07 Feb 2006 00:41 GMT
I cannot disagree with Richard on any point here, except that I do use
a pre-wet with roll film. I would also recommend hanger and tank
processing of sheet film, not tray processing.

I also strongly recommend acid rapid fixers preceded by acid stop
baths. I would never use hypo today. Never.

> > I'm looking for comments on the following tentative
> > archival
[quoted text clipped - 187 lines]
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Richard Knoppow - 07 Feb 2006 02:20 GMT
I cannot disagree with Richard on any point here, except
that I do use
a pre-wet with roll film. I would also recommend hanger and
tank
processing of sheet film, not tray processing.

I also strongly recommend acid rapid fixers preceded by acid
stop
baths. I would never use hypo today. Never.

Richard Knoppow wrote:

   Pre-soaks are somtimes necessary. JOBO recommends them
when using their developing system and Kodak suggests it for
tray processing of sheet film to prevent sticking.
   I certainly agree about using tanks for sheet film but
sometimes tray processing is unavoidable. I find it very
difficult to do tray processing without getting some
scratches or gouges on the film no matter what technique I
use. I use this process when I have a single sheet to do and
am in a rush. Otherwise I use drums for film larger than 4x5
and an ancient Nikor sheet film tank for 4x5. The problem
with conventional tanks and hangers is that they take up a
lot of room and are best suited to permanent darkrooms. This
system has its own set of vices such as a tendency toward
uneven development and streaking if the agitation is not
done right. Ideally (if one has lots of space and money) a
Nitrogen burst agiatation system is the way to go.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Mike - 07 Feb 2006 15:03 GMT
I built a 4x5" processing panel for tray development.  It works great and
I no longer have scratches.  

Here are plans:

http://philbard.com/panel.html

--Mike

>     Pre-soaks are somtimes necessary. JOBO recommends them
> when using their developing system and Kodak suggests it for
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> done right. Ideally (if one has lots of space and money) a
> Nitrogen burst agiatation system is the way to go.
Jean-David Beyer - 07 Feb 2006 02:19 GMT
Richard Knoppow wrote (in part):

>    I am not convinced about pre-soaks. There is really no
> necessity for them.

I favor a pre-soak, but the reason should be understood because, depending
on your processing technique, it may be unnecessary.

The only benefit I get, that cannot be obtained any other way, is the
freedom from air bells that make undesired problems in the developed
negative. With a pre-wet, the film may have air bells on it to begin with,
but these are of no consequence because plain water is an ineffective
developing agent. Once the agitation has been completed and the film
thoroughly wet (I use a 5-minute pre-wet in a Jobo processor), I then
process the film. With the film so thoroughly wet, no air bells are created.

It seems to me that if you could give sufficiently vigorous agitation from
the get-go, and if the development time is sufficiently long (perhaps by
diluting the developer more than usual), the effects of the air bells would
be so small as to be inconsequential, but when doing things in my Jobo, the
time for a pre-wet does not matter to me.

Now do not just start doing a pre-wet, or just stop doing one. If you do,
the development time will almost certainly need to be changed, so you might
wish to recalibrate your process.

Signature

 .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
 /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 21:10:00 up 17 days, 12:38, 4 users, load average: 4.21, 4.15, 4.12

UC - 07 Feb 2006 02:24 GMT
Correct. I used to get air bells from time to time. Now, with pre-wet,
I never get them.

> Richard Knoppow wrote (in part):
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>  /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
>  ^^-^^ 21:10:00 up 17 days, 12:38, 4 users, load average: 4.21, 4.15, 4.12
Mark - 07 Feb 2006 04:22 GMT
Richard,

Wow, thanks for all the info.  I'll look into all your suggestions,
and I'm curious about the effect of the Brown Toner you recommend.

>    KHCA will neutralize the acid in acid fixing baths
>eliminating the advantage of shorter washing times of
>alkaline or neutral baths. Treat double weight paper for 3
>to 4 minutes as specified. The short wash times following
>this treatment are due to the same consideration of residual
>hypo above.

Assuming I go with selenium toning, it appears the KHCA after fixing
is mainly to neutralize the acid fixer before toning, because the
fixer itself doesn't matter in the toner.  After the toning, I would
need another treatment in KHCA to remove any traces of fixer though,
right?

