TF-4 fixer.

Maine-iac · Sep 19, 2006

Ole said:
Well Larry, I'm not with you. There are some formulas that need precision, and I use my balance for that. Film developers especially.

But fixers don't need precision beyond the "one lump, two lumps" level. The process is not time-critical, and is supposed to go to completion. So I havent weighed out a fixer since I did it once to write down my recipe...

I'm sure there are some formulas that need the precision of a balance scale. I just don't happen to use any of them. With all the common (D-76, D-23, E-72, Phen/Vit C) developers I've never encountered problems using the tsp measuring system. And I'm pretty fussy about my results.

I like very fine grain, very good sharpness, excellent shadows and unblocked highlights, and I'm getting that consistently with my PCC or PCM (Phen/Vit C/Carbonate or Phen/Vit C/Metaborate film developer using teaspoons and rating film at about 60% of its manufacturer's suggested speed, so why change? If I were using formulas that need the precision, I'd use the balance scale.

Larry

Stephanie Brim · Sep 19, 2006

Because of J&C's sale I went ahead and bought some TF-4. I'll try mixing things myself next time.

Photo Engineer · Sep 19, 2006

Maine-iac said:
I'm sure there are some formulas that need the precision of a balance scale. I just don't happen to use any of them. With all the common (D-76, D-23, E-72, Phen/Vit C) developers I've never encountered problems using the tsp measuring system. And I'm pretty fussy about my results.

I like very fine grain, very good sharpness, excellent shadows and unblocked highlights, and I'm getting that consistently with my PCC or PCM (Phen/Vit C/Carbonate or Phen/Vit C/Metaborate film developer using teaspoons and rating film at about 60% of its manufacturer's suggested speed, so why change? If I were using formulas that need the precision, I'd use the balance scale.

Larry

Have you ever made a direct comparison with one of your developers and an identical exposure on the same film with a well known prepared developer?

This might include 3 magnifications with grain and sharpness comparisons. It might include a measure of fill in, bloom and sensitivity to agitation.

Using volumetric measures for solids results in up to 20% error, as I have posted elsewhere. This can lead to considerable fluctuation in film characteristics that, without a reference comparison, can be completely misleading!

Even a fussy person can be mislead if they have no comparison.

PE

Maine-iac · Sep 20, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
Have you ever made a direct comparison with one of your developers and an identical exposure on the same film with a well known prepared developer?

PE

Yes, I have, many times. Over the years, I've used a variety of commercial developers from Acufine to Microdol-X to FG7 to HC110 to Xtol, etc. I've had good and bad results from all of them, depending on mistakes I made in exposure or development technique (agitation, etc.) For some years, I more or less standardized on HC110 dilution B, and while I loved the tonal scale of my negs, I never got quite the fine grain that I wanted with it. When Pat Gainer began publishing his experiments with Phenidone/Ascorbic Acid, I tried it, played with it, tweaked it, and finally settled on what I use now. I know that if I use 120 Delta 400 rated at ISO 200 and my PCC formula for 7 minutes at 70F, I'm going to get great negs.

My current PCC and PCM formulas give me the results I want to make long scale, sharp virtually grainless prints. That's the ultimate test for me--do I like the prints I get from a particular combination of film, developer, and paper?

Larry

nworth · Sep 20, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
What reference do you have to support your claims?

Sulfite (the preservative) works from pH 4.0 - 12 AFAIK, as it is used in that range for both fixers and developers. The mechanism changes, of course, but it still works as an antioxidant.

Capacity is not pH dependant for the most part. It is more dependant on concentration and synergy.

This is based on my experience in the formulation of fixers and blixes.

PE

Not much - and your comments are greatly appreciated. I know that plain hypo deteriorates very quickly. The rest of my information is largely hearsay. Real information on the preservative action in fixers has been very hard to come by.

Photo Engineer · Sep 21, 2006

nworth said:
Not much - and your comments are greatly appreciated. I know that plain hypo deteriorates very quickly. The rest of my information is largely hearsay. Real information on the preservative action in fixers has been very hard to come by.

