Thanks for your question. For me, the advantages are: 1- This is closer to a one-shot approach. As I do not process on a regular basis, I like doing one-shot so that I am not storing working solutions, which may go bad in between sessions. I do one-shot developing (with HC-110 or my own PC Glycol formula), one-shot acid stop bath, and of course prewash and postwash are all one-shot. This is not entirely a one-shot fixer, since I had to use the second bath to make the approach work without wasting fixer concentrate. 2- The traditional two bath fixing is a good idea. I always did prints this way 50 years ago when I first started darkroom work. This method would have similar advantages. However, with traditional two bath fixing you need to monitor your total usage, to know when to dump Fix 1 and advance Fix 2, then start using a new Fix 2. I didn't want to do the monitoring (either tracking rolls or doing clip tests). This method in essence is continually "advancing" Fix 2 to becoming Fix 1, and preparing a new Fix 2, but only in small amounts for each roll. Being a chemical engineer, I know that doing this process as a "continuous countercurrent flow" process rather than the sequential batch solution changes of the traditional two-bath approach will be more efficient and consistent in the reaction chemistry. Thanks - Richard.What advantage(s) does this have over the old two-bath fixing, where you use regular film strength fixer (i.e. 1+4 from concentrate, or more often mixed at 240 g/L from sodium thiosulfate crystals plus some sodium sulfite), give half the fixing time (fixing time = 2x clearing time) in Bath 1, the rest in Bath 2, then every so many films, discard Bath 1 and replace it with Bath 2, and use fresh fixer for the new Bath 2?
Thanks for your comment. The advantages of two-bath fixation are well known, I won't go into it in detail, and since you already use it you must realize what they are. The advantages may be more pronounced for some media vs. others, and it is more practiced for paper than for film. But, the same advantages apply to film as well. If you research into the literature on fixation, you will often see the recommendation made to use two-bath fixation for film, especially when reliable archival results are desired. Thanks - Richard.I don't see the point for a 2 bath system for film, 2 bath is recommended for paper, I use a 2 bath for FB but single bath for RC.
Thanks again for your comment. This method may at first seem complicated, but I maintain that it is not. Some of that perception is perhaps my way of describing it. I just decide what film type of I have (traditional or tabular grain), mix F1 using a fixed volume of F2 with water, return my F2 to full volume with a standard dilution of rapid fixer concentrate, and develop for fixed times in F1 and F2. I do the same thing for every roll. I'm used to doing similar mixing for every roll with my developer and stop bath. In traditional two-bath fixing technique, using the oft suggested clearing time monitoring of exhaustion, I would have to do a clip test to measure clearing time, and then fix for a time depending on my clearing time. Or, I could fix for a set constant time for every roll, but I'd still need to either keep track of number of rolls or do regular clip tests to avoid being surprised by an "unexpected" fixer failure. My method involves measuring and mixing for every roll, so you might consider that complicated, but I'm doing the same thing each time so it becomes very routine. And I don't need to do any "monitoring" of the condition of my baths. Just consider this - if you are tracking or measuring your bath exhaustion from one roll to the next, that means that your film is sometimes being processed in nearly exhausted chemicals, and sometimes in fresh active chemicals. That is a complication that I'd rather avoid by spending a little more time measuring and mixing. Thanks - Richard.I've seen (and used) 2-bath fixing for film, in order to fully fix tabular grain in a plain hypo or hypo+sulfite (i.e. non-rapid) fixer. What I'm questioning is the advantage of the above cited (relatively complicated, with different dilutions and replenishment) over a simple two-bath fixing setup with plain fixer.
