Sprint Chemistry: reasons not to use it

Truzi · Nov 15, 2014

Use a chemical test to see if a print is "archival." Aside from "obvious" immediate issues, it's not something you can tell by looking at it (at least not after a long time).

Actually, if you are building a darkroom, put a lot of thought into the layout, height of things, ventilation, location of the sink, safe-lights, etc. My first printing (since college) will be in a bathroom, but I've done the mental exercise of how I'd layout a darkroom if I had the space - and it can be daunting.
Worry about chemistry last. You can always change that easily.

cliveh · Nov 15, 2014

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.

X10

pentaxuser · Nov 15, 2014

StoneNYC said:
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.

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.

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.

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

Thank you!

Just out of curiosity can you say what it is that Sprint developer doesn't allow you to do that other developers do or might do. Do you know how it prevents students from making egregious errors compared to other developers and how does its talent for preventing egregious mistakes prevent it from being useful for your system?Is there an inverse correlation between preventing egregious mistakes and versatility for developing?

I don't suppose that in the U.K. I will ever be able to get Sprint chemicals but I am always trying to learn about the range of chemicals that exist

I take it that Sprint makes its own chemicals unlike say Ilford and now Kodak who use third parties

Thanks

pentaxuser

winger · Nov 15, 2014

When you're setting up your darkroom, things like countertop height, storage, and sink are all things that you need to choose well because they're tougher to change. You can change chemistry as often as you change underpants, if you're doing enough printing. I kid a bit, but changing the chemistry is not going to change your methods that much. How you dodge, burn, time things, etc.. are going to be refined with experience and will have a greater effect on your prints than the chemistry used.
Fixing sufficiently and washing well are the keys to archival-ness. The amount of residual fixer can be tested for - do it. Make some prints intentionally wrong and see what happens.
But don't ever think that you're locked into one brand over another for eternity. How you use it (go by the manufacturer's instructions - RTFM) is more important than what it is. What's on the market now is probably as tried and tested as it ever could be. When used correctly, they're all good.

Tom Kershaw · Nov 15, 2014

winger said:
When you're setting up your darkroom, things like countertop height, storage, and sink are all things that you need to choose well because they're tougher to change. You can change chemistry as often as you change underpants, if you're doing enough printing. I kid a bit, but changing the chemistry is not going to change your methods that much. How you dodge, burn, time things, etc.. are going to be refined with experience and will have a greater effect on your prints than the chemistry used.
Fixing sufficiently and washing well are the keys to archival-ness. The amount of residual fixer can be tested for - do it. Make some prints intentionally wrong and see what happens.
But don't ever think that you're locked into one brand over another for eternity. How you use it (go by the manufacturer's instructions - RTFM) is more important than what it is. What's on the market now is probably as tried and tested as it ever could be. When used correctly, they're all good.

This is very true. I know from experience that it is easy to get caught up in insignificant details of what chemistry to use, and waste time.

Tom

Chrismat · Nov 15, 2014

I have been using Sprint's fixer remover for film processing for a few years now, and have been happy with it, although I will probably end up making my own to save money. I do on occasion use their fixer and even though I haven't used it that much, I've been satisfied with the results. I've never used their developers.

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

eddie said:
The link I gave you has a test for that.

Thanks I'll certainly be looking at it monday and testing unless I need to buy something. Then I'll buy it and then try.

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

Greg Davis said:
Stone, I have used Sprint stuff for years at the school I was teaching at, and the stop and fixer (which is an acid fixer, fyi) work just like any other. They give a low concentrate mix for fixer that acts like Kodak Rapid Fix, and a high concentrate mix that acts like Ilford's. The developer gives identical results to Kodak Dektol on Ilford MG fiber paper until they are toned, then the color change is a little different. Contrast and maximum black are indistinguishable.

The stop is an indicator type that changes from yellow to purple as it exhausts, but has a mild vanilla scent instead of overly acidic. The fixer remover is a deep blue color that turns lighter as it exhausts giving the appearance under the safelight of changing from black to clear. When used properly, the prints are archivally clean when tested by the usual residual hypo tests after proper washing.

Oh, I didn't know the hypo-clear also was an indicator, does it only clear when exhausted or also when its oxidized from sitting too long on the shelf?

Thanks for the info.

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

winger said:
When you're setting up your darkroom, things like countertop height, storage, and sink are all things that you need to choose well because they're tougher to change. You can change chemistry as often as you change underpants, if you're doing enough printing. I kid a bit, but changing the chemistry is not going to change your methods that much. How you dodge, burn, time things, etc.. are going to be refined with experience and will have a greater effect on your prints than the chemistry used.
Fixing sufficiently and washing well are the keys to archival-ness. The amount of residual fixer can be tested for - do it. Make some prints intentionally wrong and see what happens.
But don't ever think that you're locked into one brand over another for eternity. How you use it (go by the manufacturer's instructions - RTFM) is more important than what it is. What's on the market now is probably as tried and tested as it ever could be. When used correctly, they're all good.

Noted

dosilverhalide · Nov 15, 2014

I used Sprint chemicals for film and paper for about ten years. I followed the directions on the bottle . I always got good negatives and prints. I haven't used stop bath in years, water only. The prints I got using Sprint are about twenty years old and still look as good as new. I print at home, nothing professional. I renew developer and fix frequently. I have also used Kodak chemicals, D76 and Dektol, and sometimes Ilford chemicals. Unless I look back at my notes, I can't tell what film and what print was made with what chemical. I don't think a company that wants to sell something is going to produce a cheap product and hope to stay in business for any length of time. I like to think that large companies such as Kodak and Ilford spent a fair amount of time , money on R & D and a smaller company such as Sprint will spend as much as it can to produce a good product. I quit using Sprint chemicals only because the store selling it went out of business. J.

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

pentaxuser said:
Just out of curiosity can you say what it is that Sprint developer doesn't allow you to do that other developers do or might do. Do you know how it prevents students from making egregious errors compared to other developers and how does its talent for preventing egregious mistakes prevent it from being useful for your system?Is there an inverse correlation between preventing egregious mistakes and versatility for developing?

I don't suppose that in the U.K. I will ever be able to get Sprint chemicals but I am always trying to learn about the range of chemicals that exist

I take it that Sprint makes its own chemicals unlike say Ilford and now Kodak who use third parties

Thanks

pentaxuser

As far as films it has a lot of restrainer. It prevents students new to film shooting/processing from over developing and/or blowing highlights, but sometimes I like to do that purposefully.

I'm also very happy with my chosen film developers.

Also I would like to do toning work and have chosen Ilford developer for the warm tone effect etc. for paper.

removed account4 · Nov 15, 2014

SNIP

StoneNYC said:
As far as films it has a lot of restrainer. It prevents students new to film shooting/processing from over developing and/or blowing highlights, but sometimes I like to do that purposefully.

how do you know this? they do not publish their recipe ... is it hearsay or do you have first hand knowledge ?

and you know the xtra restrainer is specifically in there to prevent students from over developing and blowing highlights ?

i have never heard this before, not from people who know developers backwards and forwards, not from the people at sprint, or who work / worked for them
and not from teachers i had for 7+ years who taught with sprint.

ouija board ?

Lachlan Young · Nov 15, 2014

I'm sure the Sprint chemistry is more than capable. As are Kodak's & Ilford's products. My preferences are: PQ Universal or Multigrade, indicator citric acid stop, Rapid Fixer or Hypam, Ilford or Kodak hypoclear & toners to taste - keep it simple, don't over think it. Main reason for choosing PQ universal can also be used to develop film if you need a contrast boost - instructions here: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427123181979.pdf

Regarding fixing & washing times, Ilford did a lot of work on this in the 1970s - use Hypam at 1+4 for 1 minute & follow the instructions on the hypo clear.

As I saw on another thread, you're shooting 8x10 HP5 - as long as you don't grossly underexpose, screwing it up will take serious application. I've found that rating HP5 at EI200 & processing in ID11 1+1 at Ilford's times for ISO400 gives me easily printable negs with perfect contrast in 120 and LF on all of Ilford's FB MG papers. Well exposed HP5 on Multigrade Classic is stunning.

Above all, keep your darkroom practices straightforward unless there are really exceptional reasons not to do so.

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

Two additional things.

To the article about "wouldn't know what I would do without Kodak Stop".

It's in this article about Magnum and printing.

http://theliteratelens.com/2012/02/17/magnum-and-the-dying-art-of-darkroom-printing/

John to your question about sprint being designed by MIT students, either it was on some sprint poster at school or the teacher said it, I don't recall, it just stuck in my head. It wouldn't surprise me, many MIT students create real world products as their school projects which become salable products for years after they graduate, it could also have been hoppla said by the teacher who was misinformed, I don't know for sure.

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

jnanian said:
SNIP

how do you know this? they do not publish their recipe ... is it hearsay or do you have first hand knowledge ?

and you know the xtra restrainer is specifically in there to prevent students from over developing and blowing highlights ?

i have never heard this before, not from people who know developers backwards and forwards, not from the people at sprint, or who work / worked for them
and not from teachers i had for 7+ years who taught with sprint.

ouija board ?

Specifically the teacher, he also mentioned the blacks weren't as good as when using Dektol, I don't know much about his "credentials" except he used to print for Richard Avedon among others.

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

Lachlan Young said:
I'm sure the Sprint chemistry is more than capable. As are Kodak's & Ilford's products. My preferences are: PQ Universal or Multigrade, indicator citric acid stop, Rapid Fixer or Hypam, Ilford or Kodak hypoclear & toners to taste - keep it simple, don't over think it. Main reason for choosing PQ universal can also be used to develop film if you need a contrast boost - instructions here: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427123181979.pdf

Regarding fixing & washing times, Ilford did a lot of work on this in the 1970s - use Hypam at 1+4 for 1 minute & follow the instructions on the hypo clear.

As I saw on another thread, you're shooting 8x10 HP5 - as long as you don't grossly underexpose, screwing it up will take serious application. I've found that rating HP5 at EI200 & processing in ID11 1+1 at Ilford's times for ISO400 gives me easily printable negs with perfect contrast in 120 and LF on all of Ilford's FB MG papers. Well exposed HP5 on Multigrade Classic is stunning.

Above all, keep your darkroom practices straightforward unless there are really exceptional reasons not to do so.

Thanks, I really like HP5+@250 in DD-X 1+4 for 7 minutes in my rotary processor, seems to have the best density for me.

Thanks for reminding me that Ilford really did a lot of work on this.

I REALLY want to save money, but I also really trust Ilford, perhaps I'll just stick to them and stop potentially being penny wise and pound foolish about things.

removed account4 · Nov 15, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Specifically the teacher, he also mentioned the blacks weren't as good as when using Dektol, I don't know much about his "credentials" except he used to print for Amadon among others.

ive never hears of amadon, even after googling the name no idea who that is, was or might be ...

whatever works for one person, doesn't work for someone else ..

good luck with your research

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

jnanian said:
ive never hears of amadon, even after googling the name no idea who that is, was or might be ...

whatever works for one person, doesn't work for someone else ..

good luck with your research

Avedon... As in Richard Avedon .... Sorry...

Lachlan Young · Nov 15, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Thanks, I really like HP5+@250 in DD-X 1+4 for 7 minutes in my rotary processor, seems to have the best density for me.

View attachment 98036

Thanks for reminding me that Ilford really did a lot of work on this.

I REALLY want to save money, but I also really trust Ilford, perhaps I'll just stick to them and stop potentially being penny wise and pound foolish about things.

The Ilford model is to use the fixer at film strength (1+4) - Sprint says their rapid fix is used for film at 1+4 dilution too. Thus probably much the same chemically - ammonium thio. Ilford state a capacity of 40 8x10 FB per litre at 1+4. Sprint claim 60 at a weaker dilution. It will probably work fine.

It all comes down to what sort of risks you want to take.

I'd rather be printing.

Lachlan Young · Nov 15, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
See, this is exactly the problem (well, one of them at least). A guy can be an excellent worker and still have no idea what he's talking about, which leads to the endless propagation of bad information about materials and chemicals. I have a hard time understanding how adding more restrainer would do any of the things this guy claims. For one thing, adding more restrainer tends to increase contrast/decrease emulsion speed. How would that help prevent students from blowing highlights when developing negatives? When developing prints, this would tend to affect the highlights first, not the blacks (restrainers are present to prevent fog). And "blacks" in general - be careful. It's one of those notorious things. People see what they want to see.

This +100 - I'm always amazed at the arrant nonsense some otherwise extremely skilled printers spout.

Tom Kershaw · Nov 15, 2014

Lachlan Young said:
The Ilford model is to use the fixer at film strength (1+4) - Sprint says their rapid fix is used for film at 1+4 dilution too. Thus probably much the same chemically - ammonium thio. Ilford state a capacity of 40 8x10 FB per litre at 1+4. Sprint claim 60 at a weaker dilution. It will probably work fine.

It all comes down to what sort of risks you want to take.

I'd rather be printing.

The capacity of the rapid fixers used for "best permanence" is 10 8"x10" FB sheets per litre @ 1+4, or 40 for general purposes. In the UK you can get Champion Amfix or Tetenal Superfix Plus for less than ILFORD Hypam if so inclined.

Tom

removed account4 · Nov 15, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Avedon... As in Richard Avedon .... Sorry...

aaaah....

is your teacher a chemist ??
how does he KNOW the makeup of the chemistry, its not published anywhere ?

mr krot was teaching at RISD when he developed the chemistry, he made it at
his house, not at MIT .. its in the video i posted a few pages back.
maybe the MIT thing was an urban myth because no one wants to believe
this artist professor at an art school in providence ri created the chemistry.
too bad he's not alive today, he'd chime in and set the record straight ...
where's woody allen when you need him ?

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
See, this is exactly the problem (well, one of them at least). A guy can be an excellent worker and still have no idea what he's talking about, which leads to the endless propagation of bad information about materials and chemicals. I have a hard time understanding how adding more restrainer would do any of the things this guy claims. For one thing, adding more restrainer tends to increase contrast/decrease emulsion speed. How would that help prevent students from blowing highlights when developing negatives? When developing prints, this would tend to affect the highlights first, not the blacks (restrainers are present to prevent fog). And "blacks" in general - be careful. It's one of those notorious things. People see what they want to see.

Yes, I agree, one reason I decided to ask here, honestly I found the teacher seemed to not know simple stuff like how to calculate the adjustment from switching from RC to FB, when clearly the ISO speed of the paper is listed in the Ilford paperwork in EVERY box for example, I showed him this after I discovered it as I thought it was valuable insight and he shrugged and got annoyed with me. Sure it's not EXACT but knowing that if one paper is 200 speed and the other is 100, when switching from the 200 to the 100 your starting time would be about double, at least as a starting exposure printing time.

Anyway thanks for pointing that out.

StoneNYC · Nov 15, 2014

jnanian said:
aaaah....

is your teacher a chemist ??
how does he KNOW the makeup of the chemistry, its not published anywhere ?

mr krot was teaching at RISD when he developed the chemistry, he made it at
his house, not at MIT .. its in the video i posted a few pages back.
maybe the MIT thing was an urban myth because no one wants to believe
this artist professor at an art school in providence ri created the chemistry.
too bad he's not alive today, he'd chime in and set the record straight ...
where's woody allen when you need him ?

:shrug:

I like the results with my current developer, I was considering sprint for the other baths. The MIT thing is really irrelevant, no need to fixate on it further.

removed account4 · Nov 15, 2014

Lachlan Young said:
This +100 - I'm always amazed at the arrant nonsense some otherwise extremely skilled printers spout.

you can say that again ..

although i went to school with someone who used to print nicholas nixon's work and she never spouted any BS at all ..
she actually is pretty calm cool and collected, currently teaches and shoots, and got something like a fullbright scholarship
for the documentary work she was doing ... and when i was in school with her she printed masterfully, and used the full array of sprint chemistry
blacks you could get lost in .. prints that sang ...

if everyone was the same, life would be pretty boring

Sprint Chemistry: reasons not to use it

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency