Using C41 stabilizer instead of photo flo

[MattKing]

Well, you just described it pretty well. The hexamine creates formaldehyde in situ, which prevents bacterial/fungal growth and stabilizes the dyes. The dye part of course only applies to chromogenic films; for silver image b&w there's only the fungicide function that's somewhat relevant.

And Photo Engineer recommended against using the old, formaldehyde containing Kodak stabilizer with black and white film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Furthermore, color films manufactured after approximately 2000 have not needed added formaldehyde to stabilize the dyes; instead, the stabilization was "baked in" to the emulsion at the time of manufacture. The only reason for the Final Rinse with modern films is even drying, plus the antibacterial/antifungal function (which is now handled, in modern Flexicolor and other commercial chemical sets, by a substance commonly used to treat athlete's foot -- miconazole, IIRC).

 

[Sirius Glass]

And Photo Engineer recommended against using the old, formaldehyde containing Kodak stabilizer with black and white film.

I keep repeating this and nobody pays attention and they continue asking the question again and again and again and again. They just will not accept the answer. Go figure. Oh, here they come and ask again.

 

[MattKing]

I keep repeating this and nobody pays attention and they continue asking the question again and again and again and again. They just will not accept the answer. Go figure. Oh, here they come and ask again.

The problem, of course, is that the Kodak nomenclature isn't used by everyone.
You have to drill down into the MSDS to determine if Tetenal (as an example) are using the label "Stabilizer" to mean something like the old Kodak Stabilizer, or the current Kodak Final Rinse, or something entirely different.
That can sometimes be a problem with PE's posts - he quite naturally defaulted to using Kodak nomenclature, without including "Kodak" in the name.

 

[grat]

I didn't think anyone was using the formalin-based stabilizer anymore. As I understand it from PE's posts, modern Kodak C41 stabilizer contains an antifungal and a slightly different formulation of PhotoFlo. Given that B&W film has enough silver to kill an entire civilization of microbes, and that photoFlo for B&W is dirt cheap, I'm not sure I understand why people would rather use C41 stabilizer (or final rinse). I only bought some final rinse because I accidentally dumped half my stabilizer (for C41 developing) down the drain *sigh*.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'll answer part of that: I process both B&W and color film. I have to have C-41 Final Rinse on hand for the color anyway. Not needing to also keep PhotoFlo or equivalent saves time, space, and money. As long as it does no harm to the B&W (and I don't know of any reason it would), it's easier to have one than two. I'm close to doing the same with fixer -- C-41 fixer works fine on B&W film, and it's cheaper than B&W rapid fixer. That would let me save the B&W rapid fixer for printing...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'll answer part of that: I process both B&W and color film. I have to have C-41 Final Rinse on hand for the color anyway. Not needing to also keep PhotoFlo or equivalent saves time, space, and money. As long as it does no harm to the B&W (and I don't know of any reason it would), it's easier to have one than two. I'm close to doing the same with fixer -- C-41 fixer works fine on B&W film, and it's cheaper than B&W rapid fixer. That would let me save the B&W rapid fixer for printing...

Nothing personal to DQ, but ...

{snark} Yes I am sure there are great savings in not using Stop Bath with Indicator and PhotoFlo as we all know they are just so damned expensive! Those prices have been known to cause college students to have to skip a cup of $tarBuck$ coffee! Soon we will have threads about substituting tap water for C-41 chemicals. Oh the humanity or inhumanity of it all. {/snark}

 

[grat]

I bought a 16 oz. bottle of Photo-Flo 200 for $8 USD. I use about 4 drops per 500ml of chemical. That's like 1/16th of a teaspoon (Actually, it's less). That's 16 (to make 1 teaspoon) *6 (to make one ounce) *16 (to make one bottle). That works out to 1,536 spools of 120 film, or 6,826 sheets of 4x5 film. Calculating the final cost per sheet returns a value of.... $0.001 per sheet. That's got to be the definition of a false economy if I ever heard one.

Using C41 stabilizer on B&W in place of photoflo is like using Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 20W-50 on your garden gate-- sure it'll work, but........

 

[Donald Qualls]

Using C41 stabilizer on B&W in place of photoflo is like using Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 20W-50 on your garden gate-- sure it'll work, but........

Then again, if you have an open bottle of Mobil 1 (because you change your own oil, and your car takes 4.3 quarts), and don't have a can of 3-in-1 handy, why not?

 

[grat]

Then again, if you have an open bottle of Mobil 1 (because you change your own oil, and your car takes 4.3 quarts), and don't have a can of 3-in-1 handy, why not?

Because you'll only need 3.6 quarts the next time.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I bought a 16 oz. bottle of Photo-Flo 200 for $8 USD. I use about 4 drops per 500ml of chemical. That's like 1/16th of a teaspoon (Actually, it's less). That's 16 (to make 1 teaspoon) *6 (to make one ounce) *16 (to make one bottle). That works out to 1,536 spools of 120 film, or 6,826 sheets of 4x5 film. Calculating the final cost per sheet returns a value of.... $0.001 per sheet. That's got to be the definition of a false economy if I ever heard one.

Using C41 stabilizer on B&W in place of photoflo is like using Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 20W-50 on your garden gate-- sure it'll work, but........

Exactly my point. If we were talking about a way to use common household products to replace gold or platinum, that would be much more interesting.