Thanks for your comments. I didn't adopt this method primarily for economy, but I did design the method to not waste fixer concentrate needlessly. I mean, you can do a one-shot fixing system simply by mixing 1+4 dilution fresh each time and chucking it after each roll, but that would be wasteful. (Though when I started developing in the late '60s, I always mixed fresh fixer for every roll of film. Then, after processing the film, I poured the used fixer into the "Paper Fixer" jar and used it to develop prints. So, in a sense, this was an economical one-shot fixing method for film!) However, the method is similar in the economy of using fixer concentrate to the standard Ilford capacity recommendations. For example, the method uses 10 ml of Ilford Rapid Fixer concentrate per 35mm roll (36 exp.). In the "maths" you gave above, you said you use 50 ml of concentrate per 4 rolls, or 50/4 = 12.5 ml of concentrate per roll. So, you are getting less capacity out of your fixer than my method. You indicated that you would expect a capacity of 80 rolls of film from a 1L bottle of concentrate. For cubic grain emulsions, I would expect 1000/10 = 100 rolls capacity with this method. So, I am getting similar capacity. The capacity is less for tabular grain films, but it is similarly less for any fixing method, that is a characteristic of the tabular emulsions and how they fix, not a characteristic of the method. Finally, you note it is more complex and takes longer. Yes, it may seem more complicated, but some of that complication (measuring and mixing for each roll) is one I was willing to accept for the benefits of consistent processing and one-shot use, as I described above. Not everyone will see value in that, I understand. Similarly for taking longer - I realized that I would need to make a trade off in process time if I were to do one-shot, since more dilute solutions will take longer to fix. I arbitrarily set an upper limit of 10-15 minutes for the fixing time, and chose my concentrations appropriately to stay at that time or below. I often spend 10-15 minutes doing development, and felt that was a reasonable upper time to allow for fixing. Rapid fixers are often 5 minutes or less (though perhaps a bit longer for 3X clearing time when they are nearing exhaustion), and the old hypo was in the 10-15 minute range. Again, I was willing to accept the slightly longer processing time in order to get the desired one-shot technique and consistent results roll to roll. Thanks - Richard.OP. I haven't done the maths but how much does your method save in fixer volumes compared to the normal one bath at 1+4 which does 24 films according to Ilford and has the added advantage of being less complex and taking less time at the fixer stage.
The maths as I see it are this in my case: I use 50ml of stock fixer to make up 250ml of working solution and I believe I can get at least 4 films worth of fixing from this. In a litre of concentrate there are 20 x 50ml of stock which is 80 films. So I cannot see your method being viable for me and it is more complex and takes longer. Even at 3 films per 50ml of stock it is only close to break-even
Your method may be attractive to some users which is fine so worth offering it. Good luck
pentaxuser
Thanks for your comment. As noted above, economy was not my main motivation. However, yes, the Ilford recommended capacity is 24 rolls for 1L of 1+4 working solution. In that 1L of 1+4 solution is 1000 x (1/5) = 200 ml of concentrate, so this is 200/24 = 8.33 ml of concentrate per roll. This is a little less than the 10 ml of concentrate my method uses per roll. (This is assuming traditional cubic grain emulsion, not tabular. Ilford 1+4 would not get 24 rolls of tabular fixed in 1L of 1+4 solution either.) Now, I can use a modified version of my method to also use 8.33 ml of concentrate per roll, but this would mean a more dilute first fixing bath than the 1+29 dilution I am presently using, and consequently longer fixing time for F1. To achieve 8.33 ml usage per roll, I'd have to use a F1 dilution of 1+35. The estimated clearing time of HP5 at 1+35 dilution is 9.6 minutes (clearing time varies with concentration to the 1.67 power at these dilution ranges), and to allow for a 1.3X clearing time in F1 this would require a fixing time of 12.4 minutes. This was over the 10 minute arbitrary constraint that I set for myself. I also had several other concerns about going to the 1+35 dilution to match the Ilford standard capacity. First, I tested clearing times up to 1+29 dilution, but not 1+35, so I am hesitant to recommend a method only by extrapolating from my time vs. concentration model. Second, I'd rather set the method to use a little more fixer than the Ilford standard recommendation, as a safety factor, since I am departing from common practice and experience. Third, 1+35 is very dilute (less than 14% of the active concentration of ammonium thiosulfate compared with the standard 1+4 dilution), and as Mr. Scudder kindly points out above, at some very low concentration of fixer you will fail to fully complex the silver salts, and this will reduce the effectiveness of removal of the salts from the emulsion both during the fixing steps and later in the water wash. I don't know at what concentration that occurs. My method does have the "insurance policy" of having a fairly concentrated 1+9 second fixer to provide this full complexation. However, I didn't want to "push it" so to speak by going too low in Fixer #1. Fourth, I found it easy to measure 10 ml per roll, and didn't see the advantage in economy of measuring 8.3 ml per roll worthwhile vs. measuring the nice round quantity of 10 ml/roll. One final point - you mentioned doing 24 films in 1 L of working solution in a 1 month period. That is an important point. One of the main drivers of my desire for a one-shot fixer method was the fact that I don't process regularly. It would take me many months to process 24 rolls. A 1 L working solution of fixer (even a 500 ml working solution) would probably oxidize and go bad before I reached capacity. I really wanted a method that would mix fresh solution from IRF concentrate for each roll processed. Even the concentrate can go bad with storage, and I am careful to store it in a sequence of bottles of various sizes so that nearly all of it is always in a full closed bottle, except for a small volume bottle that is in use. I had to compromise my desire for a totally one-shot approach by adopting the F2 bath at 1+9 dilution that I retain between sessions. However, as I "flush" that bottle 1/3 or 1/2 of it's volume with each roll, and add back freshly made 1+9 to return it to full volume, I feel this should prevent that working solution from going bad. Time will tell. Thanks - Richard.This is very funny
You can fix 24 films with 1 Liter of 1:4 fixer, within a 1 month period.
How much more economical can it possibly be?
Yes, I agree, I need to do more testing to confirm some things I believe to be true, but have not verified. My testing thus far has been to measure clearing times vs. concentration, and also I did some exhaustion tests, again measuring clearing time at high dilutions, but where I used repeated sections of film in the same solution until I achieved the same ratio of film to solution as you would see for a full roll of 36 exp. 35mm or 12 exp. of 120 film in the same volume. I have not yet done residual silver tests on the fixed film to confirm that the undeveloped silver salts have been removed to desirable low levels, but I agree that should be done. I wanted to leave that as a final step in development, before buying the reagents. I have the formula for Kodak Residual Test Solution ST-1 in my copy of Publication J-1. I was thinking of using that, instead of the selenium toner variant, since I have no need of selenium toner and selenium is a bit more hazardous to handle and dispose of than sodium sulfide. If you have any advice on ST-1 vs. the selenium toner technique, please let me know.the testing you do seems inadequate, to me at least, to authoritatively indicate that, 1) complete fixation is occurring (i.e., residual silver levels in the film after fixation)