I take it you would disagree with this acid-free process that Lloyd
Erlick uses (although he credits you on his website):

http://www.heylloyd.com/technicl/wb/acid_free_r.htm

He eliminates steps by using no stop bath and plain fixer (sodium
thiosulfate/sodium sulfite), which supports the right PH for toning.

Mark
Richard Knoppow - 08 Feb 2006 02:11 GMT
> Richard,
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Mark

  Kodak's washing recommendations for KHCA are curious.
When partial toning is done a full wash is recommended, when
full toing is done a shorter wash is recommended. I don't
know why. Certainly it will hurt nothing to use the KHCA
after toning and wash as you would after fixing. Your are
right about the pre toning treatment. Selenium toner can
leave a deposit of finely devided elemental Selenium on the
paper of film if enough acid is carried over. This leaves a
sort of peach colored stain which is impossible to remove. I
would test this by toning a print by putting it directly in
the toner after fixing. It may not stain at all.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

UC - 08 Feb 2006 02:30 GMT
Is not PermaWash or Orbit Bath better? Why use Kodak Hypo Clearing
Agent?

> > Richard,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Richard Knoppow - 08 Feb 2006 02:35 GMT
> Richard,
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Mark

  Lloyd's process works and has the advantage of not
producing Sulphur dioxide gas which many people find very
irritating. My only caveiat is to make sure you use a
thorough rinse as a stop bath. A soak for several seconds in
still water is not sufficient to prevent carry over of
developer into the fixing bath. Since the fixing bath is not
acid the carried over developer can still be active.
Normally, the sulfite in a fixing bath will prevent staining
by developer reaction products even if the developer
continues to work for a short time.
  When mixing a plain fixing bath as little as 5 grams per
liter of sulfite is enough to protect the thiosulfate from
oxidation by the air. However, I would increase this to 15
grams per liter if there is any chance of developer being
carried over.
  I would suggest that a 1 or 2 minute rinse in running
water be used in place of a stop bath.
  The advantage of a neutral or alkaline fixing bath in
washing is considerable when no wash aid is used. There are
two reasons acid hardening fixing baths are hard to wash
out. One is the mordanting effect of the alum hardener (does
not exist for chromium hardener). Where the pH of the
emulsion is within a certain range of acidity the alum binds
the thiosulfate and silver complexes rather tightly to the
emulsion. The other cause is the pH of the emulsion. While
there have been changes in the composition of emulsions in
recent years the isoelectric point is probably still
slightly on the acid side of neutral. When the emulsion is
on the acid side of its isoelectric point the internal
charges tend to attract the thiosulfate ions making them
harder to wash out. When the emulsion is on the alkaline
side the charges tend to repel the thiosulfate ions.
  The acid in most fixing baths is necessary because of the
hardener. White alum hardener must have an acid environment
to work. When the emulsion is made alkaline, say through a
carbonate bath, the cross linking caused by the alum in
undone and the hardening is lost. This is not a big deal
with modern film  and in any case the hardening is effective
only while the emulsion is wet. This is rather
oversilmplified but gives you the idea. After processing in
a neutral or slightly alkaline line the emulsion will not
bind thiosulfate or fixer reaction products so the emulsion
washes out much more quickly than when an acid fixer,
especially one containing white alum is used. If an alkaline
bath is used after an acid fixer the emulsion will wash out
as fast as if an alkaline fixer had been used. Also any
mordanting by the hardener will be eliminated, but of
course, so will the hardening.
  Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent ajusts the pH of the emulsion
to neutral. This is on the alkaline side of the isoelectric
point and also outside of the pH window where alum hardener
acts as a mordant. However, it is not alkaline enough to
completely undo the hardening action.
  KHCA has another function however. Sodium sulfite has
been found to be an ion exchange agent for thiosulfate and
some silver complexes. It is absorbed preferentially by the
emulsion displacing the thiosulfate ions. The sulfie ions
themselves are easily washed out. So, after treatment with
KHCA the emulsion is in a condition which makes it easy to
wash and also the sulfite is forcing out the thiosulfate and
reaction products. This last is important because some
incompletely fixed complexes are bound very tightly to the
image silver and to the gelatin. KHCA is able to make some
of these soluble.
  A plain sulfite bath will work OK but will eliminate any
hardening. Also, the buffered KHCA solution leaves most
emulsion at is minimal swelling point where the diffusion
path for ions leaving the emulsion is shortest. KHCA also
contains two sequestering agents to prevent deposits of
minerals from the water and from the alum in the hardener.
These are mostly important if the wash aid is to be reused
but its cheap enough to use as a one shot.
  So, while non acid processing set ups work fine I
continue to use the old fashioned type along with KHCA.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Mark - 08 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
Richard,

>The advantage of a neutral or alkaline fixing bath in
>washing is considerable when no wash aid is used. There are
>two reasons acid hardening fixing baths are hard to wash
>out.

Ok, I certainly plan on using a washing aid and unless I start
experiencing emulsion damage I don't want a hardening fixer for film
or prints.

>If an alkaline
>bath is used after an acid fixer the emulsion will wash out
>as fast as if an alkaline fixer had been used.

This is good to know.  But what about the actual paper fiber?  Rapid
fixing is supposed to have an advantage there.

> So, while non acid processing set ups work fine I
>continue to use the old fashioned type along with KHCA.

The fixer type choice seems to have as much to do with processing
style and how much/how often you process as it does with effects on
washing and toning.  Storage and re-use are a factor.  I like the idea
of inexpensive plain fixer used one-shot (and no need for a second
bath), or mixing amounts for one printing session.  But for T-grained
films, if you're doing a lot of processing fairly often, it may make
more sense to use a rapid fix to save processing time and get lots of
work out of a quantity of solution.  

At any rate your various postings have been educational!
UC - 08 Feb 2006 14:15 GMT
There is no reason to use plain hypo. Rapid fixer is far superior.

> Richard,
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> At any rate your various postings have been educational!
Lloyd Erlick - 08 Feb 2006 15:03 GMT
>But what about the actual paper fiber?  Rapid
>fixing is supposed to have an advantage there.

February 8, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Yes, if one actually fixes rapidly. I think
Ilford, which introduced a method of rapid
fixing, specify one minute.

But I use selenium toner. The product sold by
Kodak (KRST) is labeled to contain ammonium
thiosulfate. So if I use this toner (and I
do, in fairly concentrated form, 1+5, for
quite a long time, ten minutes) I am in
effect soaking my prints in fixer for much
longer than one minute. The paper fibers will
certainly soak up thiosulfate. So there is no
reason for someone like me to fantasize about
'rapid' fixing. I take the opposite approach,
plain fixer, and no hardener (which permits
me to take the next step, no acid). So
washing is fairly easy, and I wear the
suspenders too; I use a double-bath of
washaid after toning.

Richard's brilliant dissertation underscores
several of my beliefs. Acid of any sort is
not a necessity in the ordinary darkroom.
Acid is needed if hardener is used, but
hardener is a detriment in terms of toning,
washing and print spotting. Also, modern
materials frankly do not need to be hardened.
Films like the T-Max line are designed for
mechanized processing at 100 degrees F. So I
haven't used hardener or hardening commercial
fixers for decades. My prints are fiber base,
and very delicate when wet, but not so
delicate I can't use my own hands to make
them. A hardener for my prints would not
protect them in the least. There is nothing
to protect them from, except me. I have
simply compensated for all the difficulties
by being careful. I have not found it onerous
to exercise care in the darkroom. Many people
who have read so far into a paragraph like
this one would be exercising such care
already, even without all this dull reading.

Richard also outlines how non-acid processing
leaves the print in a condition that is
easier to wash than regular processing. He
also implies it requires greater care in
making the print if this easier wash is to be
achieved. But again, exercising care in the
darkroom is easy, and comes with a huge cost
bonus. It's free!

Basically, all of the downsides presented
about non-acid processing have boiled down to
greater care required. I've explored this
area, and found that indeed greater care is
required -- but it's an easily accomplished
level of care. Really, the darkroom, and
photography for that matter, are about the
judicious exercise of care and attention.
This sort of stuff is what we enjoy, and in
this case by doing so we can enjoy a little
less work and a little less cost. It's a
large payoff for an investment of nearly nil.

