• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Adofix plus and Pyro

Cerebum

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 2, 2022
Messages
253
Location
Uk
Format
35mm
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
 
OP
OP

Cerebum

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 2, 2022
Messages
253
Location
Uk
Format
35mm

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
26,087
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Sounds good!
Cerebum said:
I decided to leave this thread active because I always learn something new
Click to expand...

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.
 
OP
OP

Cerebum

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 2, 2022
Messages
253
Location
Uk
Format
35mm

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
26,087
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Cerebum said:
In your experience is 510pyro the same regardless of the source?
Click to expand...

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

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,479
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
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

Moderator
Moderator
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,711
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,042
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
koraks said:
It'll still be OK for pyro because the story that pyro stain would be removed by an acid fixer is a myth.
Click to expand...

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
26,087
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
xkaes said:
Here's from Troop & Anchell second edition:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:

xkaes

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,042
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format

koraks said:
The "afterbath" method has been 'debunked' many years go.
Click to expand...


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

xkaes

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,042
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
I conclude that there are two conclusions.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
26,087
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
xkaes said:
I conclude that there are two conclusions.
Click to expand...

Andrew O'Neill said:
Do a test. Then there will be three.
Click to expand...

@xkaes' conclusion already makes three!

xkaes said:
Looks like this is just another case of "Do your own tests" -- instead of simply believing what "works" for others.
Click to expand...

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.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,042
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
So Gordon was wrong the first time, and now he's right. That gives me lots of confidence in his "results."
 

Chuck1

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 4, 2022
Messages
769
Location
Arlington ma
Format
Multi Format
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?
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,042
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
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?
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,252
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
xkaes said:
So Gordon was wrong the first time, and now he's right. That gives me lots of confidence in his "results."
Click to expand...

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
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,042
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format

The key word is "maybe". But maybe not. Instead of guessing, I'll run my own tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register