Well, here is more information then.

Hypo increases in inherent stability as pH goes up, and therefore needs more stabilzer at lower pH. Hypo has a twofold stability consisiting of a mild sensitivity to oxidation and a rather stronger sensitivity to pH. Sulfite buffers against pH instability and helps resist oxidation, but nothing can prevent decomposition if pH goes lower than about 4.5.

If you add some sulfuric acid to a fix, it will form a cloudy mass at the point of entrance of the sulfuric acid due to the strong pH change which goes below 4.5 momentarily. Doing the same with acetic acid has little effect on formation of a cloudy mass as the pH drop is not severe.

This mass is colloidal sulfur formed by decomposition of hypo. At the same time, you will smell sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide produced by this decomposition. Keeping fix at pH 4.5 will eventually result in total sulfurization with sulfur coating the inside of the container. At this point, the fixer is useless.

If a spoiled or spoiling fixer is used for film, small particles of colloidal sulfur can be trapped in the emulsion matrix leaving spots on the film like dust and the film is ruiined. If the fix is good, but is cloudy, it is a very good idea to filter it before use.

Hope this helps.

PE

dancqu · Sep 22, 2006

Jed Freudenthal said:
I am using a buffered stop bath ...at a pH=4,5 ...
ensuring positional stability of the image in the emulsion.
Then... a slightly alkaline fixer...

If you are really concerned with "positional stability of
the image in the emulsion" you'd not subject the emulsion
to the ph shock of an alkaline to acid to alkaline procedure.
Why not all-same-ph process? Dan

Jed Freudenthal · Sep 22, 2006

dancqu said:
If you are really concerned with "positional stability of
the image in the emulsion" you'd not subject the emulsion
to the ph shock of an alkaline to acid to alkaline procedure.
Why not all-same-ph process? Dan

I can imagine you are asking this question. First of all, I am using in my high definition developers( see chemical recipes) the tanning agents pyrogallol or catechol. They have a tanning property because of the low sulfite level. In the developing process, the positional stability is already secured in the tanning process. In the next step, the stop bath one could go to a slightly alkaline stopbath, but the problem is that it won't stop the developing process. Therefore I used a stop bath at ph=4,5, where the gelatine is stressed at a minimum. And then I complete this using a fixer that is slightly alkaline, to make the pH jump small, but the main issue is that the washing is optimal.
The importance of high definition(= high MTF values over a wide spatial frequency range, but not over 100%, no adjacency effects or other errors) or in simple language an image with high integrity, has been confirmed by panels. The same is true for the positional stability of the image. This sounds a little bit 'scientific". But let me explain this in the following way. If you have an image of fog or clouds, and it is not 'fluid', people won't accept it. The image becomes rough. It is not easy to explain the point of positional stability, but may be I have made it clear.
As a matter of fact, the catechol developer, I published in the 'chemical recipes' is derived and adapted, from a formula used by professional photographers in Germany and the Netherlands ( not amateurs) since 1900. When you see those photographs, they are really marvelous. And, I think that is because of the positional stability.

Jed

Ole · Sep 22, 2006

Jed, staining developers are guaranteed to give reduced positional stability. If that's what you're really after, you'd be far better off with the developers used for (among other things) astrophotography and holography!

I agree, it "sounds 'scientific'".

Photo Engineer · Sep 22, 2006

I find no references to pH changes causing problems with 'positional stability' due to the changes in the swell of the gelatin.

Does anyone have any here, published in a professional journal and not a qualitative guesstimate?

Accepted wisdom says that pH changes from 4.5 to about 12 don't cause problems. In fact, this is nearly the order of change in both E6 and Kodachrome processes. The color developers are about 11 - 12, and the bleach in the following step is either at 4.5 or 6.5 depending. In B&W processes, the developers are typically about 9 - 10, and the stop and fix are about 4.5.

PE

Kirk Keyes · Sep 22, 2006

"positional stability"

Too much reading between the lines from the "Film Developer Cookbook", I think...

Stephanie Brim · Sep 23, 2006

I got my fixer from J&C today. I'll be mixing it up tomorrow and using it tomorrow night most likely. I got a nice bottle to put it in as well.

Now if someone could continue talking me into PMK...

Jed Freudenthal · Sep 23, 2006

Ole said:
Jed, staining developers are guaranteed to give reduced positional stability. If that's what you're really after, you'd be far better off with the developers used for (among other things) astrophotography and holography!

I agree, it "sounds 'scientific'".

I am not talking of a staining developer; I am talking on a non-staining tanning catechol developer. And, as a scientist, I used them in those fields where positional stability is critical. In the references of my article in 'chemical recipes', I refer to a text on silver-halide recording materials in holography. But, they are applied in pictorial photography as well. Insight in these facts is helpful. The reaction of the panel on the photographic image is decisive.
In case of a staining and tanning developer (pyrogallol) one will get positional stability but an additional masking (image and non-image) will occur. However, I was not discussing this situation.

Jed

Photo Engineer · Sep 23, 2006

Jed Freudenthal said:
I am not talking of a staining developer; I am talking on a non-staining tanning catechol developer. And, as a scientist, I used them in those fields where positional stability is critical. In the references of my article in 'chemical recipes', I refer to a text on silver-halide recording materials in holography. But, they are applied in pictorial photography as well. Insight in these facts is helpful. The reaction of the panel on the photographic image is decisive.
In case of a staining and tanning developer (pyrogallol) one will get positional stability but an additional masking (image and non-image) will occur. However, I was not discussing this situation.

Jed

Jed;

I hardly think a panel of experts is decisive. Are there any measurements with instruments, using definition charts?

Silver halide materials for holography often use Lippmann emulsions in reduced gelatin. Do you know if that is what is referred to in the paper you cite and do you know what tests were run and how they relate to general analog photography?

PE

Jed Freudenthal · Sep 23, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
Jed;

I hardly think a panel of experts is decisive. Are there any measurements with instruments, using definition charts?

Silver halide materials for holography often use Lippmann emulsions in reduced gelatin. Do you know if that is what is referred to in the paper you cite and do you know what tests were run and how they relate to general analog photography?

PE

You misunderstood the panel. The panel are ( very normal) people looking at the image of the final photographic print, giving their impression on the quality of the print. Psychology is more important than chemistry. However, this comes together in the discipline called psychophysics. I, then adjust the recipe of the developer accordingly. But I am a member of an old Dutch family of photographers ( since 1900), and I have a lot of information from Germany and the Netherlands via that family route.
I am not referring to a paper but a book with 440 pages and possibly thousands of references. The Lippman emulsions form a small part. I am particular interested in the catechol and pyrogallol developers.
The idea of the holographic emulsions and their developers was to have an image of high integrity. The catechol developers used by the professional (studio) photographers in Europe ( Germany and the Netherlands) had the same characteristics. That is where the link is.
I think we are entering an interesting discussion. And I expect more discussion. However, I will go to Spain tomorrow to photograph in Andalucia and Extramadura, and I am not thinking about Modulation Transfer functions when I am drinking the spanish wine. I will be there 4 weeks. As soon as I am back, I will tell you: I am back again.

Jed

Matus Kalisky · Dec 28, 2011

As this seems the most involved thread about TF-4 I have one question. Can the working solution - after it was used to fixe a few films - left standing in a bottle and then reused days or weeks later? I am asking as my experience with Ilford Fixer is that after some time (but in principal still usable fixer) silver will start to set down on the bottle and when reused it easily ends up on the film.

The main plan is to use the TF-4 after developing in Pyrocat-HD and water stop.

EDIT: What would be realistic capacity (number of 120 or 4x5" films/sheets) per 1 liter of working solution?

thanks

Richard S. (rich815) · Dec 28, 2011

Matus Kalisky said:
As this seems the most involved thread about TF-4 I have one question. Can the working solution - after it was used to fixe a few films - left standing in a bottle and then reused days or weeks later? I am asking as my experience with Ilford Fixer is that after some time (but in principal still usable fixer) silver will start to set down on the bottle and when reused it easily ends up on the film.

The main plan is to use the TF-4 after developing in Pyrocat-HD and water stop.

EDIT: What would be realistic capacity (number of 120 or 4x5" films/sheets) per 1 liter of working solution?

thanks

Yes, I do that all the time. I mix up a 1000 ml bottle 1:3 and store in an old brown Microdol-X bottle. As for how many rolls it will last for I do not keep track. I usually just dump and mix a fresh bottle about every 4-6 weeks. Probably fix around 10-12 rolls of 120 or 30-34 rolls of 35mm if I had to guess in that time. Either way you can easily tell when it's getting exhausted by it not clearing the film well. If that happens dump that batch and mix a new batch and fix that roll longer in the newly mixed fixer.

(Matus, you could have asked me that at Flickr too! ;-)

Matus Kalisky · Dec 28, 2011

rich815;1276922 (Matus said:
Thank you. I guess I could have 10 - 12 rolls does not sound much though.

All these questions have the same background is that I would like to be able to develop HP5+ in Pyrocat HD without "pinholes" on the negatives (there were threads on this topic) and would like to try alkaline fixer as it could help to remove the issue. But as I have to order it overseas the price effective doubles (shipping + taxes).

jp498 · Dec 28, 2011

I have tf4 fixer for film as it seems to be the only fixer I can develop fomapan100 in without pinholes (even foma's fomafix does)

Using a water stop bath does remove the stop bath odor if that's a problem, and also saves stop bath.

Formulary also sells a $10 fixer test kit to verify exhaustion of the fixer. I will use it once in a while out of curiosity, but the idea that the film should be fixed for twice the time it takes to clear easily shows the functioning of the fixer. If it starts taking long, it's time to retire that jugfull.

Photo Engineer · Dec 28, 2011

You must use either a stop bath or a running water rinse between the developer and TF-4. Otherwise you will exhaust the TF-4 rapidly, run the risk of fog and stain, and you may cause an increased ammonia odor.

TF-4 capacity is as specified in the instructions and on the Formulary web site.

TF-4 keeps well both used and unused, but keeps poorly if a stil water rinse is used after the developer.

PE

Richard S. (rich815) · Dec 28, 2011

Matus Kalisky said:
Thank you. I guess I could have 10 - 12 rolls does not sound much though.

It's likely more than that. But like i said I dump it every 4-6 weeks and that's about how much 120 I develop and process in that time. The bottle says how much film it can fix, let me check that and post here later....

Matus Kalisky · Dec 28, 2011

Thanks.

A side question - does anybody have experience with the Moersch ATS alkaline fixer ? I will probably give it a try, but would be great to hear your experience.

The compounds of this fixer (from the safety leaflet) are:
Sodium sulfite 10-15%
Ammonium thiosulphate 65-70%
Diethylentriamine pentaacetic acid na5 1-2%

The formula for TF-4 is proprietary, but it wold be nice to know whether these two fixers are completely different or I could hope not to get pinholes with HP5+ & Pyrocat the with the Moersch soup ?

jp498 · Dec 28, 2011

PE, how much water is required for the "stop rinse" if it's not running water? I use about 3L of still water to rinse an 8x10 sheet for 60-90 sec before moving it to the fixer. (pyrocat HD is the developer)

Photo Engineer · Dec 28, 2011

I cannot answer how much rinse is needed if not running. I've violated that rule one time and fogged some prints and exhausted the fixer in a large print run when I first started using TF-4 years ago. I was in a hurry..... So, you will have to determine that yourself. Sorry.

PE

chriscrawfordphoto · Dec 28, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
I cannot answer how much rinse is needed if not running. I've violated that rule one time and fogged some prints and exhausted the fixer in a large print run when I first started using TF-4 years ago. I was in a hurry..... So, you will have to determine that yourself. Sorry.

PE

I fill the tank with running water and dump it twice before pouring in TF-4. Is that enough of a 'running water rinse'?

TF-4 fixer.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency