• 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

Single bath fibre base paper fixing

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,975
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
Presently I use a standard two bath fixing system for fibre base paper. However, as I may start making 20x24" prints soon, due to limited sink space, I'd be interested to get an impression of the current thinking with regard to single bath fixing (e.g. with ILFORD HYPAM) at 1+4 dilution of FB papers. I seem to recall that ILFORD recommended a quick 1 minute in 1+4 solution but now have reverted to the standard 2-bath 1+9 fixing regime; with its known advantages.

I'd have thought that using rapid fixer at 1+4 dilution, one would end up with too high a Silver concentration fairly quickly, meaning frequent replacement of the bath; a not inexpensive proposition if using 6000ml working solution.

Tom
 
One bath fixing

Hi Tom
Two bath fixing is a waste of time and chemicals. FIXED IS FIXED. One fixing bath is always enough. You will be just fine with the 1+4 dilution of Hypam Fixer as well as other rapid fixers with high dilutution rates.
 

I switched to TF4 for prints years and years ago - i followed the guidelines on the package in terms of capacity and fix/wash times and have never had an issue. In fact if I wanted to push it I could probably go beyond the recommended capacity but feel no need to expense wise or risk wise. Test it yourself and see what you think.

RB
 
I did it all the time single bath with Ilford Rapid Fixer, I use the times off the fact sheet. 1 min at 4-1.
 
For archival prints I would stick with two baths. Fixer is cheaper than paper. Tray stackers can let you have three trays in the space of one. I use them when doing 16x20's since my sink won't accommodate enough trays of that size.
 
Single bath fixers work fine if you are careful not to exhaust them. Your fears of silver buildup are well founded. While you could fix about 45 of your big prints in two 6 liter trays of fixer using the two bath method, the capacity of a single bath is less than half as much. I would feel uncertain about using a single bath for more than about 10 prints if archival stability is needed. Changing the dilution for faster processing is probably a bad idea, and it risks bleaching some fine details. You need the extra time to work with large prints anyway. Big prints are just plain expensive.
 
Single-bath fixing is fine, but you do need to watch the capacity carefully. Ilford's recommendation in their current literature is that for maximum image stability the silver level in the fixer should not rise above 0.5 g/l. They estimate that this will typically be reached with 10 8x10 prints, but caution that this number will vary with the characteristics of the image (proportion of exposed to unexposed areas). So yes, this does imply frequent replacement.

Chapter and verse on p 6 of this document:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006130213591255.pdf
 

TF4 and TF5 at film strength are great because this does not happen - two bath is A giant waste of time based on my testing like 10 years ago. I love the fact that I can fix faster/do not need HCA/and wash faster - the actual prints test the same (IE good) as my idiotically long process from the dark ages.

RB
 

RB,

I can understand that TF4 or TF5 may not bleach out highlights but you're surely still left with the issue of silver build-up.

Tom
 
You might try "single tray fixing" meaning that you store Fix 1 and Fix 2 in separate beakers. For 20x24 you need about 4 liters in each beaker. Put Fix 1 in the tray, fix for the appropriate time, pour the fix from the tray into the beaker (the prints will stick to the bottom of the tray), then pour in Fix 2...

You could have another beaker with PermaWash if you want. I rinse with water between Fix 2 and PermaWash.

You need to be steady handed with the big trays when pouring to avoid a mess but that is manageable.

I do single tray processing all the way through and prefer it to a series of trays. I especially like it for large prints because it requires minimal paper handling.
 
Tom Kershaw said:
RB,

I can understand that TF4 or TF5 may not bleach out highlights but you're surely still left with the issue of silver build-up.

Tom
Click to expand...

Of course - but... all of the testing I have done with the process as recommended and that I use indicates NO issue within the capacity recommendations.

If you would like to test yourself get yourself -

A residual silver test kit ( extremely inexpensive )
A residual hypo test kit ( a bit more expensive )

Both are essential to test important prints and your process. Other ways are either guessing or guessing with overkill. There is no reason to theorize over this kind of thing - it is not a preference, it is not subjective, and it is not some sort of aesthetic. There is either residuals from your process or there are not.

RB
 
One other thing - I tested this when I first started doing it because it was SO MUCH QUICKER and SO MUCH EASIER that I couldn't believe that everyone on the planet was not doing it this way. Well, needless to say that was a long long time ago and there are still people that do the two bath + HCA + really really long wash. I wonder how many of them actually test the resulting prints? Do they just blindly believe (as I did) that longer must = better?

RB
 
On larger prints I use a handful of trays used for wall paper. 36"x 6"x 6". After developer in standard tray I put one end in the stop and lift it so the paper goes through the stop, one pass is enough. Then into the fix one the same way but slosh from one end to the other for 30 sec. Then into fix two where I generally make a tube and let it sit for remainder of fix time. Works well for me
 
I have FB prints I made almost 50 years ago. They still look o.k. I cannot wait to see how they shall look in another 50 years, but I'll try.
 
Just a thought, but...if you're uneasy about picking up unwieldy large trays full of chemistry -- why not just siphon it out into the separate beakers?

You can buy cheap siphoning tubes at any hardware store so you don't have to worry about getting a gutfull of toxic. This is a good discussion, I've always used one bath (for each session) but go through a lot of work to make my prints archival, so...makes sense to go to 2-bath.
 
Silver Levels Which Guarantee Greatest LE


Use just the amount of fixer, liquid or solid form, needed to
thoroughly fix one sheet of paper. Then dump the fixer. Silver
load levels will be well below the 0.5 gram level mentioned above.
For 20x24 inch prints the solution volume for easy processing will
be 1.5 to 2 liters. The fixer will be very dilute and fix times will
run 4 to 5 minutes using a rapid fix.

The exact amount needed varies from paper to paper. Tests
should be done using unexposed smaller sheets. Unexposed
is worst case for a fixer. Some preparatory work needed.
Consider the convenience. Good chemical milage.
Expect an easy wash using less water. Dan
 

2 litres will evenly cover the 20x24" sheet? I presume in terms of dilution we're in the realm of 1+19 or so.

Tom
 
Also is the option of using 1 fixer tray while printing, then when finished, set up another tray and do the second bath on all the prints at once before washing. I use TF4 with 2 bath method, and am secure in good fixation, and don't have to do archival checks. I print a few times for smaller sizes (8x10, etc) then dump the first bath, move the second to first and start a new second when going to final exhibition prints.
 
If you use a stronger dilution for a shorter time, why would you exhaust the fixer faster than using a weaker dilution for a longer time? According to the ilford pdf, the exhaustion time is the same for the two dilutions using their fixing times. And the capacity is 40 8x10 sheets per liter, not 10.
 

Short two-bath fixing at film strength is the most secure way to fix a fiber-base print. I can only warn against short cuts or dangerous economics in print fixing. Underfixing is the number one cause of print deterioration, and it often takes many years to show its ugly face. You might not see any change for 10 years and then it only takes 2 more for the print to be ruined. Somebody saying "I'm doing this for years and it has never been a problem" is no proof. Check your chosen fixing method for residual silver and your washing procedure for residual fixer to be sure.
 
Tom Kershaw said:
Ralph,

I've been fixing at 1+9 in a 2-bath configuration, testing for residual fixer.

Tom
Click to expand...

Tom

Why are you testing for residual fixer? Shouldn't you be testing for residual silver to verify the validity of your fixing procedure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register