Stop Bath.. How important?

pentaxuser · Sep 30, 2006

Water and stop can work equally well although the acid can stop the development immediately. There is a grain penalty for either. I recommend you skip it altogether and go straight into the fix.

Ronald. Why is there a grain penalty for using water or stop? How noticeable is it? I don't think I had seen this as a reason for not using water or stop bath before?

Anyone else have any comments or experience of this negative aspect of water or stop?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Claire Senft · Sep 30, 2006

I am going to be a devil's advocate here. If a filled tank is used with the reels on a lifting rod and the agitation being used is to simply lift the reel(s) and allow gravity to cause the reels to sink, other than some spilled developer I see no problem with this procedure..particularly an agitation problem.

I would believe it possible that some "staining" might take place..depending upon what someone means by staining..if the fixer is over-used.

I believe it damned near likely that using a stopbath could enhance the fixer's life...if the fixer is sodiun thiosulfate based and the stopbath is but a weak concentration of of apple acid.

I believe it is possible to create additional edge density, such as what was described, thru an ill chosen agitation technique when using roll film, particularly perforated roll film...this is not meant as saying that it happened in the case being discussed.

Black Dog · Oct 3, 2006

I've used a water stop for several years now (for films) and not noticed any problems of the sort mentioned above. But you should always use at least 3 changes of water and agitate continuously.

Jim Noel · Oct 3, 2006

I have not used an acid stop bath in at least 25 years and have never experienced the problem you describe. However, I do know one of the causes of this problem.

If you put the reels in PHoto FLo youwill get the increased density along the edge because Photo FLo acts as a catalyst to the developer.
In order to remove traces of Photo Flo from the reels it is necessaryto scrub them in hot water with a toothbrush.

pentaxuser · Oct 3, 2006

There has been two assertions now that I'd like to know chemical explanation for, from those that know of these things, including of course Jim.

1. Water or stop bath(presumably acid) gives a grain penalty
2.Photoflo acts as a catalyst for developer.

In the case of the second assertion I take it that this applies if photo-flo is allowed to dry on the reel or is there still a danger if the reel is simply rinsed under a tap but not scrubbed with a toothbrush under hot water? Is it the case that photo-flo, diluted considerably as it is, still cannot be washed of simply by a quick rinse under a tap?

I have to admit that I usually use a toothbrush but only because I want to be sure of eliminating one of the suggested causes of film sticking when loading onto a reel. Now there may be a second reason as stated by Jim Noel

However I do wonder if I am being over cautious and have toyed with the idea of simply rinsing the reel. It's so easy to get caught up in taking the "just in case" route and adding to the process unnecessarily.

On the other hand should there be a basis for both assertions then clearly there are grounds for taking both actions.

pentaxuser

Photo Engineer · Oct 3, 2006

Jim Noel said:
I have not used an acid stop bath in at least 25 years and have never experienced the problem you describe. However, I do know one of the causes of this problem.

If you put the reels in PHoto FLo youwill get the increased density along the edge because Photo FLo acts as a catalyst to the developer.
In order to remove traces of Photo Flo from the reels it is necessaryto scrub them in hot water with a toothbrush.

Jim, this is a very good point.

Photo Flo 200 contains an ingredient which is a mild developer accelerator. It can do its thing along the edges or more if not cleaned away well.

I should add that this is not true of all emulsions. It is unreactive with many types of emulsions. I have personally tested this and can attest to the activity/non activity depending on emulsion.

PE

djkloss · Oct 5, 2006

photoflo accident!

Jim Noel said:
I have not used an acid stop bath in at least 25 years and have never experienced the problem you describe. However, I do know one of the causes of this problem.

If you put the reels in PHoto FLo youwill get the increased density along the edge because Photo FLo acts as a catalyst to the developer.
In order to remove traces of Photo Flo from the reels it is necessaryto scrub them in hot water with a toothbrush.

I can't believe this! I just measured my rodinal in the same beaker that I measured my photo flo in! It looked really BAD and so I thought it was from the marbles. Then I realized what I did. So is my whole roll kaput? Is it going to be dead in the developer? I remembered about this thread and the problems with photoflo. I was planning on a 1 hour stand development. I suppose it's too late to save it?

Boy do I feel stupid!

Bruce Osgood · Oct 5, 2006

SNIP

djkloss said:
I can't believe this! I just measured my rodinal in the same beaker that I measured my photo flo in! It looked really BAD and so I thought it was from the marbles. Then I realized what I did. So is my whole roll kaput?

