I hate that phrase. Bad is an adjective - you can't own it.:rolleyes: :confused:
There, I used them!
Steve.
Guys;
You get away with no stop for film because film develops more slowly than paper and even when the rinse is bad, the resulting stains may not be easily seen. A print is developing rapidly when you put it into rinse water and you can quickly see stain or non-uniformity. But, just because you get away with it does not mean it is good.
I have seen people use a tray of water as a "stop" for a whole printing session and wonder why their prints change from the start to the end of a session! Hello!!!! The water bath is becoming a developer due to carryover and even 30" in this alkaline bath changes the process. And, the carryover of byproducts into an alkaline fix makes the ammonia smell increase and actually slows fixing and allows development to continue.
SO! If you use a rinse instead of a stop, and insist on using it, it MUST be running water. That is, unless you only intend to do 1 or 2 prints or one roll of film. Even that might be too much for some fixer/developer combinations!
PE
Efke says to use only water, no stop bath.
Go ahead and believe that.
Then look at complaints here on APUG about products from various companies.
Nuff said!
PE
Personally, I can't think of any reason to use an acid stop bath for film developing. As has been pointed out by many posters, based on their own experience, and in many cases based on direct comparisons between acid stop baths and water stop baths, water works just fine.
Now let's think about this from a fundamental point of view. There have been comments that an acid stop bath produces instant arrest of developing. First, that comment is not quite true because it takes a little bit of time for the acid to be transported into the film. Furthermore, while this is happening the developer will be diffusing out of the film. This happens whether one is using acid stop bath or pure water. The time scale for the diffusion of developer out of the film is probably not much longer than the time scale for diffusion of acid into the film. My wild guess is that the diffusion rate of developer out of the film is probably within a factor four or so of the diffusion rate of acid into the film. (Any definitive information on this point would be helpful.)
Since the time scales of the two processes (diffusion of acid in and diffusion of developer out) are likely on a comparable time scale, use of an acid stop bath is not likely to make much difference in the effective time for halting of development.
Furthermore, there are at least two other process that will effectively stop the development of film. The first is that even with the use of pure water there will be a rapid change in the pH inside the film, resulting in a serious reduction in development rate. This will happen because hydroxide ions diffuse out of the emulsion. (I am assuming that the water is not highly alkaline.) The second is that developer trapped in the emulsion will be depleted by being used up, and it cannot be replenished by the bulk developer solution because the developer solution is not there any more.
I do not know of any measurements, but all things considered I would be surprised if there were more than a few seconds difference in effective stop time using water vs. acid.
However, the most important consideration is this. It is not important that development be stopped instantaneously. It is only important that the arresting of development be reproducible, and there is no physical reason that I can think of that would cause a water stop bath to be significantly less reproducible than an acid stop bath. Even if a water stop bath were less reproducible than an acid stop bath by a few seconds, that is not enough irreproducibility to make a noticeable difference in film development. My goodness, there are so many other sources of irreproducibility in film development that a few seconds of effective jitter aren't going to be noticeable.
As a final comment, a water stop bath is the recommended method by the maker of one of the most reproducible automated film development systems, namely Photo-Therm.
And now for a post-final comment. Acetic acid stinks, so I would rather not have it around. Non-stinky citric acid could be used, but why bother with the extra expense and fiddle factor when you can just use water?
the portraitist i worked for used no stop, just water
( she was trained in the 20s/30s )
i have a feeling the no stop bath movement has
been around since before the 1970s ..
i gave it up in the 90s ...
I can't believe all this anti-stop bath nonsense lately
A cynical person might suggest that it was in Iford's interest to sell Ilford stop bath!
My view is that it is a good idea to use a stop for prints to keep the fixer bath working longer and it is also a good idea to use it for film if you plan to re-use the fixer. If you use your fixer once then discard it though, the stop bath is of little (if any) benefit.
Steve.
And more doctors smoke Camels. It was in print so it must be true.:rolleyes:
Ansel Adams advocated the use of two bath developing (one bath in developer, one bath in water) for the purposes of CONTRAST REDUCTION in negative processing; but he also advocated the use of accurate dilution stop bath (to prevent staining at one extreme, to prevent pinholes at the other extreme of dilution error). So draw your own conclusion on what use of water alone in lieu of stop bath would do.
The conclusion to that is the water bath slows down the development sufficiently prior to fixing
Ian
...with possible contrast reduction!
Ansel Adams can eat our collective shorts. Back to the real discussion (which can be had without using dead masters to attempt to prove our points).
One more comment. Unless I am mistaken, E6 uses a water stop bath, and E6 is far more finicky than black and white processing, so I don't think that irreproducibility of water stop baths can be a fundamental problem for black and white processing.
It was pointed out in another thread that he made his last important negative in 1949, according to his biographer
Ian
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?