SHORTER FIX TIME (and at higher dilution too!)

This post is meant to be of help to those who find fix times too long with certain films. It is also meant to save money.

I use all solutions on a 'one shot' basis. Thus, I dilute more than most would. You can dilute your fixer 1 + 1 (even more for the slower films like Pan F) and experience full fixation in LESS time than you do now. How?

Temperature. Since developing film since 1964 when I was fourteen I have NEVER had a problem going from cold to warm. Develop your negatives normally at the temperature you are used to developing them at. I do not recommend developing for very short times because development is not done to 'finality' (ie, we stop development at a certain point when contrast, or gamma, is sufficient) and evenness in processing becomes mandatory. Short development times (under five minutes) can lead to potential unevenness as, for example, when pouring dev in or out only some of the film area is undergoing processing.

But fixer IS done to finality, thus we do not have to concern ourselves with unevenness because, in the end, all the film area will be fixed to completion. Thus, very short fix times can, and do, save us time. I will state without equivocation that a fix time of, say, 104 F (40 C) is not a temperature that will do any harm even to 'old technology' films. What I am saying seems not to be true because we have become indocrinated with much repetitive 'information' and warnings, but reticulation has NEVER happened to me in all those years when going from cold to warm. NEVER THE OTHER WAY AROUND THOUGH: THAT CAN LEAD TO RETICULATION (but probably will not with the newer films). Fixation is quite fast at that warm temp (make sure you ease the film 'politely' AFTER fixation with wash water that is also warm, and pay special attention to the handling of the warm film). There ARE potential pitfalls here, as the emulsion is more sensitive to abrasion and the necessity to be scrupolous in procedure becomes more prominent. But... it can be done successfully and cleanly.

Also, if you wish to save money you can get away with a 1 + 1 (or more!) dilution as I stated previously. Of course, your final fix time then might begin to approach the original 'full strength' time at the lower temperature. But it will be complete. I find that even TMAX 3200 can undergo this dilution (and that film uses fix up the most). - David Lyga.

Further clarification might be useful. What fixer are you referring to? A 1+1 dilution is much less than Ilford recommend at 1+4 so 1+1 would be be very uneconomical or are you saying that having diluted to the maker's recommendation say 1+4 that 1+1 is a further dilution of 50% so in fact if we stick to Ilford fixer that is the equivalent of 1+8?

However even at 1+8 using half the fixer that is recommended this if used one shot will still use more fixer than Ilford says you need. I get 6 films fixed at 1+4 so in effect it is your equivalent of 1+24.

By how much does fixing at 40C reduce the fixing time? I am not saying this doesn't work but find it strange that I can never recall seeing any recommendation to fix at double the normal temp until now to reduce fixing time.

I'll leave the ussue of reticulation alone but expect some disagreement here based on other very long threads.

pentaxuser

I use 2-bath fixing and normal fixer dilutions. This allows me to both use my fixer to absolute exhaustion for max economy (1st bath), and to always fix my film in nearly-new fixer even so (2nd bath). I doubt 1-shot fixing is both more reliable and more economical.

Why not fix normally, it works remarkably well.

Claims of no reticulation are rather wild and very dependent on what film stock's used. try that with older
r films like the EFKE/Adox range and while there may well be no reticulation there probably won't be any emulsion on the film base either

Not a good idea if you want high quality negatives.

Ian

PENTAXUSER: any 'film strength' (as defined by the manufacturer) fixer can be diluted further.

IAN GRANT: I still say that ANY film with not be harmed in the least. If I am wrong, state so with proof. There might be some out there who can use this information but I am not supporting an ego here: I really believe that no film will be harmed. If I am really wrong (not 'probably') I need to know so and why? There is hardly a film that was ever produced that I have not tried this on and the negs are brilliant with no grain structure problem. But, again, correct me, definitively, if necessary. I do not want to be ruining anything that I develop in the future. We are after truth, not ego-aggrandizement here, right? - David Lyga

As for me, I will stick to my own "tried and true" methods, learnt from Kodak manuals over fourty years ago. I dont think I'll be taking any chances with my film.

