For TF-4 Users.

[Photo Engineer]

OK, folks...just called the Formulary. The TF-4 vs TF-5 info is in their new newsletter, downloadable from the bottom left column of their home page.

Some features include: no sediment, no odor (since it's not as alkaline, closer to neutral or slightly acidic ph6.5). I was told on the phone that it is not ammonium thio-based.

Please check this again.

PE

 

[PhotoJim]

If it's a rapid fixer, it contains ammonium thiosulfate. Slower fixers can contain sodium thiosulfate. As far as I know, those are the only two chemicals commonly used to fix films and papers. Nothing else seems to work as well.

 

[RJS]

Fixing forever

Just out of curiosity; can anyone tell the difference between prints fixed with TF-4, TF-5, Ilford Hypam or any of the other rapid fixers from reputable makers? Aside from odor, maybe, which is gone when the print is dry? Do prints look different? Last longer? (How long?) Who knows, and does it matter? And how many pins can dance on the head of an angel?

 

[Photo Engineer]

RJS;

If there were any difference you would see it in the toning process (if at all) early on.

After 30 - 50 years, other differences would perhaps appear.

So, fixer selection should be based on economy of price, time, and wash along with odor and other factors tangible to the photographer at the time of process and then let the above considerations be entered into the equation.

PE

 

[trexx]

Just out of curiosity; can anyone tell the difference between prints fixed with TF-4, TF-5, Ilford Hypam or any of the other rapid fixers from reputable makers? Aside from odor, maybe, which is gone when the print is dry? Do prints look different? Last longer? (How long?) Who knows, and does it matter? And how many pins can dance on the head of an angel?

If all is done right the answer is likely no. But if a step is done wrong then the image may be bleached, in fixer too long, Or yellow too soon, not washed enough.

Some fixers can be more forgiving then other in being mishandled.

 

[Photo Engineer]

If all is done right the answer is likely no. But if a step is done wrong then the image may be bleached, in fixer too long, Or yellow too soon, not washed enough.

Some fixers can be more forgiving then other in being mishandled.

This is an extremely important point that I failed to point out. Very good points AAMOF.

PE

 

[dancqu]

So, fixer selection should be based on economy of price,
time, and wash along with odor and other factors tangible
to the photographer ... PE

Save for odor my criteria differ. Convenience and longevity
of the 'concentrate' count most. I say 'concentrate' because
I use Sodium Thiosulfate; a solid with Very long shelf life.

Convenience; a measure of it at processing time in the
needed volume of water guarantees fresh developer.
No odor with or without the preservative sodium
sulfite; without near neutral, with mildly
alkaline Dan

 

[k_jupiter]

I've been using TF-4 for four years now for film. I fix six rolls for each batch of working solution. I know this is much less then the recommended capacity, but at $9.99 a bottle I feel better that I'm not coming anywhere near exhausting the solution. A two bath fixing method is probably ideal but for now I'm sticking to what I know.

So what is the price of mumbo jumbo?
24 rolls of film fixed for 10 bucks? And what of the environmental recovery?
I use the TF-4 until the fix time gets above 6 minutes. And that's a long dang time. I haven't counted but I suspect I get 25 rolls of film (or their sheet film equivalent) from a liter of working solution of fixer. And no, my films don't turn black upon exposure to light (think "The Killing Fields"), nor has there been any image degradation on the films I have processed in the last 6 or 7 years.

Thoughts?

tim in san jose

 

[dancqu]

I haven't counted but I suspect I get 25 rolls of film
(or their sheet film equivalent) from a liter of working
solution of fixer.Thoughts? tim in san jose

Both Kodak and Ilford state capacity at or near that
amount. Dan

 

[hawkwind]

Ash;

TF-4 is so well buffered that a stop bath will not materially affect it. In fact, a stop may be better than a water rinse for a variety of reasons.

PE

Maybe this has been answered by now, but I didn't have time to read every response. My question regarding this is, why does Photographers' Formulary recommend not using a stop bath with TF4?

By the way, I use TF4 for film only. I use Clayton AFC Archival fixer for all prints.

--Gary

 

[dancqu]

My Post 57

Convenience; a measure of it at processing time in the
needed volume of water guarantees fresh developer.

Make that last word fixer. And 'it' refers to the solid
fix concentrate sodium thiosulfate. Dan

 

[Photo Engineer]

Maybe this has been answered by now, but I didn't have time to read every response. My question regarding this is, why does Photographers' Formulary recommend not using a stop bath with TF4?

By the way, I use TF4 for film only. I use Clayton AFC Archival fixer for all prints.

--Gary

The Formulary recommendation is very conservative to preserve the pH of the fix where it should be with any water supply. I've found that it is so well buffered that it does respond very well to use of a stop. I use TF-4 for my film and paper, but am now switching to TF-5.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

A point was made earlier about longevity of the stock fixer solution and the longevity of the dilute fixer. I have partly full bottles of the TF-5 stock on the shelf that are up to 5 years old and still good. I have kept it in the tray for about 6 months used one time. It evaporated and I rediluted it and tried it and it worked just fine. Recently, I reached the 8 month keeping and rediluted the evaporated solids. This time it did not redissolve. I don't suggest you let fixer evaporate in a tray, but I can say that the fixer will last at working strength in a tray for at least several weeks.

Of course, TF-4 does the same! It has excellent tray and shelf life. I have TF-4 that is up to 5 years old in a partly full bottle at working strength. It is a "working" keeping test.

The idea was to make TF-4 and TF-5 the same in all regards but for the several items already mentioned. And, the ammonia odor was near the top of the list. Many people object to it.

PE

 

[Jim Edmond]

Ron, thanks for that information. I've been using TF-4 for film and paper for several years, and keep the working solution in a Nova slot processor for up to 3 months at a time. The ammonia odor isn't a problem in the slot processor. My main concern is wash time for fiber prints because water usage is a concern in this neck of the woods. Is there any advantage to either TF-4 or TF-5 in that regard? I thought I remembered some posts about a reduced wash fixer some time back.

 

[Photo Engineer]

TF-4 and TF-5 are identical in fix rates and wash rates.

When / if, Super Universal Fix is released, it will offer reduced fix times and reduced wash times. At the present time, I have a bottle of SUF VIII here that I am testing. Bud is costing it out. I remark on all of this in the recent IAP interview.

PE

 

[PVia]

Please check this again.

PE

I know, I know...but that's what the woman on the phone told me.

Go figure, huh?

Do you find the stated fix capacity of TF-4 (2400 sq in per liter) to be about right or should I be more conservative than that?

 

[Photo Engineer]

TF-4 and TF-5 have the stated capacity in the data sheet. I don't have it in front of me and I don't really have the time to recalculate it. Sorry. Just believe the sheets.

PE

 

[lns]

...
The idea was to make TF-4 and TF-5 the same in all regards but for the several items already mentioned. And, the ammonia odor was near the top of the list. Many people object to it.

PE

I'm sorry, I must be dense. Could you clarify this: does TF-5 no longer have that ammonia odor? Or is it lessened? I used TF-4 for a bit, but I found the odor very bothersome and returned to Ilford Rapid Fixer.

I don't mean to down TF-4; the odor doesn't seem to bother others, so perhaps I am just over-sensitive to it.

Thanks!

-Laura

 

[Photo Engineer]

TF-5 is designed to have no ammonia odor whatsoever. In use, without a stop bath, you may experience a slight ammonia odor if your rinse is not sufficient.

PE

 

[mopar_guy]

I first used TF-4 sometime in the mid 1980's and have never had a problem. One thing to consider is that if you are using some of the films from eastern Europe (for instance Efke) you may want to use a fixer with a hardener as TF-4 does NOT have a hardener if I remember correctly.
Dave

 

[lns]

TF-5 is designed to have no ammonia odor whatsoever. In use, without a stop bath, you may experience a slight ammonia odor if your rinse is not sufficient.

PE

Awesome, thanks very much!

-Laura

 

[Joe Mace]

Is there a significant difference between Ilford Rapid Fixer and TF-4? It seems both are concentrated ammonium thiosulfate fixers. I haven't found anything from my searches that definitively answers this question.

 

[bdial]

TF-4 is alkaline and Ilford Rapid is acidic.

As for alkaline vs acidic fix, there are long discussions in here on that. Basically, it's easier to wash the fix and its by-products out of fiber paper if the fix is alkaline.

By the way, welcome to APUG from another New Hampshire-ite!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I would like to add that there are ways around getting rapid wash times at high pH. Rapid wash can be effected at neutral to slightly acidic washes and TF-5 does as well as TF-4 in my tests.

I have been able to do better in this regard with other formulas.

PE

 

[bdial]

I have been able to do better in this regard with other formulas.

Huh? I thought TF-5 was perfect. I'm crushed!!
Next you'll tell me I should re-think dumping Hypam for TF-5...