Who's complaining? This isn't a place to publish.
You need to have realistic expectations. I said it was close to a scientific account, not that it is a definitive account. The truth is nobody in the scientific community is interested in these kinds of investigations. What funding agency would be interested in offering a grant to study the subject? What journal would you say would be interested in publishing such a paper? Who in the scientific community would be interested in reading it?
It's similar to audiophiles complaining that there are no "scientific," "peer-reviewed" studies of auditory perception of different alloys used in the design of audio cables or solder. And there are a lot more audiophiles and audiophile companies than film photographers and film companies. Nobody cares enough for such studies to exist.
So you can keep complaining or you can do something about it and design a study and do it yourself. It's not that hard, if you are interested in having a ballpark estimate. You don't need millions. You need some simple equipment (buy used from eBay), have it calibrated, buy some materials, and devote several months of your time. Then, publish on the forum. Problem solved.
Who's complaining? This isn't a place to publish.
This video clearly shows that use of hardener causes a higher level of hypo retention in film, than use of
no matter the washing techique used during 2 hours of washing
- non-hardening fixer, or
- hardening rapid fixer followed by hypo clearning agent
And [non-hardening fixer] is no different than [hardening rapid fixer + hypo clearing agent] in their ability to achieve archival freedom from residual fixer
There is a connection, but no causality.
In order to make a fixer a hardening fixer, it needs to be acidic - hardener won't work in an alkaline environment.
So when the starting point is a need for hardener, the fixer needs to be acidic.
Alkaline fixer also has the disadvantage that, if there is no stop bath in the process, development will continue in the fixer, which outside of the world of monobaths isn't a good thing.
Wether or not it grabs it by the husk or uses some other means, as mentioned, a simple test can be undertaken to answer the question....
View attachment 323873
When I did not put the hardener in the Rapid Fix, I would get screen impressions into my 16x20 FB print surfaces when drying prints emulsion down of the screens. I went back to adding the hardener (half-strength)....
Today there's no need for hardener for film at all. No need for hardener with RC paper. The only time hardener is required in my work is to prevent fiber base paper from sticking to the canvas belt of my Pako dryer.
...
That is a non-existent disadvantage. It's practically impossible that any development could occur in effective alkaline fixer after an enlargement has been fully developed and then rinsed in water.
FWIW, I consider an effective rinse in water to be a good "stop" bath.
By effective, I mean thorough, with enough changes of fresh water. Essentially, a brief wash.
Most people who use a water stop don't do that much, and are thus more vulnerable to development continuing in the alkaline fixer.
This is, of course, most important with heavy, fibre based papers, and least important with film on a PET base.
If the fixer is inactive enough to allow development (even without using a stop or water bath), it should be dumped - because it's no long an effective fixer.
When I did not put the hardener in the Rapid Fix, I would get screen impressions into my 16x20 FB print surfaces when drying prints emulsion down of the screens. I went back to adding the hardener (half-strength).
I will behave. I would love to see a modern peer reviewed study. My question is, especially with MODERN materials, that have pre-hardened at the factory emulsions, why would fixer hardener have any significant impact.
I use hardener with fiber base prints because they will stick to the belt of my dryer. I've been working this way for 30 years (this proves nothing!) without any problems.
Nice link. Check out 1941-02-v7-1.pdf; it has the landmark paper Effective Camera Speeds of Photograpic Negative Materials by Loyd A. Jones and C. N. Nelson plus an analysis of Varigram; variable contras paper.
It occurs to me that we never took advantage of the invitation in your thread title.
So in the interest of remedying that: "You're crazy!"
You're welcome.
That is a lot of work just to satisfy your curiosity. I'd say take the experts at Kodak and Ilford at their word.
A lot of us wish we could just go to the library and pick up a range of current papers on whichever topic we are interested in and look up the relevant information
Some do, some don't. I just like to be given some specific information and will figure it out myself. I don't care who put the information together, I don't 100% trust it, on anything. It's simply a lot of words. I want the actual experiential knowledge, and that means I need to see it w/ my own eyes and in my particular situation. Too many so called experts have led me astray, cost me 10's of thousands of dollars, and in one case ended a life before it was necessary.
When it comes to my photography, my life, whatever, there is only one responsible adult that understands all the parameters and can take full responsibility for it's success or failure. Me. The buck stops right there, which is where it belongs.
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?