Both posts sound contradictory to me.
And this, and excellent OP answer to yourself.
I am thinking on using this same fixer that I have being using for about 4 months, but maybe more. Just to see if after that I can keep using for films process and it will keepworking as fresh or not.
... My fixer is still in its shelf like so I don't see reason to doubt about my fixing practice or to worry about one shot fixer...
It is economical for me so I do it. Save me time and money.
I am often looking at my negatives from 5 years ago and they are still fine.
If I ever had any bad experience with reused fixer or food from openned packing, I sure would do one shot only. But I have had good experience so far as my fixer and food is well stored, looks good and is still in its shelf life.
I see a lot of film , specifically 1950 onward , I can say that its obvious after 30 or 40 years if the film was fixed properly or not.
Since this is an International site discussing film photography many here have the position of archival process techniques like Post #7 , I follow this line of thought from day one, I do one shot
chemical process on all steps, maybe over board.
...
If you want archival quality , there are steps to get there. If you do not care then yes of course you can maximise and speed up your process.
Shouldn't the test be for residual silver halide, not residual silver? The image is made of silver, so such a test would go off the scale. Color, that's where you test for residual silver.
I see a lot of film , specifically 1950 onward , I can say that its obvious after 30 or 40 years if the film was fixed properly or not.
There is something I don't catch there... The OP is more or less asking us if the way he proceeds is OK or not. Several among us posted answers with valid arguments (especially those backed up by manufacturer's recommendations) but the OP is still not convinced to change his way of doing things.
OP, you know what? Do whatever you want, nobody cares, after all, only your negatives might be impacted but don't come back several years form now asking why your negatives are fogged or stained.
Before I didn't know the shelf like, so use as long as it last was the way to find out to me. Now I know, so I keep using it.Both posts sound contradictory to me.
And this, and excellent OP answer to yourself.
Any fixer, but especially "rapid" fixers will continue to clear film well past their "safe-to-use" date, this in no way means that those films are archivally fixed and good for the long haul. The only way to be sure is to test your fixed film for residual silver and your washed film for residual fixer. There are at least four different argentothiosulfate compounds created during the fixing process. Some are very soluble and move out of the emulsion readily during the fixing and washing, others like to stick around. As you agitate film in fresh fixer almost all the argentothiosulfates are converted to the soluble, washable, "good" type. Old fixer doesn't do such a good job of conversion and leaves more of the "bad" less soluble argentothiosulfates in the emulsion. These will eventually sulfurize and turn yellow spoiling your film. At this point re-fixing will not "fix" (used in the sense of repair) anything.
Sorry, but I see no point about worry on consume what is still in its shelf life.I see a lot of film , specifically 1950 onward , I can say that its obvious after 30 or 40 years if the film was fixed properly or not.
Since this is an International site discussing film photography many here have the position of archival process techniques like Post #7 , I follow this line of thought from day one, I do one shot
chemical process on all steps, maybe over board.
Clearly the OP likes the way he is working and time will tell if his frugality will pay off.
If you want archival quality , there are steps to get there. If you do not care then yes of course you can maximise and speed up your process.
Well, no, probably not for sure. The film problems could have been due to inadequate washing (possibly related to overuse of fixer) or contamination after the fact.
In defense of extended fixer use, I have a great deal of photofinishing experience. In our very large processing lab, we went overboard to keep costs down, including the environmental regulatory aspects. We also did periodic "image stability" testing, including an environmental test chamber at elevated temperature. (These were for color neg and print, only.)
At some minimum volume of processing, the most economical way to use fixer is to use replenisher feeding into multiple tank counter-current flow systems. This allows you to have a low silver concentration in the final tank/tray, while allowing silver concentration to build up to a "sensible" concentration in the first tank/tray. This keeps chemical costs to a minimum. Now, it seems to be a rarity here, but to meet environmental regulations, the low silver concentration in the final tank means that less silver gets into the wash water. At the same time, it is desirable to keep your silver fairly concentrated in fixer going to the silver recovery.
I think that the people who advocate not reusing chemicals are mostly not affected by stringent environmental regulations.
So would it be better to do two bath of fixer?
This is the approach to take.I will try to keep counting the date and film used in it to avoid use it after shelf life.
Thanks.I worked at a newspaper that processed 100% Tmax 400 and Tmax 3200 film, we used a water bath to elevate processing temp to 75 deg. F (24 C) and used two fixer baths of approximately 1 liter each. Three minutes in each bath and zero magenta dye stain. We would dump the 1st bath into our silver recovery tank after 24 rolls, pour the second bath into the 1st fix tank and make up a new second fixer. You have to be processing a certain volume of film to justify such an approach.
Yep, if you disregard the extra work that YOU have to do. I think a couple of people have referred to the fixer instruction sheets, which describe how to use a 2-bath fix system.
I have a disclaimer, though. If you process such a small volume of film that your fixer goes "bad" from age, not from usage, then two-bath fixing won't help much. The way that old fixer fails is that it "sulfurizes," getting cloudy or yellowish. This happens when the fixer runs out of free sulfite, which ideally won't happen in normal use.
This is the approach to take.
The three confusing things to know about fixer are:
1) fixer can go bad because it is over-used;
2) fixer can go bad because it gets too old; and
3) the results of bad fixer aren't always visible quickly - sometimes it takes months or years before they show up.
The "clip test" will usually reveal if fixer has been over-used. A reference to the manufacturer's storage recommendations, plus a clip test and close attention to the appearance and smell will usually reveal if the fixer is too old.
As long as you pay close attention to both issues, you can most likely continue to re-use film fixer. But you have to watch both. The tests for retained fixer will assure results.
I agree that it isn't good to "waste" good fixer. It is important to remember though that fixer can go bad in different ways.
I am aware of that. Thanks.This is the approach to take.
The three confusing things to know about fixer are:
1) fixer can go bad because it is over-used;
2) fixer can go bad because it gets too old; and
3) the results of bad fixer aren't always visible quickly - sometimes it takes months or years before they show up.
The "clip test" will usually reveal if fixer has been over-used. A reference to the manufacturer's storage recommendations, plus a clip test and close attention to the appearance and smell will usually reveal if the fixer is too old.
As long as you pay close attention to both issues, you can most likely continue to re-use film fixer. But you have to watch both. The tests for retained fixer will assure results.
I agree that it isn't good to "waste" good fixer. It is important to remember though that fixer can go bad in different ways.
Before I didn't know the shelf like, so use as long as it last was the way to find out to me. Now I know, so I keep using it. ... There is no contradition.
Why you guys are trying to make conflict?
... only your negatives might be impacted ...
In defense of extended fixer use, I have a great deal of photofinishing experience. In our very large processing lab, we went overboard to keep costs down, including the environmental regulatory aspects. We also did periodic "image stability" testing, including an environmental test chamber at elevated temperature. (These were for color neg and print, only.)
At some minimum volume of processing, the most economical way to use fixer is to use replenisher feeding into multiple tank counter-current flow systems. This allows you to have a low silver concentration in the final tank/tray, while allowing silver concentration to build up to a "sensible" concentration in the first tank/tray. This keeps chemical costs to a minimum. Now, it seems to be a rarity here, but to meet environmental regulations, the low silver concentration in the final tank means that less silver gets into the wash water. At the same time, it is desirable to keep your silver fairly concentrated in fixer going to the silver recovery.
I think that the people who advocate not reusing chemicals are mostly not affected by stringent environmental regulations.
... 3) the results of bad fixer ...
So would it be better to do two bath of fixer?
hi marciofs -
i understand being without very much $, it is not much fun.
Thanks a million.hi marciofs -
i understand being without very much $, it is not much fun.
what i would do, if it was me, is the clip test that was described earlier in the thread
and mix up a 2nd bath of fixer FRESH and fix your film half in your old-faithful fixer.
and the 2nd half in your fresh new fixer. 2 bath fixing is easy and works well, and assures
your films and papers are fixed well enough to last a long time,
do the clip test for that fresh fixer too so you have a baseline, and when your original
fixer reaches 2x the "fresh fixer" clear time .... cycle it out and make a fresh #2 ...
another "solution" ( sorry bad pun ) might be to get a large container of sodium thiosulfate crystals/rice
and use them instead of speed fixer. while i couldn't find any when i was in france a handful of years ago,
i know here in the usa, some spa / swimming pool suppliers sell it by the 20 kilo sack as a water treatment.
some easy recipes for old fashioned hypo/fixer are here
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
it isn't "speed" fixer so it will be slower to fix your film and prints, but it will be cost effective.
the clip-test works with old fashioned hypo too ...
good luck !
john
Marciofs, I don't know exactly where you live but in the US, 1 liter of Ilford Rapid Fixer costs roughly $10. Knowing that diluted at 1+4 it can fix 5 x 24 films = 120 films (according to Ilford and they are supposed to know what they are talking about), compute the cost of the fixer per film and let me know if really this is where to expect saving...
Trying to stretch the capacity of fixer is simply penny wise and pound foolish...
No one is advocating tossing still-usable fixer; only making sure that you discard your fixer before it goes bad, ruins film and prints and costs you a lot more in time refixing and trying to save damaged negs, and expense reshooting lost shots. However, if you must err, then err on the side of discarding your fixer before you have exceeded its capacity.
The best practices and tests are clear and fairly easy to follow, albeit more complicated than guidelines for developers and stop baths. Read up on the various ways to use fixer economically and effectively and pick the practice that suits your situation best. No need to get defensive about getting good advice from those who know and are trying to help you keep from making mistakes.
FWIW, I use two-bath fixing for negatives and mix just enough for one session simply because it is the most economical use of fixer for the way I work. If you want to save and reuse one bath, and toss it when it has reached the end of its usefulness because it is most economical for you, that's just fine too.
Best,
Doremus
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?