Fixer: homebrew/DIY versus commercial

[fdonadio]

I have searched the forums and found no talk about this, aside from the fact that there is little to no economical advantage — which is not what I want to discuss.

My question: are the fixer formulas published by Kodak and others, including the DIY ones, any less "modern" than the fixers being sold today (Hypam, Kodak Fixer, Adofix, Ilford Rapid Fix, etc.)?

Put another way: is there any proof that the current commercial fixer formulas are more advanced than the ones we can mix from scratch now?


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[locutus]

I'm not even sure fixers really 'advanced' in decades, other than fixing speed how much is there to care about?

 

[fdonadio]

I'm not even sure fixers really 'advanced' in decades, other than fixing speed how much is there to care about?

Nothing, really. Just trying to prove a friend wrong. And I think pretty much the same as you do.

 

[Alan9940]

Sodium and Ammonium Thiosulfate has been around for decades; the latter fixes faster than the former, as you probably know. There have been a few "modern" fixers introduced that are alkaline, like Photo Formulary's TF-4 and TF-5, but IMO any fixer formula is pretty universal; a distinction being whether you have a hardening formula or not.

And, I disagree that there is no economical advantage to mixing it yourself. In fact, it's significantly cheaper whether mixing a sodium or ammonium thiosulfate formula.

 

[Anon Ymous]

IMHO, there are cost savings to be made, as long as you don't mix a rapid fixer starting with ammonium thiosulfate. Mixing a rapid fixer by combining ammonium chloride and sodium thiosulfate is cheap, costs only a tiny bit more than a plain fixer. Some of us don't have any shops nearby and have to order everything on-line. Shipping liquids can get expensive.

 

[fdonadio]

I disagree that there is no economical advantage to mixing it yourself. In fact, it's significantly cheaper whether mixing a sodium or ammonium thiosulfate formula.

Some of us don't have any shops nearby and have to order everything on-line. Shipping liquids can get expensive.

Yes, I agree with both of you. That's why I said I didn't want to discuss this.

Full explanation: in Brazil (where I live), photochemicals are imported. Kodak has a very limited and expensive offering here, mainly D-76, Dektol and fixer. Ilford is expensive too. There are some other stuff like XTOL and HC-110 in our evilBay equivalent, but at $40 for an XTOL powder bag that makes 5 liters, it's not an option. It's cheaper to buy at Freestyle, even with shipping and taxes.

Edit: corrected XTOL price.

 

[Martin Rickards]

IMHO, there are cost savings to be made, as long as you don't mix a rapid fixer starting with ammonium thiosulfate. Mixing a rapid fixer by combining ammonium chloride and sodium thiosulfate is cheap, costs only a tiny bit more than a plain fixer. Some of us don't have any shops nearby and have to order everything on-line. Shipping liquids can get expensive.

I don't believe that preparation gives you only ammonium thiosulfate but a mixtre of the 4 ions. It would be little differen from mixing ammonium and sodium thiosulphates with a slightly lower pH

 

[Anon Ymous]

I don't believe that preparation gives you only ammonium thiosulfate but a mixtre of the 4 ions. It would be little differen from mixing ammonium and sodium thiosulphates with a slightly lower pH

It's not the same, but it's better than plain sodium thiosulfate fixer. You do get several ions in solution. There are several threads here discussing such fixers.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Modern fixers are not only faster, they wash out of film and paper emulsions more rapidly. Neutral pH fixers have less impact on the environment if you have local acid or alkaline soil or water. That is about the only benefit. Ammonium fixers are good fertilizers if diluted properly!

PE

 

[fdonadio]

Modern fixers are not only faster, they wash out of film and paper emulsions more rapidly. Neutral pH fixers have less impact on the environment if you have local acid or alkaline soil or water. That is about the only benefit.

So, does this mean that, for example, a DIY F-24 will be as good a fixer as the stuff Kodak sells today, except that it will take more time to do its job and will take a longer wash (and/or use of HCA) to get it off the emulsion?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Probably.

 

[fdonadio]

Probably.

Thanks, PE. "Probably" is good enough for me.

I guess I can rest my case now. Thanks for everyone's input.

Cheers,
Flavio

 

[mrred]

I make Fixer 24 with ammonium chloride and is definitely economical. The world is made up of more people than in the U.S.A. and with Kodak's demise went their distribution. It can get expensive for the rest of us. The only thing I still buy is photoflo.

 

[Rudeofus]

My question: are the fixer formulas published by Kodak and others, including the DIY ones, any less "modern" than the fixers being sold today (Hypam, Kodak Fixer, Adofix, Ilford Rapid Fix, etc.)?

There are formulas out there, which are much less advanced than modern rapid fixer, and there are formulas out there, which are far superior. The big advantage of self mixing is that you start with a few components and mix your fixer of the day: alkaline, acidic, cheap&slow, fast&expensive, everything in between, whatever the purpose and your economic means suggest.

 

[fdonadio]

There are formulas out there, which are much less advanced than modern rapid fixer, and there are formulas out there, which are far superior. The big advantage of self mixing is that you start with a few components and mix your fixer of the day: alkaline, acidic, cheap&slow, fast&expensive, everything in between, whatever the purpose and your economic means suggest.

Rudeofus,

Thanks for your input. Still, I don't see much advantage in high-speed fixing, like Ron's formula you linked to. It's very interesting to know I can have such a fixer if I need it, though.

If I can stick to a simpler formula that uses safe and easy to find chemicals, I'll do it.

Unless there are qualitative advantages (like better archival properties) that you and Ron didn't tell me about.


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[Rudeofus]

Thanks for your input. Still, I don't see much advantage in high-speed fixing, like Ron's formula you linked to. It's very interesting to know I can have such a fixer if I need it, though.

Well, you asked whether commercial rapid fixers are the most advanced fixers out there, and the link strongly suggests they aren't. Note, that Superfix I has incredible working solution shelf life, that it works perfectly as fixer for color processes, and with the small amounts these extra compounds are used in they don't raise the cost of fixer much beyond rapid fixer.

It is, of course, entirely up to you to decide, whether its qualities are worth the hassle of self mixing.

If I can stick to a simpler formula that uses safe and easy to find chemicals, I'll do it.

The extra compounds can be trivially ordered from Fototechnik Suvatlar. Contrary to what several people in this PN thread suggest, the chemicals in Superfix I are neither very toxic, nor likely to create significant trouble during use.

 

[fdonadio]

@Rudeofus,

Don't get me wrong. I didn't mean to disregard your contribution; in fact, its quite the opposite. It's very good to know that I can have an incredibly fast fixer!

Maybe I am not being clear in what I intend to prove (or disprove), so let me try again: do modern fixer formulas do a better job at fixing film? Or it's just a matter of being faster?

A friend of mine told me that older formulas (like F-6 or F-24) are not as advanced as the stuff we can buy nowadays. If by "advanced" he means "shorter fixing time", it makes no difference to the final negative quality. That's the point I am trying to prove.

Another advantage of mixing from scratch is that I can make the quantity I need at the moment and avoid storing solutions for long periods. This also makes it more economical.

As for the safety of thiocyanates, I have a proper ventilation system and all the protective gear needed. Ditto for glacial acetic acid, which I also happen to have in storage.


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[MattKing]

Flavio:
Shorter fixing time is a real advantage with fibre based prints. And it is of some advantage with film. Both advantages relate to the fact that shorter fixing times mean shorter washing times, and therefore less water use.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rudeofus,

Thanks for your input. Still, I don't see much advantage in high-speed fixing, like Ron's formula you linked to. It's very interesting to know I can have such a fixer if I need it, though.

If I can stick to a simpler formula that uses safe and easy to find chemicals, I'll do it.

Unless there are qualitative advantages (like better archival properties) that you and Ron didn't tell me about.


Cheers,
Flavio

Use the formula linked to - Superfix, but use only the hypo, sulfite and EDTA! That should be good enough.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

Flavio:
Shorter fixing time is a real advantage with fibre based prints. And it is of some advantage with film. Both advantages relate to the fact that shorter fixing times mean shorter washing times, and therefore less water use.

In the PN thread Rudeofus linked to, Ron says washing times are not (significantly?) reduced. Maybe he meant that specifically for film. I understand fibre-based papers will absorb more chemistry the longer they stay in a bath... your logic makes sense to me and may be backed by your experience. I have no experience with fibre-based papers.

 

[fdonadio]

Use the formula linked to - Superfix, but use only the hypo, sulfite and EDTA! That should be good enough.

PE

Thanks, Ron. Will try it soon with some Fomapan in 4x5.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This is a very hard subject. It depends on film or paper hardness, swell, type of gelatin and whether the paper is RC or FB. My guideline is that any non-hardening neutral pH fix using Ammonium ion rather than Sodium ion will be faster and less harmful, but that this is only a guide. Many object to Ammonium ion based on some tests with BOD and COD but there is even other tests that say it has good effects.

All I can do is all I can do.

PE

 

[HiHoSilver]

Flavio:
Shorter fixing time is a real advantage with fibre based prints. And it is of some advantage with film. Both advantages relate to the fact that shorter fixing times mean shorter washing times, and therefore less water use.

Didn't know this at all, Matt. 'Thought FB had to be washed for 30-40 min to get all the fix out. This is good news. Thx. for posting.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Didn't know this at all, Matt. 'Thought FB had to be washed for 30-40 min to get all the fix out. This is good news. Thx. for posting.

I thought the same HiHo?

 

[Rudeofus]

Maybe I am not being clear in what I intend to prove (or disprove), so let me try again: do modern fixer formulas do a better job at fixing film? Or it's just a matter of being faster?

All established fixer formulas of this and the last century fix film/paper to archival standards, or they wouldn't have been "established". Whether they are more or less advanced usually means the following:

• compatible with hardeners
• speed of fixation
• speed of washing
• capacity with high iodide emulsions
• shelf life
• bill of materials
• safety in storing and handling

As you improve one or more of these, some factors will become worse. AFAIK there exists no formula which is best in all of these, so it's always up to you to make that call.

A friend of mine told me that older formulas (like F-6 or F-24) are not as advanced as the stuff we can buy nowadays.

There is a capacity advantage of Ammonium Thiosulfate fixers over Sodium Thiosulfate fixers, even if one adds ammonium salts to them. Sodium ion forms insoluble combo salts with Silver cation and Thiosulfate and Iodide anions at much lower Silver Iodide concentrations than Ammonium. We all know the "damn why is TMAX so hard to fix?" threads ...

As for the safety of thiocyanates, I have a proper ventilation system and all the protective gear needed. Ditto for glacial acetic acid, which I also happen to have in storage.

There exists a level of anxiety about Thiocyanates, because they sound a lot like Cyanide which everyone is rightfully afraid of, and because under some obscure conditions it is actually possible that it releases Cyanide gas. I have no educated opinion on that, but PE has stated that such conditions should not occur under normal dark room conditions. Please also note, that under adverse conditions Thiosulfate can release Hydrogen Sulfide, which is just as toxic. And don't get me started on Sulfide toners, Dichromate bleaches and Pyrogallol developers ...