Anyone using a water stop bath with TF4

[antielectrons]

Hi,

Have just been reading the Cookbook and they recommend a water stop bath and TF4 fixer which I would like to try out (the less chemicals I use the better in my book).

They mention that because a water stop bath is slower acting, film development times will need to be reduced slightly. However, they don't say by how much... Any of you water stoppers have any recommendations?

I am shooting mainly Ilford FP4, HP5 and Kodak Tri-x.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

TF-4 is designed to be used with a water bath and the instructions state not to use an acid stop bath. I use 4 changes of water as a stop with TF-4. I can't imagine a water stop altering the dev time by more than 10-15 sec so I usually pour the developer out 15 sec before the end of the recommended time. If you follow the same routine every time the results are very repeatable and no less predictable than using an acid stop. The excption being when times are extremely short.

 

[antielectrons]

Thanks. My times are aver 10 mins for developing so I guess it will be fine. Pouringg out the developer 10-15 secs before completion sounds like a good recommendation.

 

[Ole]

I use a quick wash in water - just enough to dilute the developer clinging to the film/paper. I have no illusions that this will stop development, however the fixing action (of TF-4 or OF-1) is rapid enough to have stopped all development in less than 20 seconds. If you worry about timing, skip the water too.

 

[George Collier]

I am beginning to use TF-4, and the first time, by mistake, I used a small amount of Acetic Acid in the stop (maybe a thimble full of 28% in a liter of water). The developer was Pyrocat-HD and the film TMax400. I noticed a kind of ugly grain formation (worse than I would have expected from TMax Developer) and what I would call "artifacts" in the sky areas, an odd looking area, like a rainstorm looks like in the distance. Could this be the result of the small amount of Acetic Acid in the stop?

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is possible to use a stop with TF-4.

There are two ways. Use a neutral stop as shown in Anchell and Troop, or use a stop followed by a water rinse.

PE

 

[fschifano]

I don't use TF-4. The stuff is too expensive for what it is and I don't see any advantage to using it for film. Fiber prints are another story. TF-4 washes out of fiber prints much more easily than an acid fixer if you don't use a hypo clearing agent. If you do use a hypo clearing agent, it's about the same.

But that's not what I want to address here. There seems to be a bit of confusion, not necessarily in this thread but in general, about what the differences between using water vs. acid for a stop bath. I've done a test to see for myself if any appreciable addtional development occurs when water instead of acid is used for a stop bath. For the test I used the same camera, the same film (Tri-X 400 bulk loaded from the same batch and identical tungsten lighting, and exposure. Development was done in D-76 1+1 for 10.5 minutes at 20 deg C. Fix was for 3 minutes in Kodak Flexicolor C-41 fixer diluted from concentrate as recommended by the manufacturer. In short everything except the stop bath was done identically. The acid stop was carried out for 30 seconds with constant agitation, followed by two quick fill and dump cycles to prevent carrying stop bath over to the fixing bath. The water stop consisted of a quick fill and dump, followed by two 1 minute soaks with intermittent agitation, and finally another quick fill and dump. As an aside; the C-41 fixer is slightly acidic, contains no hardeners, has very little odor, and is extremely economical.

After both films were dry, there was no difference of any consequence between the two test strips. The two test strips printed the same during a single print session. I suppose that with a sensitive enough densitometer, some differences could be found. But for all practical purposes of general pictorial photography, there were none. Bottom line; as long as your development times are in the 10 minute or more range, don't sweat it. Just do as you've been doing and eveything will work out.

My next experiment might yield something a little different. Instead of a quick fill and dump as the first step of a water stop sequence, I plan to fill the tank with only enough water to cover the film, then let it sit for 5 minutes with no agitation. I'll follow that with a few quick fill and dump cycles to prevent any carrover of developer to fixer. Perhaps there will be enough very dilute active developer during the elongated soak cycle to make some noticeable density change.

 

[antielectrons]

I don't use TF-4. The stuff is too expensive for what it is and I don't see any advantage to using it for film.
B.

It is $9 for 4 litres from FP - that is a lot cheaper than Ilford Rapid Fixer...

 

[antielectrons]

The cookbook recommendation is: fill, agitate 10 secs and dump, 5 times in 1 minute - which seems more than enough given your experience. Thanks.

 

[noseoil]

I use TF4 as a film and paper fixer with water stop for both. Since all of my developing times are based on a water stop, I don't need to adjust for it. The worst case scenario I could think of would be a shot in which highlights are running away fast, and you change in that particular shot to a water bath. You might motice that highlights can be blown out, but otherwise, it seems that it can be used as needed. The only way to test this with any certainty, would be for someone with a densitometer doing a test on identical sheets of film. If water caused a higher level of development, it would be an easy matter to change times by a known amount. tim

 

[mmcclellan]

I never use acid stop bath with any film -- just a plain water rinse. Whether sheet films in trays or roll films in tanks, I agitate the film constantly in plain water for at least a minute (more won't hurt, might help, but a minute should be enough) and then go to the fix.

I only use the TF-4 fixer with fiber based paper as it really is expensive to use on film for no discernible advantage. With paper, though, you have to be sure to change the water bath frequently or even have a slow stream running through the tray. You can always tell when it's time to change the water because the prints stay "slimy" for too long. If they're not fairly clean within a minute or so, then change the water.

The only time I use acid stop bath (and a very weak one at that), is when I use non-TF4 fixers.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I don't use TF-4. The stuff is too expensive for what it is and I don't see any advantage to using it for film. Fiber prints are another story. TF-4 washes out of fiber prints much more easily than an acid fixer if you don't use a hypo clearing agent. If you do use a hypo clearing agent, it's about the same.

But that's not what I want to address here. There seems to be a bit of confusion, not necessarily in this thread but in general, about what the differences between using water vs. acid for a stop bath. I've done a test to see for myself if any appreciable addtional development occurs when water instead of acid is used for a stop bath. For the test I used the same camera, the same film (Tri-X 400 bulk loaded from the same batch and identical tungsten lighting, and exposure. Development was done in D-76 1+1 for 10.5 minutes at 20 deg C. Fix was for 3 minutes in Kodak Flexicolor C-41 fixer diluted from concentrate as recommended by the manufacturer. In short everything except the stop bath was done identically. The acid stop was carried out for 30 seconds with constant agitation, followed by two quick fill and dump cycles to prevent carrying stop bath over to the fixing bath. The water stop consisted of a quick fill and dump, followed by two 1 minute soaks with intermittent agitation, and finally another quick fill and dump. As an aside; the C-41 fixer is slightly acidic, contains no hardeners, has very little odor, and is extremely economical.

After both films were dry, there was no difference of any consequence between the two test strips. The two test strips printed the same during a single print session. I suppose that with a sensitive enough densitometer, some differences could be found. But for all practical purposes of general pictorial photography, there were none. Bottom line; as long as your development times are in the 10 minute or more range, don't sweat it. Just do as you've been doing and eveything will work out.

My next experiment might yield something a little different. Instead of a quick fill and dump as the first step of a water stop sequence, I plan to fill the tank with only enough water to cover the film, then let it sit for 5 minutes with no agitation. I'll follow that with a few quick fill and dump cycles to prevent any carrover of developer to fixer. Perhaps there will be enough very dilute active developer during the elongated soak cycle to make some noticeable density change.

Very good test. I have run that one myself at EK, but with one slight addition.

I used 4 sheets of 4x5 in each test.

1 was as you describe; 2 was uniform blank white, slightly exposed to get above fog; 3 was mid scale uniform flash; and the 4th was near dmax flash. Two of these sets were run - one with stop and one without. It was run more than one time. A Kodak 1B sensitometer was used for the flash.

The ones without stop showed more density fluctuations across the width and length of the film than the ones with the stop. This was only evident in the sheets with uniform exposures. There was a slight density bias in favor of higher densities overall without the stop as well, but that could only be seen by averaging, if one set was used, you could attribute the changes to random noise, but due to nonuniformities, these averaged out to higher densities without the stop.

Whether this type of density change (small) or nonuniformity problem (again small) is important to you or not can only be judged by yourself. I have always used a stop even with TF-4. I use either a stop + rinse or a pH 6 stop bath of my own. A&T publish a neutral or alkaline stop.

PE

 

[srs5694]

I don't use TF-4. The stuff is too expensive for what it is and I don't see any advantage to using it for film.
B.

It is $9 for 4 litres from FP - that is a lot cheaper than Ilford Rapid Fixer...

Of course, in practice you've got to figure the diluted cost, and ideally take capacity into consideration. Still, my figures suggest it's pretty inexpensive, at $0.02 per roll (assuming 250ml of working solution, re-used 7 times). This compares to $0.07 for Kodak's standard hardening fixer, $0.02 for Kodak Flexicolor fixer, $0.09 for home-made TF-2, or $0.03 for home-made TF-3. (All of these assume the same 7 re-uses. I'm not sure if equal capacity is a valid assumption, though.) The Flexicolor fixer is actually marginally less expensive than the TF-4 -- $0.43 per liter vs. $0.50 per liter for TF-4, at working strength. I collected my prices about half a year ago, mostly using B&H for commercial supplies and various sources (Art Craft, Photographer's Formulary, etc.) for raw chemicals. Prices may have changed slightly since then. All my figures include shipping cost estimates.

 

[Ole]

I've tried TF-4, but found it too smelly for my taste (or sense of smell?). I now use a modified version of my own OF-1 which is both cheaper and less smelly.

 

[fschifano]

PE, thanks. I'll add that I did this test in my own darkroom. Obviously, it is not as well equipped as the labs at EK, so I did what I could with what I had.

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE, thanks. I'll add that I did this test in my own darkroom. Obviously, it is not as well equipped as the labs at EK, so I did what I could with what I had.

The uniform areas had what we called a 'boiling' effect with little billows of what looked like clouds of very faint density differences.

As for costs, since you can reduce the wash times of film and paper when you use an alkalline fix, you have to included the reduction in cost of wash water. Again, seeing how worried everyone is over the cost of fixer, well, the cost of water is not to be ignored then!

PE

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I use a quick wash in water - just enough to dilute the developer clinging to the film/paper. I have no illusions that this will stop development, however the fixing action (of TF-4 or OF-1) is rapid enough to have stopped all development in less than 20 seconds. If you worry about timing, skip the water too.

My standard procedure for film and paper is to use no stop bath (either acid or plain water). I usually use a fixer that incorporates ammonium ion as a one shot.

Of course, I deviate from this practice if I am doing water bath development for contrast control with prints.

If I am doing DBI with sheet film, I may use both a water rinse and an acid stop bath.

I fix everything with fixer that incorporates ammonium ion. The ammonium ion fixing method gives fast fixing and fast washing that requires the use of less water .

 

[Wally H]

I use a water stop bath and TF-4 for both film & paper.

FWIW, I process in the following manner:

FILM: I used densitometry to come up with a film speed rating and development times. For WIW, I use Kodak's TMX-120 film, rated @ 200, developed in a Jobo ATL2000 @ 68f with the recommended rotation rates of 75rpm:

...Pre-Wash for 5'
...Develope for 8' (TFX-2 developer)
...Water Stop for 1'
...TF-4 Fix for 8'
...Wash 5'

PAPER: I use Ilford's MG Fiber papers and air dry on screens
...Develope for 1-2' via inspection (BW65 Developer)
...Water Stop for 30"
...Fix for 2' (TF-4)
...Wash for 15-25 minutes

 

[MurrayMinchin]

The uniform areas had what we called a 'boiling' effect with little billows of what looked like clouds of very faint density differences.

Are these really, really faint density differences, or would they appear in a clear north sky area of a print made with a diffusion enlarger at normal contrast?

Murray

 

[hortense]

I don't change the water till it get murky.

 

[hortense]

I've tried TF-4, but found it too smelly for my taste (or sense of smell?). I now use a modified version of my own OF-1 which is both cheaper and less smelly.

Smell doesn't bother me but Ole's stuff does the job. Using it since it was posted.

 

[Edwardv]

I find TF-4 inexpensive for the amount of film and paper that can be fixed and the life of the working solution of six months to be an advantage. Three 30 second changes of water for film and 2 minutes soak for paper.

 

[dancqu]

I find TF-4 ... Three 30 second changes of
water for film and 2 minutes soak for paper.

The three changes of water for film and the 2 minute
soak for paper are twixt the developer and fixer? Dan

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

It's much faster and more efficient to go directly from the developer into the fixer.

 

[DeanC]

It's much faster and more efficient to go directly from the developer into the fixer.

Oh now that's tempting. I wonder how Pyrocat -> TF-4 would work?