Adofix plus and Pyro

[Cerebum]

I use Adofix Plus and have for some time because I really trust it. I recently started using 510 Pyro. I have a separate Alkaline fixer for that developer because I don't know how acitic the Adofix plus is. Is Adofix Plus acidic, mildly acidic or neutral? And has anyone used 510 pyro with adofix plus? I am going to keep using Pyro because it is superb, especially with Fomapan 200 but I would prefer not to need two fixers. Any advice is, as always, very welcome indeed

 

[koraks]

Is Adofix Plus acidic

Its MSDS indicates it contains acetic acid. So yes, it's acidic.
It'll still be OK for pyro because the story that pyro stain would be removed by an acid fixer is a myth.

To stain, or not to stain – Acid and pyro developers – Koraks tinkers

tinker.koraks.nl

 

[Cerebum]

Its MSDS indicates it contains acetic acid. So yes, it's acidic.
It'll still be OK for pyro because the story that pyro stain would be removed by an acid fixer is a myth.

To stain, or not to stain – Acid and pyro developers – Koraks tinkers

tinker.koraks.nl

Thanks Koraks. Just after I posted this I found a thread in which you answered this for someone else, but I decided to leave this thread active because I always learn something new. Once again you came through . Once my alkaline fixer is done I will just use the Adofix. I do love it when I can uncomplicate things

 

[koraks]

Sounds good!

I decided to leave this thread active because I always learn something new

Perfect; let's allow others to chime in as well. You'll find that the stain vs. acid is still a contentious topic. For me, my tests were convincing enough to confirm my already existing suspicion that acid doesn't hurt a bit. I think some people still believe the acid makes a difference possibly due to a general stain being deposited due to carryover of some developer into an alkaline fixer bath, which can make it seem like a better staining action is obtained. Since you have both acid and alkaline fixer at hand, you could do a simple test and process one roll in each and then stick with whichever you prefer.

 

[Cerebum]

Sounds good!


Perfect; let's allow others to chime in as well. You'll find that the stain vs. acid is still a contentious topic. For me, my tests were convincing enough to confirm my already existing suspicion that acid doesn't hurt a bit. I think some people still believe the acid makes a difference possibly due to a general stain being deposited due to carryover of some developer into an alkaline fixer bath, which can make it seem like a better staining action is obtained. Since you have both acid and alkaline fixer at hand, you could do a simple test and process one roll in each and then stick with whichever you prefer.

That's the plan. I use a water stop bath so that's fine. I will shoot a roll of foma200, fix it with the Adox & see what we get there is a guy selling 510Pyro on eBay for ¾ of the zone imaging price. In your experience is 510pyro the same regardless of the source?

 

[koraks]

In your experience is 510pyro the same regardless of the source?

My experience is limited to mixing it myself. Given how simple it is, I don't expect anyone to bother doing variations on it. I do know that there have been reports of non-working 510 Pyro sourced from the UK as I recall.

 

[Alan9940]

I have used whatever fixer I have on hand with several different pyro formulas over many years and I've never seen an issue with the fixer affecting the stain. FWIW

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

What koraks said about acidic fixers hampering with pyro stain being a myth is absolutely true. We both tested it. I always figured it was a myth since I've been using an acidic rapid fix with several staining developers (including 510-Pyro) for decades.

Here's my video where I'm playing around with 510-Pyro...

 

[xkaes]

It'll still be OK for pyro because the story that pyro stain would be removed by an acid fixer is a myth.

I guess there are two ways of looking at it. Acid fix may not hurt, but alkaline might help. Here's from Troop & Anchell second edition:

 

[koraks]

Here's from Troop & Anchell second edition:

The "afterbath" method has been 'debunked' many years go. The only thing it achieves is the deposition of general (non image-wise) stain that just acts as some more fog to print through. It's harmless but also useless when enlarging or scanning, and actually unwelcome if you're doing alt. process printing with slow UV processes.
I guess some people continue to do this essentially "because I've always done it this way and it works for me", which is fine if you're hesitant to change an existing process. For people who are new to staining developers, I would not recommend picking up habits that have no purpose.

Some more opinions on this topic:

PMK AFTER BATH????

Hi All, I am struggling to understand the purpose of the PMK Pyro After Fix Bath. I am using TF-4 fixer, and follow Photo Formulary's instructions for a two minute After Bath in the used developer. (I have read past posts in the APUG Search files but would like to know the most...

www.photrio.com

PMK pyro after bath. [Archive] - Film and Darkroom User

[Archive] PMK pyro after bath. Monochrome Film

www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk

Too much stain while using PMK Pyro?

My Question as follows "Will the used developer bath cause more fog than necessary, resulting in lowered contrast? If true, will developing without the used developer leave stain in the areas of high silver content (the highlights), separating them so?" Currently I am expierementing with mainly F...

www.photo.net

PMK 2nd Bath [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

(Question triggered by a thread over on APUG, and I've searched on "PMK Afterbath"): is there a definitive (or at least majority) opinion on whether or not to return negs to the used PMK after fixing? Has Gordon Hutchings weighed in on this question anywhere? I'm still using the "afterbath" but...

www.largeformatphotography.info

The alleged benefit is grain masking, but I'm exceedingly skeptical about the veracity of the few claims that have remained over the past 20 years along those lines.

 

[xkaes]

I have just printed two 35mm T-Max 100 negatives (of same scene, same exposure, etc.) Negative #1 was with After Bath and Negative #2 was without After Bath. The After Bath print had better mid-tones and lower-tones separation. So, I guess I will continue to use the 2 minute After Bath of used PMK develoepr. Thanks again for your input.

The "afterbath" method has been 'debunked' many years go.

Looks like this is just another case of "Do your own tests" -- instead of simply believing what "works" for others.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, go ahead and test for yourself, but many, many others have and came to the same conclusion.

 

[xkaes]

I conclude that there are two conclusions.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I conclude that there are two conclusions.

Do a test. Then there will be three.

 

[koraks]

I conclude that there are two conclusions.

Do a test. Then there will be three.

@xkaes' conclusion already makes three!

Looks like this is just another case of "Do your own tests" -- instead of simply believing what "works" for others.

As always, yes. It's easy enough to try, too.
Note that the afterbath trick AFAIK has only been mentioned in conjunction with PMK Pyro. I've never heard anyone applying it with 510 Pyro, possibly because the story had been mostly put to rest long before 510 came around. Still, since 510 is also a pyrogallol developer, like PMK, anyone with an inclination to do so might test it with 510 as well. Given how easily 510 throws down general stain (a.k.a. fog), I have no doubt in the least that an afterbath of 510 will give a much more pronounced stain on the negative. The tricky bit, however, is to figure out whether this helps the image, at all. I've seen people write about tests they conducted and they concluded "the film looks more stained, so the afterbath works". One would actually have to compare the image itself and in doing so compensate for the added overall density created by the general (non-image wise) stain. That's fairly easy to do both with an enlarger and a scanner, but it requires a little attention to methodology.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

And Gordon Hutchings no longer recommends an after bath in the spent developer...

 

[xkaes]

So Gordon was wrong the first time, and now he's right. That gives me lots of confidence in his "results."

 

[Chuck1]

Of the many varieties of Pyro (which I've yet to try-but I'm most interested in pyro in glycol-the proper name escapes me) alkaline fixer isn't needed for any of them?

 

[koraks]

alkaline fixer isn't needed for any of them

Correct.

 

[xkaes]

It depends on who you ask. Again, that's why I'm going to do my own tests. It's pretty darn simple, so why take anyone else's word for it?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... was wrong ... and now he's right ...

... and ... he's wrong again ... and now he's right again ...

Sort of describes the human condition: Another visitation from The Worm Ouroboros.

 

[pentaxuser]

So Gordon was wrong the first time, and now he's right. That gives me lots of confidence in his "results."

Maybe it is possible that Gordon has since done more tests and it is those tests that convinced him that the "afterbath" added nothing i.e what he first recommended did not harm so in that sense wasn't wrong but on the other hand added nothing either?

It may be not unlike Ilford's approach to the knotty subject of "pre-wet." It says it is unnecessary but does no harm to do it

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

@pentaxuser that's about how I'd characterize the situation, yes.

 

[xkaes]

Maybe it is possible that Gordon has since done more tests and it is those tests that convinced him that the "afterbath" added nothing i.e what he first recommended did not harm so in that sense wasn't wrong but on the other hand added nothing either?

The key word is "maybe". But maybe not. Instead of guessing, I'll run my own tests.

 

[koraks]

Please do post back on the outcomes, if you will!