Stop Bath.. How important?

[nolanr66]

Well we will see how it goes I guess. I figure I will just keep doing what I did today and the results will tell the story after a few rolls of film. Besides that way I can stay with 68 degrees throughout the process except the final rinse. . Along with excluding the stop bath I am also going to go with single use fixer. I mixed a fresh batch after developing my film today. It will cost a bit more but I believe my results will be improved. Everything will be fresh, clean and with a uniform temperature. I am thinking I am on the road to improved photography.

 

[removed account4]

be careful nolanr66,
once you stop using stop bath
i have heard it is like a gateway drug
and you will start doing other things too...

thanks for reviving this old thread !

 

[Photo Engineer]

You get what you deserve.

 

[gone]

I stopped using stop bath years ago w/ roll film (but I do use a running rinse for 30-40 seconds out of the tap). For paper, I print w/ fiber, and you really need to use a stop bath for that as it soaks up the developer.

 

[nolanr66]

Well today I will probably shoot a roll of my Grandkids at the chicken store. I built a real nice chicken coop and they are getting 4 chickens today and I just got my FM2n back from a CLA yesterday and I am anxious to try it out. . Then I will develop the roll probably tonight or tomorrow. This time I will do the same system using filtered water at developing temperature and swish it about with the Patterson stirring stick instead of a stop bath. I figure whatever it will do in there will happen within 5 seconds of stirring. However I have a fresh batch of fixer also and this will be the beginning of using fixer as a single use. With the roll yesterday I thought that possibly I would get a bit more development time without the stop so I also shortened my development time a few seconds. The way I did that was start the timer and then pour the developer instead of the inverse of that.. It's about 10 seconds off the development time. Highlights on the roll were great. I feel confident that my negatives are going to be sparkling clean and well developed.

I am using Kodak fixer as it comes in a powder which I felt would be best for mail order but next time I think I will go with the Illford because it's liquid and I can mix smaller volumes then 1 gallon. Generally I shoot 1 roll of film a week so it's a small volume affair.

 

[MattKing]

I figure whatever it will do in there will happen within 5 seconds of stirring.

Most chemicals (including water) work with film by way of a process of diffusion. It takes time for liquids to diffuse into the gelatin based emulsion and to displace what was in place before then.

Stop bath, being acidic, will neutralize developer much more quickly than plain water.

Five seconds of plain water will just rinse the surface developer off the film, leaving the emulsion still permeated with developer. Then that developer will interact with the fixer, potentially decreasing its effectiveness.

If the result is incomplete fixing, damage may not reveal itself for some time.

If you choose to use a water rinse instead of stop bath, it needs to be much more complete then 5 seconds with a twirl. If you cannot use running water, use inversion agitation if possible, for at least one minute.

By the way, why not use room temperature water from the tap? Just fill up a container at the beginning of your session, and it will quickly come to room temperature.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Diffusion time in dry film at 20C is nominally about 15 seconds. In wet film it is more or less the same value except for Hydrogen Ion. If development time is below a given value, say 3 minutes, then that 15 seconds represents a large fraction of the development time compared to a 15 minute development time. Acid gets to the bottom very quickly, but water does not, nor does alkali.

Therefore, development can continue. It gets worse as format goes up and is worse in tanks or drums than in trays.

Every professional I know uses a stop!

PE

 

[removed account4]

Every professional I know uses a stop!

i have been doing photography professionally since 1986 and i stopped using stop bath when i apprenticed
with someone who told me it wasn't necessary. she was told in the 20s+30s and had been processing 5x7
sheet film for 50 years with no stop, and no ill effects. ive never had issues of over development
or "gotten what i deserve" ( bad film ? bad prints? ) because i didn't use stop bath.

i have printed upto 16x20, made 7x11, 11x14, 8x10 paper negatives, and exposed film upto 8x10 processed in
trays, and rolls / 4x5+5x7 in deep tanks and 135+35mm and 4x5 film in either hand tanks
or rotary processors. never a problem.

 

[Photo Engineer]

John, I don't "know" you personally, nor professionally. I do know quite a few "great" professionals though who use it and have for their entire careers. And I am talking about world class professionals or those who make good livings this way. IDK about you at all, but these people have pictures published in newspapers, magazines and on display in galleries around the world. Sorry, there is no insult intended.

If you aspire to be great, then do as the great do. So, I do what they taught me and I reflect it here.

PE

 

[R.Gould]

Thanks to some advice from PE a while ago I now use stop bath all the time, with Foma films, with no problems, seems to me that it is easier. quicker and no ill effects, And I never use Stop bath or fixer as a one shot, never have and never will. I also was a professional photographer working mainly in black and white for many years until I recently decided that the time had come to retire, and take the photographs I wanted too rather than what the client wanted me to take

 

[removed account4]

unfortunately, you have made statements that aren't exactly true. ( i mean no insult either but )
i was just stepping in and providing a point, that there are professionals that don't use stop bath
( whether you know them or not ) and they have been without stop bath for a long long time
and the world will not end, you will not " get what you deserve" ( whatever that means? )
if you use water instead of stop bath.

you can enjoy making negatives and prints with stop bath, i'll continue making them without.

 

[Ian Grant]

I do what Kodak themselves recommend with films and use a water rinse, said many times before it's either stop-bath or a water rinse.

Ian

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The more logical way to look at this is that the stop bath step was designed into the process for a reason. It wasn't added just because some photo researcher had a bit of left over vinegar and oil salad dressing from dinner the night before. And arbitrarily removing it from the process removes the positive reasoning behind its original inclusion.

Now, one is certainly free to do that. There is no law against it. But actions always have eventual consequences.

Automobiles were designed to work best with four wheels. Can a driver remove a rear wheel and still make the vehicle move forward? Sure. He is certainly free to do that. He can even try to convince others that it is a workable form of transportation.

But drive that way for very long and there will be eventual consequences.

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak has recommended a stop bath from day 1.

See attached from a very very early Kodak manual on processing B&W.

 

[Xmas]

The more logical way to look at this is that the stop bath step was designed into the process for a reason. It wasn't added just because some photo researcher had a bit of left over oil and vinegar salad dressing from the night before. And arbitrarily removing it from the process removes the positive reasoning behind its original inclusion.

Now, one is certainly free to do that. There is no law against it. But actions always have eventual consequences.

Automobiles were designed to work best with four wheels. Can a driver remove a rear wheel and still make the vehicle move forward? Sure. He is certainly free to do that. He can even try to convince others that it is a workable form of transportation.

But drive that way for very long and there will be eventual consequences.

Ken

In the time before history some developers if active in the fixer would stain prints...

So you needed a stop bath to kill the developer...

Efke film from their last finishing came in a box which recommended use of a plain water stop bath.

The change in pH especially if you don't temper can damage non prehardened film.

If you use different film types it pays to be cautious.

Puts on Nomex underwear...

 

[Photo Engineer]

unfortunately, you have made statements that aren't exactly true. ( i mean no insult either but )
i was just stepping in and providing a point, that there are professionals that don't use stop bath
( whether you know them or not ) and they have been without stop bath for a long long time
and the world will not end, you will not " get what you deserve" ( whatever that means? )
if you use water instead of stop bath.

you can enjoy making negatives and prints with stop bath, i'll continue making them without.

John, I am sure that some pros use a water rinse. I don't know them all, of course!

As for getting what you deserve, a water rinse or a standing water bath (which is what many still use) introduces a variable that can lead to uncontrolled results, especially in different parts of the world. Some water is acid and some is alkaline. Some people use acid fixes and some use alkaline fixes.

And as far as causing problems, Haist shows that HQ is retained in coatings as well as Metol. Acid helps remove the Metol, and an alkaline fix helps remove HQ. Now in days of Phenidone developers, this is less significant, but still has some bearing on much of the work done.

PE

 

[Truzi]

I use a stop bath - it is cheap insurance. If I'm going to deviate from the correct process, it's going to be somewhere else, and for a noticeable effect, fun, or experimentation.

 

[Ian Grant]

Just to clear up misconceptions Kodak still recommend using either a stop-bath or a water rinse with films, as do other manufacturers, we had this debate before and it was agreed this was and is clearly the case. Kodak would not recommend a water rinse if it didn't work.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Having repeatable results depends so much on the nature of your water supply, format (size of negative - or print) and the rate of the running water, as well as fixer type and developer type.

This is why there are so many varying opinions out there.

I would hazard a guess that no one could repeat a result world wide. We at Kodak had that problem in every area of our work and had standards committees that worked to even out these problems.

If we all used the same developer, stop and fix or the same developer, water for rinse, and fix and the same film, we could all reproduce "a" result that is intercomparable. At present, we cannot.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Sure it works ... eventually.

It works very effectively quickly in practice.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

Kodak has recommended a stop bath from day 1.

See attached from a very very early Kodak manual on processing B&W.

PE:

I didn't know that you worked as a model in your youth.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Matt, I played the part of the Fixing Bath in that demo. I can still smell the residue at times. It was F5.

PE

 

[nolanr66]

I suppose there are a million reasons not to experiment around however I want to anyway. A couple more successful rolls developed and it's a lock.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Now to be fair, there is another line of reasoning applicable here. And that is, if one explicitly desires to allow the photographic process itself to randomly create one's expressive photographs, then intentionally using less than the acknowledged best practices during the processing of those photographs may actually be a desirable thing.

Most of us explicitly want to say something visually, and seek greater control over the process to accurately and expeditiously accomplish that goal. However, others may prefer that the process alone simply creates something uncontrolled for them without their input, then the creative decision can be postponed and made after the fact, if it's determined that the random results might appear to be saying anything interesting.

In this second case it's the process, and not the photographer, that is doing the "speaking". And in place of actually saying anything, the photographer is now simply interpreting the results after the fact. If that is how one wishes to work, then ignoring film processing best practices in order to intentionally inject added randomness into the system may indeed BE the best practice for that particular individual.

Ken

 

[nolanr66]

Well Ken, I am not omitting the stop bath for anything philosophical or artistic. I am just cutting out an apparently unnecessary expense and have cleaner negatives to show for it. The roll I just processed was of some of my Grandchildren. The photos are great. If my results are equally as satisfying for a couple more rolls then it's a lock. I have some ideas about photo flo and the final rinse that I will be trying later. One step at a time.