I agree that testing residual silver in bath F2 after repeated cycles would be a good confirmation that I'm not getting build up of too much soluble silver. I could do that with a hypo-check solution, and do plan to do so. However, I've done some estimates that indicate build of of soluble silver to significant levels would be very unlikely. Here is my logic, I would appreciate your comments. One roll of 36 exp. 35mm film, or 12exp 120, is about 80 in2 of film. Per information I've found from multiple sources (including past comments of PE on forums), regular b&w negative film may have 3-5 grams of silver per m2 of film. Let's take 4 g/m2 as representative. For an 80 in2 roll, this is 0.21 g of silver. Let's assume on average 50% of the silver forms the image (reduced to metallic silver in the developer), so that 50% is undeveloped and needs to be removed by the fixer (I've also seen multiple sources with this estimate). This means about 0.10 grams of silver will be dissolved out of the emulsion by the fixer, per roll. I further assume at least 90% of the silver is removed by the fixer at 1.0X clearing time (again, I have references for this in the literature; actually the value is usually higher than 90%). This leaves 10% unreacted, to be removed in my second fixer bath F2. So, for every roll that enters F2, it brings 10% x 0.10 g/roll = 0.01 grams of silver that becomes soluble silver in F2. Let's further say that I am using a 500 ml working volume of F2, so that for every roll of HP5 I process I take 100 ml of the 500 ml (1/5 or 20%) out of the F2 bottle at the beginning of processing and use that 100 ml to prepare my dilute F1 solution. This "flush" of F2 removes 20% of the soluble silver content of F2. I now return F2 to the full 500ml with fresh 1+9 solution (which contains no silver). After this first "flush" I have remaining in the bottle of F2 80% x 0.01g or 0.008 grams Ag. Then, the second roll brings in another 0.01 grams of silver, combined with the 0.008 grams from the first roll leaves 0.018 g Ag. You can do some algebra to show (or do a simple spreadsheet and copy 20 lines or so to see the convergence) that this repeated process will converge to a constant value, and F2 will never contain more than 5X the amount of silver brought into it by one roll of film (again, assuming bottle volume of 500 ml and removal of 100 ml per roll to make up F1). In other words, because of the regular "flush" and replenishment that I have designed into the method, you can never have more than 0.05 grams of silver in the 500 ml volume of F2, when 100 ml is removed and replenished for each roll. On a concentration per liter basis, (since my bottle is 500 ml or 0.5L) there can never be greater than 0.1 gram of silver per L of solution in F2, which is quite a low value. Now to examine the silver content of the first bath, F1. The estimate of the silver content in F1 is 0.1 g/L x (100/1000) = 0.01 g Ag in 300 ml, or 0.033 g/L to begin, before the roll is processed (if using a 300 ml tank), and 0.033 g/L + 0.10 g/roll x (1000/300) = 0.37 g/L of Ag in F1 when it is discarded. Compare these silver levels to the 8-10 g/L Ag level that can be tolerated "without serious effect" on fixation that has been reported in the literature, or the 5 g/L you cited, or the 1-2 g/L that has been suggested as a very low maximum silver content in the fixer to assure archival fixation. If my assumptions and math are valid (and I welcome your critique), it seems to me that it is very likely that F2 can be relied upon to achieve archival quality fixation, no matter how many cycles I go through. However, as you suggested, it would be advisable to confirm these estimates with tests of residual silver levels in both F2 and in the film itself.that fixing bath 2 really stays at a very low level of dissolved silver (e.g., under approx. 5 g/l) after a long period of replenishment (i.e., testing dissolved silver levels in bath 2 over a long period of time).
Yes, I've read some of the literature on this point. I mentioned this explicitly in the document I asked you all to read. This is a major reason that I decided to use the second fixer bath at a substantial concentration of 1+9. While 1+9 is only half the concentration of the 1+4 recommended by Ilford for film, I know some people (such as yourself) have routinely used 1+9, and sometimes a bit more dilute, fixer baths for film and paper with apparently good success. I believe the term you were looking for here is ionic strength, but pressure is a good analogous term. A minimum level of ion concentration is needed to form substantial concentrations of certain complexes, and if you go too dilute the concentration of those complexes will be too low. If you don't form the desired complexes, the silver doesn't wash out of the emulsion to the desired degree. It is my supposition that 1+9 is sufficient to form the silver thiosulfate complexes that are highly soluble and so easily removed into the fixer or during the wash step. I don't know this for certain, but since 1+9 is recommended for paper I feel it is a reasonable assumption, pending confirmation as you suggested by measuring residual silver in the film after washing. Alternatively, if it proves that 1+9 was not sufficient for good complex formation, I could go to using 1+4 as F2. Since F2 will be nearly like fresh fixer for every roll, 3:00-5:00 minutes in 1+4 F2 would actually give complete fixation in of itself (i.e., 3-5 minutes in fresh 1+4 fixer is what Ilford recommends for a single bath fixer), so I thought this a bit extreme, though obviously it would work. Using 1+4 F2 would mean i would be flushing only 50 ml out of that bottle per roll (to make 300 ml of F1), which is 1/10 flush, so my residual silver levels could rise to 10X the amount carried in by one roll, or 10 x 0.01 = 0.1 grams in the 500 ml bottle, which is 0.2 g/L. Still a rather low value, should not be a concern to insure archival processing. However, I was more comfortable using the 1+9 dilution for the higher volume of "flush" that it implies.more dilute fixer works as long as fixing times are adjusted accordingly to a certain point. After too much dilution, the ionic pressure (or something like that; I'm remembering here, not looking things up) becomes too low for the thiosulfate ions to react adequately with the silver compounds in the media (film/paper) and fixation is not able to proceed through the various steps needed to result in soluble compounds. Maybe your second bath, which is stronger, will do the job
I am not a chemist, but I am a chemical engineer (BSE Princeton, MSChE MIT) with over 40 years experience in doing chemical research, and even longer (50 years) doing darkroom work. I've had several years of academic training in chemistry, however, I am not a photographic chemist, so I may be making some errors and would be glad to hear anyone's suggestions. Thank your very much for your excellent comments, and I look forward to further comments from you, and from others here as well. - Richard.Maybe the chemists here on the forum can contribute some testing suggestions and point out other possible foibles, which I have certainly overlooked, as well.
I only skimmed the thread and may have missed something. What is the reason for the 2 bath? More complete fixation, quicker fixing, simplicity?economy was not my main motivation
Do you have a product name? I've never seen these test strips listed anywhere for purchase, I'm not sure what I'm looking for.I sourced strips some years ago and they seemed readily available and not all that expensive.
Yes, I know. I think I did have a jar of working solution go bad once, as well as an original concentrate container with about 25% of the concentrate left. This could be an issue. At the end of every processing session, I top off the F2 jar to the brim before capping. We'll see if this is sufficient. One good thing about the solution going bad from oxidation (as opposed to going bad from exhaustion) is that I believe I'll be able to tell by smell and observation (cloudiness or sulfur precipitate) when it may be oxidized. If it doesn't smell like I expect fresh fixer to smell, I chuck it. On the 5L Hypam that I'm currently working through, I broke the 5L down into a few 1L bottles, a 500 ml bottle, and a few smaller bottles, all completely full except for one small bottle that is my working bottle of concentrate. When all of the small bottles are empty, I refill them all to the brim from the next larger bottle up. When all small bottles and the medium bottles are all empty, I refill all from one of the full 1L bottles. By going in this manner, nearly all the stock is in completely full bottles except for the small working volume. This minimizes potential for oxidation. I do the same procedure with my HC-110 stock. Of course this oxidation issue is present for any fixing technique, it has nothing specifically to do with my method. But your point is well taken on the longevity of the F2 bottle.Finally, do remember that fixer goes bad due to oxidation too. At some point, especially with a working solution (even replenished) and depending on storage conditions, oxidation will catch up with you and kill the fix.
It seems everyone in this thread is still misunderstanding my motivation, and what I am claiming, even you. This method provides no advantage in economy over the traditional (one or two bath) methods of fixing. I never said it did, and that is not why I wanted to develop it. I think I keep pointing that out (see above several statements to this effect), but I guess my communication skills are inadequate. I am doing this specifically because I wanted a "one-shot" type of approach for fixation, to go along with my one-shot approaches on all of the other steps (developing, etc.). Every time I process film, I have to carry all my bottles up from the basement to my kitchen, clean off the counter, and set everything up. I want to mix things up from small bottles of concentrate every session, rather than carrying around a bunch of dilute working solutions every time. I also process infrequently, so I don't want to worry that a bottle of working solution went bad since I last processed 30 or 60 days ago. With one-shot I just deal with a few bottles of concentrate, and mix everything fresh for that session. The fact that I do store the one bottle of F2 working solution is a compromise to this approach, but one I felt I had to make in order to have an effective system that works in a reasonable time (and for me, 10-15 minutes to fix vs. your "40% faster" 6 minutes total is not significant.) You object to the "fiddly" nature of mixing fresh solutions each time and spending 10-15 minutes instead of 6. I object to the "fiddly" nature of doing clip tests or checking off numbers of rolls process per bottle of working solution. To each his own I guess. To me, this is no more fiddly than figuring out time, temperature, and dilution for HC-110 for each roll, and then mixing that developer with a syringe to measure out 6.3ml of concentrate for my 300 ml tank, checking the temperature, correcting the time, and then going at it. I could just mix a single re-usable bottle of D76, that would be much simpler. But I don't do that, as I don't want the developer going bad in the 4 weeks since I last developed, and don't want to be doing clip tests to see if the developer is still good. The fixer situation is not much different. It doesn't give me any benefit for people to adopt this method, but it does give me some pleasure to explain it to those who might have similar interests in one-shot processing to my own, and if they try it I hope they let me know what they think. If no one else thinks there is any value in it, that's fine, I'll continue to do it anyway. The critique and suggestions are valuable to me, though, to see if there are areas in which it makes sense to improve, or to further scrutinize the results, that is another reason I am sharing it with a group like this. Thanks for your comments. If I develop some further data, I'll share it with the group. - Richard.And there's still the pesky "economy vs. convenience" factor: Is it really worth a few pennies to go to the extra trouble.
You may readily find information on the web (and in this forum) if you search for "two bath fixation" that explains the advantages in general. In fact, the Ilford instructions for their rapid fixer explain this as well, so I won't repeat it here. If you have trouble finding the information, let me know and I'll find a few links to post for you. In this particular process, I needed to use two baths to insure complete fixation, as I only fix to a little over 1X clearing time in the very dilute first bath, and that is insufficient to fully complex the silver salts for complete removal. I explained this in some detail in the above posts. Thanks for your question.I only skimmed the thread and may have missed something. What is the reason for the 2 bath? More complete fixation, quicker fixing, simplicity?
You may readily find information on the web (and in this forum) if you search for "two bath fixation" that explains the advantages in general. In fact, the Ilford instructions for their rapid fixer explain this as well, so I won't repeat it here. If you have trouble finding the information, let me know and I'll find a few links to post for you. In this particular process, I needed to use two baths to insure complete fixation, as I only fix to a little over 1X clearing time in the very dilute first bath, and that is insufficient to fully complex the silver salts for complete removal. I explained this in some detail in the above posts. Thanks for your question.
Two bath fixing
An extremely efficient method of fixing film or paper is to use the two bath fixing technique.
https://assets.website-files.com/5ba2689b2e7121210bfa9af3/5c0ecc53472033a2b1b17efb_tech specs ilford rapid fixer.pdf
That is very nice of you, thank you very much. Yes, I agree, that is how a forum should work. Sometimes it doesn't, but I just skip over those parts when I come to them. I've learned an awful lot over the years reading in forums such as this one, so I appreciate all comments. Thanks!oldche, all I can say is that I think I understood your motivation which became even clearer when you continued to take the trouble you to correspond with each of us in a very comprehensive manner. I don't think you ever had any selling motive in this. You were sharing with us a different approach to fixing which you were offering to us as part of a free exchange of knowledge.
It has been a great example of how a forum interchange should proceed.
Thanks
pentaxuser
Ilford only indicates the two bath method is "efficient." So, I was wondering what that means from someone using the technique; more complete fixation, quicker fixing, simplicity or something else?
So it seems like complete fixation with minimal fixer. Out of curiosity, when re-reading the Ilford document I noticed the section on fixer replenishment. I have never tried that (though I used to use two-bath print fixing many years ago).
I wonder if you tried the replenishment? Seems like a very similar thing to two-bath, in that the second bath is getting replenished continuously from the fresh fixer bath.
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?