• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Is stop necessary for a paper negative?

Two Horses

A
Two Horses

  • 3
  • 1
  • 10
Billboard, Cork city 1977

H
Billboard, Cork city 1977

  • Tel
  • Mar 17, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
  • 19

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,799
Messages
2,845,695
Members
101,539
Latest member
UwBouwMeester
Recent bookmarks
1
I agree w/ Matt, this bath stop question has become another film vs digital tussle, one that has no resolution beyond our personal decisions regarding our individual works. Each camp has it's staunch adherents to a gospel of the rigid interpretation of stop bath methods, with a small smattering of thinkers who either wish to go beyond the book, or become heretics who may cross over to the other side's way of thinking.

Cool! As long as I don't have to be bothered by facts, I'm in.
 
there is a mono bath being sold now that works well. have you looked into that? 1 tray with photochemicals and a water rinse bath for your 2nd bath.

I don't recall Cinestill recommending Df96 for prints -- are you talking about something else? It surely would be possible to work up a monobath for this kind of application, however. Just adding some plain hypo crystals to diluted Dektol would be a start.

Not sure how long it would last in the tray, or what its capacity would be, though.
 
I don't recall Cinestill recommending Df96 for prints -- are you talking about something else? It surely would be possible to work up a monobath for this kind of application, however. Just adding some plain hypo crystals to diluted Dektol would be a start.

Not sure how long it would last in the tray, or what its capacity would be, though.

people use xtol & hc110 prints and coffee & Tylenol for drinking and a headache after too much drinking. who cares what it is recommended for.
 
people use xtol & hc110 prints and coffee & Tylenol for drinking and a headache after too much drinking. who cares what it is recommended for.

Recommendations usually come from some level of testing, either by the manufacturer or by those who've wanted to characterize a particular product combination. I've developed prints in HC-110, close to fifty years ago, when I had that but didn't have and couldn't readily get Dektol -- with some odd results (using paper that hasn't been available in decades, so I can't even attempt to reproduce what I had then). Nearly any developing agent will develop nearly any exposed halides -- but whether you'll get prints with a tone you like, even development, on-grade contrast, etc. is in question.

An additional concern with monobath is the balance between development and fixing rates. If the fixer works too fast relative to development, you lose your shadows; if the fixer is too slow, you may not realize you haven't fully fixed your print until it starts to print out or stain after sitting in the light a while. Testing would be the minimum I'd suggest if you want to try a monobath for paper negatives and rephotographed prints. I don't know that I wouldn't work -- but I don't know that the results would be desirable, either.
 
You'll need to supply evidence of that.

Good luck with that. :smile:
NB23 probably prints as much as 10 of the rest of us combined,, so the chance of him encountering the issue is likely better than most.
 
NB23 probably prints as much as 10 of the rest of us combined,, so the chance of him encountering the issue is likely better than most.

But then, he's got the experience to avoid such issues by knowing what not to do.
 
Good luck with that. :smile:
NB23 probably prints as much as 10 of the rest of us combined,, so the chance of him encountering the issue is likely better than most.

Yet it's unlikely he can. It's incredibly hard to mess up rc paper.
 
I certainly have had issues with older RC paper being vulnerable to staining.
 
You were fixing older rc paper without using a stop?

No.
My point was mainly that RC paper isn't invulnerable to less than ideal conditions.
Significant amounts of developer carryover occurs even with RC paper, so if adding developer directly to fixer increases the chance of staining, then it needs to be guarded against with RC paper as well - particularly if one has high throughput (like NB23).
 
RC paper isn't invulnerable to less than ideal conditions.

Very few things are.

I'll just go see....

... I managed to make it stain by tearing the piece of paper. It didn't stain on a properly cut edge, because the paper was protected by the plastic coating, but the torn edge was nice and rough which let the developer carry over. I pulled the paper from 2 minutes in dev and placed it immediately, face down, in rapid fix, with no agitation, to make sure I had the maximum carry-over of developer. If the paper had not been torn (if I had cut it with scissors, for instance), it would not have had any noticeable stain.
 
Last edited:
Recommendations usually come from some level of testing, either by the manufacturer or by those who've wanted to characterize a particular product combination. I've developed prints in HC-110, close to fifty years ago, when I had that but didn't have and couldn't readily get Dektol -- with some odd results (using paper that hasn't been available in decades, so I can't even attempt to reproduce what I had then). Nearly any developing agent will develop nearly any exposed halides -- but whether you'll get prints with a tone you like, even development, on-grade contrast, etc. is in question.

An additional concern with monobath is the balance between development and fixing rates. If the fixer works too fast relative to development, you lose your shadows; if the fixer is too slow, you may not realize you haven't fully fixed your print until it starts to print out or stain after sitting in the light a while. Testing would be the minimum I'd suggest if you want to try a monobath for paper negatives and rephotographed prints. I don't know that I wouldn't work -- but I don't know that the results would be desirable, either.

you are suggesting the OP add a little hypo crystals into their developer without the recommendation of the manufacturer ? It is very funny in one post you suggest such things and in another
you warn about doing something that isn't recommended by the manufacturer. my suggestion of using the mono bath was just a suggestion. the OP does not have to do it, or anything suggested in this thread.
 
Very few things are.

I'll just go see....

... I managed to make it stain by tearing the piece of paper. It didn't stain on a properly cut edge, because the paper was protected by the plastic coating, but the torn edge was nice and rough which let the developer carry over. I pulled the paper from 2 minutes in dev and placed it immediately, face down, in rapid fix, with no agitation, to make sure I had the maximum carry-over of developer. If the paper had not been torn (if I had cut it with scissors, for instance), it would not have had any noticeable stain.
You'll need to supply evidence of that.

Simply, if a paper can tone in selenium, it will also stain.

There is a paper that doesn’t tone in selenium, or sooo very little: Ilford MGRCIV (Ilford Multigrade III is totally immune to it). Is it a blessing, I don’t know. It doesn’t even take sulphur... toning. But then you have many other RC papers that do tone very well, and those will also
stain, of course!

Same is true for MGIVFB glossy. That thing is just a pain to tone and it will likely not stain.
 
you are suggesting the OP add a little hypo crystals into their developer without the recommendation of the manufacturer ? It is very funny in one post you suggest such things and in another
you warn about doing something that isn't recommended by the manufacturer. my suggestion of using the mono bath was just a suggestion. the OP does not have to do it, or anything suggested in this thread.

As Donald's earlier publicly known experimental work with film is quite obviously the basis upon which the currently commercially available monobath for film is based, I'm happy to defer to his quite extensive (and extensively shared) knowledge on the matter.
 
Same is true for MGIVFB glossy. That thing is just a pain to tone

I noticed that. You drop it in selenium and watch and watch and nothing happens - but you still start to convince yourself something has. Then after it's dry, you go back to thinking nothing happened.

I found MGIV rc satin (or pearl - can't remember) toned really well in copper toner. I never tried any rc paper in any other toner - well, except for iron (blue) toner, which I hate....
 
So doesn't it tone, or doesn't it shift color when you tone it? What happens if you chuck it into a selenium toner for a couple of minutes and then bleach back the silver?
How's this relevant? Think about the statement "if it doesn't tone, it doesn't stain". It's as full of holes as a particularly airy Swiss cheese.
 
you are suggesting the OP add a little hypo crystals into their developer without the recommendation of the manufacturer ? It is very funny in one post you suggest such things and in another
you warn about doing something that isn't recommended by the manufacturer. my suggestion of using the mono bath was just a suggestion. the OP does not have to do it, or anything suggested in this thread.

Yes, I'm suggesting that if the OP thinks a monobath might solve the tray space problem in his Afghan Box Camera build, he start testing by adding some hypo crystals to his print developer. This will a) let him test whether fixing is too fast for development rate (probably correctable by changing dilution level of the developer) and b) let him test whether the result gives a desirable appearance in a final print, stains the print, etc. And it's cheap to try -- hypo crystals can even be sourced locally, in most communities, as chlorine reducer from pool & spa suppliers (and $20 worth will last years in this kind of usage unless you're out with the camera every day).

As Matt pointed out above, my HC-110 monobath from 2003 was the basis for not only Famous Format/New55's first monobath release, but also led them to the "goop" for the New 55 actual pos/neg instant photography material. I doubt Df96 is directly based on my formula (MSDS doesn't show ingredients I'd expect if HC-110 were involved, and buying Kodak product to make a Cinestill product wouldn't be cost effective), but I suspect the renewed interest in monobath in general came from my experiments.
 
Yes, I'm suggesting that if the OP thinks a monobath might solve the tray space problem in his Afghan Box Camera build, he start testing by adding some hypo crystals to his print developer. This will a) let him test whether fixing is too fast for development rate (probably correctable by changing dilution level of the developer) and b) let him test whether the result gives a desirable appearance in a final print, stains the print, etc. And it's cheap to try -- hypo crystals can even be sourced locally, in most communities, as chlorine reducer from pool & spa suppliers (and $20 worth will last years in this kind of usage unless you're out with the camera every day).

As Matt pointed out above, my HC-110 monobath from 2003 was the basis for not only Famous Format/New55's first monobath release, but also led them to the "goop" for the New 55 actual pos/neg instant photography material. I doubt Df96 is directly based on my formula (MSDS doesn't show ingredients I'd expect if HC-110 were involved, and buying Kodak product to make a Cinestill product wouldn't be cost effective), but I suspect the renewed interest in monobath in general came from my experiments.

I did not suggest you did not have the photo-knowledge that it seems you have. I just suggested that maybe a store bought known mono bath product that can be used for film, might also be able to be used for paper with the right dilution and "use". I did not say "use this don't test" I would hope it is obvious that nothing is directly out of the box or container untested, everything requires a test, including the derermination of the ISO for film and especially the relative ISO for paper seeing paper ISOs are dependent not on light but blue light which changes considerably depending on season, time of day, planetary and local location as well as the brand/age of the paper. I just suggested another solution (pardon the pun) for the OP is to use a "style of developer" (mono bath) that has been used on and off for more than 70 years, seeing the OP doesn't have a lot of space in the camera's body, and I found it both humorous and odd that you on one hand are known for "tinkering with manufactured materials not made for or typically used for photography" yet you suggested the op not tinker the same way with "manufactured materials" because they are not part of the scope of intended use. It still makes absolutely no sense to me, but Im not the OP, so it doesn't really matter. (hopefully my edit is less abrasive. abrasiveness was not my intent, many thanks @koraks )
 
Last edited:
@jnk there are more constructive ways of getting your message across. It's always great to have someone aboard who's willing to challenge ideas. It's not so nice if it happens in a nasty, childish fashion. Give it a thought.
 
So doesn't it tone, or doesn't it shift color when you tone it? What happens if you chuck it into a selenium toner for a couple of minutes and then bleach back the silver?
How's this relevant? Think about the statement "if it doesn't tone, it doesn't stain". It's as full of holes as a particularly airy Swiss cheese.

As I understand it, MGIV RC was designed to be extremely consistent as to tone, no matter what the storage conditions and age might be. It was also designed to have extremely good batch to batch consistency.
The downside of those design parameters is that it appears almost invulnerable to a change in appearance in selenium toning, and resistant to change in other toners.
Unlike NB23, I have been happy with toning (NB23 oops) in both Sepia (bleach and redevelop) toner and brown toner. But it takes a while and, particularly with brown toner, you need to elevate the temperature unless you are very patient.
Other RC papers are much more responsive to all three toners.
It certainly wouldn't surprise me if the design parameters for MGIV RC - particularly the consistency of tone in a wide variety of storage conditions and age - would also make the paper resistant to other types of staining.
Apparently the new version of Ilford RC paper - "Classic" - is more responsive to toning. I wonder if it will be more susceptible to stain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote of the day! (No moderator editing allowed!)

Nah - but I left the screwup for all to see!
I could probably have still edited it even if I wasn't a moderator.
If we toned NB23, what tone do you think we might get? :whistling:
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom