Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / October 2006
rapid, non-hardening alkaline fixer, questions on formulae
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Shakti V. - 08 Oct 2006 16:02 GMT I've researched on two other fixer formula because F-24 is a slow fixer. I want a rapid fixer.
Here are the formulae:
Neutral rapid fixer ammonium thiosulfate (60% solution) 200ml sodium sulfite 15g sodium metabisulfite 5g water to make 1 liter
+ However, I've read that ammonium in fixer is not for open trays because of the ammonium fumes.
~
So, here is another formula, the TF-2 Alkaline Sodium Thiosulfate Fixer
Distilled water 1000 ml Sodium Thiosulfate 250 g Sodium Sulfite (anhy) 15 g Sodium Metaborate 10 g
TF-2 will wash out of negative and print materials more rapidly than will an acid fixer. In jackspcs.com, it was not indicated how long PRINTS should be fixed in this specific fixer (but it was indicated it should be washed for 30 minutes).
My questions are:
1. The resource for the neutral rapid fixer formula didn't indicate the length of time for fixing FB prints. How long should FB prints be fixed in neutral rapid fixer?
2. Which fixer (neutral rapid fixer, or TF-2 alkaline) would you recommend?
3. If TF-2, how many minutes does it take for FB prints to be fixed in this fixer? Someone told me it takes 10 minutes to fix prints with TF-2, but an online source stated it fixes films (3-5 minutes) and prints (no. of minutes not stated) faster than usual fixers; so I thought, if it fixes faster, then it should not be 10 minutes like a regular fixer. How long, really, does TF- 2 take to fix FB prints?
4. I assume that since ther is no alum in either formula, then these fixers are non-hardening fixers. Is my assumption right?
5. Would you know other rapid fixer formula/e that would work with FB prints? If you do, and if you recommend that fixer, please post the formula here.
Bear with me as I am only beginning to learn mixing my own chemicals. I really hope you could help me. Thanks.
 Signature +Shakti V.
Richard Knoppow - 08 Oct 2006 22:25 GMT > I've researched on two other fixer formula because F-24 is > a slow fixer. I [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > chemicals. I > really hope you could help me. Thanks. Most conventional fixer formulas can be converted to "rapid" fixer by replacing the Sodium Thiosulfate with Ammonium Thiosulfate in the correct amount. The simplest fixer formula is just the thiosulfate and Sodium Sulfide. 5 grams per liter of Sulfide is enough to protect the Thiosulfate but some additional will prevent staining by carried over developer, around 15 grams per liter. There two reasons for making a fixing bath acid: one is for the hardener, alum hardener works only when acid; the other reason is to prevent carried over developer from being active. If a plain water stop bath is used with a neutral or alkaline fixer it must be thorough enough to wash out the developer. However, if there is enough sulfite in the fixing bath it will prevent carried over developer from causing staining although it will continue to develop just a little. Fixing time for either film or paper depends partly on the nature of the emulsion and varies with any kind of fixer. Rapid fixer _at film strength_ fixes paper fairly quickly but the time varies from around 30 seconds for some types to over a minute for others. The only way to test for this is to fix samples for varying times and test them for residual silver halide. The standard tests are either a 1% solution of Sodium Sulfide or a 1:9 dilution of Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner. The toner test works only if the emulsion has been well washed. Instructions for making up the Sulfite test can be found in several Kodak publications but I am not sure its on Kodak's web site anywhere. The test solutions "tone" any residual halide just as they would image silver. If the prints or films are completely fixed the test solution will not produce a stain. Any yellow or brown stain indicates incomplete fixing. There is a lot of misunderstanding about wash times. Neither Sodium or Ammonium fixer has any advantage this way. In a normal acid fixer with white alum hardener washing times are extended because two conditions tend to bind the thiosulfate and the reaction products of fixing to the emulsion. One factor is the alum hardener. Alum tends to act like a mordant when in an acid environment binding the thiosulfate rather tightly to the emulsion. The other factor is pH. Photographic gelatin has a "natural" pH, or Isoelectric point, just on the acid side of neutral. When acid it tends to bind thiosulfate because of the electric charges of the atoms. When made neutral this binding force is eliminated and the gelatin tends to repel the Thiosulfate ions and also the Thiosulfate complexes that result from fixing. At neutral pH alum hardener still functions as a hardener. The electric charge binding can be eliminated by making the emulsion alkaline but the hardening action of the alum is destroyed. A plain Thiosulfate and Sulfite fixer is about neutral, additional alkali really is not necessary. Wash times for fixer which is neutral and has no alum hardener in it are about half those for hardening acid fixer. Note that thiosulfate is bound up in the support of fiber base paper by other forces, notably frictional forces. The nature of the fixing bath does not affect this a lot so fiber paper still needs long wash times compared to RC or film. The use of a neutral Sulfite wash aid, like Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, will change the pH of film or paper to neutral and also has the property of displacing Thiosulfate ions and fixer reaction products by an ion-exchange function. When a sulfite wash aid is used wash times are considerably shortened even when an alkaline fixer is used. Film washes out in 5 minutes, double weight fiber paper in about 20 minutes. The wash aid will also dislodge some reaction products of incomplete fixing which otherwise do not wash out even in very extended washes. Ammonium fixing baths do have some Ammonia odor. The neutral fixers have less than acid fixers but it is still there. These fumes are NOT dangerous but may be irritating for some people. I don't know of a solution for this. Acid fixing baths of all types tend to evolve some Sulfur Dioxide gas, this is the "sharp" odor associated with fixing baths. It can be very irritating to some people and can set off Asthma, etc. Neutral or alkaline baths produce much less of this gas than acid baths. There are a number of ready mixed neutral or alkaline fixing baths on the market. They are used in color processing and are also sold separately. Some fixers are sold with the hardener in a separate container which can be added or left out at will. Kodak Rapid Liquid Fixer and Hardener comes this way. The hardener bottle also has additional acid in it. Without the hardener this fixer is still acid but less so and has less odor. To insure complete fixing a two bath system is recommended, especially for Sodium Thiosulfate fixer. One begins with two fresh fixing baths and fixes for half the time in each. The second bath remains relatively fresh and can complete the chain of reactions necessary to make all the unused Silver Halide in the emulsion soluble so it washes out. The capacity of a single fixing bath to do this is very limited, a two bath system has on the order of ten times the capacity of a single bath. BTW, because RC paper has a very thin emulsion it washes out completely in about 4 minutes even when using an acid hardening fixer. The use of a wash aid is not necessary. I hope this is helpful.
 Signature --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
nailer - 09 Oct 2006 09:25 GMT ------------------------------ #> # Most conventional fixer formulas can be converted to #"rapid" fixer by replacing the Sodium Thiosulfate with #Ammonium Thiosulfate in the correct amount. # The simplest fixer formula is just the thiosulfate and #Sodium Sulfide. 5 grams per liter of Sulfide is enough to #protect the Thiosulfate but some additional will prevent #staining by carried over developer, around 15 grams per #liter.
$$$$$$$it pays to learn the difference between sulfites and sulfides.
------------------------------X
# Ammonium fixing baths do have some Ammonia odor. The #neutral fixers have less than acid fixers but it is still #there.
acid fixers have less of ammonia odour than neutral and alkaline. Pure chemistry. In acid solution ammonia tends to form ammonium ions (odourless).
----------------------------X
my advice - just stick to plain thiosulfate/sulfiTe solutions. Modern materials do NOT need extra hardening.
Use sulfite bath afterwards.
Ammonium thiosulfate works faster than sodium equivalent, but smells. Isnt it smarter and safer to use sodium salts and extend fixing time by 50%? Cheaper too.
Digitaltruth - 09 Oct 2006 12:02 GMT An alkaline rapid fixer will speed up your washing time by a considerable amount. Our Silvergrain Clearfix Alkaline Fixer is an improvement on older alkaline fixers, as it has no precipitate and has an enhanced buffering system. This is a true rapid fixer based on ammonium thiosulphate. For more information please read the technical data sheet:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/silvergrain-fixandwash.html
--Jon Mided
Digitaltruth Photo http://www.digitaltruth.com
John - 12 Oct 2006 10:41 GMT >An alkaline rapid fixer will speed up your washing time by a >considerable amount. Could you provide documentation supporting this ? In reviewing Haist' Modern Photographic Processing Vol. 1 pages 634 ~638, Haist expounds on the effects of pH and hardeners on the removal of thiosulfate and silver thiosulfate complexes. I find particular interest in :
"Below the isoelectric point (pH=4.9) the gelatin is positively charged, and this charge attracts and holds negative ions such as thiosulfate or silver thiosulfates. Above pH 4.9 the gelatin is negatively charged. The thiosulfate ions are no longer retained, but positive ions, such as sodium or potassium, are then held by the gelatin. The acidity or the pH of the fixing bath compositions is fixed by the chemical balance to secure optimum fixation rate, hardening and exhaustion life, as well as avoiding conditions that promote sulfurization or sludging. A number of practical fixing baths were studied by Crabtree, Eaton, and Muehler, who related hardening and solution pH to washing effectiveness.
The removal of thiosulfate by washing increased as the pH of the fixing bath increased to pH 4.9. At pH values above 4.9 the thiosulfate was not retained. The chrome alum fixing bath has the lowest pH (3.1), but the retention of thiosulfate by films fixed in this bath was comparable to the results given by the nonhardening F-24 fixing bath of pH 5.6. This indicated that the effect of pH of the fixing bath is of primary importance when the bath contains potassium alum as the hardening agent. With photographic prints the rate of washing differed only during the very first minutes, after which the rate was the same regardless he composition of the fixing bath. The washing photographic prints involves other factors that influence the removal of thiosulfates from the photographic materials."
On page 638 the text states :
"... but as soon as the pH exceeds 4.9 these last traces of silver and hypo can be readily washed away."
It looks to me like the three important factors in washing are :
1) Use of a hardener. 2) Use of a fixer with a pH lower than 4.9. 3) The use of a wash aid (not discussed here)
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
Digitaltruth - 12 Oct 2006 12:15 GMT > >An alkaline rapid fixer will speed up your washing time by a > >considerable amount. > > Could you provide documentation supporting this ? The results we publish here http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/silvergrain-fixandwash.html are derived from testing (conducted by Ryuji Suzuki) for residual hypo after single-bath fixation in Silvergrain Clearfix Alkaline Fixer. The published washing times are greater than they times we were able to achieve, as they include built-in margins for variation in water quality etc..
> In reviewing Haist' > Modern Photographic Processing Vol. 1 pages 634 ~638, Haist expounds > on the effects of pH and hardeners on the removal of thiosulfate and > silver thiosulfate complexes. Haist's study is based on hardening fixers, and only includes F-24 as an example of a non-hardening fixer. In his examples he points out that there is no residual thiosulfate content after a 10 minute wash in a fixer with a pH above 4.9. Clearfix Alkaline has a pH buffered at 7.7, so is in complete accordance with Haist's analysis. As you point out, on p. 635 he clearly states: "The removal of thiosulfate by washing increased as the pH of the fixing bath increased to pH 4.9. At pH values above 4.9, the thiosulfate was not retained." Table 1 on the same page supports this assertion, although the baths being compared are not that useful for this discussion.
Haist does not include a comparison of modern non-hardening rapid fixers (acidic) with similar alkaline materials, but the fact that alkaline fixers help avoid the retention of thiosulfate is clearly evident. For comparison, if you look at Ilford's data for Hypam fixer (non-hardening, pH 5.0-5.5), the recommended washing time for FB paper is 60 minutes (without the use of a washing aid). In the case of Clearfix Alkaline Fixer, we recommend a washing time of only 20 minutes in the same circumstances, based on our own tests for residual hypo. I have no doubt that Ilford have done their homework too, and their tests showed that this additional time was necessary. Similar times are published by Kodak and other manufacturers for their own acid fixers, which supports this assertion.
Another problem, which Haist points out throughout the text, is that carry-over developer or stop bath can influence the pH of the fixing bath. Clearfix Alkaline is particularly resistant to increases in acidity as it uses a buffering system which is designed to be more effective than that employed by other commercial alkaline fixers, and actually allows for the use with an acid stop bath.
--Jon Mided
Digitaltruth Photo http://www.digitaltruth.com
John - 15 Oct 2006 23:34 GMT >Haist does not include a comparison of modern non-hardening rapid >fixers (acidic) with similar alkaline materials, but the fact that >alkaline fixers help avoid the retention of thiosulfate is clearly >evident. Above pH 4.9. I haven' found any conclusive documentation on fixers above pH 7.0 which I believe is still the defining line between acidic and alkaline, correct ?
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 16 Oct 2006 23:27 GMT > > but the fact that > > alkaline fixers help avoid the retention of thiosulfate is clearly > > evident. > > I haven' found any conclusive documentation on fixers > above pH 7 ... I've not either. I've only come across Bill Troop's one man band playing "High ph Fixer" and his series TF-2, 3, and 4. He himself admits that direct evidence is non-existant. Search this NG for, ephraums fixer . Refresh your memory. I question his suggestion, even recommendation, of not using an hca following the use of his or other alkaline fixers. I also would like to see some documentation. In all fairness, where is the documentation with regard to acid fixers; Haist from generations gone by? Dan
Digitaltruth - 24 Oct 2006 10:53 GMT As with any topic in photography, there are many theories and some people will swear by one method when others swear by another. Certainly, the fixation of film and paper can be carried out perfectly well with almost any fixer, regardless of whether it is acid or alkaline. The only real proof you can have of effectiveness is to carry out controlled tests on identical materials to determine any differences. Even such tests are subject to interpretation, as they cannot account for variables such as water qualities and age/quality of raw chemical compounds.
We have performed chemical tests to determine accurate archival washing times for Clearfix Alkaline, and these times support the existing literature with regard to the speeds achievable by eliminating acid from the processing sequence. We have not done side-by-side testing with a commercial acid fixer, but I think it is safe to assume that times produced by Kodak/Ilford/Agfa/Fuji over the years have been carried out with a high degree of accuracy and that the much longer washing times required when using acid-based fixers are demonstrable in practice.
Bill Troop's argument for the use of an all-alkaline processing sequence is not just about removal of hypo. There are a number of other points which Troop makes on page 106 of The Film Developing Cookbook which support his argument, notably the greater stability, capacity, permanence and protection of silver content.
--Jon Mided
Digitaltruth Photo http://www.digitaltruth.com
Tom Phillips - 24 Oct 2006 18:33 GMT
> We have performed chemical tests to determine accurate archival washing > times for Clearfix Alkaline, and these times support the existing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > washing times required when using acid-based fixers are demonstrable in > practice. Your reference link in this thread states the following:
"Film processing...Films should be fixed for a minimum of twice the clearing time, or 2 to 5 minutes depending on the film and freshness of the fixer. When the film is sufficiently fixed, the fixer is drained and the film should be washed in fresh tap water for minimum of 3 minutes..."
Five minutes is the recommended wash time for Rapid Fix after HCA. So, 3 minutes v. 5 minutes? Hardly seems worth any debate ;)
In any case I'd never wash my film for only 3 minutes regardless of tested efficacious (acid v. alkaline.) Washing for only the minimal time would seem a bit careless (and less archival), especially when it's no inconvenience at all to wash a few minutes longer. My bathroom break after developing/fixing is at least 4 minutes :^)
Digitaltruth - 25 Oct 2006 12:18 GMT > Five minutes is the recommended wash time for Rapid > Fix after HCA. So, 3 minutes v. 5 minutes? Hardly > seems worth any debate ;) This is misleading as you are only quoting the time for fixation of film with a washing aid. I agree, that with these materials the time difference is small.
However, when no washing aid is used, film can be fixed in Clearfix Alkaline for 2-5 minutes, and then washed in water for four minutes. That is a total minimum time of only 6 minutes! Kodak Rapid Fix, by comparison, specifies a fixing time of 2-4 minutes, followed by a washing time of 20-30 minutes if HCA is not used. That gives you a total minimum time of 22 minutes.
If you don't use HCA, then the total time saved by using Clearfix Alkaline Fixer instead of Kodak Rapid Fixer would be 16-23 minutes. That is a huge difference.
Similarly, washing times typically recommended for fiber-based paper are much longer when an acid fixer is used. Before they got out of the b&w paper business, Kodak recommended a washing time of at least one hour if no HCA was used, whereas with Clearfix Alkaline, you only need to wash for 20 minutes in the same circumstance. If a washing aid is used, or in the case of RC paper, the difference is much smaller.
