Is a hardening fixer needed on printing paper?

[Mahler_one]

Just curious: Due to the "soft" nature of a paper emulsion, is anyone using a hardening fixer when fixing paper? Has anyone found that using a NON- hardening fixer predisposes printing paper to "damage" that might be prevented by using a hardening fixer? My standard methodology involves using Ilford or PF non hardening fixer for both film and paper, and I wondered if it made any sense at all to consider using a hardening fixer for paper.

Speaking of hardening fixers, with today's films, is it ever necesssary to use a hardening fixer when using film? I realize that the "older emulsions" such as Efke tend to scratch more easily than the "modern" emulsions, and thus one might want to use hardening agents when using the older emulsions. However, with the modern Kodak and Ilford emulsions, I had thought that hardening fixers were not necesssary.

 

[SuzanneR]

I don't think it's really necessary for paper, and if you want to tone your prints, most papers will do better in a toning bath if there is NOT a hardener in the fix.

 

[Ian Grant]

No not usually,because papers need far longer wash times if you use one and it's considered less desirable for archival permanence, but I've noticed that the Foma paper I use Fomabrom 111 has a softer emulsion and scratches easily so it might help with this paper.

Ian

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Modern films do not need hardner. Paper never did.

 

[Vaughn]

I have had non-hardened paper get embossed by the nylon drying screens when dried face down. I think it was Agfa Portriga Rapid 111. (Using Kodak Rapid Fixer without the part B). I now use the Rapid Fix with about half the suggested hardener.

So you can use it without hardener -- you have to treat the surface with a bit of respect until it hardens on its own over time.

Vaughn

 

[Ian Grant]

Modern films do not need hardner. Paper never did.

Quite wrong at one time paper emulsions were a lot softer and needed hardening, some might still benefit as Vaughan and I have both said.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have to agree with Ian. At one time both paper and film needed hardening fixers. Todays films from most companies are hard enough to not need a hardening fix, but many papers and some films still need a hardening fix. It is up to YOU to determine which needs a hardening fix as there are so many varieties of coatings out there.

Papers are more prone to being soft than films, but that is just a generalization though.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Ron, I have to admit that the Foma paper was the first I've found soft and I've been printing since the mid 1960's. But then many former Eastern block papers only really became more internationally available in recent years.

So far I've never tried EFKE's papers, but if like their films then a hardener would be wise.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

I've had problems with some Kentmere FB papers actually. And some rebranded varieties were kind of swollen when they went through a non-hardening fix. Some scratched rather easily. I tested a lot of brands of paper when designing Super Fix, and TF-5. I compared them with KRLF with and without hardener and TF-4.

PE

 

[Mahler_one]

OK Ron....if one used one of the PF TF fixers, how would you modify such so as to include hardeners?

 

[Photo Engineer]

OK Ron....if one used one of the PF TF fixers, how would you modify such so as to include hardeners?

Sorry, but they were not designed for hardening, they were designed to be as odor free as possible, to yield the fastest fixing and washing possible, and to give image permanence. Super Fix has the same design criteria except more so!

TF-5 might just possibly be modified, but you would sacrifice all of the features in favor of hardening.

OTOH, TF-4 and TF-5 work fine with mainstream products, so why go to the bother?

PE

 

[JMCS]

The Artisa.EDU RC paper that I've used periodically for different photography classes is insanely soft compared to the Ilford RC paper. I'd suggest it for the .EDU paper.

 

[Mahler_one]

Sorry, but they were not designed for hardening, they were designed to be as odor free as possible, to yield the fastest fixing and washing possible, and to give image permanence. Super Fix has the same design criteria except more so!

TF-5 might just possibly be modified, but you would sacrifice all of the features in favor of hardening.

OTOH, TF-4 and TF-5 work fine with mainstream products, so why go to the bother?

PE

Thanks for the good advice Ron...so, the Ilford papers don't need hardeners I guess? I would prefer not to modify the PF products, nor the Ilford rapid fixer.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ilford paper is excellent for hardness in my tests.

PE

 

[Mahler_one]

Thanks...good news.