I understand that stop bath is not recommended when processing film using staining developers. Do you also not use stop bath when printing either?
With the staining developers i use, the benefit is not having an acid stop bath followed by an alkaline fixer.
After developer, i use one minute with agitation for roll film and 1-2 minutes for sheet film processing in trays
With the staining developers i use, the benefit is not having an acid stop bath followed by an alkaline fixer.
That's irrelevant though. An acidic stop bath doesn't inhibit or reduce the stain, nor does an acidic fixer. These are just myths that keep being perpetuated, possibly out of conservatism. They don't appear to be grounded in fact or empirical observation.
I understand that stop bath is not recommended when processing film using staining developers. Do you also not use stop bath when printing either?
That's irrelevant though. An acidic stop bath doesn't inhibit or reduce the stain, nor does an acidic fixer. These are just myths that keep being perpetuated, possibly out of conservatism. They don't appear to be grounded in fact or empirical observation.
Are there any benefits to not using stop bath other than the nominal cost savings?
For film, how many water rinses do you use between developer and fixer?
For prints, how long do you leave the print in the water tray between developer and fixer?
If it is true that using water in place of stop bath has no detrimental effect on film then the real question is why use an acid stop bath when water works just as well?
Personally speaking:
a) I already have stop bath.
b) I find it more convenient and simpler to use a single solution for 30" than several water rinses.
To each his own, but I use stop bath, even with Pyrocat HD.
Why has Kodak included using stop bath in its film processing instructions since time immemorial? Did they have any scientific evidence for doing so or did they just make it up out of thin air so they could sell stop bath and make more money? Have materials changed over time eliminating the need for stop bath, and Kodak never got around to updating its directions? Did Kodak pay PE to recommend using stop bath on this forum? He seemed like a pretty knowledgeable guy. How else did he lead us astray? Do any books on film processing say stop bath is unnecessary, or is it just people on photo forums?
Of course, I'm fine with everyone doing whatever they want. As always, show me your prints.
Commenting only on stop bath for film development, using water instead of an acid stop bath is a simplification of the process because it is one less solution to prepare and store. Also, water doesn't smell bad. Acetic acid-based stop bath does smell bad, at least to me it smells bad.
On a related topic, I have followed this topic for a long time, and as far as I have been able to determine no one has ever shown actual experimental results demonstrating that using water in place of an acid stop bath has any effect detrimental to film. If it is true that using water in place of stop bath has no detrimental effect on film then the real question is why use an acid stop bath when water works just as well?
This thread continues to hold a horrible fascination. I can think of one circumstance in which it is reasonable, and one in which it may be desirable, not to use stop bath with film. I’m sure both must already have been covered in the preceding 46 pages of replies. The first is when the developer is very dilute or is being used in a 2-bath system - in these cases there is almost nothing to stop, and further dilution does the job effectively. The second is when the developer contains a strong alkali, such that a violent reaction with the acid stop might damage the emulsion - this has been claimed to cause pinhole defects. I can’t think of a good reason not to use stop bath in other circumstances, but dissenters may well get away with it and have nice negatives to show you!
You were talking about negatives, so did you mean ‘Show me your negatives?’
C’mon, that’s a fable! It can’t have been more than a couple of days’ work.How about the fact that Kodak et al spent millions of dollars perfecting stop bath is a good indication that stop bath is important.
I do understand that stop bath with indicator is so damned expensive that it breaks some photographer's bank.
I do not ask people to show me their negatives. The object of photography is not to create negatives. They are simply an intermediate step. I don't care what anyone's negatives look like.
With all love and respect, all you will learn by seeing prints is that the photographer at least sometimes gets a printable negative and makes a decent job of printing it. I don’t see how you’d be able to tell whether they used stop bath on the film or not? Prolific output with consistent quality might be a different matter, I grant you.
Stop bath is harder to screw up than water, because it doesn't need to be constantly flowing in order to ensure no developer carryover into fixer.
Just in case you need a reason
Whooosh.
As for alkali developers, which ones did you have in mind? I'll be happy to look them up and report back. We could start with the alkali developers you regularly use?
C’mon, that’s a fable! It can’t have been more than a couple of days’ work.
Your second point is always good though.
With all love and respect, all you will learn by seeing prints is that the photographer at least sometimes gets a printable negative and makes a decent job of printing it. I don’t see how you’d be able to tell whether they used stop bath on the film or not? Prolific output with consistent quality might be a different matter, I grant you.
On working out the appropriate concentration of acetic acid and indicator? Is it really more than a high school chemistry problem? Ah well, I’ve no reason to dispute it if it is documented.The first line is without basis and it is well documented that that millions of dollars in R&D were spent by Kodak et al.
What would you see? Sometimes I can’t tell if you are joking.You would have to look at the molecular level.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?