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

Richard Knoppow - 10 Feb 2006 19:58 GMT
> Richard,
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> At any rate your various postings have been educational!

   The washing out of the fiber support is more difficult
than washing of the emulsion itself. The problem is that the
paper fibers tend to bind the thiosulfate which must be
removed by frictional forces during washing. The use of a
Sulfite wash aid helps because of the ion exchange property
but it is much less effective for the paper base than for
the emulsion or baryta sizing layer. Note the difference in
wash times for RC paper or film and fiber base paper. RC
washes out sufficiently in 4 minutes even when acid
hardening fixer is used without any wash aid. Film takes
much longer because it has a thicker emulsion than paper but
the wash time is still only about half an hour. Fiber paper
takes much long depending on the thickness of the base, 1
hour for single weight paper and 2 hours for double weight
paper. If a non-hardening and non acid fixing bath is used
these times are cut about in half. When a sulfite wash aid
is used they are cut to about 20% of the original time.
  Ilford has a system of fixing and washing that is
supposed to result in much faster wash times for fiber paper
by using a fixing time so short that the hypo can not soak
into the fibers of the support. Ilford measured the amount
of hypo taken up by the base and found that if fixing could
be done within 30 seconds very short wash times were
sufficient providing non-hardening fixer and a sulfite wash
aid was used. Unfortunately, very few papers will fix out in
this time even with film strength rapid fixer. The limit of
time for the process to offer any advantage over normal
fixing procedures is about one minute. Many papers _will_
fix out in this time, but others need up to 2 minutes in
rapid fixer. The advantage of the Ilford system diminishes
rapidly with fixing times over 1 minute.
  If one compares the total time for fixing, treating in a
wash aid, and washing, it turns out there is little
advantage in the Ilford system although I have not seen
comparitive figures for the amount of hypo left in the paper
fibers.
  Ilford recommends a treatment of 10 minutes in a sulfite
wash aid. Kodak recommends 3 minutes for double weight
paper. Kodak published a technical paper on the wash aid. In
it is a graph showing effectiveness vs time. The curve is
asymtotic reaching about its maximim effectiveness at around
3 to 4 minutes. However, this is for the emulsion, not the
support, so longer times may be benificial. Ilford does not
make clear in its published report what the effect of
varying the treatment time in wash aid was.
  So, there is an advantage for rapid fixer for fiber paper
mainly if the paper will fix out rapidly enough to prevent
much absorption of fixer by the base.
  Note that _acid_ rapid fixer will dissolve metallic
silver slowly. This can bleach the highlights of paper,
especially warm tone paper, if left in the fixer too long.
Neutral or alkaline rapid fixer does not bleach.
  Note that the emulsions of fiber and RC paper are very
similar. Long fixing times for fiber paper are partly a
hold-over from old recomendations based on poor darkroom
practice and assuming partially exhausted fixer. I am told
by Dave Valvo, retired from Kodak, that another reason is
that there can be some halide in the baryta layer which is
hard to fix out. I have not tried to varify this by using a
residual silver test. Unless this effect is significant
fiber should fix out in about the same time as RC. Another
reason for the recommendation of very long fixing times in
old literature is to give adequat time for the hardener to
work. Since the hardener is of little importance in modern
practice, often not even used, the fixing time should be
based entirely on how long it takes to convert the halide
into soluble form.
  One-shot fixing.
  This is misleadingly attractive. One poster here
recommends using highly diluted fixer one time. This is
likely to result in incomplete fixing for the same reason
that applies to exhausted fixer, namely, not enough
thiosulfate ions being available to complex the halide. At
least 3 thiosulfate ions are needed to complex one silver
ion. If not enough thiosulfate ions are available some of
the halide remains in a partially converted form that is
either not soluble or is very tightly bound to the emulsion.
Wash aid can free some of this last but does nothing for the
insoluble halides. Two bath fixing is both effective and
economical. It may not be necessary when rapid fixer is used
because rapid fixer can tollerate a larger amount of
dissolved silver and still complete the fixing reactions.
Nonetheless, since residual halides in the emulsion are very
destructive to the image silver with time IMO a two bath
system should be used with either kind fo fixing bath.

This is is a long answer to a short question but I find that
incomplete information can be misleading and try to avoid
it.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

otzi - 12 Feb 2006 13:11 GMT
>    The washing out of the fiber support is more difficult than washing of
> the emulsion itself. The problem is that the paper fibers tend to bind the
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> This is is a long answer to a short question but I find that incomplete
> information can be misleading and try to avoid it.

On the question of hypo leeching into the fibres of the support, in the
worst case scenario, How far into the papers edge would this be? 1/4" +/-
Signature

Otzi

John - 12 Feb 2006 22:33 GMT
>On the question of hypo leeching into the fibres of the support, in the
>worst case scenario, How far into the papers edge would this be? 1/4" +/-

Complete saturation to the baryta layer. In the past it was common to
leave prints in fixer for hours. It really just depends on the papers
qualities and how long it will take to wash the fix out. If needed,
one can always use a hypo-eliminator and then reintroduce a minimal
amount of hypo with the toner to help with archival stability.

==
        John - Photographer & Webmaster
     www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net
G- Blank - 12 Feb 2006 23:56 GMT
> >On the question of hypo leeching into the fibres of the support, in the
> >worst case scenario, How far into the papers edge would this be? 1/4" +/-
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>          John - Photographer & Webmaster
>       www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

Was it William Henry Jackson that made the huge
plates through the west? I went to a photo exhibit
a few years back Photographers of the west That had AA and others I
think it was one Jackson's prints that showed very serious image
deterioration, in what appeared to me as bad fixation and mold growing.
Shame as most of the original plates were scraped to produce more
imagery as they proceeded along the journey.


Signature

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

Jean-David Beyer - 07 Feb 2006 11:39 GMT
Richard Knoppow wrote (in part):

>     KHCA will neutralize the acid in acid fixing baths
> eliminating the advantage of shorter washing times of
> alkaline or neutral baths. Treat double weight paper for 3
> to 4 minutes as specified. The short wash times following
> this treatment are due to the same consideration of residual
> hypo above.

As I recall, Ansel Adams suggested rinsing prints after final fix in a 2%
Kodalk bath prior to selenium toning to neutralize the residual acidity, and
I do that. I suppose it is not all that critical what you use, and you might
as well choose whether Kodalk or sodium metabisulphite is cheaper.

Of course, belt and suspenders guy that he was, he _also_ put KHCA in his KRST.

Signature

 .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
 /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:35:00 up 17 days, 22:03, 4 users, load average: 4.49, 4.26, 4.14

Lloyd Erlick - 07 Feb 2006 19:23 GMT
>I am also not convinced about so called alkaline
>processing. An acid stop bath will stop development
>instantly. If you want to use a water rinse it should
>consist of two or three changes of water with vigorous
>agitation. About three minutes are needed to remove the bulk
>of the developer from the emulsion.

February 7, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

I don't view it as anything that involves
'convincing'. I prefer it because certain
aspects of darkroom work that always used to
irritate me no longer exist for me. I'm
referring to the smells one often finds in a
darkroom, and the way selenium toner behaves
when there is any acid in the process. Anyone
who does not have concerns similar to mine
might make different choices.

For my plain tap-water 'stop' I use four
changes of water. I agitate thoroughly in
each rinse, and I think I take longer than
three minutes. I use this regimen for both
film and prints.

This is such a small price to pay I'd hardly
call it a price. And the payoff is huge, at
least for me. I long ago got to the point
where the first, tiniest, least whiff of
sulfur dioxide stops me in my tracks. There
is no work after that, only dealing with it
until it's done. So I have found a way to be
sure there will be no noxious gases where I
live, and it turns out to be simple. No acid
in the darkroom.

I don't want to convince anyone, but anyone
who happens to agree with me can have what
they want very easily.

(Part of my thing - is this getting to be a
fetish yet?? - is that nothing should touch
the face of the print while it is wet.
Anyway, my website has lengthy dissertations
on all these fascinating subjects.
heylloyd.com)

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

Mark - 08 Feb 2006 18:09 GMT
Hey Lloyd,

Photographers Formulary TF-4 archival rapid fixer would work well in
your process too I think.  The liquid concentrate mixes 1:4 with
distilled water.  Small amounts of fixer could be mixed  and used 1
shot for those who do this.   I'll have to check and see what I paid
for it.

Mark
Lloyd Erlick - 09 Feb 2006 19:32 GMT
>Hey Lloyd,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Mark

February 9, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

I'm sure you're right. It's often mentioned.

But I prefer my old fashioned sodium
thiosulfate fix. I just buy sodium
thiosulfate and sodium sulfite and mix when
needed. I find it's the cheapest way, and the
easiest.

For that one-shot method, a hundred pound bag
of sodium thiosulfate would go a long way.
Wouldn't even need sulfite if it's to be
one-shot.

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

dan.c.quinn@att.net - 09 Feb 2006 23:30 GMT
> For that one-shot method, a hundred pound bag
> of sodium thiosulfate would go a long way.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> email: portrait@heylloyd.com
> net: www.heylloyd.com

  Well, I see the logic of the one-shot archival fix
does not escape you. But the logic did escape me
and for at least a couple of years.
  I could not understand Haist's and Ilford's maximum
silver level limit per unit volume. All that either specify is
some volume of fixer. Sodium? Ammonium? Concentration?
Kodak? Ilford?
  Then it dawned on me! Just as Haist and Ilford say, some
volume of fixer of whatever the composition or brand. A real Big
surprise it was to me. All along I had been, and still am, achieving
archival results with my one shot very dilute fixer.
   Solution volume for one 8 x 10 must be not less than at the
1/4 liter level. I allow for enough chemistry to handle a worst case
print. That is a print which has not been exposed leaving all the
silver to be fixed out. A personal one-size-fits-all amount. Dan
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 10 Feb 2006 11:19 GMT
> > For that one-shot method, a hundred pound bag
> > of sodium thiosulfate would go a long way.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> print. That is a print which has not been exposed leaving all the
> silver to be fixed out. A personal one-size-fits-all amount. Dan

  I did forget one important point. Only one fix is needed to
achieve archival results. Dan
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 11 Feb 2006 23:05 GMT
> lots of methods and things may have changed  since
> the 30 year old old Ansel Adams and Fred Picker
> books were published!  Mark

  One notion needing more of a change is the notion
that fixer need be quite strong if it's to have lots of capacity
and work fast. Lots of capacity means lots of dissolved silver
in the fixer. No one wants that. After all there are archival
limits for film as well as paper.
   Last night I processed a 120 roll of HP5+. It was fixed
in 1/2 liter of solution containing 1/64 liter or 15.625 ml of
unadulterated A. Thio. concentrate; 1:32,  ph 7.5.
   I checked after 6 minutes. The roll was clear and had no
sign of color. I allowed 3 more minutes. I'll repeat the
test and check after 3 minutes.
   An archival fix using fresh fix and well within ten minutes.
I think it worth the 2 or 3 minutes more. Dan
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 12 Feb 2006 23:09 GMT
> > lots of methods and things may have changed  since
> > the 30 year old old Ansel Adams and Fred Picker
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>     An archival fix using fresh fix and well within ten minutes.
> I think it worth the 2 or 3 minutes more. Dan

  A correction and a couple of observations:
  That A. Thio. dilution should read 1:31. I would expect any
A. Thio. based off the self concentrate will work at the same
dilution. That same number of ml of A. Thio. concentrate
may be substituted by the same number of grams of
S. Thio. anhydrous.
   An acid stop stops instantly. A few find that important.
For some an immidiate and total shut down of the developing
process is essential. For others stopping is a secondary
matter and a consequence of washing out all but the
very last trace of developer. The acid stoppers are
interested in stoping and the water stoppers are
interested in washing.
   The Ilford Archival Processing Sequence. It is no more.
They do still recommend the 5-10-5 minute - wash, Ilford HCA,
wash - routine. They do not however differentiate twixt the 1:4 or
1:9 dilutions; fix 1 or 2 or 3 minutes. That includes their S. Thio.
based fixer. They do very much suggest the two bath method
and they do make a point of mentioning the low silver
per unit volume needed for extended keeping. IIRC
the word Archival is not mentioned once.
How about that? Dan
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.