Stop Bath.. How important?

[Photo Engineer]

Three points to consider here.

1. Acid stops can be used with alkaline fixes.

2. Acid stops help remove some of the Metol from film or paper if you are using an alkaline fix. After all, Metol is not very soluble in alkali as we all know from mixing up developers. Metol is shipped as the acid salt of an organic base and dissolves poorly in alkali. Alkaline fixes retard removal just a tad and we have no reliable test for retained Metol. That is one reason I always use an acid stop, regardless of fix. Of course, acid retards removal of HQ. Not a perfect world is it?

3. The ideal combination is an acid stop and either a neutral or alkaline fix.

PE

 

[M.A.Longmore]

Hate, Is such a vicious word ...

I hate that phrase. Bad is an adjective - you can't own it. :rolleyes::confused:

There, I used them!


Steve.

Hi Steve,

I also dislike the phrase : My Bad.

I definitely agree with you about the usage of the smiley,
and whatever the rest of the symbols represent.

But, I noticed that you used several of the symbols.
Which one is now your favourite ?

* Hopefully you won't dislike my spelling of favorite. { insert symbol here } *


Ron

From The Long Island Of New York, and the
Long Island @ Large Format Group, right here on APUG
.

 

[ic-racer]

I'm always curious how these grass roots movements get started. I know it is not limited to the internet because even back in the 70s I had self proclaimed experts tell me I didn't need the acetic acid.

I think I'm going to start an internet movement claiming that it is bad to cook pork, and just eat it raw...

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[Dave Pritchard]

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

I agree for the most part. I use a water stop bath in a specific situation, though. My long-time preferred film and developer was Tech-Pan with dilute Rodinal. You probably know this story already. The contrasty film paired with a dilute developer worked nicely. Add the tale that the water stop allowed further shadow development, and I was hooked. It works well, too.

I do not do this when using other film developers. I also religiously use a stop bath when developing paper prints.

 

[skyrick]

Efke says to use only water, no stop bath.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[Ian Grant]

Go ahead and believe that.

Then look at complaints here on APUG about products from various companies.

Nuff said!

PE

And people are still whingeing about Xtol, telling people how bad it is, sudden death scenario despite a small problem being solved years ago, and a great many of us having long trouble free use with it.


John at J&C gave EFKE a bad name knowingly selling sub standard product, at a time when it looked like total collapse of the B&W market after Kodak's sudden pulling out of papers, Agfa ceasing, Ilford in restructuring etc.

A great many people who use Adox/EFKE films never see a problem.

Ian

 

[alanrockwood]

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?

 

[alanrockwood]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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 ...

 

[JBrunner]

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?

When using a water stop it is important that the stop not get loaded with developer, or during a long printing session it becomes a dilute developer solution. This places the load on the fixer and so on, so while I find a water stop to be effective and reliable, it is with the caveat that the water has to be running or changed frequently. I don't think I have had any better or worse results with an acid stop, and as a result I use water for simplicity, and because of all the smells I don't like, stop is at the top of the list. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, but nor would I say it is any better IMO. It's far more important to be consistent with procedure, than what you are using to arrest development IMO.

 

[Ian Grant]

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 ...

No access to my 1890's Maunal of Photography (Ilford) or WWI copy but my 1910 Agfa data and this Ilord box from 1923 suggest a water rinse

I can't believe all this anti-stop bath nonsense lately

So are we anti something that was once not recommended for films ? Ron Mowrey (PE) summed it up well. But modern films are much thinner so what worked in the 20's with far thicker emulsions must be OK now. We are talking fresh water. with prints that's too wasteful so stop-bath has long been recommended.

I've boxes with similar instructions from other manufacturers as well

Backs up what you're saying nicely John. Note the D23 - Ilford code indicating 1923 which was only dropped in the 90's - the box was marked 1923 & Rouen, France where the plates taken.

Ian

 

[fotch]

And more doctors smoke Camels. It was in print so it must be true.:rolleyes:

 

[2F/2F]

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.

Ditto. If the film fixer is only being used one shot, why use stop bath? The fixer will do its job, or the job of a water bath, just fine.

 

[Ian Grant]

And more doctors smoke Camels. It was in print so it must be true.:rolleyes:

Camel aren't telling you how to get good results from smoking & lung cancer though :confused:

Ian

 

[wiltw]

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.

 

[Ian Grant]

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

 

[wiltw]

The conclusion to that is the water bath slows down the development sufficiently prior to fixing

Ian

...with possible contrast reduction, and with some possiblity of negative staining!

 

[2F/2F]

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). If San Anselmo wants to join in the conversation, he is welcome to do so. Until, then, let us not treat his words as anything other than the Earthly creations of a human being.

 

[Ian Grant]

...with possible contrast reduction!

None what so ever, because there's not enough time in the water bath, films are also much thinner than in AA's days.

It's worth pointing out that using no stop bath and a water bath instead is fine with a slightly acid rapid fixer, most now are pH 5.2-5.4.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

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).

It was pointed out in another thread that he made his last important negative at the age of 49, according to his biographer

Ian

 

[wiltw]

Hey, guys, I did not state that contrast reduction would always result. I said it COULD POSSIBLY happen, such as if you deliberately let the film sit in a water bath (just like deliberate two-bath developing!) Myself, I have long used water in lieu of real acid stop bath, having developed B&W film for almost 5 decades. The point of the OP was to understand the debate of water vs. acetic acid stop bath. I contributed possible affects of water use to this understanding.

 

[ZorkiKat]

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.

The intermediate between the FD and Reversal Bath in E6 is not meant as a stop (no stopping the developer action immediately) but rather as a rinse. Furthermore, I would venture, since the time and temperature are carefully considered (2 minutes at 35-38C), it appears that some continuance of the development is expected to happen before the film goes into the Reversal Bath, where total fogging happens.

 

[wiltw]

It was pointed out in another thread that he made his last important negative in 1949, according to his biographer

Ian

And your point is...? The fact that the Zone System was written around contrast enhancement or reduction during film processing does not get rendered as totally immaterial with modern films, even if Ansel quit doing his own processing.