> In any case I'd never wash my film for only 3 minutes > regardless of tested efficacious (acid v. alkaline.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My bathroom break after developing/fixing is at least > 4 minutes :^) This is a common misconception, and I admit to having been guilty of it myself for many years. Your instinct that extra washing can only benefit the archival qualities of the print is intuitive, but may actually be wrong. While it might be a good idea to allow for some extra washing time to account for differences in water quality or circulation in your washing tank, you shouldn't overdo it. Published washing times normally include a built-in allowance for variations in water quality, so as long as you ensure that your film or paper are circulated reasonably well, there is no reason to exceed washing times. Your four minute bathroom break isn't going to be a problem, but if significantly longer times are used then you not only waste water, but you also increase the likelihood of the emulsion softening (and being more susceptible to scratches and damage). Additionally, its been known for many years that trace amounts of thiosulphate in the emulsion of paper actually act to protect the material and increase its archival qualities, so overwashing to the point that even these trace amounts of hypo are removed would decrease rather than increase the life expectancy of the material.
I appreciate that alkaline fixation isn't for everyone, and that rapid acid fixers are perfectly suitable for all darkroom practices; however, if you try using an alkaline fixer and follow the guidelines accurately, I'd be surprised if you don't find it to be a better process overall. I never use a washing aid with film, so for me the speed difference is a big deal. When I use Clearfix Alkaline, I can process film in about half the time it used to take me with an acid fixer.
--Jon Mided
Digitaltruth Photo http://www.digitaltruth.com
Tom Phillips - 26 Oct 2006 02:59 GMT > > Five minutes is the recommended wash time for Rapid > > Fix after HCA. So, 3 minutes v. 5 minutes? Hardly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Alkaline Fixer instead of Kodak Rapid Fixer would be 16-23 minutes. > That is a huge difference. Now you're being misleading. Why wouldn't I use HCA? I'd likely use it even with your fixer... Total time is then 9-12 minutes w/rapid fix (2-5 minutes plus 2 minutes HCA plus 5 minutes wash.) Making an issue out of 5 minutes is entertaining but you also raise some other points below that are inaccurate...
> Similarly, washing times typically recommended for fiber-based paper > are much longer when an acid fixer is used. Depends. Using film strength fix for 30 sec. to one minute achieves complete fixing and reduces wash times to 10 minutes according to Ilford (again using HCA.) However, I never wash less fb prints than 20 minutes.
Before they got out of the
> b&w paper business, Kodak recommended a washing time of at least one > hour if no HCA was used, whereas with Clearfix Alkaline, you only need [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > benefit the archival qualities of the print is intuitive, but may > actually be wrong. That's not what I said. I'm saying my instinct is minimal washing provides less assurance of adequate removal than washing a few minutes longer...
While it might be a good idea to allow for some
> extra washing time to account for differences in water quality or > circulation in your washing tank, you shouldn't overdo it. Published [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you also increase the likelihood of the emulsion softening (and being > more susceptible to scratches and damage). I seriously doubt with modern films softening of the emulsion is an issue. We're only talking about a few minutes difference in wash times and for me a few extra minutes provide assurance, while minimally washing provides little assurance in my mind...
Additionally, its been known
> for many years that trace amounts of thiosulphate in the emulsion of > paper actually act to protect the material and increase its archival > qualities, so overwashing to the point that even these trace amounts of > hypo are removed would decrease rather than increase the life > expectancy of the material. Not really. It's very difficult to completely remove residual thiosulfate and products. In other words achieving a zero level of residue is impossible (see Henry, 2nd ed. page 115.) Plus it's not defined exactly what level of residue constitutes "archival." So, the issue isn't wash time length, but washing enough (or otherwise using an archival procedure such as Ilford's) to achieve a sufficiently low level of residue...
> I appreciate that alkaline fixation isn't for everyone, and that rapid > acid fixers are perfectly suitable for all darkroom practices; however, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > process film in about half the time it used to take me with an acid > fixer. I really think this is a non-issue. For films the fix times remain similar. Wash times measured in minutes are fairly irrelevant and do not constitute "overwashing." I simply put my film in the washer and take it out when I'm ready and it's _convenient_ for me (anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes.) Guess time just isn't as important for me (plus I'm not pushing a particular product or method.) I'd rather put my film/prints in the wash, then get a cup tea and take a relaxing break.
Digitaltruth - 26 Oct 2006 11:36 GMT >Why wouldn't I use HCA? I'd likely use it even with your fixer... Tom, I appreciate that you use HCA and that the time difference isn't significant for you, but many other people do not choose to use a washing aid, in which case the time difference IS signficant. I don't use a washing aid with film because it is an extra and unnecessary step, and introduces the need to use an additional chemical during processing. With an acid fixer a washing aid can save you time, whereas with an alkaline fixer there is little benefit in using a washing aid for film.
> > Similarly, washing times typically recommended for fiber-based paper > > are much longer when an acid fixer is used. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ilford (again using HCA.) However, I never > wash less fb prints than 20 minutes. I stated in my previous post that the times with a washing aid were not significantly different for film or paper, although there is some time saving when using an alkaline fixer. You are again referring to times achievable only with a washing aid. I don't disagree with you about this, but there will be many other people who read this thread who do not use a washing aid. Ilford's recommended sequence makes use of their own washing aid which is not the same as HCA. As mentioned earlier, the time savings without the use of any washing aid is approximately 40 minutes for fiber-based paper.
> I'm saying my > instinct is minimal washing provides > less assurance of adequate removal than > washing a few minutes longer... I agree with this and follow a similar procedure myself. The only point I was trying to make is that it is not necessary to wash for additional time if correct procedures are followed.
> I seriously doubt with modern films softening > of the emulsion is an issue. We're only talking > about a few minutes difference in wash times > and for me a few extra minutes provide assurance, > while minimally washing provides little assurance > in my mind... In principal I agree and certainly the risk may be very small if the additional time is only a few minutes; however, any additional wet time is undesirable as this is when the film is most susceptible to damage. The best practice is to shorten the wet time as much as possible to eliminate any extra risk. This is particulary important if unfiltered water is used as some particles can scratch the surface.
> Additionally, its been known > > for many years that trace amounts of thiosulphate in the emulsion of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Ilford's) to achieve a sufficiently low level > of residue... I accept this point completely. All that I was suggesting is that as we do not know the exact level of residual thiosulfate which acts as a preservative, it is a good idea not to overwash materials by a signficant margin. Nonetheless, I think what you are saying is more accurate and that apart from time saving the major benefit of shortened washing times for FB paper is reduction in print curl as a result of shorter wet times.
--Jon Mided
Digitaltruth Photo http://www.digitaltruth.com
Claudio Bonavolta - 26 Oct 2006 13:26 GMT Digitaltruth a écrit :
> >Why wouldn't I use HCA? I'd likely use it even with your fixer... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with an alkaline fixer there is little benefit in using a washing aid > for film. If main purpose is to save water, then a washaid + a low water consumption method (like the multiple changing water baths à la Ilford) is best. If you purpose is just to save some time, well, why not.
> > > Similarly, washing times typically recommended for fiber-based paper > > > are much longer when an acid fixer is used. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > time savings without the use of any washing aid is approximately 40 > minutes for fiber-based paper. For what I believe (I haven't done thorough tests myself), a washaid speeds up washing rate further than just keeping the pH neutral or slightly alkaline. I'm pretty sure to have seen tests that compared sodium sulfite versus carbonates (sodium/potassium) washaids that favored the sulfite. In Vestal's book there are several washing tests, I just don't recall if there is a comparison acid/washaid versus alkaline-only or alkaline/washaid. I'll check it this evening ...
> > I seriously doubt with modern films softening > > of the emulsion is an issue. We're only talking [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > eliminate any extra risk. This is particulary important if unfiltered > water is used as some particles can scratch the surface. If you don't use a filtered water for washing you can already get particles on your neg during the first minute of washing. This is a very risky way to wash your negs. Of course, increasing the washing time will increase the risk of having such particles, but, without a serious filter, you're already living dangerously.
> > Additionally, its been known > > > for many years that trace amounts of thiosulphate in the emulsion of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > washing times for FB paper is reduction in print curl as a result of > shorter wet times. Unless you know what the level of remaining thiosulfate is best and have a handy way to measure it for every print or neg, you may well remain before this optimal point which is much worse than going beyond that point. So, I definetely prefer to over-wash than under-wash ...
Plus there are other more consistent ways to increase a print life through toning or additives like Sistan.
> --Jon Mided > > Digitaltruth Photo > http://www.digitaltruth.com Anyway, there is no need for a religious war on this subject, it's just a matter of preferences.
I prefer to stop the activity of the developer quickly, the only way I know is to use a true stop bath. Then we're acid and a washaid bath is a good way to reduce both washing times and water consumption ...
Finally, note that a washaid can be as simple as a 20grams/liter solution of sodium sulfite. It doesn't keep, so you have to dump it at the end of the session but its cost is ridiculous and very quick to prepare.
Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch
Lloyd Erlick - 26 Oct 2006 15:09 GMT >Finally, note that a washaid can be as simple as a 20grams/liter >solution of sodium sulfite. >It doesn't keep, so you have to dump it at the end of the session but >its cost is ridiculous and very quick to prepare. October 26, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,
Yes, exactly.
Frankly, the imprecise and unscientific side of my mind blossoms under this sort of influence. (And that's a plus; you should hear Natalie's reaction to my overly finicky analyses and distinctions when they come up in real life, where they may be even less useful than in the darkroom...)
I don't bother testing wash effectiveness after my all-alkaline film and/or paper processes. I'm glad to hear people say no washaid is necessary. Good. I'll just prepare my two percent sodium sulfite (ridiculously low price, eh?). I don't mind the couple of moments it takes to prepare (dissolves easily at room temperature, can't really call it work ... well, a container of water has to be filled, and a stirring rod turned, probably by hand ... oh, well). Belt and suspenders seems to suit me (at least in areas that can be called support or backup, such as developing the film correctly so we can get a nice picture that might even sell...)
I like using bulk chemicals, especially for substances like sodium sulfite (and thiosulfate, for that matter), because they are really very cheap. A twenty five kilogram package of sodium sulfite anhydrous cost me sixty dollars. A liter of washaid uses one tablespoon of the stuff. Ridiculously cheap, yes, and it helps makes the whole endeavour quite possible to achieve.
Please note I'm not saying scientific testing and analysis are not necessary or desirable. I'm happy to read reports by others and implement them as I see fit in my own practice.
In the darkroom, all tests I've ever seen say that if we avoid overworking any given solution and provide enough or slightly 'too much' washing, everything will be OK.
I like to know the number of 8x10s a liter of fix will fix, but not because I want to approach that limit too closely (and also not because I want to conduct tests to confirm the number in my own carkroom...). I just set my own limit at two-thirds the so-called limit, and take it on faith I have avoided overworking the solution.
Most of my darkroom practices are more conservative than usual recommendations. Most of my effort in working out my system has been to find ways to implement those conservative practices in an easy and convenient way. I'm sure this has been true of most of us.
If I tie a blindfold over my eyes before I start to develop a batch of film ... can I leave the lights on??
regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ --
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 26 Oct 2006 22:25 GMT > > ...sodium sulfite. It doesn't keep, so you have to dump > > it at the end of the session... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > telephone: 416-686-0326 > email: portrait@heylloyd.com So, what happened to the two percent sodium carbonate? Agfa's recommended hca for many years and the one yourself used for many years? Dan
Lloyd Erlick - 27 Oct 2006 05:14 GMT >So, what happened to the two percent sodium carbonate? >Agfa's recommended hca for many years and the one yourself >used for many years? Dan October 27, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,
For some reason I use two per cent sodium sulfite as washaid for film, and one percent sodium carbonate for prints. Some would say not to bother with a washaid at all. The carbonate is even cheaper than sulfite, and I don't hesitate to throw it away and make up a fresh solution during a session. Either substance requires something to deal with water hardness if there is any. I put a quarter teaspoon of sodium hexametaphosphate in three liters and that takes care of the milky precipitate (calcium carbonate). Toronto water is not very hard.
regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ --
Claudio Bonavolta - 27 Oct 2006 08:47 GMT Claudio Bonavolta a écrit :
> In Vestal's book there are several washing tests, I just don't recall > if there is a comparison acid/washaid versus alkaline-only or > alkaline/washaid. I'll check it this evening ... I read again the chapters regarding fix/hardening/washing but unfortunately not, all tests were done with acid fix. So this is something that could be interesting: will a washaid increase the washing speed after an alkaline fix (I think so) and how much (no idea ...) ?
It mentioned a 2% sodium sulfite solution reaches an effectiveness around 80% compared to Kodak's washaid. Not bad for such a simple solution.
Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch
Tom Phillips - 26 Oct 2006 20:34 GMT > >Why wouldn't I use HCA? I'd likely use it even with your fixer... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with an alkaline fixer there is little benefit in using a washing aid > for film. FYI the use of salts in some form as an aid in washing has been known and practiced by photographers since at least the mid 19th century. Brine and even sea water were used (James, 4th ed. p. 454.) A wash aid is merely a 1-2% solution of sodium sulfite and the few minutes it takes to make and use it is hardly significant. It's effect on the efficaciousness of washing however IS very significant.
Commercially packaged wash aids like Kodak HCA are chemically buffered to a neutral ph and also contain sodium metabisulfite, EDTA tetrasodium salt, and sodium citrate.
> > > Similarly, washing times typically recommended for fiber-based paper > > > are much longer when an acid fixer is used. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > saving when using an alkaline fixer. You are again referring to times > achievable only with a washing aid. You seem to insist on insinuating using wash aid is some great inconvenience when it's not....
The real matter is most people who use an all alkaline process seem to do so because they have issues with acid fixers and stop baths. It's either irritating to them or don't like them for other reasons. Either method can produce desired archival results, but I seriously doubt most use an alkaline fix to save a mere 5 minutes in the darkroom...
I don't disagree with you about
> this, but there will be many other people who read this thread who do > not use a washing aid. Must be why packaged wash aids are so common and sell so well?
> Ilford's recommended sequence makes use of their > own washing aid which is not the same as HCA. Makes little difference. The effect of the sulfite is to aid in the removal of thiosulfate byproducts. As noted in James a very wide range of salts can do this, including sea water.
As mentioned earlier, the
> time savings without the use of any washing aid is approximately 40 > minutes for fiber-based paper. Certainly time is a marketing point for your clearfix, except similar wash time savings are achievable using any brand of HCA...
snip...
> > Additionally, its been known > > > for many years that trace amounts of thiosulphate in the emulsion of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > preservative, it is a good idea not to overwash materials by a > signficant margin. Well, what you said was "overwashing to the point that even these trace amounts of hypo are removed..." In fact, you cannot remove what you are calling "trace amounts" through washing. Not even after 2 days of washing (Henry.)
Nonetheless, I think what you are saying is more
> accurate and that apart from time saving the major benefit of shortened > washing times for FB paper is reduction in print curl as a result of > shorter wet times. Print curl has nothing to do with the length of the wash time.
Digitaltruth - 27 Oct 2006 10:36 GMT Tom,
You seem to misunderstand me. I am not disputing your use of materials in any way. I am just pointing out that different people have different working methods, and for many people there are significant benefits of alkaline processing. I appreciate that you prefer to use an acid fixer with a washing aid. I prefer to use an alkaline fixer without a washing aid. Our washing times are similar.
I wouldn't suggest that anyone change a working method that they are happy with, but I think its a good thing to provide people with information so that they can make their own choices.
--Jon Mided
Digitaltruth Photo http://www.digitaltruth.com
Tom Phillips - 27 Oct 2006 23:07 GMT > Tom, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with a washing aid. I prefer to use an alkaline fixer without a washing > aid. Our washing times are similar. Well then we agree. There are pros and cons for both methods. But minor differences in my view unless one is sensitive to acid solutions, which is a very good reason to use all alkaline. However all the advantages of alkaline are obtainable using a HCA like Kodak's. I don't mind the smell of acid fix (rather like it, in fact...) and like it's main advantage of stopping developer action immediately with no chance of carry over.
> I wouldn't suggest that anyone change a working method that they are > happy with, but I think its a good thing to provide people with > information so that they can make their own choices. I hopefully it's better quality info than most of us get before we vote ;-)
John - 29 Oct 2006 09:44 GMT >I wouldn't suggest that anyone change a working method that they are >happy with, but I think its a good thing to provide people with >information so that they can make their own choices. > >--Jon Mided I'm all for making an informed choice. Unfortunately I find little hard information and a significant amount of supposition. Thankfully we have some contributors that actually know a good deal about chemistry and have donated their time over the years.