...end snip
And I would think so is your beaker.... I never put anything in fotoflo except loose film. I have a glass baking pan for sheet film and a large glass jar for roll film. I don't allow fotoflo, even diluted, near any tank or reel period. It is wonderful stuff for film but a disaster for all else.

Gerald Koch · Oct 6, 2006

dancqu said:
My tap water is as alkaline as some developers I've used.

It's not the pH of the tap water that is important but rather it's buffer capacity. Any tap water that could effect photographic solutions by virtue of its alkalinity would not be safe to drink.

Dan Henderson · Oct 6, 2006

my experience is different than Ronald's. I had serious surge marks with good SS reels. I finally tamed them by oh so slow and careful torus agitation. And since I've switched to minimal agitation with only 2 v-e-r-y s-l-o-w torus rotations every 2 minutes during development. No more surge marks.

pentaxuser · Oct 6, 2006

djkloss said:
I can't believe this! I just measured my rodinal in the same beaker that I measured my photo flo in! It looked really BAD and so I thought it was from the marbles. Then I realized what I did. So is my whole roll kaput? Is it going to be dead in the developer? I remembered about this thread and the problems with photoflo. I was planning on a 1 hour stand development. I suppose it's too late to save it? Boy do I feel stupid!

Sorry about what is predicted to be a disaster. I take it that the rodinal dev,contaminated with phot-flo is already in the tank, developing correctly or not as the case may be, the film.

Please lets us know how things turned out. It'll certainly help anybody who may do the same to know at least the extent of the damage he can expect.

Presumably we are talking about a tiny amount of dregs of photo-flo compared with maybe 300ccs of Rodinal. If photo-flo at these dilutions is damaging enough to render your film as good as useless, then it's certainly lethal stuff and needs a very large warning on the label.

If it is this lethal you'd think that the maker would have been good enough to draw users' attention to it.

Thanks

pentaxuser

djkloss · Oct 6, 2006

pentaxuser said:
Sorry about what is predicted to be a disaster. I take it that the rodinal dev,contaminated with phot-flo is already in the tank, developing correctly or not as the case may be, the film.

Please lets us know how things turned out. It'll certainly help anybody who may do the same to know at least the extent of the damage he can expect.

Presumably we are talking about a tiny amount of dregs of photo-flo compared with maybe 300ccs of Rodinal. If photo-flo at these dilutions is damaging enough to render your film as good as useless, then it's certainly lethal stuff and needs a very large warning on the label.

If it is this lethal you'd think that the maker would have been good enough to draw users' attention to it.

Thanks

pentaxuser

It really wasn't so bad after all. I saw the foam and paniced (sp?). When using such a small amount of rodinal, and trying so hard to get it just right, and not knowing the end result...well...and Rodinal is sooo precious...I just don't like screwing things up.

There wasn't that much in the beaker. Only left over from mixing. The beaker only holds 10 ml, so what ever was on the sides.

Thank you for your support and understanding.

Dorothy

vet173 · Oct 6, 2006

Ronald Moravec said:
Oh another one who thinks surge marks exist. They don`t.

Remember, it's puff, puff, pass

djkloss · Oct 6, 2006

pentaxuser said:
Sorry about what is predicted to be a disaster. I take it that the rodinal dev,contaminated with phot-flo is already in the tank, developing correctly or not as the case may be, the film.

Please lets us know how things turned out. It'll certainly help anybody who may do the same to know at least the extent of the damage he can expect.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Here is a scan from one of the negatives. It may not be what was expected, but it wasn't that bad of an error, IMO.

pentaxuser · Oct 7, 2006

djkloss said:
Here is a scan from one of the negatives. It may not be what was expected, but it wasn't that bad of an error, IMO.

Thanks for thumbnail. Your're right it's far from a disaster. To be honest I'd have been surprised if it had been the total disaster that at least one reply was forecasting and I notice that a number of other replies on another thread on the photo-flo accident said as much.

It may well be that the respondent indicating disaster has had just such an experience but if so then at least that person should have indicated as accurately as possible the exact circumstances to enable you to judge.

Otherwise we end up with a site where alarm and despondency is spread unnecessarily. This may not be a problem for those who "know better" but for others and I'd include myself in that group here who have to rely on what is stated as being "considered opinion" from experienced users it is disconcerting.

Had you been inclined to take things at face value you may flushed the developer down the drain and thrown the film away while in despair.

Once we become a site where " caveat inquirer" becomes the norm then the site becomes devalued especially for newcomers who are less able to take care of themselves which is why they are here in the first place.

pentaxuser

Gerald Koch · Oct 7, 2006

Kodak Photo-Flo used to contain an anti-foaming compound that would often leave a waxy coating on anything it touched if the working solution was too concentrated. The current MSDS (2000) no longer lists this compound and gives the ingredients as only propylene glycol and Triton X-100, a wetting agent. Since both these substances are readily soluble in water it should be unnecessary to scrub reels and tanks. A simple rinse in hot water should be sufficient. In fact this is all that I do and I experience no problems.

Gerald Koch · Oct 7, 2006

pentaxuser said:
1. Water or stop bath(presumably acid) gives a grain penalty

I have never heard this claim before and also have doubts about it's veracity. I personally cannot think of any reason that it should be true. In the past, stopbaths were only needed when using developers with a high concentration of carbonate. No one uses such developers anymore. The purpose of the acidic stopbath was to prevent developer carry over from raising the pH of the fixing bath.

I have been using a plain water rinse for most films for many years without any adverse effects that I can tell. The only time that I use something else is when processing soft emulsion films like the Ekfe ones where I use a chrome alum hardner.

Snapshot · Aug 17, 2007

Stop Baths: Water or Acid?

Hi All,

I've been using acid stop baths for my printing and developing. However, I've been considering using only water as my stop bath for film development. It's my understanding that the advantage that acid stop baths have is they completely arrest further development of the film. With water stop baths, however, there is some development (although greatly slowed) of the film. Nonethelss, it's my understanding that water bath allows the film to develop a small amount, which in some cases could improve acutance.

Would anyone care to post their thoughts or musing on the pros and cons of water stop baths? Thank you in advance.

Nick Zentena · Aug 17, 2007

Water is a wash not a stop.

If you think a slightly longer development helps why not just develop longer and then use a stop?

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 17, 2007

If you use an alkaline fixer, a water rinse, rather than an acid stop, will extend the life of the fixer.

I usually use a water rinse, but if I were developing by inspection and wanted to accumulate negs in the stop tray as development is completed and transfer them all at once to the fixer, I'd probably use an acid stop.

Pinholemaster · Aug 17, 2007

I'm simply cheap. Water is less expensive than a stop bath mixed with water. If you factor in the extended development during the water rinse before the fixer, there's no problem.

But hey, do what you want. Stop bath is fine if you want to spend the money and breathe the fumes.

laverdure · Aug 17, 2007

I'm fairly sure the only reason stop bath exists is so that someone can sell it to us.

How many of us really find ourselves in situations where a couple seconds more or less development really makes a perceptible difference? And if you find it does, why not just dilute your developer a tiny bit? And consider laying off the stimulants for awhile?

It's pleasant stuff not to use. You should try it.

w35773 · Aug 17, 2007

I have developed 120 and 4x5 film both ways and can find no compelling reason to use acid stop. I develop my sheet film in tubes and use the same water I roll the tubes in as my stop bath. This saves me a little space in my little darkroom. Plus, I'm cheap too and don't need to have yet another chemical to deal with and purchase.

Regards,
Russell

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Aug 17, 2007

Snapshot said:
Nonethelss, it's my understanding that water bath allows the film to develop a small amount, which in some cases could improve acutance.

Right on the first proposition, but regarding the second one, you probably need more time (as is the case with stand development) for edge effect to appear.

Water bath after developer has never killed anyone, many people use it, and as many people use stop bath. Try it, it won't wreck your negatives, and if you can't see a difference from stop bath, then just do what you prefer.

I've done both, saw no difference, and stuck with stop bath just because I'm too lazy to fill and dump many times the tank with water. Plus, I use acidic fixer (more readily available here), so I might as well preserve its pH.

But, O my brother, don't start an argument over which one is better, for you will wreak havoc in the Universe!

Photo Engineer · Aug 17, 2007

Michel is correct. A long water bath is needed to see any degree of edge effect enhancement. Also, since films differ in thickness and silver halide content and type, the water bath result would vary all over the map. However, it does work albeit rather erratically and sometimes poorly.

A short rinse or a stop is better, then you get consistant results.

PE

Stop Bath.. How important?

pentaxuser

Claire Senft

Black Dog

Jim Noel

pentaxuser

Photo Engineer

djkloss

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council

Gerald Koch

Dan Henderson

pentaxuser

djkloss

vet173

djkloss

Attachments

pentaxuser

Gerald Koch

Gerald Koch

Snapshot

Nick Zentena

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Pinholemaster

laverdure

w35773

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Photo Engineer

Stop Bath.. How important?

Membership Council

Attachments

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency