antielectrons
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 205
- Format
- Medium Format
fschifano said: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.
fschifano said: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 batchand 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 said:It is $9 for 4 litres from FP - that is a lot cheaper than Ilford Rapid Fixer...fschifano said: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.
fschifano said: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.
Ole said: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.
Photo Engineer said:The uniform areas had what we called a 'boiling' effect with little billows of what looked like clouds of very faint density differences.
Smell doesn't bother me but Ole's stuff does the job. Using it since it was posted.Ole said: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.
Edwardv said:I find TF-4 ... Three 30 second changes of
water for film and 2 minutes soak for paper.
Tom Hoskinson said:It's much faster and more efficient to go directly from the developer into the fixer.
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?