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
Digitaltruth - 27 Oct 2006 17:57 GMT A wash aid
> is merely a 1-2% solution of sodium sulfite and the > few minutes it takes to make and use it is hardly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sodium metabisulfite, EDTA tetrasodium salt, and > sodium citrate. I'm not trying to argue with you (honesty!), but I feel it is necessary to clarify that Silvergrain Clearwash Washing Aid does not contain any of the ingredients you specify. This is not to suggest that any other washing aid is inferior; however, the research that has gone into this product has been carried out with the intention of improving on existing formulas both in terms of lower toxicity, and in terms of efficacy. Our product has an extremely long shelf life and excellent capacity.
--Jon Mided
Digitaltruth Photo http://www.digitaltruth.com
Tom Phillips - 27 Oct 2006 23:28 GMT > A wash aid > > is merely a 1-2% solution of sodium sulfite and the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > efficacy. Our product has an extremely long shelf life and excellent > capacity. Similar ingredients though. Besides being a wash aid Kodak's HCA is formulated to raise the ph above the isoelectric point and also 1) prevent swelling 2) preserve hardeners.
Your MSDS states:
POTASSIUM SULFITE 10117-38-1 30-60% TRIETHANOLAMINE 102-71-6 <10% CITRIC ACID 77-92-9 <10% Other proprietary ingredients less than 2%
John - 29 Oct 2006 10:00 GMT >Your MSDS states: > >POTASSIUM SULFITE 10117-38-1 30-60% >TRIETHANOLAMINE 102-71-6 <10% >CITRIC ACID 77-92-9 <10% >Other proprietary ingredients less than 2% An interesting approach. Citric acid as both a chelator and buffer ? It would appear to stay in solution well even in cooler climates and it should degrade well in the environment.
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
Tom Phillips - 31 Oct 2006 05:19 GMT > >Your MSDS states: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It would appear to stay in solution well even in cooler climates and > it should degrade well in the environment. I believe Kodak's HCA also has citric acid?
John - 29 Oct 2006 09:34 GMT >Print curl has nothing to do with the >length of the wash time. Gaaaaaahhhhhh !! Print curl !! Boy is that one thing I don't miss !!
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
Tom Phillips - 31 Oct 2006 05:19 GMT > >Print curl has nothing to do with the > >length of the wash time. > > Gaaaaaahhhhhh !! Print curl !! Boy is that one thing I don't miss !! My dry mount press dispatches print curl forthwith :-)
Actually, I get very little print curl with fb...
John - 29 Oct 2006 09:25 GMT > I don't >use a washing aid with film because it is an extra and unnecessary >step, and introduces the need to use an additional chemical during >processing. With an acid fixer a washing aid can save you time, whereas >with an alkaline fixer there is little benefit in using a washing aid >for film. Again, I'd like to see a little corroboration of this hypothesis. Have you discussed this with the IPI ?
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
John - 29 Oct 2006 09:27 GMT >Ilford's recommended sequence makes use of their >own washing aid which is not the same as HCA. However it has the same net effect in breaking the bonds of thiosulfate with the emulsion.
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
John - 29 Oct 2006 09:22 GMT >Not really. It's very difficult to completely >remove residual thiosulfate and products. I think that the issue of the argentothiosulfate products is being overlooked. Most of us are well aware of the research stating that trace amounts of thiosulfate can aid in the permanence of an image however residual undeveloped silver can ruin an image faster than a room full of cigarette smoke. This is why I've taken to using two-bath fixing for films and in fact I also re-fix any prints prior to toning.
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 29 Oct 2006 11:24 GMT > I think that the issue of the argentothiosulfate products > is being overlooked. ... residual undeveloped silver > can ruin an image ... Is not the 2 cent at home sulfide for residual silver test, the ST-1 test, as good as an IPI 500 year test? Off hand I can't think of any reason why it should not be. Although the ST-1 will not test as low as Zero silver it can show Zero stain. A drop, not much, but all that sulfer in a small spot.
Unless there are about us other contributers which will show some signs of deterioration with less silver left in the emulsion than that test will indicate, I would not worry. Dan
> John S. Douglas > Photographer & Webmaster > Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net Tom Phillips - 31 Oct 2006 05:16 GMT > >Not really. It's very difficult to completely > >remove residual thiosulfate and products. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > room full of cigarette smoke. This is why I've taken to using two-bath > fixing for films and in fact I also re-fix any prints prior to toning. A lot of fixing :)
I'm not sure why a two bath fix would be needed for films, especially with t grain films. Twice the clearing should suffice. I simply fix tmax until the dye is nearly/ completely gone. If the fix fails to do this in 7 or so minutes, I discard.
For prints I test rapid fix at reg. intervals using a test strip and also use precipitate tests. It's amazing how little time (in fresh fix) is needed to fully remove silver. In film strength fix, which I use, can be only 20-35 sec depending on the paper. I discard well before exhaustion though, and the discarded fix is then used for work prints until exhausted. Using a two bath method is very good for extending the life of the fixer, but with film strength fix I don't see this as needed. OTOH I don't really mind being a little "wasteful" to ensure my fix is fresh. I also occasionally check my process with ST-1 tests.
John - 29 Oct 2006 07:56 GMT >As with any topic in photography, there are many theories and some >people will swear by one method when others swear by another. Theories have to fit the facts and facts are gathered through observation. Observation of the results of an experiment and the experiment is the practical application of a hypothesis. With no experimentation, no observation and no facts, then one simply has a hypothesis.
>Certainly, the fixation of film and paper can be carried out perfectly >well with almost any fixer, regardless of whether it is acid or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >cannot account for variables such as water qualities and age/quality of >raw chemical compounds. But one can and in fact must note the conditions of the tests. Also repeatability if mandatory and it is usually a good idea to have an independent corroboration of an experiments results.
>We have performed chemical tests to determine accurate archival washing >times for Clearfix Alkaline, and these times support the existing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >washing times required when using acid-based fixers are demonstrable in >practice. I think we need to clarify that an acidic fixer may not have any consequence at all if it does not contain a hardener. The use of buffering to extend the stability of a solution is quite common and a buffered fixer may well be acidic (perhaps pH 5.5) and not have any impact on the retention of thiosulfate and/or thiosulfate complexes.
>Bill Troop's argument for the use of an all-alkaline processing >sequence is not just about removal of hypo. There are a number of other >points which Troop makes on page 106 of The Film Developing Cookbook >which support his argument, notably the greater stability, capacity, >permanence and protection of silver content. Bill has many contributions and I don't doubt the validity of the hypothesis the you, he and many others are working on. I'd just like to see some hard results in the form of data. Also note that I have one other concern regarding the use of much older information such as Meese and James provided and that is that the production of photographic materials has changed significantly in the last 50~60 years. How are we to know that this hasn't impacted the interpretation of their results ?
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
Digitaltruth - 30 Oct 2006 12:06 GMT John,
I am all for producing and publishing as much data as possible. We are a small company trying to bring good products on to the market at a time when all of the larger companies, with the exception of Ilford, are reducing their traditional b&w chemical ranges, or closing down operations altogether.
Apart from Ilford/Kodak/Fuji, all of which are large corporations with significant research and publishing budgets, I think we are doing a pretty good job in terms of providing useful data. In fact, some/most of the other manufacturers in this field publish almost no technical data about their products; whereas we go out of our way to provide as much technical information as we can. As you suggest, there are contributors in this forum with considerable expertise in photo chemistry, and I welcome any constructive input. I truly believe that the Silvergrain range of chemistry is equal to or better than any other photo chemicals on the market. If you or anyone else with suitable expertise would like to perform independent side-by-side testing with similar products, please let me know directly.
The research and testing of Silvergrain products has been carried out by Ryuji Suzuki, and while admittedly not independent, it has been conducted in a genuinely scientific manner. Additional field tests were carried out by a number of independent sources with a range of scientific and non-scientific backgrounds.
I recognize that you are making a slightly different point though, and that what you really want is a great deal more scientific analysis of the theory and application behind fixing and washing procedures. I'm not sure if anyone will ever produce this kind of research though. As you and Tom have both pointed out, the net effect of the processing sequence on the material is the same: whichever way the film/paper is fixed and washed, the chemicals are removed. The points which Bill Troop and others make about the advantages of alkaline processing may be difficult to prove, or moot, yet they are backed up by theory. But we don't market our products based on theory: all of the information we have published is based on real world and scientific testing, and our washing times are easily verified.
