Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / February 2006
Advice on monochrome process
|
|
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
|
|
|