Turning on lights after developer

brofkand · Aug 11, 2012

I saw a YouTube video from The View Camera Store where Fred is demonstrating the use of BTZS tubes for processing sheet film. He removes the film out of the tube after developer and processes in stop and fix in room light.

Is this advisable? What are the risks? Fred states in the comments that nearly all of the light sensitivity of the film is gone after development, but I have personally seen my prints (test strips mostly) fade away after taking them out of the Dektol to inspect in room light.

I use a Yankee Agitank and it takes a bit of time to dump and fill it, it would be helpful to not have to worry too much about total darkness after I develop (mostly Rodinal stand developing with Foma 100, but some FP4/Delta 100 with Rodinal as well). Not saying I would turn on every light in the house, but I could at least take off the tank lid for the stop and fix steps and agitate by dip-and-dunk using dim ambient lighting.

Fotoguy20d · Aug 11, 2012

Ive had the same result with paper in Ilford developer. I dont use stop - just a quick water rinse at most - and go straight to fixer. I'll usually pop the top of my tank after 1.5 - 2 minutes (I use HP Combi tanks for sheet film and Paterson System 4 for roll) and take a quick peek before putting it back in for the rest of the fix.

Dan

johnielvis · Aug 11, 2012

yup....I USED to do that--I just loved to develop, rinse (and stop bath!!!) and then put the film in the bleach and bleach that silver away--

untill I started getting picky and noticed that I was losing contrast due to print through...now my film doesn't see the light until the re-exposure step--

for regular negatives I don't think the extra fog you get will be noticable--particularly since you WILL print right through it--it does lower your contrast and dynamic range an UNnoticable amount when printing negatives---but with reversals--where you use the entire film's dynamic range, you DO notice it--if you're looking for it.

just make sure you rinse it good if you used a strong developer--or just WAIT a long enough time for the developer to exhaust itself and you should be good for negatives.

Athiril · Aug 12, 2012

I always stop first if I want to inspect.

Kevin Caulfield · Aug 12, 2012

:munch::munch::munch::munch: Always stop then at least a few minutes of fix before lights on.

Leigh B · Aug 12, 2012

brofkand said:
I saw a YouTube video from The View Camera Store where Fred is demonstrating the use of BTZS tubes for processing sheet film. He removes the film out of the tube after developer and processes in stop and fix in room light.

He does that so you won't realize how ridiculous that system is. You need to do the stop bath and fix in darkness, and trying to change
chemicals with that tube system in the dark would be almost impossible.

- Leigh

Leigh B · Aug 12, 2012

Fotoguy20d said:
I dont use stop

Why not?

Fotoguy20d said:
I'll usually pop the top of my tank after 1.5 - 2 minutes and take a quick peek before putting it back in for the rest of the fix.

Why?

- Leigh

SkipA · Aug 12, 2012

For film, I do the process through complete fixing without exposure to light. The only exception is for brief exposure to dark green #3 safelight when doing DBI with sheet film in trays. Otherwise, I see no reason to turn on the lights (tray processing) or open the tanks before it is time to clear and wash.

For paper, I often turn on the room lights once fixing is half complete. For test strips, I don't bother fixing completely since I'm not going to keep them.

Leigh B · Aug 12, 2012

SkipA said:
For film, I do the process through complete fixing without exposure to light.

Same here.

- Leigh

jm94 · Aug 12, 2012

Same, especially if one uses a water stop traces of developer in the material being developed can cause a problem... But if it is something crucial its best not to do it at all. My one exception would be dev. by inspection... Develop, stop then view with green safelight for a moment, then if you need more development put it back in the developer. It reduces chances of fog from the safelight.

Steve Smith · Aug 12, 2012

Why would a green safelight be any safer than any other colour for inspection?

Steve.

bdial · Aug 12, 2012

How well things work out if you expose prior to fixer completion depends a little on the specific chems and procedures you're using. For example, if you're using water for stop or no stop, and an alkaline fix, you can get some continued developing in the fix from carry over, and thus, fogging if it's exposed.
It's less likely if you use an acid stop or fix or both.

I am usually impatient to see the negs, so I often take a peek after the film has been in the fix for a minute or so. With reasonably fresh fix it's almost cleared by that time and it's theortically pretty safe, but I've never done a rigourous test.

Fred's procedure in the youtube does work, it's been discussed in here before, and I've done similar things accidentally with no practical damage, YMMV.

If you use a water stop (i do, for film), it's a good idea to stop for at least 1 minute, with agitation, whether or not you're opening the lid in the fix. It makes your developer timing more definite, and repeatable, and helps the fix to last longer.

MartinP · Aug 12, 2012

Steve Smith said:
Why would a green safelight be any safer than any other colour for inspection?

The human eye is, on average, most sensitive to the green part of the spectrum so the light can be less bright while you can still see the developed silver against the paler emulsion. All manufacturers who have anything to say about development by inspection recommend a (very) dark green safelight-filter, usually indirectly and for as short a time as possible.

I vaguely recall reading that the image silver has mostly been developed by the time the inspection is done (last quarter or so of the dev-time) and the dim light does not manage to get past the start of the H&D curve to start to affect other, unaffected/undeveloped crystals. If someone can dig out a reference for that and/or add personal experiences then it would be useful.

As for fixing in the light - why, what's the advantage? (Except for 'unusual' processing like with the tubes).

M Stat · Aug 12, 2012

I don't know about you guys, but I go to great lengths to get my photographs, sometimes hiking for miles to get to a suitable location. When I process the film, I do each sheet INDIVIDUALLY in trays to insure perfectly clean negs. What could I possibly gain from shoddy darkroom practices after taking such pains, just to satisfy my curiosity a few moments sooner? It's ludicrous.

Steve Smith · Aug 12, 2012

M Stat said:
What could I possibly gain from shoddy darkroom practices after taking such pains, just to satisfy my curiosity a few moments sooner? It's ludicrous.

It's only shoddy and ludicrous if it causes any problems. If it doesn't, then it isn't.

Steve.

desertrat · Aug 12, 2012

MartinP said:
The human eye is, on average, most sensitive to the green part of the spectrum so the light can be less bright while you can still see the developed silver against the paler emulsion. All manufacturers who have anything to say about development by inspection recommend a (very) dark green safelight-filter, usually indirectly and for as short a time as possible.

I vaguely recall reading that the image silver has mostly been developed by the time the inspection is done (last quarter or so of the dev-time) and the dim light does not manage to get past the start of the H&D curve to start to affect other, unaffected/undeveloped crystals. If someone can dig out a reference for that and/or add personal experiences then it would be useful.

As for fixing in the light - why, what's the advantage? (Except for 'unusual' processing like with the tubes).

Another reason for using a green safelight is I believe many of the older panchromatic emulsions had a reduced sensitivity to green light. I don't know if this is still true today.

MattKing · Aug 12, 2012

Even if there is undeveloped silver in the film when you turn the lights on, if there is no developer left in or on the film and the film does not subsequently contact developer, the fixer will remove those crystals anyways.

So essentially this will work perfectly, if the stop is far enough along to have neutralized or removed all of the developer.

Sirius Glass · Aug 12, 2012

Leigh B said:
SkipA said:

For film, I do the process through complete fixing without exposure to light.

Click to expand...

Same here.

- Leigh

Same here.

Leigh B · Aug 12, 2012

Steve Smith said:
It's only shoddy and ludicrous if it causes any problems.

But you don't know, beforehand or afterwards, if it did or will cause problems.

It's shoddy and ludicrous, not to mention unnecessary, in all cases.

- Leigh

Roger Cole · Aug 12, 2012

MattKing said:
Even if there is undeveloped silver in the film when you turn the lights on, if there is no developer left in or on the film and the film does not subsequently contact developer, the fixer will remove those crystals anyways.

So essentially this will work perfectly, if the stop is far enough along to have neutralized or removed all of the developer.

I have turned on the lights on paper once it's in the (acid - citric acid based in my case) stop and can detect no fog whatsoever. It will eventually, but takes a long time, many minutes at least, possibly hours. Film of course may be another matter. I haven't tried that and see no reason to try it since it isn't needed in my methods.

I do check the film half way through the fix step when using regular tanks to ensure it has cleared. This is safe. If it had not cleared I would recheck it every 30 seconds then fix for double the clearing time, but I'm pretty conservative on my usage of fixer and don't push the capacity so I've never actually found it not cleared in half the planned time. Since I use a Jobo for most of my film I don't do this, but I do test fixer capacity with a snip of film leader and check clearing time.

SkipA · Aug 12, 2012

I fix a piece of film leader in a beaker with the light on before processing my film to determine the clearing time. Then I know exactly how long to fix my film; I just double the clearing time. That saves me from having to check it during processing.

cliveh · Aug 12, 2012

Leigh B said:
But you don't know, beforehand or afterwards, if it did or will cause problems.

It's shoddy and ludicrous, not to mention unnecessary, in all cases.

- Leigh

Agree and what a ludicrous thing to do. Patience is a virtue. Respect the process and don't look until all the unexposed silver is dissolved.

Roger Cole · Aug 12, 2012

Turning on the lights in the stop is questionable and I only do it for paper test strips. Turning on the lights BEFORE the stop, well that's flirting with disaster. Turning on the lights after half the fixing time? May not be necessary but is totally safe. I did that on negatives I developed in high school in 1980. They're still fine.

bdial · Aug 12, 2012

Not all of us routinely have film leader for checking clearing time.
As Roger says, lights on after half or so of the fix time is no problem.
Along that line, if you leave it in the dark for your expected fix time without inspecting it, you don't know if it cleared at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 or 90% of that time.

cliveh · Aug 12, 2012

bdial said:
Not all of us routinely have film leader for checking clearing time.
As Roger says, lights on after half or so of the fix time is no problem.
Along that line, if you leave it in the dark for your expected fix time without inspecting it, you don't know if it cleared at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 or 90% of that time.

But what does it matter if you over fix by a couple of minutes?

Turning on lights after developer

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency