Ilford Rapid Fixer at 1:9?

NB23 · May 20, 2020

The first half of the batch of films fixed at 1:9 will be fine, but the second half might be less fixed/degrade.

just like papers... for archival capacity, the more you fix the less they are archival. The first papers will be, the last papers, less. Unless, of course, you throw the fixer while it’s within the archival range. This way all your work should be archival.

All logical, really.

pentaxuser said:
So I think you are saying that your film fixed at 1+9 10 years ago looks no different to another film fixed 10 years ago at 1+9 but then re-fixed recently at 1+4?

So 1+9 fixing clearly lasts 10 years but no-one knows how long it will last beyond 10 years are the two conclusions I feel we can reach instantly . The only way we might get an answer to what the future holds is by asking you to do a visual check every year and tell us your findings.

It raises a number of questions: Is it the case that film fixing at 1+9 will inevitably lead to deterioration at some point beyond 10 years and if so at what time interval?

One argument says that it will because if it didn't, then Ilford would simply give extended times for 1+9 films. It does for paper but makes no mention of any other dilution for film except 1+4

If an extended fix time for 1+9 in the case of films is not an effective alternative then it indicates to me that Ilford believes there a serious flaw or possibly even a fatal flaw in using fix at 1+9 for film but what that defect in fix at 1+9 for film is, I have no idea.

There are a number of courses open here to arrive at a definitive answer. Use this thread to get a range of answers from Photrio users. This will be both quick as it has been already and slow in that the thread may never end or at least take a long time to deviate from the thread's key question. The replies may contain a range of answer from it is fatal to use 1+9 to it is OK and some may even give you the ages of their films that are still OK after x years, y years z years etc

Some may even give the chemical explanation as to why 1+9 is fatal or very dangerous The whole thing can be fun and absorbing or be confusing and have the added problem of making two or more members draw daggers when until the thread arrived they were blissfully unaware they had an enemy. It's a bit like a variation on the Jim Reeves' record "A stranger's just a friend you do not know"

On balance it were me I'd be inclined to write to Ilford and ask the specific question and the reasons for 1+4 only being mentioned.

I for one would be interested in the answer.

NB When you give us Ilford's answer it may still extend the discussion but then we will all at least know Ilford's answer.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser · May 20, 2020

NB23 said:
The first half of the batch of films fixed at 1:9 will be fine, but the second half might be less fixed/degrade.

just like papers... for archival capacity, the more you fix the less they are archival. The first papers will be, the last papers, less. Unless, of course, you throw the fixer while it’s within the archival range. This way all your work should be archival.

All logical, really.

So is there a section in the Ilford data sheets that mentions that fixer at 1+9 is OK but has a lower capacity in terms of films that can be archivally fixed or is this what you believe follows from fixing at 1+9 for films. That would seem to be a logical conclusion from what you have written and I would agree with this logic. . There may be such a section and I failed to see it

Such oversights on my part do occur

pentaxuser

NB23 · May 20, 2020

pentaxuser said:
So is there a section in the Ilford data sheets that mentions that fixer at 1+9 is OK but has a lower capacity in terms of films that can be archivally fixed or is this what you believe follows from fixing at 1+9 for films. That would seem to be a logical conclusion from what you have written and I would agree with this logic. . There may be such a section and I failed to see it

Such oversights on my part do occur

pentaxuser

nooooo, nothing. I wouldn’t do it myself. Not even with longer fixing times. But I was just saying that the furst films would be better fixed than the last ones having been foxed by that solution.

i’d refix them all.

Doremus Scudder · May 21, 2020

The test to do with film is the clearing time test for proper fixation and fixer capacity. Find your fixing time by doubling (or more; I like 3x) the clearing time. Discard the fix when the clearing time is double that in fresh fix. Follow these guidelines and you can use Rapid Fixer 1+9 for film. Yes, the times will be longer and the capacity will be reduced, but if you stay within the limits, the film will be fixed just fine. I would imagine that Technopoptart's film is just fine.

I had a private correspondence/discussion with the Harmon/Ilford tech rep some years ago about this very thing. The upshot was that using fix 1+9 was not that advantageous, since it really doesn't save much fixer, especially since fixer for film can be saved and reused till it reaches capacity.

It used to be standard practice to use the weaker dilution of fixer for prints. I still do, and I think the Kodak recommendations are still for the weaker dilution of their Rapid Fixer for prints (1:7). Ilford has adopted a processing regime that is based on stronger fixer for prints, shorter fixing times and the resulting shorter wash times (for fiber-base prints).

It stands to reason, that if the weaker dilution works fine on prints, it should work fine with film too as long as the appropriate changes are made to time and capacity. In any case, a residual silver test with ST-1 or selenium toner should tell the tale - easily.

There is some evidence that weaker dilutions become less effective after a point, so 1+9 is about the practical limit. There was a fairly active discussion on this some years ago here or over on the LF forum.

Best,

Doremus

pentaxuser · May 21, 2020

Thanks Doremus for that comprehensive answer. Much appreciated.

pentaxuser

RalphLambrecht · May 22, 2020

kchoquette said:
Hey everyone,

I just saw on B&H's site that it's possible to use their rapid fixer at a 1:9 dilution instead of the standard 1:4. I definitely would like to give this a shot, as I tend to go through fixer pretty quickly at 1:4, but I'm curious, will the fixing times change? I'd imagine they would, but not sure how much time to add?

Thanks!

It's an old thread so we may all have already figured out that you're risking incomplete fixing with this method.

Ilford Rapid Fixer at 1:9?

NB23

pentaxuser

NB23

Doremus Scudder

pentaxuser

RalphLambrecht

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency