Stop Bath.. How important?

[MattKing]

Did Edward Weston use water as a stop bath? Name me any top world gelatin silver printer who uses water as a stop bath?

Most of the recent posts in this thread have been concerning film, not prints.
But even with prints, RC based printing materials certainly make running water stop baths practical, and there are far more prints done on RC now than fibre based materials.
Personally, I do almost all my printing on RC materials, including my exhibition prints, and I use stop bath with RC papers as well.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I use a stop bath.

1. The Kodak product for paper as it is excellent value, has good capacity, and doesn't support alien lifeforms.

2. One shot acetic acid for film, about 1.2%.

 

[cliveh]

Most of the recent posts in this thread have been concerning film, not prints.
But even with prints, RC based printing materials certainly make running water stop baths practical, and there are far more prints done on RC now than fibre based materials.
Personally, I do almost all my printing on RC materials, including my exhibition prints, and I use stop bath with RC papers as well.

OK, name me any world class photographers, or their processors who use water as a stop bath for their film?

 

[Sirius Glass]

You probably have two hands that are capable of handling sheet film. I'm limited to one plus a non-dexterous second.
Just to highlight the fact that different people have different circumstances.

You need to do your paper processing in Jobo processors.

 

[MattKing]

OK, name me any world class photographers, or their processors who use water as a stop bath for their film?

I can't, because most don't bother mentioning their stop bath.
They would probably be using pyro developers though.

 

[cliveh]

I can't, because most don't bother mentioning their stop bath.
They would probably be using pyro developers though.

I don't think they would be using Pyro developers.

 

[MattKing]

You need to do your paper processing in Jobo processors.

No problem with paper processing here - I'm fine with trays, safelights and tongs.
And I don't personally shoot sheet film.
But I help others sometimes who do.
And if I did, and for some inexplicable reason jumped straight to 8x10, I would probably need to figure out something special, because tray development would be a challenge for me.
Perhaps modify a Cibachrome tube into something like a modified BTZS tube?

 

[MattKing]

I don't think they would be using Pyro developers.

If they were using a water stop?

 

[138S]

OK, name me any world class photographers, or their processors who use water as a stop bath for their film?

All those having used E-6 film

First developer (which is bare BW developer) is always stopped with plain water, and E-6 is a quite critically precise processing.

in fact I was convinced with that argument... a mate told me: Do you know slides? ...first bw developer is stoped with water, and those that designed such a processing were not rookies !

Still, no problem with acid bath, sapecially if fixer is not alkaline.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The E-6 process is designed to use a water rinse, but there are very real and complex reasons why. ECN-2 uses a stop bath, but C-41 doesn't need to use one. The people who designed these processes knew what they were doing, most of the people on here making bizarre claims against stop baths are often getting away with bad practice because of system latitude, nothing else.

 

[cliveh]

All those having used E-6 film

First developer (which is bare BW developer) is always stopped with plain water, and E-6 is a quite critically precise processing.

in fact I was convinced with that argument... a mate told me: Do you know slides? ...first bw developer is stoped with water, and those that designed such a processing were not rookies !

Still, no problem with acid bath, sapecially if fixer is not alkaline.

If you are now talking about E6, you are completely changing the subject. I thought we were talking about black & white films and paper?

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you are now talking about E6, you are completely changing the subject. I thought we were talking about black & white films and paper?

It's a distraction - especially as E-6 uses a water rinse precisely so as to not stop the process throughout all the layers simultaneously.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All those having used E-6 film

First developer (which is bare BW developer) is always stopped with plain water, and E-6 is a quite critically precise processing.

in fact I was convinced with that argument... a mate told me: Do you know slides? ...first bw developer is stoped with water, and those that designed such a processing were not rookies !

Still, no problem with acid bath, sapecially if fixer is not alkaline.

And PE recommending that people who had crossover problems to use stop bath instead of water.

But of course we all know the stop bath with indicator is so damned expensive!

 

[Lachlan Young]

But of course we all know the stop bath with indicator is so damned expensive!

Just wait till they discover that with some technical/ litho/ x-ray films you're supposed to mix the stop bath about 2.5x stronger!

 

[138S]

And PE recommending that people who had crossover problems to use stop bath instead of water.

But of course we all know the stop bath with indicator is so damned expensive!

Of course, if one is not able to rinse well film after First E-6 development then an acid stop is good advice. But if you check Fuji Hunt E-6 instructions (or tetenal) then you will see that acid stop is absent.

Also no minilab or big lab uses it for E-6, and personally I never, never had a crossover E-6 problem.

For convenience (not cost), I don't use acid stop for film, with CMS 20 exception and following datasheet wise instructions.

As explained in The Darkroom Cookbook, you won't find a difference with regular film, you can check it at home...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Because actually following a link and reading what Ron Mowery wrote about stop baths and E-6 seems too challenging for some, I'll quote it directly here [text bolded for emphasis]

"Basically, the wash after the FD serves a variety of purposes.

It just about stops development from the top down and thus the bottom layer has just a tad more chance to develop. Since this varies with water supply, I have never been a big fan of this method. It also serves to prevent carryover of FD into CD. And it also serves to be a holding bath for light reversal if that is your method of choice.

For those who think this is an argument against stop baths, I disagree. Stops are good but this is the way EK chose to go and it seems to work for this process due to the high temp, compared to the 20C process used for B&W."

Given a choice between a Kodak researcher who was extremely familiar with the behaviour of stop baths and the Darkroom Cookbook's statements of routinely questionable veracity, I'll go with the opinion of the Kodak researcher.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Darkroom Cookbook's statements of routinely questionable veracity

Strangely enough I haven't felt the need to update my copy of the 'Darkroom Cookbook' to the latest edition...

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I think I should just stop doing photography. It's breaking the bank because we all know the stop bath with indicator is so damned expensive!

 

[Vaughn]

You may try using a 11x14 paper safe !
...Developing in a daylight tray is like riding an electrically assited bike !

Way too small for 11x14 negative development...recipe for disaster...a 14x17 or 16x20 perhaps if I thought it at all practical for me. In my set-up open trays are more practical. I like the dark.

 

[138S]

if I thought it at all practical for me. In my set-up open trays are more practical. I like the dark.

Of course, if one is used to operate in the dark then open trays are perfect, at the end with a pipelined processing we save only some 8 min per sheet, if processing valuable 11x14" those 8 min are a least concern... also it may deliver a nicer experience than a pipelined work.

Personally, I find making development in the safe allows an smoother pipelined work, while one sheet is in the safe the others fixing or washing can be worked. Time between agitations are enough for that... I use a clock with sound alarm for the agitations... also in that way I see the clearing of sheet in the first fixer bath, I move the sheet to the second fixer bath as soon it has cleared, taking the second bath always the same time.

Fixing lights open allows to monitor conveniently the clearing time, to know when 1st fixer bath should be dumped, and we always fix just the right time.

IMO there is no risk in fixing (film) lights open, specially if stop or fixer or both are acidic. If using water stop and alkaline fixer combination then IMO the sheet has to stay time enough in the stop (2 min) because it is better having developer well washed before placing the sheet in an alkaline medium, we have a narrower safety margin.

 

[138S]

Strangely enough I haven't felt the need to update my copy of the 'Darkroom Cookbook' to the latest edition...

The Darkroom Cookbook irritated some activists of the Pre-wetting-Acid_Stop-Rotary fashions

TDC (and TFDC) is a very good book because it tells to a learner that there is no "exclussive good way" to have the things done, instead a learner understands that processing is a tool that it can be used in several ways, and that YMMV. Every wise traditional photographer will say that, but such a wisdom is not easy to treasure. Someone starting tends to belive that there is "the right way" to work the thing and he havs to learn that single way. The best value in that book is that (beyond technique) it communicates that things are relative, and that we have choices.

Anyway for those "irritated" by the Pre-wetting-Acid_Stop-Rotary debate, we have facts:

> Ilford does not recommend pre-wetting for their films.

> Many people use water stop with no problem.

> Rotary is continuous agitation and it removes (sometimes) benefical edge effects, and it tends to oxydize some pyro developers rising general stain if this not addressed.

Those are facts, and those irritated from learning facts should reconsider. Pre-wetting, stop flavors and agitation are choices, not dogmas.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ilford may use a ingredient in their coating structure that acts as a development accelerator (and possibly a surfactant), and which may be washed out via a pre-wash.

Water rinse between developer and fix is almost always a bad idea unless you need development to continue to an extent in certain layers (E-6).

Actual edge effects have no relationship to continuous agitation - in fact in many cases they have direct relationships with the solvency of the developer (ie they actually need some level of solvency in the developer in order to induce them). If continuous agitation really reduced edge effects, it would show up in microdensitometry and there would be strong warnings against using C-41/ E-6 in continuous agitation processing. In fact, the reality is that there were films that actually needed continuous agitation & would produce uneven results under intermittent agitation. Proper process controls (not the strange musings of some film processing charlatan) will actually demonstrate that most of the supposed differences between rotary and intermittent agitation are close to nil.

 

[138S]

When it comes to exposing and in particular developing film, sadly there aren’t really that many correct ways.

YMMV... IMO, beyond basic knowledge, what matters is the flexibility in the processing

Of course hybrid/photoshop has a high degree of flexibility, but film processing can be very important...

For example, in roll formats grain depiction from developer can be critical, we may exploit the film's grain structure. In LF for many people N+/- processing can be a key factor, others won't use that resource. Then we can control highlights or working a different toe...

To not mention the Pyro factor !!!! There is no doubt that stain has an interaction with Variable Contrast paper in the highlights with the stain working like a selective contrast mask for the highlights.

No doubt that framing and printing is very important, but we may recall that Ansel Adams wrote those 3 books: The Camera, The Negative and The Print. If he wrote The Negative book this is because the negative crafting matters.

________

Still, I agree that pre-wetting, stop bath kind and "rotary or not" are not mattering much, most of the times.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Well, I'm glad it's finally settled. I've been waiting for the answer for sixteen years.

I was waiting for this discussion to stop as well.

 

[138S]

OK, just let's highlight the post that had to settle that question, as it is also best summary possible:

45 years of using stop or water shows no difference in my negatives. However I tend to wash negs and prints longer than strictly necessary.