Workflow - Stop/Hold After Developer

[dancqu]

As a tray and space saving method as well as for
saving time I've given some thought to placing the
hold after the developer rather than after the fixer.
Is that a workable safe way to do? I think it may
be OK with no more than a sulfited stop/hold.

Develop one print at a time but fix a few.
Any body work that way? Dan

 

[fschifano]

Makes no sense. Development for prints should be carried out to completion. Why not expose a few prints, then batch develop, stop, and fix?

 

[dpurdy]

if you are doing some sort of large batch processing and you know the prints you are making are all printed correctly you could probably hold them for awhile in the stop bath. I wouldn't use indicator stop. But it doesn't really make a lot of sense to do that. Your prints have to go somewhere after the fix. So why not work at a speed that allows you to keep track of the prints in the fix and keep your stack of prints on hold in a box before the developer. As you move prints along the line put more in the developer.

 

[dancqu]

Makes no sense. Development for prints should be carried
out to completion. Why not expose a few prints, then
batch develop, stop, and fix?

Whenever completion occures. We've had a discussion of
that subject some time ago. I do develop to completion
whenever it occures.

I should have mentioned that I prefer developing one print
at a time. I've had plenty of experience with batch processing.
I've been processing a single or up to four at one time with no
stop at all, moving the print or prints directly to a one-shot
fix. One less tray that way. Close quarters.

I propose using a second tray as a stop/hold then batch fixing.
The first tray is emptied then filled with fixer. Compared with
all batch processing I don't save time with development but
do with the fixer. Developing times remain flexable. Dan