Fixer, hardner or not?

[brian steinberger]

I read in Popular Photographer (and older issue) not to use the hardener given with Kodak Rapid Fixer, saying that it shortens the life of modern black and white films. I've been adding the hardener to my fixer since I've began using the rapid fixer. Is this true? and should I not be using it? I shoot TMax100 and Tri-x 400. Thanks

Brian

[Scott Davis]

some of that will depend on what developer you are using for your film. I don't know about Rodinal or Tmax or the various other classic developer formulas from Kodak, Ilford et al (D-76, ID-11 etc) but if you are doing pyro development, you definitely don't want to use the hardener since it is a strong acid (sulfuric acid) and will have a pronounced negative impact on the stain on the film. I know this holds true across all film types when developed in pyro developers.

[Brian Ellis]

What do they mean, "shorten the life" of the film? Do they mean the negative will fade, discolor, fall apart, or otherwise deteriorate if hardener is used? If that's true it's the first I've heard of it. The purpose of using hardener in fix is to minimize scratches. I thought the standard recommendation over the years has been to discard the hardener for the print fix since it isn't really needed there and to use it for film since a scratch on film can't be fixed very easily if at all (before Photoshop that is). But I'm not a chemist or otherwise an expert on hardener and maybe the person who made the statement in Pop Photo is.

[Bruce Watson]

What Brian Ellis said.

One of the reasons to use the hardener for film supposedly is that it helps with reticulation, which might be important is you can't control the temperature of your wash water.

I don't see how it can shorten the life of film. I'm interested in how they supported that idea; please tell us more.

[brian steinberger]

I left the magazine at work today, but I rememeber it said to not use the hardener for modern films, since it will shorten the life of the newer black and white films. If you guys have never heard of it, then I'm gonna keep using it, to reduce scratching.

[Henry Ambrose]

I think I've read that the hardner makes it more difficult to wash the film throughly. I don't think the film or its keeping will be hurt if its washed well. Some people think that current films from Kodak and Ilford don't need hardner in the fix as their emulsions are hard enough so they omit the hardner. I have read that some "old style" european films are scratch prone when processed without hardner.

But I could be wrong about all this. I use TF4 and sometimes Ilford Rapid Fix so there's nothing to add to the fix and my results are scratch free.

[chris jordan]

I generally don't harden my negs...I just try to be careful! I'm not sure about the increased washing time...I think I've heard that too.

Another thought...sometimes hardened emulsions don't take to toners so well...so if you intensify your negatives with Selenium like I sometimes do, it might not work so well.

-Chris
www.jordanphoto.com

[Oren Grad]

The only reason to use hardener is if you have a problem with emulsion damage. Hardener doesn't harm the film, but it does extend the required wash time very substantially. If you don't need it, you're just wasting the extra water.

I've always used rapid fixer without hardener for both roll film and sheet film from the major vendors including Agfa, Fuji, Ilford and Kodak and have never had a problem with scratching, reticulation or other emulsion damage.

Per Henry's point, I too have read anecdotal reports of emulsion fragility in the Eastern European films. Conceivably hardener might be important in those cases. In limited experience processing the Forte ISO 200 and ISO 400 sheet films without hardener I've not had a problem, but it's something I'll be watching carefully.