I like the idea of using as few chemicals as possible in my own darkroom, so by eliminating acetic acid and only using a washing aid as an optional step, I feel as if everything is simplified and more efficient. Knowing that the Silvergrain chemicals are formulated and buffered in a way that will improve both the shelf life and the tray life, as well as being more resistant to carry-over, provides me with more assurance that the solutions are going to work well even if I haven't used them for a while. Those are simple real-world advantages for me. For someone else these factors may not be so important, but for me those are good reasons to use the products.
--Jon Mided
Digitaltruth Photo http://www.digitaltruth.com
Richard Knoppow - 09 Oct 2006 21:18 GMT > ------------------------------ > #> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > $$$$$$$it pays to learn the difference between sulfites > and sulfides. I know the difference, evidently you can't tell typing errors from actual mistakes.
> ------------------------------X > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > fixing time > by 50%? Cheaper too. The literature indicates that Ammonium Thiosulfate is less sensitive to accumulated Iodide ions than Sodium Thiosulfate. This may have an advantage in fixing film which usually has a large content of Silver Iodide. There may be little advantage for paper where there is less Silver Iodide although variable contrast emulsions are supposed to have quite a bit. There is probably little advantage except shorter fixing time for Ammonium thiosulfate in a two bath system. An advantage of neutral or alkaline Ammonium Thiosulfate fixer is that it does not bleach. Acid Ammonium fixer is a mild bleach for metallic silver and can cause problems where fixing time is carefully controlled. In fact, Kodak's recommendation for removing dichroic fog is acid rapid fixer with Citric acid (15 grams per liter of working solution) added.
 Signature --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
nailer - 11 Oct 2006 09:49 GMT # #"nailer" <me@home.universe.org> wrote in message #news:or0ki2ln27l1f6dble30q7kkmeecks5p0n@4ax.com... #> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:25:17 GMT, "Richard Knoppow" #> <dickburk@ix.netcom.com> wrote: #> #> ------------------------------ #> #> #> # Most conventional fixer formulas can be converted to #> #"rapid" fixer by replacing the Sodium Thiosulfate with #> #Ammonium Thiosulfate in the correct amount. #> # The simplest fixer formula is just the thiosulfate and #> #Sodium Sulfide. 5 grams per liter of Sulfide is enough to #> #protect the Thiosulfate but some additional will prevent #> #staining by carried over developer, around 15 grams per #> #liter. #> #> $$$$$$$it pays to learn the difference between sulfites #> and sulfides. #> #> # # I know the difference, evidently you can't tell typing #errors from actual mistakes.
you made just typo twice at least. you do not pay attention. it makes your advices less reliable. # # #> ------------------------------X #> #> # Ammonium fixing baths do have some Ammonia odor. The #> #neutral fixers have less than acid fixers but it is still #> #there. #> #> acid fixers have less of ammonia odour than neutral and #> alkaline. Pure #> chemistry. In acid solution ammonia tends to form ammonium #> ions #> (odourless).
no comments here? no typo? just plain wrong.
#> #> ----------------------------X #> #> #> my advice - just stick to plain thiosulfate/sulfiTe #> solutions. Modern #> materials do NOT need extra hardening. #> #> Use sulfite bath afterwards. #> #> #> Ammonium thiosulfate works faster than sodium equivalent, #> but smells. #> Isnt it smarter and safer to use sodium salts and extend #> fixing time #> by 50%? Cheaper too. # # The literature indicates that Ammonium Thiosulfate is #less sensitive to accumulated Iodide ions than Sodium #Thiosulfate. This may have an advantage in fixing film which #usually has a large content of Silver Iodide. There may be #little advantage for paper where there is less Silver Iodide #although variable contrast emulsions are supposed to have #quite a bit.
some call it manipulation, what you are saying is not a whole truth. you manipulate with in general true statements. sensitivity to accumulated iodides is not an issue here. you should stop fixing BEFORE it becomes the issue. Large content of silver iodide in emulsion? what percentage as compared with chlorides and bromides? which paper contain silver iodide in an emulsion? supposed to have - quite unscientific expression. have you got numbers ready? can you quote dependable source or just hearsay?
# There is probably little advantage except shorter fixing #time for Ammonium thiosulfate in a two bath system. # An advantage of neutral or alkaline Ammonium Thiosulfate #fixer is that it does not bleach.
it is not a problem if you do not extend fixing time above the required.
Acid Ammonium fixer is a #mild bleach for metallic silver and can cause problems where #fixing time is carefully controlled. In fact, Kodak's #recommendation for removing dichroic fog is acid rapid fixer #with Citric acid (15 grams per liter of working solution) #added.
you are excellent in quoting literature, can you back up your quotations with real data from real experiments?
Nicholas O. Lindan - 11 Oct 2006 15:21 GMT > "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > [Discourse on rapid Vs Conventional fixers] > [Diatribe on Mr. Knoppow's knowledge] Of all the posters in this newsgroup, Richard is the one I trust the most. And I don't think I am alone with this opinion.
 Signature Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
David Nebenzahl - 11 Oct 2006 17:44 GMT Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus:
>>>[Discourse on rapid Vs Conventional fixers] >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one I trust the most. And I don't think I am alone > with this opinion. I second that emotion.
 Signature Save the Planet Kill Yourself
- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
UC - 11 Oct 2006 18:06 GMT > > "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > [Discourse on rapid Vs Conventional fixers] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com I have never had any problem with using ordinary Rapid Fixer with hardener. I recommend it, preceded by an acid stop bath. Way back in 1964, Popular Photography ran a test to see whether any ill effects could be traced to the use of acid stop bath. Under microscopic enlargement, no adverse effect could be discerned. Acid stop bath is recommended.
John - 12 Oct 2006 10:36 GMT >> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > [Discourse on rapid Vs Conventional fixers] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >one I trust the most. And I don't think I am alone >with this opinion. Definitely not !
== John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
brownt@flash.net - 12 Oct 2006 19:08 GMT > #> > #> $$$$$$$it pays to learn the difference between sulfites [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you made just typo twice at least. you do not pay attention. it makes > your advices less reliable. And you don't speak English so well "Nailer". There's no such word as "advices".
> you are excellent in quoting literature, can you back up your > quotations with real data from real experiments? And, "Nailer" can you not be such a coward by having your posts removed from the archives? And not use a phoney name?
There's more good information in Richard's stool than you've ever posted here!
TB
UC - 08 Oct 2006 22:55 GMT Just use Rapid Fixer with hardener. Forget all this nonsense.
> I've researched on two other fixer formula because F-24 is a slow fixer. I > want a rapid fixer. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Message posted via PhotoKB.com > http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/photo-darkroom/200610/1 Rod Smith - 11 Oct 2006 03:09 GMT > Here are the formulae: > > Neutral rapid fixer (Details snipped.) FWIW, the formula you posted is Ryuji Suzuki's creation; its Web page is:
http://wiki.silvergrain.org/wiki/index.php/Fixer
I mention this because it's not clear if you got it from there or from some other source with less information.
> + However, I've read that ammonium in fixer is not for open trays because of > the ammonium fumes. The extent of the ammonia odor varies from one formula to another; with some, it's pretty strong, but for others it's barely noticeable. I don't know about Suzuki's Neutral Rapid Fixer, since I've never used it. I have used a commercial variant, Silvergrain Clearfix Alkaline (http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/silvergrain-fixandwash.html). It has a very subdued ammonia odor; however, it's not identical to the posted formula. The two might vary in the strength of their ammonia odors.
> So, here is another formula, the TF-2 Alkaline Sodium Thiosulfate Fixer > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fixed in this specific fixer (but it was indicated it should be washed for 30 > minutes). This formula is published in Anchell's _Darkroom Cookbook, 2nd Edition_ (formula #134). Anchell specifies a 10-minute fixing time for prints, so this doesn't qualify as a rapid fixer in my opinion. This isn't surprising, since rapid fixers are usually made using ammonium thiosulfate rather than sodium thiosulfate.
FWIW, I've used the rapid variant of TF-2, known as TF-3. It's definitely got a strong ammonia odor. Despite this fact, I've used it in trays. It wasn't a pleasant experience, but it was actually less bothersome than acid fixers, which irritate my nasal passages although they don't have as strong an odor.
A commercial variant of TF-3, known as TF-4, is available. I've never used TF-4, but it's supposed to have a less powerful odor. It's also pretty inexpensive.
> 2. Which fixer (neutral rapid fixer, or TF-2 alkaline) would you recommend? I've not used either of them. Personally, I hate sitting there fixing prints for 10 minutes, so I use rapid fixers now, especially for prints. In theory, it won't make any difference for the quality of your final prints, assuming you use the products correctly. Thus, it's really a question of personal preferences for things like your patience for long fixing time, your tolerance of ammonia odor, your sensitivity to the sulfur dioxide produced by acid fixers, etc. You may just need to try multiple products to figure some of these things out; one person's "overpowering ammonia odor" may be another person's "barely noticeable ammonia odor" -- and similarly for other factors.
> 4. I assume that since ther is no alum in either formula, then these fixers > are non-hardening fixers. Is my assumption right? Correct. This shouldn't make much difference for most products. The emulsions of Efke films are reportedly rather delicate and can benefit from hardeners, but for most films and papers it shouldn't make much difference.
> 5. Would you know other rapid fixer formula/e that would work with FB prints? > If you do, and if you recommend that fixer, please post the formula here. As I mentioned, I've used TF-3 (http://www.jackspcs.com/tf3.htm) with success, but it does have a strong ammonia odor. I've recently been using Silvergrain Clearfix. It's got a much more subdued ammonia odor than TF-3 but is almost as fast-acting. Its Web site has unusually clear and extensive instructions. On the downside, it's pricier than some products. I'm thinking of giving TF-4 a try for this reason.
> Bear with me as I am only beginning to learn mixing my own chemicals. I > really hope you could help me. Thanks. I've mixed my own fixers from time to time, but for the most part, IMHO it's not worth the bother. Certain commercial products, such as TF-4 and Kodak's Flexicolor (C-41) fixer, are actually less expensive than anything you could mix up yourself, unless you find a good local source of the sodium or ammonium thiosulfate. (Flexicolor fixer, despire being marketed for color film, works fine with B&W film and paper, and has the advantage of being very inexpensive. I don't know the exact fixing time for B&W paper, though.)
 Signature Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
Peter Irwin - 11 Oct 2006 04:07 GMT > This formula is published in Anchell's _Darkroom Cookbook, 2nd Edition_ > (formula #134). Anchell specifies a 10-minute fixing time for prints, so > this doesn't qualify as a rapid fixer in my opinion. This isn't > surprising, since rapid fixers are usually made using ammonium thiosulfate > rather than sodium thiosulfate. ....
> I've not used either of them. Personally, I hate sitting there fixing > prints for 10 minutes, so I use rapid fixers now, especially for prints. I really doubt it takes anything like 10 minutes to fix paper in fresh sodium thiosulphate fixer. I just did a clearing test with a clip of Eastman 5302 film which has a bromide paper type emulsion. After a presoak in water of a few minutes, clearing time in fresh Kodak Fixer was 50 seconds. (I thought the film looked pretty clear after 40 seconds, but it nearly vanished at 50 seconds.)
Peter.
 Signature pirwin@ktb.net
Shakti V. - 11 Oct 2006 05:34 GMT I believe that fixing time for films in TF-2 (sodium thiosulfate based fixer) is 3-5 minutes. For prints, though, it wasn't specified, although a lot of users say that, to be safe, fix for 5-10 minutes, depending on exhaustion. Clearing times(i.e., 50secs.) should be mulitplied twice or more preferably, thrice, for film fixing time.
As for the neutral rapid fixer, yes, the source was wiki.silvergrain.org. I am perplexed why they didn't post any other details like fixing time for prints and films, and dilution. Still, no one has given me an answer. Since the formula has 200ml only of ammonium thiosulphate, while TF-3 has 800ml (dilution 1:4, fixing time 1minute for prints), would it be a good assumption to dilute neutral rapid fixer 1:1, and fix for 1-2 minutes?
To everyone,
Thanks for your replies. I am now at a phase of wanting to learn the science of mixing my own chemicals. It will also be practical for me as it's becoming a desert here when it comes to supplies for traditional photography. Shipping is more expensive than my energy and raw chemical cost.
I am now working on the TF-3 formula. I will post a new thread regarding the process of mixing it and the results. Please post your comments and suggestions there.
Grazie.
>I really doubt it takes anything like 10 minutes to fix paper >in fresh sodium thiosulphate fixer. I just did a clearing test [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Peter.
 Signature +Shakti V.
Tom Phillips - 11 Oct 2006 07:58 GMT Films vary in clearing time, but I don't think I'd fix any film for less than 3 minutes, let alone 50 seconds. It's generally recommended to fix _TWICE_ the clearing time for film...Prints (in rapid fix mixed film strength) can be fixed 30 to 60 seconds (FB.) Kodak actually says 5302 film should be fixed 2 TO _10_ minutes at 65 to 70 degrees F depending on the film/fix combo. Please see KODAK pub. E103CF.pdf
> > This formula is published in Anchell's _Darkroom Cookbook, 2nd Edition_ > > (formula #134). Anchell specifies a 10-minute fixing time for prints, so [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > pirwin@ktb.net Peter Irwin - 11 Oct 2006 13:47 GMT > Films vary in clearing time, but I don't think > I'd fix any film for less than 3 minutes, let > alone 50 seconds. It's generally recommended to > fix _TWICE_ the clearing time for film. I know. I just indicated that 5302 clears much faster than camera films, therefore should also probably have a shorter fixing time. Since 5302 resembles paper emulsion, I suspect that paper fixes in less than half the time required by typical camera films.
..Prints
> (in rapid fix mixed film strength) can be fixed > 30 to 60 seconds (FB.) This also supports the idea that paper fixes faster than film. I find it hard to credit the idea that sodium hypo would be ten times slower than ammonium hypo unless it has been seriously overworked. People do overwork paper fixer because it is hard to tell by looking when the fixer starts to lose activity. If you use sodium hypo then a two bath fixer looks like a really good idea. I'd just be really surprised if two minutes in each bath weren't long enough.
Peter.
 Signature pirwin@ktb.net
Tom Phillips - 12 Oct 2006 02:21 GMT > > Films vary in clearing time, but I don't think > > I'd fix any film for less than 3 minutes, let [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > -- > pirwin@ktb.net Tom Phillips - 12 Oct 2006 02:42 GMT > > Films vary in clearing time, but I don't think > > I'd fix any film for less than 3 minutes, let [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > -- > pirwin@ktb.net It probably is, but fix times also vary with papers. General recommendations of 3-5 minutes in each bath equals 10 minutes in a single bath for FB prints. I find Tmax needs 6 minutes in fresh fixer, but other films have shorter fixing times. The times when using film strength fix with papers also varies with the paper so testing (both for clearing times and exhausted fixer) is always a good idea. In any case as with film I always fix my prints about twice the clearing time.
Lloyd Erlick - 12 Oct 2006 05:09 GMT >I find it hard to credit >the idea that sodium hypo would be ten times [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >really surprised if two minutes in each bath >weren't long enough. October 11, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,
I agree. I've used both, on both films and papers, and it seems quite obvious to me that ammonium thiosulfate type fixers are not ten times as fast as sodium thiosulfate based fixers.
In any case, what does it matter to a low volume user like most non-commercial photographers? Even the smell alone is not worth it just to get a bit faster fixing.
The remark above about overworked fixing baths is highly relevant, however. Sodium based fixer has a lower capacity, and if mixed in batches that are not larger than necessary, can be used up in relatively few darkroom sessions. The temptation to overwork ammonium type fixers is far greater, since it can fix more, and it costs more, too. A sodium fixer can be used up and discarded and replaced very easily.
The easiest sodium thiosulfate fixer is the one Ansel Adams published in the Appendix to "The Print". He calls it plain fixer. It consists of sodium thiosulfate and sodium sulfite. And water. I've used it as my exclusive fixer for years. Film and paper. I keep a simple tally of the number of 8x10s or equivalent paper area or rolls of film through it, and discard when it gets to two-thirds of its supposed capacity of 25 8x10s per liter. It's extremely cheap, and extremely easy to prepare. I use a two-bath system, and I don't bother to promote bath two to bath one when I make up a fresh batch. I just discard and make up both, it's so cheap and easy. There is absolutely no odour. To get even the slightest whiff, one has to stick the nose into the fixer container. And then it's a pleasant aroma, at that.
The famous remark is that the smell of fixer in the morning is like the smell of creativity, and to me that smell is from a sodium fixer.
The usual comeback regarding sodium thiosulfate fixer is that it can't properly fix modern film that has more iodide than sodium thiosulfate can fix, or some such. I've developed several thousand rolls of Kodak T-Max 400 (TMY) film with sodium thiosulfate fixer, and have never seen a problem. I'm the sort of person that used a double fixer bath system even when I was using commercial rapid fixer. So dealing with the 'iodide problem' with a double bath of sodium fix is hardly a problem.
I'm not disputing the educational advantages of learning to mix up various rapid fixers. But my experience has shown me that Adams' plain fixer is fine for all fixing in a usual, non-specialized-process type of darkroom. For day to day working at making prints and developing film, I like a fixer that is cheap, effortless and quick to prepare, and odourless.
I use distilled water for my fixer. I use anhydrous forms of sodium thiosulfate and sodium sulfite, because they are cheaper in the long run and especially because they dissolve easily in water at room temperature, so there is no temperature-adjustment phase to the effort.
In fact, if two and a half liters of water at room temperature are dumped into a jug, and 500 grams of sodium thiosulfate anhydrous plus 45-60 grams of sodium sulfite anhydrous are dumped in after it, the agitation of the final half liter of water being dumped in after all that will be enough to dissolve the whole works before the other chores of getting ready are finished, with no further attention.
I've written whole pontifications on this subject, and others, on my website. Click on the 'technical' button in the table of contents.
(I'd be surprised if two minutes in each fixer bath weren't enough, too. In fact, I use three minutes in each bath for all my fixing of both film and paper. The caveat, again, is that the fix must never be overworked. The same caveat applies to any type of fix used for any purpose, so it's not as if it's extra work associated with sodium thiosulfate.)
regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ --
nailer - 12 Oct 2006 08:40 GMT to all Richard K. groupies - read the text from Lloyd. This is an excellent example of simple answer, without posturing, but containing both a common knowledge and the author's experience. The original poster does not need any more than LLoyd's reply. And it does not contain any "typos". Excellent work.
#On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:47:07 +0000 (UTC), #Peter Irwin <pirwin@ktb.net> wrote: # #>I find it hard to credit #>the idea that sodium hypo would be ten times #>slower than ammonium hypo unless it has been #>seriously overworked. People do overwork #>paper fixer because it is hard to tell by #>looking when the fixer starts to lose activity. #>If you use sodium hypo then a two bath fixer #>looks like a really good idea. I'd just be #>really surprised if two minutes in each bath #>weren't long enough. # # #October 11, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, # #I agree. I've used both, on both films and #papers, and it seems quite obvious to me that #ammonium thiosulfate type fixers are not ten #times as fast as sodium thiosulfate based #fixers. # #In any case, what does it matter to a low #volume user like most non-commercial #photographers? Even the smell alone is not #worth it just to get a bit faster fixing. # #The remark above about overworked fixing #baths is highly relevant, however. Sodium #based fixer has a lower capacity, and if #mixed in batches that are not larger than #necessary, can be used up in relatively few #darkroom sessions. The temptation to overwork #ammonium type fixers is far greater, since it #can fix more, and it costs more, too. A #sodium fixer can be used up and discarded and #replaced very easily. # #The easiest sodium thiosulfate fixer is the #one Ansel Adams published in the Appendix to #"The Print". He calls it plain fixer. It #consists of sodium thiosulfate and sodium #sulfite. And water. I've used it as my #exclusive fixer for years. Film and paper. I #keep a simple tally of the number of 8x10s or #equivalent paper area or rolls of film #through it, and discard when it gets to #two-thirds of its supposed capacity of 25 #8x10s per liter. It's extremely cheap, and #extremely easy to prepare. I use a two-bath #system, and I don't bother to promote bath #two to bath one when I make up a fresh batch. #I just discard and make up both, it's so #cheap and easy. There is absolutely no odour. #To get even the slightest whiff, one has to #stick the nose into the fixer container. And #then it's a pleasant aroma, at that. # #The famous remark is that the smell of fixer #in the morning is like the smell of #creativity, and to me that smell is from a #sodium fixer. # #The usual comeback regarding sodium #thiosulfate fixer is that it can't properly #fix modern film that has more iodide than #sodium thiosulfate can fix, or some such. #I've developed several thousand rolls of #Kodak T-Max 400 (TMY) film with sodium #thiosulfate fixer, and have never seen a #problem. I'm the sort of person that used a #double fixer bath system even when I was #using commercial rapid fixer. So dealing with #the 'iodide problem' with a double bath of #sodium fix is hardly a problem. # #I'm not disputing the educational advantages #of learning to mix up various rapid fixers. #But my experience has shown me that Adams' #plain fixer is fine for all fixing in a #usual, non-specialized-process type of #darkroom. For day to day working at making #prints and developing film, I like a fixer #that is cheap, effortless and quick to #prepare, and odourless. # #I use distilled water for my fixer. I use #anhydrous forms of sodium thiosulfate and #sodium sulfite, because they are cheaper in #the long run and especially because they #dissolve easily in water at room temperature, #so there is no temperature-adjustment phase #to the effort. # #In fact, if two and a half liters of water at #room temperature are dumped into a jug, and #500 grams of sodium thiosulfate anhydrous #plus 45-60 grams of sodium sulfite anhydrous #are dumped in after it, the agitation of the #final half liter of water being dumped in #after all that will be enough to dissolve the #whole works before the other chores of #getting ready are finished, with no further #attention. # #I've written whole pontifications on this #subject, and others, on my website. Click on #the 'technical' button in the table of #contents. # #(I'd be surprised if two minutes in each #fixer bath weren't enough, too. In fact, I #use three minutes in each bath for all my #fixing of both film and paper. The caveat, #again, is that the fix must never be #overworked. The same caveat applies to any #type of fix used for any purpose, so it's not #as if it's extra work associated with sodium #thiosulfate.) # #regards, #--le #________________________________ #Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. #website: www.heylloyd.com #telephone: 416-686-0326 #email: portrait@heylloyd.com #________________________________
Lloyd Erlick - 12 Oct 2006 13:52 GMT October 12, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,
Well, there's no question I'm a Richard K. groupie, too!
I have always liked Richard's depth and breadth of knowledge in an area that interests me. But in addition to that, I've always tried to emulate Richard's level-headedness. I'm here for photography; distractions like ego, personality analysis, personal invective, character assassination, etc and blah blah blah, just have no place here as far as I'm concerned.
This forum has no prerequisites for admission, so expertise in any area whatsoever is not necessary. Anyone and everyone can be expected to appear. This forum is also international, so no participant should be surprised or dismayed at widely varying levels of skill at using Usenet, using the English language, using a keyboard, and more etc, etc. Spelling errors, typos, grammatical errors (grammar - there's a subject to argue about! just leave me out...)
When the fateful typo of 'sulfide' instead of 'sulfite' was made, I happened to be out at the corner waiting for the streetcar (tram...). Its steel wheels were squealing against the steel rails as it turned, but still, I'm pretty sure I heard the gnashing of Richard's teeth.
regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________
 Signature
>to all Richard K. groupies - >read the text from Lloyd. [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] >#email: portrait@heylloyd.com >#________________________________ Tom Phillips - 12 Oct 2006 20:27 GMT > October 12, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > admission, so expertise in any area > whatsoever is not necessary. Well. there is _one_ prerequisite: posts should be on topic related to "film developing, printing from film, toning, alternative chemistries etc..." (paraphrased from the charter.)
Course many of us have frequently wandered off topic, but Richard far less rarely. In fact, it might be considered an aberration when he does ;)
> Anyone and everyone can be expected to appear. And so they do. By and large though there's still enough truly encyclopedic posters/researchers like Richard et al. to make reading worth while...
> This forum is also international, so no > participant should be surprised or dismayed [quoted text clipped - 160 lines] > >#email: portrait@heylloyd.com > >#________________________________ dan.c.quinn@att.net - 12 Oct 2006 11:25 GMT > The easiest sodium thiosulfate fixer is the > one Ansel Adams published in the Appendix to > "The Print". He calls it plain fixer. It > consists of sodium thiosulfate and sodium > sulfite. And water. > --le IIRC his second fix was the plain fix. He did do much of his work at a time when emulsions were not so pre-prepared. With today's included hardeners a mildly alkaline first and second bath fix works just fine. Now then what would a discussion of fixer be without my mentioning the Very Dilute, One Shot, Single Bath, Archival Fix? More important than the chemistry's capacity for silver in the presence of some or a combination of halides is the volumeteric capacity for silver of a working strength solution. Commercial or Archival, the volumeteric capacity falls far short
|
|