Without commenting on the reticulation issue (there's plenty of that in other threads) I would worry more about the quality and nature of the grain, which I know from experience (I am a bit older, and I started when I was 10 . . ) will react to temp swings in processing solutions.
But it's the economics I wonder about. Fixer has a capacity. Using a 2 bath method, at recommended strength and dividing the total time necessary between the two baths (3-4 minutes per) works well at a temp consistent with developer. Testing the first fixer from time to time for exhaustion is easy and cheap. I know how long fixer lasts (I use TF4) and I find it hard to believe that I could save money with 1:1 - one shot use. Simple numbers - a gallon is about $7-$8, 1:1 would be lets say $4 for that gallon, so I could do 8 rolls of 120 film, or 16 rolls of 35mm film per gallon with this scheme. I can do many more rolls than that in a gallon divided into two 1/2 gallons, for a two bath application.
Am I missing something?

David has tried this on multiple films (roughly which ones?) So I don't doubt him. But I do see the risk of the extreme temp change. Kind of like throwing water on a windshield to get rid of frost on a cold morning. There is a chance that bad things will happen. If you have notes on films, times, dil's and temps, I would love to see more info on this here.

David I now understand your 1+1 and thanks. It is in fact 1+8(one shot) if we use the 1+4 Ilford recommendation but as George has said it is the economics that puzzles me. As I get 6 films at 1+4 I use in effect 1+ 24 so it seems that 1+8 as one shot will use more fixer not less.

You haven't said by how much a doubling of fixer temp reduces the fixing time but unless it is a lot it doesn't seem to confer any real benefits. I am no chemist but I'd have thought that there must be an irreducible time for fixing no matter what the temp used and the time savings would be very small, if we ignore any problems arising with large temp differences and the time and effort to increase the temp for one part of the process followed by the gradual lowering of temp with the water rinses.

Fresh Ilford fixer at 1+4 clears a leader in less than a minute so does it clear in say the same time as this at 1+8 at 40C?

If it works for you then fine but I cannot see any advantages either in fixer amounts saved and very little in time savings.

Next time I develop a film I'll split the leader in two and clear one half in fresh fixer at 1+4 at 20C and then the other half at 1+8 at 40C to see what time difference I get just as an academic exercise but it still won't save me fixer.

I'll also send an e-mail to Ilford to see what it says about half strength fixer at twice the temp. No doubt its chemists must have played around with strengths and temps before issuing specs on its fixer.

Whatever it says I'll report back.

pentaxuser

I'm not harping here. I am very interested in this process, though I admittedly will not use it. But I really would like to delve into this a little more deeply. I should have held my remarks until I was able to do a little reading. Which I have done. So I have a couple further remarks and questions.

On consulting Mees' "The Theory of the Photographic Process": I have read the following in his section regarding Fixation and Washing.

"Thiosulfate, to some extent, attacks metallic silver, especially if the latter is in a very finely divided form. Thus the image of a print is attacked by an aerated fixing bath, especially if the pH is low. The attack appears to be due to dissolved oxygen. The maximum rate of oxidation is obtained in a 5 to 10 percent concentration of the sodium thiosulfate."
I know that the word print is in this quote, however, negative processing is mentioned both before and after this text and this seems to be an error in terminology. That aside, it seems that an increased concentration of fix would attack the lower densities in a negative thus flattening out shadow information and rendering the higher print densities less telling of detail. Have any negatives and resulting prints using this process indicated this to be a possibility, let alone a trend?

"At low concentrations the clearing time was found to be fairly long but to decrease rapidly with increase in thiosulfate concentration up to a certain optimum value, beyond which the clearing time begins to increase."
Accompanying figures indicate that testing showed that, regardless of temperature, fix containing anywhere from 15 to 45 percent thiosulfate allowed the film to clear in well under five minutes (the film being old Super XX). 10C cleared at 5 minutes at 50% hypo. 20C and 30C cleared at 5 minutes up to 60% hypo. 40C cleared at 5 minutes up to 65%. 50C cleared at up to 70% hypo. So, by these illustrations I am looking at, 40C would clear around a minute from about 5% up to a 45% hypo fix bath. So, it seems that the film clearing extremely quickly at an increased temp with an increased percentage of hypo is accurate. However, the same can be acheived at 20C between 15 and 35% hypo. So, there does not seem to be an 'advantage' to processing at higher amounts of hypo and higher temps though it does seem that it would indeed work.

