Sprint Chemistry: reasons not to use it

So at school of course they used Sprint chemistry in the darkroom because it's cheap and harder to screw up with the developer etc.

My question is, as far as print developer goes I would prefer to use something else, but for the rest of it, is there any reason not to use their stop, fix, hypo clear etc. for film and especially for prints?

I've seen some master printers comment that for example they don't know what they would do if they didn't have anymore Kodak stop, of all of the things, I wouldn't think stop would be that important in terms of stopping to print, and any stop would do, but to them, the Kodak Stop made the difference, why?

I actually don't know if the fix is an acid fixer or an alkali.

But besides that, is there any reason not to use it?

I would think since it's so cheap that most people would be using this as an option as long as they are develop and printing very often.

I'm setting up a dark room and I'm trying to decide on following my normal path which is to go all Ilford and get Hypam etc

If some are more important than others, like of only the hypo clear is not important and I can get that from sprint but everything else I should go with something more reputable and "professional".

I completely believe in the idea of reputation versus reality, and what I mean by that is the perspective that because students often use Sprint developer etc. it is not really a professional chemistry and only for amateurs and beginners, and then there's the reality of the fact that it may be just fine and is all perception.

I don't really want to hear about sprint developer, although it is perfectly fine, I do notice that it doesn't allow me to manipulate as well because it is meant to prevent students from making egregious errors and so is designed for mistakes, if you're making "mistakes" purposefully then the developer prevent you from making them, to me that is not useful for my own system, I already have a pink developer chosen, I'm just asking about the other chemistry.

Finally, and you guys are not going to like this, I would like to hear from people who are master printers, those of you who are printers and do this as a job as a living, people like Bob Solomon and Dan (Kodachrome) and only the most Nikki D printers, not those who are less than precise in there methods or think that things are "good enough" I would also welcome comments from the likes of PE etc.

I know that everyone has an opinion, but I'm talking about the actual results and things like for example if I use Sprint fixer, Will my fixing time is be longer when fixing out Ilford FB paper?

my perception and suspicion is that one of the reasons that sprint chemistry is cheaper is that perhaps the dilutions are not really the best for archival guarantees and maybe the paper isn't fixed out fully with the given times from manufacturers.

For example, Ilford suggests that 1 to 2 minutes is all you need in the fixer for FB paper, followed by five minutes wash, followed by 10 minutes hypo clear, followed by five minutes wash. This seems much less then some of the suggested times that my professors had given me such as a full 5 minutes in the Sprint fixer and 20 minutes in the wash even after using the sprint hypo clear.

I am setting up a home darkroom, and one of my main goals is to use as little water as possible.

I hope you guys get the basic idea, and I really welcome comments but I would prefer from people who have actual knowledge and experience, and are very much perfectionists in their printing art.

Thank you!

What's a pink developer?

If your concerned with adequate fixing and washing, there are tests you can run. Check this out:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Archival/archival.html

Stone:

I've worked in commercial darkrooms, school darkrooms and my own personal darkroom. I haven't used the Sprint products per se, but have used (and made buying decisions about) Kodak and other products that are, like Sprint, oriented to the commercial or industrial or educational environments.

You may find it useful to carefully read through the manufacturer's recommendations for the Sprint chemistry. If you do, you will see that the times and dilutions that are recommended include choices, and that the information you have from your instructors isn't always consistent with what Sprint is recommending.

In my experience, darkroom materials that are designed for commercial or industrial or educational environments are usually the most robust and dependable available. If Sprint is selling into that market, they are selling into the most demanding market of them all. Low quality materials in those environments create way more problems for a manufacturer than any materials designed primarily for small darkroom use.

What they may lack is flexibility - that tends to be the result of designing for dependability and robustness.

In any event, if you are aiming to guarantee archival results, you will need to test for it - it doesn't matter which company's chemicals are being used. That involves both a retained silver test (to test for complete fixing) and a retained "hypo" test (to test for complete washing). Some forms of toning can substitute for the latter test.

EDIT: In case you haven't checked it, here is the link to Sprint's website: http://sprintsystems.com/

FWIW, the MSDS for their fixer indicates to me that it is neutral to slightly acidic.

buy sodium thiosulfate in 25LB containers and add some some sodium bisulfite to each tray. lasts lots longer and lots cheaper. you have city chemical right down the street..tell em peter sent you..no shipping

I know that everyone has an opinion, but I'm talking about the actual results

Click to expand...

Sorry I have no facts (or opinions) to help you, but I support 100% your (perceived) irritation at opinions being passed (on forums) as substitute for advice based on fact and experience.

slopping around

I've been slopping around in wet darkrooms for more than 60 years. I helped set up the darkrooms at the Press Center at the Olympics in Mexico City in 1968, (me and the head darkroom guy at Life magazine); I worked in the darkroom for years for the world's largest photo news service. I always tried to use Kodak products when I could because I found the hard way that Kodak was extremely reliable. Other brands would let you down, Kodak was reliable. When you're a master printer you don't want to rock the boat and try something new when what you have been using for years does the job. Never heard of Sprint chemistry.

Most of the products will work the same in terms of print developers, stop, rapid fix. etc. but it can be useful to have a reliable supply, e.g. ILFORD branded products are very readily available in the UK without waiting a week for a special order. Powdered products such as Kodak XTOL last a long time.

Tom

OP

you don't want to use sprint, DON'T ... use something else .. no one has you in a headlock making you use something you
obviously don't want to use ... its great to see you looking for likeminded people.
you've got your pink developer, and suggestions for fixer, use perma wash to remove the fixer and wash for the times stated on the bottle.
use a residual chemistry tests to make sure your film and prints are free of chemistry .. and you will be Ok.
20 minutes of washing for prints and films has been a "standard" for decades. it is not something sprint invented
or has been suggested for their chemistry. you want to wash for less, do a residual chemistry test as suggested earlier.
i know somepeople who wash their prints for hours not minutes. ... 20mins isn't very long...

but you asked for informed reasons from people with EXPERIENCE not to use the chemistry ...

much of the work i post here doesn't reflect what i have done over the years, i don't post client work online ...
i have 35 years professionalprinting including submissions to federal and state archives and hand printing
and processing work for portraitphotographers as well as labs and submissions to magazines and newspapers ..
all of the submissions i have made were done with sprint fixer ( and sometimes their film developer ),
and i have never had a problem. i have rc+fb prints from 1981 and films from the same year that look like they did the moment they dried ...

here are my reasons why NOT to use sprint chemistry:

1 - it comes in 1L and 1gallon concentrated, who needs liquid chemistry, mixing dry chemicals is more fun, i love stirring a gallon of fumes
for 15 minutes, there is nothing like the smell of warm dektol being mixed, 2 part kodafix smells fine too... and the xtol magic trick is fun.
2. the developer, stop fix remover are all diluted 1:9, the fixer 2:8 who needs easy ... its better to have a variety of dilutions, easy is for suckers.
3. they have extremely good documentation on their website for nearly ever film made (starting points) i'd rather concentrate on hearsay from strangers
what to use as starting points with certain films, especially blowhards and egoists with high website post counts and no first hand experience.
4. they have extremely detailed info-charts for a variety of different times, temperatures scenarios to alter development ( different conditions of film, and equipment )
... i'd rather wing it, or take the same blowhard's word for it.
5. they have a q/a email / 800# for troubleshooting + info, and a detailed webstie .. again, i'd rather get my information not from the
manufacturer or experienced people who test and use their product, but from blowhards on the internet who dispense misinformation.
6. when the stop bath indicates the dev+fixer are spent ... who needs a system that has worked since the 1970s? i'd rather rely on
hypo check in the little bottle, or mixing more chemistry i can mix wrong on my own to see if my fixer is dead, and get rid of it prematurely seeing hypo check can gives false readings if not used correctly, and most people use it incorrectly.
7. prints that are full scale black blacks bright whites ... and film that is the same ... who needs that, good prints and films are for suckers.


as suggested by others, use other chemistry, kodak, ilford, chemical suppliers raw stock, formulary ..
do what YOU want. why waste your time with chemistry you already believe to be inferior ? you already KNOW
it is terrible ... others have suggested for a year to just get one developer and use it for a long time so you
don't have as many variables to wrestle with as you become a better printer ( and film processer ). getting something plain-vanilla like
sprint or d76 or dektol that isn't as finicky as other "stuff" is usually a good thing-- so you can concentrate on other things...

jnanian said:

OP

you don't want to use sprint, DON'T ... use something else .. no one has you in a headlock making you use something you
obviously don't want to use ... its great to see you looking for likeminded people.
you've got your pink developer, and suggestions for fixer, use perma wash to remove the fixer and wash for the times stated on the bottle.
use a residual chemistry tests to make sure your film and prints are free of chemistry .. and you will be Ok.
20 minutes of washing for prints and films has been a "standard" for decades. it is not something sprint invented
or has been suggested for their chemistry. you want to wash for less, do a residual chemistry test as suggested earlier.
i know somepeople who wash their prints for hours not minutes. ... 20mins isn't very long...

but you asked for informed reasons from people with EXPERIENCE not to use the chemistry ...

much of the work i post here doesn't reflect what i have done over the years, i don't post client work online ...
i have 35 years professionalprinting including submissions to federal and state archives and hand printing
and processing work for portraitphotographers as well as labs and submissions to magazines and newspapers ..
all of the submissions i have made were done with sprint fixer ( and sometimes their film developer ),
and i have never had a problem. i have rc+fb prints from 1981 and films from the same year that look like they did the moment they dried ...

here are my reasons why NOT to use sprint chemistry:

1 - it comes in 1L and 1gallon concentrated, who needs liquid chemistry, mixing dry chemicals is more fun, i love stirring a gallon of fumes
for 15 minutes, there is nothing like the smell of warm dektol being mixed, 2 part kodafix smells fine too...
2. the developer, stop fix remover are all diluted 1:9, the fixer 2:8 who needs easy?
3. they have extremely good documentation on their website for nearly ever film made (starting points) i'd rather concentrate on hearsay from strangers what to use as starting points with certain films, especially blowhards and egoists with high website post counts and no first hand experience.
4. they have extremely detailed info-charts for a variety of different times, temperatures scenarios to alter development ( different conditions of film, and equipment ) ... i'd rather wing it, or take the same blowhard's word for it.
5. they have a q/a email / 800# for troubleshooting + info, and a detailed webstie .. again, i'd rather get my information not from the
manufacturer or experienced people who test and use their product, but from blowhards on the internet who dispense misinformation.
6. when the stop bath indicates the dev+fixer are spent ... who needs a system that has worked since the 1970s? i'd rather rely on
hypo check in the little bottle, or mixing more chemistry i can mix wrong on my own to see if my fixer is dead, and get rid of it prematurely seeing hypo check can gives false readings if not used correctly, and most people use it incorrectly.
7. prints that are full scale black blacks bright whites ... and film that is the same ... who needs that, good prints and films are for suckers.

Click to expand...

Thank you John,

I figured you would weigh in on this, but I thought you'd understand one thing that you've obviously missed.

I'm actually considering using Sprint...

That's what this thread is about, switching from Ilford to Sprint for the Stop/Fix/hypo clear baths.

I just wanted to be sure that their chemistry was not just for students work but for working professionals.

I want to be sure that the stop. The paper and that the fix fully fixes the paper in the given time that manufacturers have given, because the times differ so greatly between Ilford's times and Sprints.

I'm trying to sort out if the longer times for the sprint chemistry are because the dilutions are weaker, or some other reason, or if it's the actual material that changes the times for example the Ilford paper might be better at fixing out faster and so the times they list for fixing being so short are because the paper is excellent, and will fix out in any fixer in 1 to 2 minutes, or if the sprint fixer needs more time because it's a different type.

So please don't be angry because I'm actually considering using your product I just want to be sure that down the road I won't have problems if I follow Ilford's shorter time frames for everything, or if I have to stick to Ilford chemistry in order to follow those times.

I also was curious if it's possible that the sprint chemistry is great for paper but that for film I should stick to my usual because it's a different material and happens to not work as good with film etc. I'm not sure I'm just supposing.

This is a serious thread and it's not supposed to be a joke, it's not meant to be trolling, it's meant to be informative so that I can make an informed decision about what to use in my dark room at home.

eddie said:

What's a pink developer?

If your concerned with adequate fixing and washing, there are tests you can run. Check this out:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Archival/archival.html

Click to expand...

Thanks Eddie,

Also, print developer... Not pink, It was an auto correct error.

im glad you are doing your research

instead of canvasing people who have never heard of used the product ...
why don't you call the manufacturer and ASK THEM about dilutions &c
or what happens with stronger dilutions ? i have never heard their developers
are a weak dilution .. people sometimes overly dilute them some make it strong, whatever floats their boat ..

regarding the fixer .. they also say 2:8 for prints. and fix the paper for the time the paper manufacturer recommends.
film .. do the clear test ( also 2:8 dilution ) 2x the clear to film base time also split the fixing between 2 baths.

some people forget this but prints need to be agitated in the fixer too, just letting them sit in a bath
without agitation doesn't fix them. and leads to problems down the road...

have fun in your new darkroom !

For those who haven't heard of Sprint - it's primarily a New England thing, I think. They're located in RI and therefore most of the schools near there use it. When I first had my own darkroom (in MA), I used all Sprint because I could buy it the easiest. Once I moved to PA, I started using Ilford developer and fixer, but don't have a "real" reason why (I think it was tougher at first to get Sprint there). I still prefer Sprint stopbath because it has a vanilla scent and is an indicator one.
When HIE was still available, I tried it with a couple of different developers and liked Sprint the best.
Stone - go by the manufacturer's recommendations - To fix either B&W films or prints, immerse in working solution for a minimum of 3 minutes. Agitate continuously for the first minute, and for 10-15 seconds for each minute thereafter.
Read between the lines - go with John Nanian's reasons. The only reason to pick any line of chemicals is that they work the way you want them to work. Don't just listen to what others say, try them yourself.

Michael R 1974 said:

Stone, seriously, you are being fed such bullshit from so-called "master printers" (how do you get that designation anyway? I've certainly never heard of George Tice, John Sexton, Mark Citret or anyone else of note using the term).

You need some sound information. BADLY. It is an unfortunate thing, but sadly most of what is written by photographers about photographic materials and chemistry is bad. Plain bad.

When I wanted feedback on my photographs and printing skill I sought out artists I respected. But when I decided I also wanted to get a better understanding of photochemistry and sensitometry, and gain an ability to separate reasonable things from garbage, I realized I had no choice but to go to different sources.

Click to expand...

I would fully endorse this statement; there is so much semi-mystical claptrap peddled which can be entirely avoided with care. Darkroom printing does not have to take place within a figurative black box.

Tom

Well, I mix all my processing chemicals from scratch but rely on the formulae of the good old masterssuch as D72,D76,HCA(my version,etc.stop is stop;2%vinegar will doin a pinch

Michael R 1974 said:

Stone, seriously, you are being fed such bullshit from so-called "master printers" (how do you get that designation anyway? I've certainly never heard of George Tice, John Sexton, Mark Citret or anyone else of note using the term).

You need some sound information. BADLY. It is an unfortunate thing, but sadly most of what is written by photographers about photographic materials and chemistry is bad. Plain bad.

When I wanted feedback on my photographs and printing skill I sought out artists I respected. But when I decided I also wanted to get a better understanding of photochemistry and sensitometry, and gain an ability to separate reasonable things from garbage, I realized I had no choice but to go to different sources.

I've been reading your threads since you joined APUG (and LFF). You are all over the place and upside down when it comes to anything technical. You don't know the first thing about how films, papers, developers, stop baths and fixers work. How long have you been printing now? A few months? You really need to take a step back from the mountains of nonsense, simplify (since you don't seem to be interested in the science part), and work on developing darkroom skills. Practice. Print your ass off. Eliminate the noise. Read a few simple publications from Kodak and Ilford, and get down to business.

Kodak's chemicals are wonderful, venerable products that can do whatever you need. But anyone who says he'd be lost without Kodak's current indicator stop bath is an idiot.

Since you've said before you don't like mixing powders, here's a suggestion. Buy some Kodak Indicator Stop Bath (or Ilford if you don't like the smell), Ilford Rapid Fixer and Ilford Washaid. Use as per instructions and you're golden. I have never, ever had a problem.

Click to expand...

Michael, I've always respected your opinionbut,I think,you're a bit harsh on Stone.He is genuinly seeking informationand the way he goes about it is the same most of us do.I got most of my knowledge from other photographer's publicationsand found most oof it to be solid. if not, APUGfilled in the blanksand a workshop with John Sexton really helped.However I agree that a so-claimed dependency on Kodak stop is rather puzzling.there are many alternatives

SNIP SNIP SNIP

RalphLambrecht said:

However I agree that a so-claimed dependency on Kodak stop is rather puzzling.there are many alternatives

Click to expand...

including a tray of TAP WATER i haven't used stop bath since october 1988 and find it to be useless

jnanian said:

SNIP SNIP SNIP


including a tray of TAP WATER i haven't used stop bath since october 1988 and find it to be useless

Click to expand...

If you're doing many prints, my understanding is that, some of the developers can transfer over into the stop bath or in your case water bath, and in particular if you are using a non-acidic fixer, you can end up not fully stopping the development of your film/paper and end up with ruined print / film after a time.

I have not been printing long enough to leave my prints out for years to know if I've done something wrong in the process, I don't have the kind of machinery to expedite the aging process to test this is why am asking.

The article I read where the printer was talking about kodak stop being lost without it, was an article that was posted here not three months ago, and everyone hailed as an amazing article.

Unfortunately I never earmarked it or anything and I can't remember exactly what it was about except it was pro-traditional printing.

I've printed roughly 500 sheets of 8x10 paper so far and clocked about 150 hours in the darkroom in 2 months. I'm still new, but I also don't want to start with bad habits and good prints that age poorly. I want to get it right from the beginning.

I'm setting up a home darkroom so I have choices that need to be decided now so I can not waste water or time or money and continue printing and learning.

If I choose to use Ilford developer, sprint stop, Ilford hypam, and sprint hypo clear, will the indicator stop still be in line with the Ilford fixer exhaustion?

Will the less acidic stop interfere with the acidic nature of hypam and cause it to exhaust/go bad sooner than if I were using all Ilford products?

These are the kinds of information that sprint cannot provide, and honestly I don't trust any manufacture to tell me anything because they will only save their stuff is just fine or just as good, or better than the other guy... So calling sprint isn't something I value for comparison, just being honest, companies are dishonest.

Sprint chemistry was designed by MIT students who decided to make their own school developer, that's why it started in Massachusetts/Rhode Island, I do certainly trust MIT student with chemistry, but still it doesn't mean if they designed them to be the best, just that they designed them to work for school darkrooms, not "commercial lab" use.

Different animal.

Ultimately of course I could stick with Ilford chemistry because I know it works well and I trust it, but it couldn't hurt to save money if indeed there is no necessity to use it for everything, with film I reuse a lot of chemistry, but with paper I'm always making new batches because I have to clean up and I'm not storing gallons of mixed chemistry to be reused etc.

Thanks for your understanding.

Stone,

Good documentation and support can be a reason to use a product in itself.

Tom

There's no problem with using different manufacturers in your work flow. I use developers/fixers by Kodak/Ilford. Sometimes it's all Kodak or all Ilford. Sometimes it's one for developer, the other for fix. You're safe, so long as you test for the end result.

Stone, The larger the print or the more numerous the prints, the more a stop bath is needed for uniformity. The water flow through the water rinse used instead of a stop must be increased as well. The reason is that developer carries over into a water rinse or stop. In a stop, the developer carryover is neutralized, but in a water rinse it must be removed somehow or diluted enough to stop working. If you have a lot of prints or they are large, you begin to get nonuniformity due to this active carried over developer. In addition, you may begin to "poison" your fix due to carryover from the rinse to the fix.

Enough reason for me to use it for all printing work and all LF processing. For MF and 35mm this is not as important, but can still rear its ugly head.

As for Sprint, I have never used it but I can say this as a general comment that chemistry designed for school use is often not robust keeping on shelves. It is intended to be used ASAP in the semester in which it is purchased rather than the chemistry being kept on the shelf for a year or so in bags or bottles.

My own work is the design of chemistry that keeps on the shelf and in the tray (or tank) used or unused for a maximum time. This makes a product more pricey, but IMHO more economical in the long run.

PE

StoneNYC said:

If you're doing many prints, my understanding is that, some of the developers can transfer over into the stop bath or in your case water bath, and in particular if you are using a non-acidic fixer, you can end up not fully stopping the development of your film/paper and end up with ruined print / film after a time.

I have not been printing long enough to leave my prints out for years to know if I've done something wrong in the process, I don't have the kind of machinery to expedite the aging process to test this is why am asking.

The article I read where the printer was talking about kodak stop being lost without it, was an article that was posted here not three months ago, and everyone hailed as an amazing article.

Unfortunately I never earmarked it or anything and I can't remember exactly what it was about except it was pro-traditional printing.

I've printed roughly 500 sheets of 8x10 paper so far and clocked about 150 hours in the darkroom in 2 months. I'm still new, but I also don't want to start with bad habits and good prints that age poorly. I want to get it right from the beginning.

I'm setting up a home darkroom so I have choices that need to be decided now so I can not waste water or time or money and continue printing and learning.

If I choose to use Ilford developer, sprint stop, Ilford hypam, and sprint hypo clear, will the indicator stop still be in line with the Ilford fixer exhaustion?

Will the less acidic stop interfere with the acidic nature of hypam and cause it to exhaust/go bad sooner than if I were using all Ilford products?

These are the kinds of information that sprint cannot provide, and honestly I don't trust any manufacture to tell me anything because they will only save their stuff is just fine or just as good, or better than the other guy... So calling sprint isn't something I value for comparison, just being honest, companies are dishonest.

Sprint chemistry was designed by MIT students who decided to make their own school developer, that's why it started in Massachusetts/Rhode Island, I do certainly trust MIT student with chemistry, but still it doesn't mean if they designed them to be the best, just that they designed them to work for school darkrooms, not "commercial lab" use.

Different animal.

Ultimately of course I could stick with Ilford chemistry because I know it works well and I trust it, but it couldn't hurt to save money if indeed there is no necessity to use it for everything, with film I reuse a lot of chemistry, but with paper I'm always making new batches because I have to clean up and I'm not storing gallons of mixed chemistry to be reused etc.

Thanks for your understanding.

Click to expand...

Stone:

The educational and commercial markets have similar requirements, so a product that is suitable for educational use will do fine for commercial use. The purely "commercial" market products are probably a little cheaper for high volume users, and may require a user with more experience/knowledge if they are to be used to their maximum efficiency.

But as for effectiveness, no manufacturer with any long term presence in the marketplace is making low quality materials. Any such manufacturer would be out of the educational/commercial marketplace so quickly your head would spin.

There are differences of course - ease of use, odour, cost, capacity, speed, tray life. They are all criteria that can lead you to decide to choose one over the other.

Your questions about mixing products from different manufacturers are fair, but I think you are misunderstanding one thing. Within the options you present, it is essentially impossible to choose a combination that won't work perfectly well. What you have to be careful of though, are these factors:

1) capacity: if you intermix different brands and types of stop baths/water rinses and different brands and types and dilutions of fixer, you may change how many prints you can fix out of each litre of working strength fixer. You ought to test to determine the capacity of the choice you make, although the recommendations of the fixer manufacturer will probably be fine; and
2) hardening: in most cases, I don't like to use hardener with prints, although I note that Sprint advocates it in certain circumstances. If I was using a soft (as in easily damaged emulsion) paper (and I don't know that there are any around any more), I would probably be concerned with this*. In which case, it would be necessary to pay attention to the suitability of the fixer I am using, and the pH of the stop bath/rinse that I am using in front of it.

If you contact Sprint, they will tell you one of three things:

a) don't use Kodak or Ilford Stop bath with their fixer (unlikely);
b) they don't know how much their capacity figures need to be adjusted if you use Kodak or Ilford Stop bath with their fixer (possible, but also unlikely); or
c) they will give you advice on how much their capacity figures need to be adjusted if you use Kodak or Ilford Stop bath with their fixer.

It isn't in any way in their best interests to give you the wrong information, because it is they who will lose customers if they do.

In any event, you need to test whatever combination you choose, using your procedure, in your environment, so your tests will protect you anyways.

Hope this help.

*On the question of hardening, it is recommended after certain types of toning. One of the easiest ways of doing that is to use hardening fixer. Some fixers, like Ilford Rapid Fixer, are incompatible with added hardener, while others, like Ilford Hypam are compatible with added hardener.

StoneNYC said:

Sprint chemistry was designed by MIT students who decided to make their own school developer, that's why it started in Massachusetts/Rhode Island, I do certainly trust MIT student with chemistry, but still it doesn't mean if they designed them to be the best, just that they designed them to work for school darkrooms, not "commercial lab" use.

Click to expand...

you suggested you had specific questions about sprint chemistry and i suggested you contact them because they will
shed light on what their chemistry does or does not do. i suggested you contact them for specifics you asked for,
not comparisons between other chemistry as you are now suggesting ... i suggested contacting them directly rather than getting
information from people on the internet who don't and have never used their chemistry to begin with or know what it is.
maybe there is a method to this .. but i'm not really sure how opinions unrelated to product experience are supposed to
inform you about experience with a product. keeping properties are on their website and on the bottles. there is no fine print or surprises.

regarding the water bath ...

it seems obvious that if you don't change the water or use running water the water bath gets contaminated and might carry over to the fix.
i dump my water bath and refill it periodically and use a large tray ... like my holding bath after fixing before my final wash and fix remove
done this with rc, fb, hand coated, glass plates, silvergelatin tintypes too, and all sizes from 4x5 to 16x20+ and film from 110-8x10 never had a problem. but that's me, ... , if you don't feel comfortable with water instead of stop bath, or using their chemicals for whatever reasons
by all means do what you want. ( i don't use their film or paper developer often because my processing and printing sessions are so spread out
chemistry goes bad, so i use ansco 130 because as a stock solution it lasts in a bottle as concentrate for about a year, and even dilute in a tray
for long periods of time. i use their fix, not their fix remover but perma wash and never had troubles. )

obviously, do what you feel comfortable with ...

not sure where you read or who told you sprint chemistry was designed by MIT students ... might not be correct ..
unless paul krot is more than 1 person and went to MIT (as well as RISD)
paul krot started / founded sprint, he was at RISD and taught there for 25 years . he was free and open with his
knowledge and helped countless people. unfortunately he passed away from a heart condition
in the 1990s and left a HUGE HOLE in the RI art community. he helped me immensely when i was in a bind, and i had never met him before.

the included video has information about him as a person, teacher and chemistry company founder. ( its about 20mis long )
http://vimeo.com/37839548

maybe it was ryuji suuki ( who founded silvergrain ) your source was thinking of ?
he was in school in boston ( im not sure about MIT ) and developed his own line of black and white chemistry
http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/silvergrain.php

Stone, you're getting a lot of good information here, and I really do not have the knowledge or experience in this area to contribute much. I can make a few general comments, though, that echo what you've been told already, but perhaps in a different way.

Remember, we're all people, and in that respect have similarities. In posts over the years you have done what works for you, and gives you the results you want. No problem with that - just keep in mind your photography professors are the same (as is everyone on this board). Plus, they have to come up with a system and process that works well for teaching people with less experience than you. So, your prof's choice of chemicals, dilutions, and times serve them best in that respect. It is entirely likely that the Sprint chemicals will serve you well, but you have to do the "leg work" for what works for you (which you are starting with this thread).

So, as people have said, consult the manufacturer’s recommendations (as opposed to your teachers' recommendations), and test for residuals as people here have suggested. With testing and experimentation, you will come up with a good process. If you get the results you like AND the tests show your prints are clean and "archival," who cares what the chemicals are?

I am of the opinion that most, if not all, manufacturers will give what you need, and the only question is how to get there. It is likely the things that set them apart are not final results. Instead, these differences are probably prices, shelf-life, dilutions, times, etc. An arbitrary example would be whether the shelf-life of a bag of powdered fixer is more important than the ease and speed of a liquid rapid fixer. After deciding what is important to me, I then simply have to learn to use my choice correctly. Another example would be whether a more expensive liquid concentrate with a long life is better for me (I don't process often, and have never used an entire batch of chemicals at "stock solution" before they started to go bad - well maybe stop bath is the exception).

I do get the impression you want to learn to do it "right" first, then work on your own preferences (in other words, you are learning the rules before you decide which to break). I find that laudable.

Photo Engineer said:

Stone, The larger the print or the more numerous the prints, the more a stop bath is needed for uniformity. The water flow through the water rinse used instead of a stop must be increased as well. The reason is that developer carries over into a water rinse or stop. In a stop, the developer carryover is neutralized, but in a water rinse it must be removed somehow or diluted enough to stop working. If you have a lot of prints or they are large, you begin to get nonuniformity due to this active carried over developer. In addition, you may begin to "poison" your fix due to carryover from the rinse to the fix.

Enough reason for me to use it for all printing work and all LF processing. For MF and 35mm this is not as important, but can still rear its ugly head.

As for Sprint, I have never used it but I can say this as a general comment that chemistry designed for school use is often not robust keeping on shelves. It is intended to be used ASAP in the semester in which it is purchased rather than the chemistry being kept on the shelf for a year or so in bags or bottles.

My own work is the design of chemistry that keeps on the shelf and in the tray (or tank) used or unused for a maximum time. This makes a product more pricey, but IMHO more economical in the long run.

PE

Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming my understanding of crossover and addressing the issue of shelf life. Thanks.

Truzi said:

(snip)

I do get the impression you want to learn to do it "right" first, then work on your own preferences (in other words, you are learning the rules before you decide which to break). I find that laudable.

Click to expand...

Thanks, at least you understand this, it's something that I learned probably most notably from my tennis instructor back in school, that if you don't learn proper form from the beginning before attempting to swing at the ball, you will learn bad habits with muscle memory, and they will be much harder to break after you've had practice.

Michael R 1974 said:

I'm being harsh but truthful. It is necessary, and about time. He's not seeking the right information. He's bouncing all over the place and not learning anything.
(Snip)

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you think I'm "jumping all over the place" I'm at the next up, I'm designing a dark room and need to know which chemistry to buy to begin printing at home.

I have no one else to ask information about it, and I'm not going to just arbitrarily start printing with random chemistry without knowing what I'm doing. If I were "all over the place", I would be trying out various stop baths and fixers (which is what I USED to do when I started developing) instead of making an informed decision about what to buy, buy it, and then sticking with it, which is what I plan to do...

I've never seen a print that is not properly fixed so I don't know how to tell the difference between that and one that is properly fixed for archival-ness.

StoneNYC said:

I've never seen a print that is not properly fixed so I don't know how to tell the difference between that and one that is properly fixed for archival-ness.

Click to expand...

The link I gave you has a test for that.