A couple of points re hypo. The active agent in all photographic fixers is thiosulfate. The compounds used are either sodium thiosulfate or ammonium thiosulfate (rapid fixer). In either case, the fixer can be formulated to be acidic, neutral or alkaline in pH. Historically most formulas have been acidic - mostly because they included alum hardeners. Hardeners are no longer necessary for most emulsions which are pre-hardened during manufacture.
Very good advice in these posts
I would say, consider using a developer full strength, not diluted and replenish, especially with so much to do. The classic (Other than D76, which is great) is HC110 dilution B . You can replenish and it just keeps on ticking. They don't make specific replenishers anymore but you can find recommended procedures on the web. I'm a true believer in Kodak rapid fix with Hardener. I know everyone says hardener is redundant because modern films are pre hardened, I'm still a believer in using the ol reliable.
I was always told to keep my Temps start to finish the same, to prevent reticulation of the gelatine emulsion, I'm a believer in this to, don't shock the film with cold water etc.
And here's the ultimate heresy I use a squeegee, a super clean new,soft Paterson dipped in photo flo to pre wet and then one time top to bottom slow and very gently with very little pressure. If you don't use a hardener in your fix don't ever touch it just distilled water with a couple drops of photo flo.
I still use hypo clear because it adds an extra step, and I like developing film so I take my time. HCA also gets the last traces of the weird purple dyes out as well..
I never push it on fixer capacity but really is a good practice to use two fixer baths, moving up the second to first place now and then and keeping the second bath vital, and you can agitate almost continuously, gently, with rapid fix to lessen the time it akes to clear, if it clears in 2 minutes let it go 5 or 6 just to be sure.
I think I'm just repeating what all these good folk have already said. I tell ya be careful with the darn squeegee, it's really easy to scratch film. . MIKE
Thank you for your helpful clarification.Originally Posted by Michael R
Is Anchell's assertion correct, that alkaline fixers require less washing ? Is he correct that they require no washing aid or Hypo Clear ?
Very interesting stuff. Thank you all.
Regarding fixer: I am still a tad confused. I have heard there are two (primarily) types, hardening and non-hardening. But I get a tad confused with sodium thiosulfate, ammonium thiosulfate, acidic, alkaline, etc.
I assume that there are two and each have the above properties.
Regarding hardener: From what you guys are mentioning, it seems like older emulsions did not have this, but many of the newer ones do. What is its purpose? Does it "harden" the emulsion side of the negative, to make it more resilient?
Regarding temperature: Very interesting. So if I want to keep temperature constant throughout, how do you guys handle this? Make the ambient temperature of everything x degrees? So make the house set at 68deg or 70deg or whatever, then let chemicals stay out in that temperature for a day or so (overnight)?
Regarding contrast: I feel as if I give enough exposure during the shot, I use a Sekonic L308S, and generally overexpose by one stop, when possible. I had always thought, from reading one of Ansel's books years ago, to overexpose, then underdevelop. But yes, many of my negatives seem to come out boring and flat. I am not 100% sure, but it feels as if those I develop are of this nature and the lab come out so much better. I can go back and look, to be honest, because on my storage sleeves I write the develop details if I developed the roll myself.
If I was to overdevelop, what do you guys suggest? 10% 25%?
Regarding developer: There are many options. But if I was to pick up a second and try it out, how does one make a decision? Do I base it on the film type (TriX, Delta 100, etc.) or the photos themselves (from my notes) or the look I want to achieve? Like if I have D76 on the shelf and say Pyrocat, do I take my HP5 4x5 sheets and make a decision on which to use? I guess how does one make a decision/what factors impact the developer decision the most?
Regarding random question: Here a scan might mean the world (and probably should be in a separate thread)...but what would cause an entire roll to be insanely grainy and have thin vertical lines in many of the images. Over the years, I have had a few rolls do this. Surely it is from something going wrong or done backwards during developing?
Hi Ken, yes, generally speaking neutral and alkaline fixers require less washing time than acidic fixers (which is why there is less of a need for HCA). The advantage is most pronounced when it comes to washing fiber based papers.
Other potential (depending on formulation) advantages of non-acidic fixers are higher capacities/longer shelf life.
(1) Regarding contrast, over-exposing and under-developing is precisely what one does with an overly contrasty scene to reduce contrast. Therefore you are following a recipe for flatter negatives. I would go back to basics: expose correctly, with no attempt to over-expose. IIRC, the L308S is an incident meter, so my suggestion is to set your ASA at box speed, make sure your developer working solution is at 68F, and develop per the manufacturer's instructions. In other words, your best attempt at "normal" exposure without compensation, and "normal" development. With that as a starting point you have two potential adjustments, which you need to determine from your own processing: if the negatives are too thin (under exposed) lower the ASA reading on your meter. For example, many of us end up setting our meters at either 320 or 200ASA when using various box-speed films rated at 400 (i.e. my standard, HP5+, is rated as 400ASA, but from experience I set my meter at 320ASA). If your negatives are too contrasty when you print, cut back your developing time, and conversely if they are too flat, increase your developing time. Again, in my experience I was getting negatives with more contrast than I wanted when using PMK at the suggested developing time, so I settled on a reduced time, which gives me the density easiest to print (no densitometers or complicated testing, just what prints easiest). But you have to make these adjustments based on your own experience, since, for example, my experience is impacted by hard water where I live, and perhaps my metering, or my agitation methods, my enlarger light source, etc. To paraphrase my first teacher, Fred Picker, you can't read about it, you have to try it.
(2) Developers: You have so many variables, for now I would just stick with D-76 until you are getting the results you want, and only then experiment with other developers. FWIW, HC-110 for many many years was the standard for 4x5 Tri-X and HP5+, lasts forever, and works well with just about anything. I find it a little grainy in 35mm, but that is just me. I use it as a one-shot, IIRC dilution "G" (1:31). But it may not be that different from D-76. The real way to do this, but I repeat, not for you at this point, is "try it." Expose some scenes identically with both sheets in a holder (I'm thinking about 4x5 now), and keep the exposed sheets in separate boxes (all the "A" sides in one box, the "B" sides in another). Then develop one batch in your "known developer" and one in the new developer, and compare the negatives and resulting prints. Either you will have a definite preference, demonstrating how the two work differently, or they will seem the same, in which case the new developer isn't providing any benefit over what you already have.
Yes, I keep all temps very close for B&W. Here in the frozen North room temps vary widely from floor to ceiling. All liquids are at the same ambient temp of 70 F. My distilled water is stored at sink height as is liguid develop and fix. My wash water is set for 68 controlled by Hass mixer both hot and cold have big filters.
I keep water in my covered gas burst tanks and mix my Rodinal right in the tank by running a couple bursts of gas. But Rodinal ages quickly and I use it one shot. It lasts long time unmixed.
I use liguid mix for developer and TF5 because I hate powder. Powder gets in the air as dust, no matter how careful you are and I live inside my darkroom so I am very carefull.
I bet your water is very different than mine.
Tin Can
Loads of good advice already that will probably solve most of your problems. I would like to ad three things:
* temperature control for washing of the film is easier when you use the Ilford method. After the fix is back into it's bottle fill the tank with plain water and reverse the tank 5 times. Dump water and repeat and reverse 10 times. Dump water again and repeat once more and reverse the tank 20 times. Dump and refil the tank again and reverse 5 times again. This is considered archival according to Ilford, uses less water and makes temperature control much easier as you can prepare a bucket with water at room temperature.
* plus or minus a couple of degrees should from developer temp should be not mucf of a problem. When ambient is between 20 c and 24 c i generally correct development times instead of using a freezer or water bath to try to get everything on 20 c. The correction is around 10% for every degree and on the Ilford site you find published data of correction factors.
* to avoid the drying stains you should considering using demi water with the fotoflo as a last bath.
There are essentially two fundamental types: Sodium thiosulfate (regular fixer) and ammonium thiosulfate (rapid fixer). Either of these can be formulated to be acidic, neutral or alkaline. If a hardener is to be included/added, it is easiest to do that if the fixer is acidic.
Correct, the purpose of hardening is to make an emulsion (film or paper) less susceptible to damage. Current films made by Kodak, Ilford and Fuji are hardened.
There are various approaches from basic to fancy/automated and it is a personal thing. Whatever works is fine.
One approach is to simply standardize your processing at the normal ambient temperature of your house. That means unless you’ve just mixed your chemicals, there’s nothing to do except get the wash water running at the right temperature (adjust hot/cold until you’ve got it). This works fine unless you are dealing with extreme hot/cold ambient temperatures.
Other people want to standardize at a specific temperature, so they use anything from the fridge to tempering baths to bring the chemicals to the desired temperature, and keep the tank/trays in tempering baths throughout the process. If the ambient temperature is close to the target processing temperature you might not even need tempering baths.
There’s no right or wrong way to do it. Just use your thermometer(s).
Unfortunately the answer is “it depends”, and part of the reason for me saying that is what constitutes an ideal negative for darkroom printing might not be the same for scanning. As long as you’ve given sufficient exposure, most contrast adjustments can be done in printing/editing. If you are finding that your home-processed negatives are consistently lower in contrast than those done by the lab, and you find the contrast of the lab-processed negatives makes your editing adjustments easier, then yes I’d say experiment with developing for more contrast. Try 20% more developing time and/or increased agitation for example. You could also ask the lab what their process is.
Again, it depends. If you want to compare developers, the first thing to do is choose a film so that you don’t have too many variables moving at the same time. So, if you are typically developing Tri-X in D-76, start there. This will give you a standard against which to compare other developers. Then, instead of randomly choosing a different developer, ask yourself what you’d like to see in terms of differences. This will point you in a direction, because developers fall into general categories.
Would have to see what the negatives look like and know more about the process – especially scanning (and I’m not a scanning expert).
Oh my. You guys are great. Thanks so MUCH.
I cannot think of any other questions at this point.
Lots of great information, advice, and suggestions.
General Comments:
- I like the idea of exposing sheets on 'a' side of holders and 'b' side of holders, then developing in a different developer.
- Although, for now, I am sticking with D76 and going to be more consistent and tighten up some of my methods (not that mine seem to be too far off).
- I will explore this Ilford washing method some more, as I am slightly confused. Seems straightforward though.
- I will explore the idea to develop longer and/or adjust the way I am agitating my film.
- I will explore the idea of using Ilford Rapid Fixer and not "needing" to use HCA.
- I will start getting my temperatures more normalized across my chemicals. I doubt there are huge swings, but still this is something I can be better at.
- I still am not sure what I can do better about drying spots/marks. I feel like our water in Houston is pretty good. And I am using distilled water/photo-flo as a final wash.
- And for the comment on scanning vs printing. I generally feel that I have a MUCH easier time both printing and scanning when my negatives don't seem so flat.
Now, I have only printed three times and am self-taught...so it could be my lack of expertise. But printing is truly amazing and I my artistic side loved printing. All fiber-based paper.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks