YES, most definitely. Stop bath is cheap fixer isn't, so anything to conserve the fixer will come as a benefit.
Stop Bath.. How important?
-
A
- Thread starter SchwinnParamount
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zone VI Development Timer and Newsletters
- Started by 2Dogs
-
Sold Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome Veliva 100 and Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome 64T. EXPIRED
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros 120 and 4x5
- Started by Renato Tonelli
Forum statistics
I use an acetic acid stop bath, fairly dilute, and used one-shot or for a limited number of films. I'd prefer to preserve the longevity and function of the fixer.
I used to, I use a good water rinse instead as recommended by Kodak/Ilford etc.
Ian
Ian
Here we go again.
'Sodium hydrogen carbonate' is usually simply called bicarbonate BTW and it's a lot rarer in B&W developers than either of the carbonates, although it can of course be used in them nonetheless.
If one is concerned about the carbon dioxide bubble issue, I'm not sure why activators like hydroxide (pot/sod.) or trimetaphosphate would be excluded from the list - or rather, why the list would be specifically limited to sodium carbonate & bicarbonate.
But...the whole stop bath horse has been beaten to a pulp pretty much by now. Not just that - it has been repeatedly beaten to death on a monthly basis or so.
Well, yes. Most B&W developers use a carbonate, either sodium or potassium. But the whole story about pinholes due to bubbles is really limited to very soft emulsions (no modern films have these) in a deep-tank processing (which is used by only a small minority of home users). Photo Engineer has discussed this on Photrio back when he was still alive.
'Sodium hydrogen carbonate' is usually simply called bicarbonate BTW and it's a lot rarer in B&W developers than either of the carbonates, although it can of course be used in them nonetheless.
If one is concerned about the carbon dioxide bubble issue, I'm not sure why activators like hydroxide (pot/sod.) or trimetaphosphate would be excluded from the list - or rather, why the list would be specifically limited to sodium carbonate & bicarbonate.
But...the whole stop bath horse has been beaten to a pulp pretty much by now. Not just that - it has been repeatedly beaten to death on a monthly basis or so.
We went over this to lengths, horse died several times in that thread. But you might want to look it up as there was some good input, not just how to dispose a dead horse
yes, we have beaten this poor horse to death, buried it, exhumed it and beaten it again many times.
Not sure why this is a religious issue. Probably because there is no right answer. it simply does not matter.
do one or the other or both (but if both, do water first and acid stop second). It does not matter. Never has....except that stop bath conserves fixer.
I have always used Kodak indicator stop bath according the manufacturer’s directions.
Last edited:
Carbonates evolve carbon dioxide when pH changes to acidic -- bicarbonates more so. Other activators (borax, hydroxide, trimetaphosphate) do not.
That said, the only times I've avoided acid stop bath are when processing thin or soft emulsions like microfilm in carbonate developers like Dektol or Caffenol. D-76, Xtol, D-23, HC-110, and most other modern (i.e. post-1950) film developers use other alkali, so acid stop bath won't cause bubbles.
That said, the only times I've avoided acid stop bath are when processing thin or soft emulsions like microfilm in carbonate developers like Dektol or Caffenol. D-76, Xtol, D-23, HC-110, and most other modern (i.e. post-1950) film developers use other alkali, so acid stop bath won't cause bubbles.
Deleted member 88956
It turns out that poor horse appears impossible to kill. More of the same for the sake of sameness.
But it is often easier to start a new thread and look up info one seeks. It's the problem with search function, but nothing surprising, most of them don't work as expected.
please use the search function;this subject has been discussed ad nausea.
I've recently found that the Search button is covered in a thin layer of dust...
Last edited:
Michel Hardy-Vallée
Membership Council
I recently switched to TS-7, a buffered stop bath recipe using acetic acid and sodium acetate. I use Hypam because it's cheap and always available.
In the past I was using Kodak/Ilford Indicator, but as I'm reusing fixer, I wasn't fully satisfied with the mileage I would get from my fix.
I'll see if TS-7 makes a better job at preventing contamination. It also gave me a reason to try out some new toys...
In the past I was using Kodak/Ilford Indicator, but as I'm reusing fixer, I wasn't fully satisfied with the mileage I would get from my fix.
I'll see if TS-7 makes a better job at preventing contamination. It also gave me a reason to try out some new toys...
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
I haven't used stop bath while processing film or prints since 1988. I've noticed no problems with my film or prints ..
but a lot of people swear by it...
but a lot of people swear by it...
Last edited:
Too much controversy in one post, I need to sit down!
If you sit down read the manufacturers data-sheets. They recommend a Stop Bath or a Waterrinse for Black and white films. That's not controversial at all.
This is what Kodak say for Tmax: Rinse at 65 to 75°F(18 to 24°C) with agitation in KODAK Indicator Stop Bath or running water for 30 seconds.
What was controversial was the mumbo jumbo being spawned in a long post. You make a decision which you use it won't make any difference to the final results.
Ian
What I think we can say and all agree on, is that a water bath is in theory safer for the emulsion but the problem cited for an acid stop bath may only occur so rarely if at all as to be able to be discounted.
What we may also be able to agree on is that a water bath does not stop the developer action as rapidly. The question is: How much slower is a water bath in stopping the developer action and does this matter?
Now possibly we are back into " debate" territory. My own view is that if a water bath takes say 10 or 15 secs to achieve what an acid bath achieves in say 3-4 secs depending on the time it takes to cover the film with the acid stop is this difference likely to be critical in terms of what kind of a print that the negative will give you?
In my case I can't say I noticed a difference in the negatives from what I believe to be a marginal extra development. Frankly in a 10-12 minute development time I would be hard pressed to say that in the acid stopped film with say 11mins 3 sec and the water stopped film with say 11 mins and 15/18 secs that I could tell the difference. Incidentally I have plucked these figures from the air as being the extremes. I think the effective stopping action of water in terms of volume to what remains of developer after decanting is much shorter than this
However if you belong to the category that is uncomfortable with anything short of the greatest accuracy possible then it may matter greatly if there is the slightest inaccuracy in anything you do
If you are in that category, lonelyboy, then there is no point in torturing yourself with that nagging doubt that the film could have been developed more accurately so use an acid stop bath.
Alternatively, you could say if and when you read this: Does this guy think he is Photrio's resident philosopher? Then just try it both ways and see if you see a difference
pentaxuser
What we may also be able to agree on is that a water bath does not stop the developer action as rapidly. The question is: How much slower is a water bath in stopping the developer action and does this matter?
Now possibly we are back into " debate" territory. My own view is that if a water bath takes say 10 or 15 secs to achieve what an acid bath achieves in say 3-4 secs depending on the time it takes to cover the film with the acid stop is this difference likely to be critical in terms of what kind of a print that the negative will give you?
In my case I can't say I noticed a difference in the negatives from what I believe to be a marginal extra development. Frankly in a 10-12 minute development time I would be hard pressed to say that in the acid stopped film with say 11mins 3 sec and the water stopped film with say 11 mins and 15/18 secs that I could tell the difference. Incidentally I have plucked these figures from the air as being the extremes. I think the effective stopping action of water in terms of volume to what remains of developer after decanting is much shorter than this
However if you belong to the category that is uncomfortable with anything short of the greatest accuracy possible then it may matter greatly if there is the slightest inaccuracy in anything you do
If you are in that category, lonelyboy, then there is no point in torturing yourself with that nagging doubt that the film could have been developed more accurately so use an acid stop bath.
Alternatively, you could say if and when you read this: Does this guy think he is Photrio's resident philosopher? Then just try it both ways and see if you see a difference
pentaxuser
Too much controversy in one post, I need to sit down!
LOL what is the controversy? using the stop bath or the search function??
As far as search goes, all of the web sites I frequent, from basic to high end, the search function on ALL of them are horrible. I laugh every time somebody recommends the search function. Just help a brother out and answer the question instead of "use the search" sheeesh.
Now as far as stop bath, I've used the Kodak indicator stop bath and I have used plain water. I have not seen a difference in using or not using. I can see the logic of stopping the developer and not over working the fixer. And that makes sense. But visually, I have not noticed a difference on the final result of the negative.
First, the water bath after development is an Stop Bath, the article says "just plain water wash instead of stop bath.", this is missleading, it should say : just Plain Water Stop Bath instead of Acidic Stop Bath.
Then, personally, I totally disagree with both conclusions in the posted link:
I disagree that Acidic is better if "You want repeatable and accurate results for every film processing." It is exactly the same consistency for acidic than for plain water, it is true that Plain Water Stop Bath will stop development a few secods later but you may shorten development by those fex seconds to obtain exactly the same and of course with the same consistency.
I disagree that Acidic is better if "You want to preserve and maximise the life span of fixer to lower your cost.". Look, it's totally the counter, simple Plain Water Stop Bath preserves much better the Fixer than Acidic Stop Bath. What it really may damagea lot the fixer is not using an stop bath as you throw developer in he fixer, but Plain Water Stop Bath removes any developer from film and you only trow some drops or pure water in the fixer.
Instead an Acidic Stop bath throws chem in the fixer, and as today you may use an Alkaline fixer (TF-4 or TF-2), so throwing acidic acetic or citric in it is to react with the fixer damaging it, this is less a problem if Fixer is acidic (Ilford Rapid Fixer), but if you use Plain Water Stop Bath you will never damage the fixer because after the film is well rinsed it only carries water and no active chem.
Furthermore, Acidic Stop Bath is reused progressively contaminated with used developer, and this is carried to the fixer with the drops of the Stop bath. Instead Plain Water Stop Bath is fresh every time as you dump it after eacg usage, and if you rinse two or thrre times then absolutely no dirt is carried to the fixer.
So... IMO the article basicly it's wrong, and of course the conclusions are totally false and arbitrary. One reads The Darkroom Cookbook, one knows the basics... It's that easy.
Still, there is nothing wrong in using an acidic stop bath, but if later we use an alkaline fixer like TF-4 then it is not a bad idea to rinse the film with water after the acidic stop, to not throw acid in the alkaline fixer... isn't it ?
Personally I use acidic stop bath in the darkroom printing, never with film, except with ADOX CMS 20 following datasheet recommendations.
______________________
On any doubt about consistency... E-6 uses Plain Water Stop Bath after BW development, and E-6 in particular is something requiring way greater consistency than negative film, because there is no possibility to adjust result in the printing. (correction, C-41 does even use stop bath, nominally)
Last edited:
I have always used stop bath for film and paper. It stops the development completely and extends the life of the fixer. I worked at Kodak and saw many studies with testing on stop bath and read them. The short version is use stop bath and it is not expensive. Take the time to search Photrio and read what was written by Photo Engineer, a life time Kodak employee who invented may types of film and photo chemicals.
C41 doesn't use a wash after developer, it goes straight to bleach, which is acidic and stops development instantly. Some home users use a stop bath, especially if blix is used. There have been several cases where water was used after C41 developer and streaking is a usual result. E6 on the other hand uses a water wash after FD, but keep in mind that FD time is reasonably long, not 3:15...
Sirius, let me ask, throwing acetic to alkaline TF-4 preserves it ?
Throwing some pure water drops from Plain Water Stop Bath damages the fixer ?
What damages fixer is not using an stop bath at all (water or acidic) which throws developer in the fixer. Those are very basic concepts. Where Photo Engineer says that Water Stop Bath is worse than Acidic Stop bath.
Photo engineer said "I have used acid stops for film and paper for over 30 years with absolutely no problem, but have had problems of one sort or another with using a water rinse after development."
Me I've had problems with Water Stop, but only with paper, never with film.
Yes...
Last edited:
Too much controversy in one post, I need to sit down!
You two missed the smiley face. I'm sure that jawarden was joking.
I use water as a stop for pyro and then TF4 or TF5. Water stop is used for TF4 and TF5 but this is way beyond what the OP is doing. By bring up TF4 and TF5 you are adding confusion to someone just starting in darkroom work and causing damage to the OP and other beginners. Water can be used as a stop in printing if the paper will go back into the developer for advanced development of areas of the photograph, but once the development has ended stop bath should be used. Again this information would only confuse the OP and should not be brought up in a thread such as this.
MattKing
Moderator
Yes I use stop bath.
It works, it is efficient and it preserves the life of fixer. Commercial developing lines, where quality, speed and efficiency are important, were designed to include it.
If you don't use it, and want to use a water rinse instead, you can achieve similar quality, at the cost of time and reduced fixer capacity. If you choose a water rinse, be sure to use a running water rinse - a fill and dump water rinse isn't likely to be as quick in its effectiveness.
It works, it is efficient and it preserves the life of fixer. Commercial developing lines, where quality, speed and efficiency are important, were designed to include it.
If you don't use it, and want to use a water rinse instead, you can achieve similar quality, at the cost of time and reduced fixer capacity. If you choose a water rinse, be sure to use a running water rinse - a fill and dump water rinse isn't likely to be as quick in its effectiveness.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |