What I know about Anthony
David A. Goldfarb said:
I asked Anthony about the fixer a while back, and he acknowledged that there might be no significant difference between their alkaline fixer and TF-4, but they are about the same price ($9.54/gal Artfix, $9.95/gal TF-4), and Artfix comes in a powder instead of a liquid, which makes it cheaper to ship. I can buy TF-4 off the shelf from B&H at the Formulary price, and since FAPS and B&H are both in New York state, I have to pay sales tax either way, so I use TF-4. If I were ordering by mail, though, I'd probably use Artfix or just mix my own TF-3.
David, I was rather disturbed when I read that Anthony Guidice said there 'might be no significant difference between their alkaline fixer and TF-4'.
This is duplicitous on Anthony's part. What I discovered when Bud Wilson bought FAPS was that his 'Artfix' is merely my own alkaline sodium thiosulfate formula, from my own book, which Anthony appropriated despite that I said in the book that these formulas were disclosed for non-commercial use only.
For him to claim that this in any way approaches the quality or value of TF-4 is simply not true, and he knows it.
In the first place, I don't recommend sodium thiosulfate fixers for most modern materials because they fix iodide-containing emulsions too slowly.
In the second place, TF-4 is an ammonium, not a sodium thiosulfate fixer. That means it will fix materials several times faster than any sodium thiosulfate fixer. (First of all, the clearing time is much shorter, second of all, you only have to fix for twice - or a little less - than the clearing time, rather than, with sodium fixers, three times the clearing time.) Furthermore, TF-4 contains non-thiosulfate accelerants.
Especially with paper, this means much faster washing times, because the material spends so little time in the fixer. Anthony's claims for a ten minute washing time with 'his' fixer are groundless and irresponsible. Anyone who follows these directions will not have adequately fixed prints.
In the third place, the capacity of TF-4 is, litre for litre, at least 50% greater than that of any sodium thiosulfate fixer. In fact, if you really tested them to exhaustion, you would probably find that the capacity of TF-4 is about double. The speed and capacity of TF-4 are already substantially greater than that of any ammonium thiosulfate fixer on the market.
I do not think anyone should be using sodium thiosulfate fixers today. They are not more economical, and they don't fix modern films and papers as well as ammonium thiosulfate fixers.
For this and for several other reasons I am not impressed with Anthony Guidice's ethics.
And a word on the film. I have investigated this reduced price FP4.
Does anyone really think you are going to get factory-fresh FP4 for 50-75% of the normal price?
Of course not. It turns out - I have discussed this with Anthony's supplier - that this is older film that has often travelled around the world and been sent back to the factory or a distributor for resale under bargain basement labels. No way would Ilford ever sell this film under it's own name. It isn't good enough. If you want Ilford quality, you have to pay for it. If you want to get off-label film, the best bet is J&C as far as I can determine. They are honest about what they have, and whatever is available, they have.
What about the rest of Anthony's products? Well, what doesn't come from my book - without a syllable of acknowledgment or thanks - comes from an OEM manufacturer of no great repute. There is nothing in the smallest degree unique about anything Anthony Guidice sells, except his effective sales patter.
I know for a fact that eyebrows were raised high at Formulary when they found out what Anthony's products were.
And then after selling the business and promising he never wants to be in the photo business again, he turns around and starts competing with Formulary again - just a few months later.
I am not getting a good impression of Anthony Giudice.