"The optimum working temperature appears to lie between 65F and 75F. Below this range the action is too slow, while above it the swelling of the gelatin may be excessive. Where temperatures above 75F are unavoidable, it is desirable to add some agent to repress the swelling of the gelatin."
Have you noticed any of your older negatives using this process experiencing adverse effects due to swelling and apparently possible increased oxidation that could lead to instability of the negatives or have you done anything to treat them during or post-process to help prevent this?

I see you mention one-shotting this chemistry so you do not have issues with reintroducing silver with used fix and lesseneing its effectiveness. So that's good.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this as well as those of others who are decidedly more of an expert on the subject than I am.

First, admittedly what I am saying is so unorthodox that I do not doubt the sincerity of the naysayer or the caution evidenced out there. I, myself, am surprised at my findings over the years and I wanted to at least expose another alternative to fixation.

To all, especially Christopher Walrath and pentaxuser: I have no detailed data to share but I have used films ranging from microfilm and the old ADOX to Kodak's Recording Film (discontinued) and also Tri-X (both the latest and some from a 100 ft roll that 'expired' in 1958!). Repeat: I have NEVER had a problem and I do not merely 'look' at the negative; the film, after carefully drying, is placed into the enlarger and I rack the image up to maximum magnification. I then inspect it with a magnifying glass down close. Seriously, the grain is great and the resolution is just as great.

The 'hot water on a cold windshield' analogy is, indeed, a scary thought and for that reason, alone, I do not blame the doubters out there. But do this: why waste a roll of film? In the dark, clip off about an inch of film and carefully place it, emulsion side down, onto the film aperture of your manual 35mm camera. Take an accurate exposure. Then repeat with another inch of film, giving idential exposure. Then carefully process manually in a dish (Dektol works best because in merely about two minutes swerling the films in a dish they will be properly developed at room temp). Then, stop bath, and then, two separate fixes: one at room temp, full strength for film, and the other at 1 + 1 with a temp even higher than the one I first said, ie, about 120 F, to really test my statement to the fullest. Turn on the lights after about one minute and watch the fixers complete their clearing of the film. Then you will see about how long you need to fix in the future. Remember, TMAX films require the longest fixation and slower films far less. Do your tests on the 'hardest films to properly fix' (ie, the TMAX type) to be very conservative here. That way ANY other film will require even LESS than the TMAX types require. And do not hesitate to dilute even further if you can get away with it. Remember to view the neg with a light bulb behind it and make sure it is REALLY fully fixed. (If in doubt fix half of the frame for minutes longer and compare the two.)

True, most might not wish to bother with this 'finding'. It really is not essential to heed this information. BUT... it does save fixer and it can really save time. There really are some out there who are not affluent or live in a very hot climate that makes 'keeping fixer cool' more difficult. I disseminate this information as an addition, not as a requirement; those who do not like this data being imparted are free to ignore it. But, if I am wrong I am the first to wish to offer correction and refutation of what I said. Again, in all those years I have NEVER had a problem but that presumes that going from warm to cold will NOT HAPPEN as there, problems could result. - David Lyga.

David Lyga said:

True, most might not wish to bother with this 'finding'. It really is not essential to heed this information. BUT... it does save fixer and it can really save time. There really are some out there who are not affluent or live in a very hot climate that makes 'keeping fixer cool' more difficult. - David Lyga.

Click to expand...

I understand the convenience of using it at 40C if you live in a very hot climate but I am still puzzled about the saving in fixer quantity if my assumption is correct that you use it at 1+8 as one shot. I use it at 1+4 but with six films( so over "six shots") testing it with fixer test to ensure it hasn't exhausted.

If you use it at 1+8 but for three films then that's break even and if you get more than 3 flms' use then it is indeed a saving.

So in summary have I missed something in your figures that means that a 1+8 or further 50% reduction in working strength fixer results in a saving compared to my 1+4 and use over six films.

Of course if your belief is that all fixer should be one shot even at 1+4 then I understand why a further 50% reduction in strength will give a saving in fixer.

However I do not belief that Ilford is recommending that fixer at 1+4 should be one shot or anything like it.

pentaxuser

David. APUG is about the exchanging of ideas and this is certainly an interesting one, one I had never heard nor even considered. And I appreciate your detailed answers. Thank you very much. Some will try it just to see what it does. I might even try a clipping in a dish just to say I did it.

Thanks again. It is threads like this that continue to make APUG more invaluable as time passes.

Like most of us, I use mild developers like D-76. These take a while to develop the film. Fixing time is short by comparison, and is not much of a factor. The hassle of keeping fixer warm would be much more than spending an extra two minutes waiting for the fixer to work.

David;

You have said that your fix time can be reduced with no harm. I have run tests like this with both fix and wash and find that sometimes the damage does not show up for years. I have posted some scanned samples of tests that are about 5 years old and where the papers were identical when fresh but now the under fixed/washed examples are dark brown.

So, during those tests, I also used the retained Silver test and the retained Hypo test which predicted correctly which prints would show problems.

My question is this: You have altered accepted recommendations, so did you run tests for retained Hypo and retained Silver? If not, then the burden of proof is on you to do so and show us the results.

PE

A couple of random comments / questions.... My memory is messing with me here. I seem to remember there were some processors for film that used higher than normal temperatures all the way through. Maybe for special purposes like military recon or aerial films?

It seems that the OP is bringing up two opportunities (or issues as one might see it), high temperature processing, which I can see as a way to speed up processing, but doesn't look to me to offer any intrinsic increase in total fixing capacity. The other issue is diluting the fixer, and the claimed increase in total fixing capacity seems very unclear.

I'm no expert on all this, but I'd guess that speedy processing is easier to attain than any gain in economy.

Regardless, a fascinating idea, and I too want to thank the OP for shaking things up with a new take on things.

It makes me wonder whether one could stand develop in five or ten minutes rather than thirty minutes or an hour? Would additional hardening be useful anywhere in accelerated processing?

My guess is that when one sums up all costs, speed will add something to overall cost.

I checked my textbooks again.

Both Haist and Mees agree. More dilute fixer = slower total fix rate and slower wash time. The reason for the first is obvious, but the second is pretty obscure. If Hypo becomes dilute enough, the complexes it forms with Silver Halide can be less soluble and therefore harder to remove from the coating during washing.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

David;

So, during those tests, I also used the retained Silver test and the retained Hypo test which predicted correctly which prints would show problems.

My question is this: You have altered accepted recommendations, so did you run tests for retained Hypo and retained Silver? If not, then the burden of proof is on you to do so and show us the results.

PE

Click to expand...

PE, among the greatest of my long-range, dull fears--along with "will the Social Security system collapse before I do?" and "will the polar bears have enough ice next year?" is "have I retained problematic levels of hypo and/or silver enough to cause problems that may not show up until I've left the scene?"

Could you direct me/us to instructions for the tests you mention?

Grateful as usual,

An

An;

IDK where you are in this world, but the Photographers Formulary in Montana sells both kits. (and no, I do NOT get any kickback to those who suggested it).

The retained silver kit is a standard solution of Sodium Sulfide that turns brown/black if there is Silver Halide in the coating after fixing and washing.

The retained hypo kit is a standard solution of Silver Nitrate in Acetic Acid that turns yellow brown if there is any Hypo left in the coating after washing.

PE

First, before I forget, my recommendations assume that the stop stage is performed as such: please dilute stop to about one quarter the strength recommended by manufacturers and use a generous quantity of solution for the film. Consider this 'stop' to be a combination of 'rinse and stop' at this dilution and make certain that it is not reused.For paper, use somewhat stronger (half manufacturer's recommendation) and change frequently, but it does not necessarily have to be 'one shot'. And, to acclimate the tank for the fix temp, make sure this stop is also warm.

pentaxuser: Whichever dilution you NORMALLY would use for fixation can be FURTHER diluted for use if you warm the fixer (and stop) first. I think many would be amazed at how much dilution fixer can take and still work. Rarely do any try this out to the extreme because the length of time, at ambient temps or lower, would be excessive. Higher temps allow you to really exploit this potential and still keep times rather short. An extreme case is Kodak's HQ Imagelink microfilm. (I develop this in developer that is about half the strengh for Pan F in order to attain continous tone, albeit only with scenes that are low in contrast as the film simply has not the latitude to record contrasty scenes successfully.) After development I fix in (please believe me when I say this) as little as 10% of the fix that is recommended by manufacturers for normal film. That is taking a normal film strength fixer and diluting it 1 + 9. Only this microfilm is applicable to this but for a slow film like Pan F or Tech Pan I would not hesitate to use 'film strength' fix at a dilution of 1 + 4 or even 5. Again, the higher temps allow this and that is the reason money can be saved as less fixer is used. For the 'worst case' scenario, TMAX 3200, I would dilute the fix, at MOST, 1 + 1 at the higher temp. Yes, different films use up different amounts of fixer. For Tri-X I would dilute about 1 + 2. If the film is COMPLETELY clear (hold up to a light bulb to REALLY check this out) fixation will be permanent.Few realize just how much film can be fixed in a given package of fixer and this method helps people find out.

Christopher Walrath: thank you for the kind comments. I have always been a consummate iconoclast. But, really, unorthodox ideas, even if later successfully refuted, are an invaluable source of new information. Do we really want this forum to be a rehash of what has already been written untold times before? We now have the luxury of challenging these 'laws' because film is in a matured state and is in decline. Sometimes the conflation of marketing concerns and amateur inefficiency cause manufacturers to overstate certain 'requirements'. When I make these recommendations I assume that corners will NOT be cut.

Photo Engineer: You are responsible for gracing our pages with information that is oftentimes available only through connection with the correct parties. Your invaluable input is, here, available for free and greatly appreciated by most. Certainly Haist and Mees must know what they are talking about but I think that your experience with paper turning brown is unquestionably due to the fact that such paper was underfixed. This can be caused by either inadequate time or inadequate amount of actual thiosulfate to 'do the job'. My recommendations are adequate if followed. Admittedly, papers are trickier than films as they give no visual indication of 'completion'. But I have done this: the hardest papers to fix fully are the fibre based portrait papers and if you leave an unprocessed sheet in roomlight for a white it actually gets darker. I take a certain fixer dilution (half manufacturer's recommendation) and take about four tiny pieces of unexposed paper in the dark and fix each for maybe, 30 seconds, 45 seconds, 60 seconds 90 seconds, etc and then rinse and leave under very bright light for about one hour. If any are even starting to turn brown I know that that paper was not fixed properly. I then, conservatively, use not the next higher fix time but one above that, to determine proper fixation time. Remember for paper fix you can easily use ambient temp but higher temps will allow even more dilution with safety if you apply my method. I have never had a problem through the years.

EXAMPLES? Sorry folks, but this might come as a shock to all but I own no computer and use libraries and universities. I could scan at a copy shop but I do think that my words should suffice. I am giving this information for information purposes only and experimantation, at low cost, should not be a problem for any to confirm this.

CBT: hardening is a thing I never try to achieve. To me, it is a moot point with film as I am so careful with film AFTER the fix that it becomes unnecessary to have that extra layer of protection. Wash carefully and at about the same temp as the fix was. Then add a bit of wetting agent to the final water and hang the film up vertially in a clean, dust free environment. Gently but fully wipe the side opposite the emulsion side from top to bottom with a clean, damp sponge and do not even dare to touch the emulsion side. If it dries with spots you have made the wetting agent too strong. - David Lyga

How much do you save with this method? Can you state, for example, how many 8x10s you are able to run in a given volume of fixer?

It looks like your only testing has been examples of your own prints that are x years old. Do you test for silver or hypo retention in the prints or negs?
If you don't, how do you know your method works?

I have prints that are now decades old, and I know they were not processed according to archival standards that were either accepted practice then or now. So far, they still look ok, but I don't use them as an example that all the accepted, documented and tested wisdom should be thrown out the window.

I don't think David is trying to revolutionize the film processing world as we know it. Just trying to throw out a nice hanging slider for anyone adventurous enough to try something different. And, David, I hadn't noticed earlier your mention of bringing temp up gradually with a 'mid temp' stop. That would make a lot more sense to me to bring the temp up gradually.

David;

I think you missed 3 points:

1. Retained hypo can cause browning. (bad washing)
2. Retained silver salts can cause browning. (bad fixation or washing)
3. Testing will reveal 1 and 2, but appearance is not a suitable test at the end of a process.

I have "forced" browning by both 1 and 2 above not just one or the other alone.

I would like to add that you can slow down fixing and washing, and also injure film if you make your hypo too concentrated. This too is from Mees and Haist! It also comes from personal experience.

PE

OK let's assume I am using Kodak Fixer (powder). If I mix according to manufacturer's instructions I get 'film strength fixer'. (NOTE: Kodak, foolishly in my opinion, does not differentiate between film strength and paper strength with this powdered fixer.) So we now have FULL strength fixer after this mixing.

Now assume I use this 1 + 1 for paper. I would use about 100ml of this diluted solution for one 8 x 10 piece of paper so you can figure the capacity, which is about 20 sheets per liter (because you use only 50ml of full strength fixer plus 50ml of water to make the 100ml of total solution. Now this probably is not more economical than what you are used to doing but my post was not predicated upon paper, only film. But this dilution allows easy 'one shot' use and at higher temps the fix time will be less. Assume at ambient temp the time at this dilution is about 90 sec for complete fixation with no silver halides being 'left behind' so at 100 or 110 F you can safely assume the adequate time is 45 - 60 sec. This is certainly not a big deal I will admit but for films the situation invites exploring further.

(FIRST NOTE: Remember that ammonium thiosulfate has a somewhat higher capacity for fixation than does sodium thiosulfate so the full strength capacity of each can differ, in my estimation, by about 20%.)

The TYPE of film is the determinate as far as the proper fixer dilution is concerned. As I previously said, the easiest to fix is the 'microfilm' type, needing only about 10% (ie, 1 + 9) of this full strength fix to complete. The 'worst' film is among the T Max films with the 3200 being the toughest. For that, again, I use 50% (ie, 1 + 1) of the full strength. The 'in between' films warrant dilutions 'in between' these two situations. In most cases, MUCH LESS fixer can be used with most films than we are used to using and higher temps can mitigate the need for extended times. That's all I really said.

PHOTO ENGINEER: I am not a chemist and your points might well prove to be pertinent in the long run. But I really think that my process is very 'clean' and will leave nothing bad behind to cause troubles later on. I state these things with a clean conscience and I do fail to see how I can be leaving behind 'retained silver halides' for future trouble with my washing and complete fixation. I am not leaving paper vulnerable and my dilutions for PAPER actually adhere to the Kodak recommended dilutions for their liquid Rapid Fixer, Part A.

I would both support and appreciate a scientific vetting of my assumptions and believe that an honest empirical study would confirm what I have said. It's been done before and I repeat that MUCH of what is imparted in 'official' literature put out by manufacturers is padded to assume that the amateur will not strictly heed what is said. There is a safety factor involved here. I attempt to remove it for benefit of responsible technicians.

BDIAL does not think that all the "accepted, documented and tested wisdom should be thrown out the window" and we all SHOULD concur with his premise. But, again, I simply think that there is an unneeded safety factor here. (Tri-X was once rated at 200, you know!)

Christopher Walrath: NO, I did not suggest bringing up the temp gradually because I honestly do not think that is necessary. The 'warm plunge' has NEVER caused ANY harm as far as I can see. (NOTE: NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, FROM WARM TO COLD!!!) In summation, I am standing by what I say because I have never experienced deficiencies of any kind and not because I can even begin to attempt to challenge an MIT or Stanford chemist on theoretical grounds. - David Lyga

Hey, David. By gradually, I was referring to your intermediate temp step in the stop bath (30C or so, right).


And, Ron, David did mention originally that he one-shots ALL solutions.