Sodium thiosulfate fixer smell - whew!

[Rmaydana]

Rudolf Leitgeb made me aware of this post and the earlier 2004 post in photo.net. Thank you Rudolf.

In the 2004 photo.net post, Danny Spence wrote:

"The formula seems simple enough with only three dry chemicals -- sodium thiosulfate, sodium sulfide, and sodium bisulfite."

Mr. Spence indicates that he used sodium sulfide. The correct chemical is sodium sulfite. If he did use sulfide this would account for the discoloration and sludge. I have looked at all 4 editions of the DCB and sodium sulfite is specified.

In the second thread (in which only an offensive smell is mentioned) I concur with the conclusion of several respondents to eliminate both the bisulfite and citric acid from the formula. Bisulfite was included in the original formula before papers were sufficiently hardened. Acid is no longer needed and for that matter hardener of any kind, as most papers are over-hardened for machine processing. Those that are not over-hardened still contain more hardener than papers prior to the 1990s.

At the time the first edition of the DCB was written I was using F-24 for large format pyro negatives. I later switched to TF-4 alkaline fixer with a 1 minute running water rinse in place of a stop bath, thereby eliminating both the acetic acid stop and hardener in the fixer. I now use TF-4 for film and paper.

I never tried substituting citric acid in F-24 as I never had a problem with odor and have always tried to minimize the use of hardeners.

My apologies to both Mr. Spence and Mr. Goldstein for having discovered this the hard way, but thank them for sharing with the rest of us. I have just crossed out the citric acid in my mark-up copy of the DCB, as per Mr. Goldstein's recommendation. :sonríe:

Feel free to post these issues on the DCB forum and I will be more likely to see them and respond.

Steve, también trabajo con pyro, cual es la formula del TF-4?

 

[Steve Anchell]

Steve, también trabajo con pyro, cual es la formula del TF-4?

Rmaydana, TF-4 is a proprietary formula by Bill Troop, my co-author of the Film Developing Cookbook 2 (FDCB2). It is available from The Photographers' Formulary.

Bill has created a close version, TF-3, published in the Darkroom Cookbook 4 and FDCB2. In the fifth edition of the DCB that I am working on, several alkaline fixer formulas will be available. In the meantime, the formula for TF-3 from the FDCB2 is:

Ammonium thiosulfate, 57-60%, 800 ml
Sodium sulfite, anhydrous, 60g
Sodium metaborate, 5 g
Water to make 1 L

Working solution: Dilute 1+4 with water

 

[Sidd]

Rmaydana, TF-4 is a proprietary formula by Bill Troop, my co-author of the Film Developing Cookbook 2 (FDCB2). It is available from The Photographers' Formulary.

Bill has created a close version, TF-3, published in the Darkroom Cookbook 4 and FDCB2. In the fifth edition of the DCB that I am working on, several alkaline fixer formulas will be available. In the meantime, the formula for TF-3 from the FDCB2 is:

Ammonium thiosulfate, 57-60%, 800 ml
Sodium sulfite, anhydrous, 60g
Sodium metaborate, 5 g
Water to make 1 L

Working solution: Dilute 1+4 with water

Steve, I am using TF-2 for almost all developments requiring 6 minutes or more, with only water stop bath after development and Ilford method of washing after fixing. My question is, whether this procedure is right, and, whether there would be any preservation issue in future?

Secondly, is TF-3 any better than TF-2? Since, Ammonium Thiosulphate is very expensive here in India, I go for TF-2.

 

[Steve Anchell]

Steve, I am using TF-2 for almost all developments requiring 6 minutes or more, with only water stop bath after development and Ilford method of washing after fixing. My question is, whether this procedure is right, and, whether there would be any preservation issue in future?

Secondly, is TF-3 any better than TF-2? Since, Ammonium Thiosulphate is very expensive here in India, I go for TF-2.

As both of these formulas can be credited to Bill Troop, I have sent your query to him. He says he will try to answer in a week or so. In the meantime, I can say this. The Ilford method of washing was debunked many years ago. It doesn't work. Kodak put forth an alternative method that is almost the same but with a few differences. The Ilford method was based on the Kodak method. My guess is that they tried to make it just different enough not to be accused of copying Kodak. The Kodak method has been proven to work, the Ilford method does not.

It is too involved for me to include it in this thread, but the Kodak method can be found, along with Bill and my commentary on the Ilford method, on pages 148 and 149 of The Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition.

If you don't hear from Bill in a week or so, let me know, and I'll remind him.

 

[Sidd]

As both of these formulas can be credited to Bill Troop, I have sent your query to him. He says he will try to answer in a week or so. In the meantime, I can say this. The Ilford method of washing was debunked many years ago. It doesn't work. Kodak put forth an alternative method that is almost the same but with a few differences. The Ilford method was based on the Kodak method. My guess is that they tried to make it just different enough not to be accused of copying Kodak. The Kodak method has been proven to work, the Ilford method does not.

It is too involved for me to include it in this thread, but the Kodak method can be found, along with Bill and my commentary on the Ilford method, on pages 148 and 149 of The Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition.

If you don't hear from Bill in a week or so, let me know, and I'll remind him.

Thank you Steve, am awaiting eagerly for Bill Troop's comments on my query. Just checked the pages 148 & 149 of FDC, will definitely follow your guidance.

 

[Sidd]

As both of these formulas can be credited to Bill Troop, I have sent your query to him. He says he will try to answer in a week or so. In the meantime, I can say this. The Ilford method of washing was debunked many years ago. It doesn't work. Kodak put forth an alternative method that is almost the same but with a few differences. The Ilford method was based on the Kodak method. My guess is that they tried to make it just different enough not to be accused of copying Kodak. The Kodak method has been proven to work, the Ilford method does not.

It is too involved for me to include it in this thread, but the Kodak method can be found, along with Bill and my commentary on the Ilford method, on pages 148 and 149 of The Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition.

If you don't hear from Bill in a week or so, let me know, and I'll remind him.

Just a gentle reminder

 

[runswithsizzers]

per post # 29:
"The Ilford method of washing was debunked many years ago. It doesn't work. Kodak put forth an alternative method that is almost the same but with a few differences. The Ilford method was based on the Kodak method. My guess is that they tried to make it just different enough not to be accused of copying Kodak. The Kodak method has been proven to work, the Ilford method does not.

It is too involved for me to include it in this thread, but the Kodak method can be found, along with Bill and my commentary on the Ilford method, on pages 148 and 149 of The Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition."

I bought a copy of the second edition and then gave it to a friend when I bought the third edition. Later, I gave her my third edition, as well, because she was much more likely to benefit from it than I was (I am content to use off-the-shelf photo chemistry).

But now, I really wish I could read more about the Kodak washing method, because I have been using the Ilford method to wash my film (slightly modified). Is there anywhere online I can read a description of the Kodak film washing method, or do I need to go begging to borrow one of the books?

Was the description of the Kodak wash method only in the second edition, or is it in the third edition, as well? Thank you.

 

[markbau]

As both of these formulas can be credited to Bill Troop, I have sent your query to him. He says he will try to answer in a week or so. In the meantime, I can say this. The Ilford method of washing was debunked many years ago. It doesn't work. Kodak put forth an alternative method that is almost the same but with a few differences. The Ilford method was based on the Kodak method. My guess is that they tried to make it just different enough not to be accused of copying Kodak. The Kodak method has been proven to work, the Ilford method does not.

It is too involved for me to include it in this thread, but the Kodak method can be found, along with Bill and my commentary on the Ilford method, on pages 148 and 149 of The Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition.

If you don't hear from Bill in a week or so, let me know, and I'll remind him.

Just to be clear, are we talking about fixing film or paper? The thread started talking about fixing paper but you mention a method described in your "film" developing cookbook.
I've used the Ilford method of paper fixing for over 30 years and from time to time done residual hypo tests and the Ilford method has always tested well. Or are you talking about the Ilford film fixing/washing method with the set number of changes of water? Could you please clarify?

 

[mshchem]

Uh..... test. Not hard.

 

[Sidd]

Just to be clear, are we talking about fixing film or paper? The thread started talking about fixing paper but you mention a method described in your "film" developing cookbook.
I've used the Ilford method of paper fixing for over 30 years and from time to time done residual hypo tests and the Ilford method has always tested well. Or are you talking about the Ilford film fixing/washing method with the set number of changes of water? Could you please clarify?

My question in the post at #28 above was regarding fixing for the film development.

 

[MattKing]

But now, I really wish I could read more about the Kodak washing method, because I have been using the Ilford method to wash my film (slightly modified). Is there anywhere online I can read a description of the Kodak film washing method, or do I need to go begging to borrow one of the books?

http://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/AJ-3-2016.pdf

 

[Kino]

per post # 29:

But now, I really wish I could read more about the Kodak washing method, because I have been using the Ilford method to wash my film (slightly modified). Is there anywhere online I can read a description of the Kodak film washing method, or do I need to go begging to borrow one of the books?

Was the description of the Kodak wash method only in the second edition, or is it in the third edition, as well? Thank you.

The Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd ed. basically says that the Ilford method for washing film in a tank lacks a 5 minute rest period between each fill and dump.

So...
Fill, invert 5 times, rest 5 minutes and dump.
Fill, invert 10 times, rest 5 minutes and dump.
Fill invert 20 times, rest 5 minutes and dump.

They go on to say...

"Kodak's two publications, "Processing Kodak Professional Black and White Films" and "How to Process and Print Black and White Film - Eastman Kodak" give ambiguous advice on washing when continuous running water is not available. They recommend ten complete changes of water for film but do not make clear that these changes must take place with agitation after film has been treated with hypo clearing agent."

Pages 148 and 149.

Now, I have negatives that are 20 years old where I both did and did not use HCA, but did use the unmodified Ilford wash method.

I can see no difference.

Caveat Emptor.

 

[runswithsizzers]

@MattKing and @Kino, Thanks for your replies!

It turns out I already have that Kodak document. Just to read the Kodak procedure, it does not sound like it would be any more thorough than the Ilford film washing procedure, maybe less so. But if agitation is needed with each water change, Kodak does not say how much or for how long, so ...? :-(

If both Kodak and Ilford are publishing unclear / incomplete washing instructions, it is regrettable. On the other hand, if those who are using these short-cut wash procedures are not experiencing long term stability problems, maybe they are "good enough" as written?

I did vaguely remember reading someting in the Film Developing Cookbook about needing to let the tank rest after each step, but I could not remember for how long. I have been letting each change of water rest for 1 minute at the end of each step, and also adding a fourth set of 40 inversions. But I will increase the rest period starting with my next processing session.

 

[MattKing]

As I understand the Kodak rapid washing suggestion, it involves ten fills and dumps - no inversions.

 

[markbau]

In my early days of darkroom work, 1975, I had to be very frugal with water as Australia always seemed to be in a drought and my mum would yell at me for wasting water. My earliest negs, mainly FP4 were washed very poorly compared to what would be considered acceptable today. (I certainly didn't know what a wash aid was). Now, when I scan them they are quite brown although curiously they don't look that bad to the naked eye. When I print them in the darkroom, they print just fine. It's almost as if they have a bit of pyro tanning! So, going on my experience, even if your wash is not up to spec, don't worry, your negs will probably be fine to print in 50 years.