Your preferred STOP+FIX+Hypo+Wash for FB paper (for toning and drying and flatten)

[Duolab123]

I use a heated drum dryer to dry my FB prints. Flatbed dryers work same, I dry emulsion side towards the canvas belt. I use hardening fixer. Kodak rapid fixer diluted to film strength. I then tone in Kodak rapid selenium toner at 25% (1 part toner to 3 parts water ) . I Fix with FRESH fixer for 2 minutes constantly agitating. Then a 30 second rinse in water and directly into the KRST. You don't need to do any extensive washing between fixing and toning in Selenium, if you get staining it means the print is not adequately fixed. Fixer is cheap, count your sheets, I toss after 20 8x10 inch sheets per liter or sooner.
After toning 3 to 10 minutes I rinse, then hypo clearing agent for 5 minutes, (this needs to be fresh too) . Then , and this is MY process I harden again for 5 minutes in Kodak formula F6a hardener (125 mL per liter) . I make this from dry chemicals, the Kodak F1a hardener works well to. This is for protecting the emulsion during washing and drying.
I also do Selenium followed by Kodak Blue toner (Gold) but that gets even more complicated.

I then wash very well, rinse in a tray with running water for 2 minutes, followed by washing in a huge rocking print washer for 15 to 20 minutes, followed by a pump assisted archival washer.

You don't need all the equipment, you just need to make sure your prints are washed. Avoid hot or cold water. 15 to 22 C is best for washing, a little warmer is ok but can make gelatin sticky.

People will tell you never use hardening fixer. That's not my approach. Go back to the original work done at Kodak Research Laboratory in the first half of the 20th century, hardening fixer is fine especially for prints that are being handled in multiple steps. I've never had issues toning hardened prints in over 40 years.

[Andre Noble]

There are several workflows using various materials to get the same results. Here's my take on the process:


Fixing Baths (This will be long... there's a lot to discuss here.)
The most important things when fixing fiber-base prints are 1) to not exceed the capacity of your fixer (more later) and 2) to use two-bath fixing if you don't plan on replacing your fix with fresh every 10 prints or so. A careful read of the Ilford tech sheet for Rapid Fixer or Hypam will reveal that there are two "standards" for fixing: commercial or general-purpose and "optimum permanence." The obvious capacity numbers you first see are for general-purpose use, not optimum permanence. The capacity of a liter of fixer, at either dilution, for optimum permanence is much less than that for general-purpose. If you are interested in exhibiting and selling your prints, fixing for optimum permanence seems the only logical option to me. That means, according to Ilford and others, that you can fix 10 8x10-inch prints per liter of working solution before the dissolved silver levels in the fixer exceed the limit for optimum permanence. So, either you toss your fixer at that point or you adopt a two-bath fixing regime. With the two-bath regime, you mix two baths and give the print half the time in the first bath, half in the second. The idea is that bath one does the lion's share of the fixing and bath two remains fairly fresh. You basically keep on fixing in bath one well past the limit of dissolved silver for optimum permanence, but bath two finishes the fixing process while not really getting a lot of dissolved silver. I find I can safely fix 36 8x10 per liter of bath one (note, there's a liter of bath two being used here as well, so two liters total!). When the capacity has been reached, discard bath one, replace it with bath two and mix a new second bath. This can be repeated 5-7 cycles before both baths need replacing. Personally, I stay well under that recommendation.

There are also a couple of fixing strategies. Ilford promotes their "archival sequence" which includes "film-strength" fixer and short wash times. Here's a link to their webpage: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-o...nce-fb-papers/ . Basically, the idea is to fix fast (hence the strong fixer) so the fixer doesn't soak all the way into the paper, thereby making washing easier. I have problems with the Ilford method for a couple of reasons: If you use just one fixing bath, things are fairly straightforward, but, due to the reduced capacity (mentioned above), it's not very economical. With two-bath fixing, it's difficult to divide the one-minute fixing time in half and not exceed it. What about drain times? Even an 11x14 print takes 10-15 seconds to drain. Do I include that in my fixing time or not? If I don't, I may exceed the one-minute time by a substantial margin. If I go over one minute, how does that affect the washing time? I should probably wash longer in that case, but by how much? At some point (I think it's about 90 seconds), the fixer has saturated the paper base, making the whole Ilford wash sequence irrelevant. Furthermore, some maintain that papers from other manufacturers than Ilford don't work as well with this method.

For these reasons, I use the more conventional, time-tested method outlined by Kodak. I indeed use Ilford fixers, but at "paper strength," i.e., the weaker dilution. I fix in two baths for a total of 3-4 minutes (1.5-2 min. in each bath), tone, and then treat with a wash-aid for 5-10 minutes before washing for minimum 60 minutes. Yes, it uses more water than the Ilford sequence, but I find it more reliable and secure.

Sodium thiosulfate vs ammonium thiosulfate fixers: Conventional "hypo" fixers are made with sodium thiosulfate and take longer to fix papers than "rapid" fixers based on ammonium thiosulfate. Aside from the increase in fixing time, both will do the job for most papers. Conventional fixers are usually acid and come in powder form (e.g., Kodak powdered fixer). These need to be mixed long enough ahead of time to dissolve completely before use. Rapid fixers usually come in liquid concentrates. There is some concern that modern films that contain a lot of silver iodide will not be completely fixed with conventional fixers. As far as I know, this isn't a concern for papers. Times for conventional fixers are from 5-10 minutes; for rapid fixers, 1-4 minutes depending on dilution. Do follow manufacturers' recommendations here.

Testing for complete fixing and washing: The only real way to know if your regime is doing the job for you is to test. There are a couple of easy-to-make or acquire test solutions. The standard for testing for residual silver (complete fixing) is the Kodak ST-1 test. You can find the formula by searching easily. Alternatively, one can use Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner at a dilution of 1+9 to test for residual silver. A drop of either solution is put on the print, left to sit for 3-4 minutes and then rinsed off and examined for color. Anything but an almost undetectable faint yellow stain indicates inadequate fixing. The test for complete washing (residual fixer), Kodak HT-2 (Google again) works similarly. If there's more than just a faint stain, your washing is incomplete. I strongly recommend that you test your regime for both residual silver and fixer regularly, especially at first, until you are confident that it gives you the results you need. I test the last print through a batch of fixer at least every other session. The tests are easy and give real peace of mind.

Here's how Ai summarized this: "The text discusses best practices for fixing fiber-base prints, emphasizing the importance of not overloading the fixer solution and recommending a two-bath fixing process for better print permanence. It outlines that for optimum permanence, a liter of fixer should only handle ten 8x10-inch prints before being refreshed. An alternative two-bath method involves using the first bath past its optimal capacity for fixing most of the silver, with a second bath finishing the process more cleanly, allowing up to 36 prints per liter in the first bath. The text critiques Ilford's archival sequence, noting it may not be economical or effective with larger prints and different paper types. Instead, it advocates a more traditional approach with longer fixing and washing times, as well as using weaker dilutions of fixer. It also contrasts sodium thiosulfate fixers with ammonium thiosulfate ones, the latter being faster but both effective. The importance of regular testing for residual silver and fixer to ensure complete fixing and washing is emphasized, suggesting specific test solutions and procedures to verify the effectiveness of the fixing regime."

[Doremus Scudder]

Here's how Ai summarized this: "The text discusses best practices for fixing fiber-base prints, emphasizing the importance of not overloading the fixer solution and recommending a two-bath fixing process for better print permanence. It outlines that for optimum permanence, a liter of fixer should only handle ten 8x10-inch prints before being refreshed. An alternative two-bath method involves using the first bath past its optimal capacity for fixing most of the silver, with a second bath finishing the process more cleanly, allowing up to 36 prints per liter in the first bath. The text critiques Ilford's archival sequence, noting it may not be economical or effective with larger prints and different paper types. Instead, it advocates a more traditional approach with longer fixing and washing times, as well as using weaker dilutions of fixer. It also contrasts sodium thiosulfate fixers with ammonium thiosulfate ones, the latter being faster but both effective. The importance of regular testing for residual silver and fixer to ensure complete fixing and washing is emphasized, suggesting specific test solutions and procedures to verify the effectiveness of the fixing regime."

Not so bad for an AI-generated abstract... Still, lots of details missing

Doremus

[Tin Can]

Not so bad for an AI-generated abstract... Still, lots of details missing

Doremus

I wish THE HYPO WORD WAS BANNED

Stop it NOW

[Doremus Scudder]

I wish THE HYPO WORD WAS BANNED

Stop it NOW

I don't much like the designation either. However, there is ample historical precedent and usage to at least acknowledge its existence and commonly-used meaning. The term is a left-over from when sodium thiosulfate was called hyposulfite of soda. One can easily see how the abbreviation "hypo" came about. When terminology changed, the old-timers still used the term, informally, to refer to fixer (before the advent of rapid ammonium-thiosulfate-based, all fixers used "hypo," i.e., sodium thiosulfate as the active ingredient). The term still lives on in products like "Hypo Clearing Agent" and "Hypo-Check" as well as still referencing conventional sodium-thiosulfate-based fixers.

I think it's still wise to clear up any ambiguities that the term "hypo" might cause when discussing fixers and fixation, so I'll use it in that context.

Best,

Doremus

[Mal Paso]

I wish THE HYPO WORD WAS BANNED

Stop it NOW

Too late, You just used it!

[Dugan]

I don't much like the designation either. However, there is ample historical precedent and usage to at least acknowledge its existence and commonly-used meaning. The term is a left-over from when sodium thiosulfate was called hyposulfite of soda. One can easily see how the abbreviation "hypo" came about. When terminology changed, the old-timers still used the term, informally, to refer to fixer (before the advent of rapid ammonium-thiosulfate-based, all fixers used "hypo," i.e., sodium thiosulfate as the active ingredient). The term still lives on in products like "Hypo Clearing Agent" and "Hypo-Check" as well as still referencing conventional sodium-thiosulfate-based fixers.

I think it's still wise to clear up any ambiguities that the term "hypo" might cause when discussing fixers and fixation, so I'll use it in that context.

Best,

Doremus

This exactly!

The people unfamiliar with "hypo = fixer" are conflating "hypo" for "hypo clearing agent", living in an abbreviation-fixated world..i.e "OMG, IMA go 2 KFC, LOL".
If HCA would be called Wash Aid or something similar, it would lessen the confusion.
Maybe.

[Renato Tonelli]

Doremus mentions some reservations on using ‘film strength’ fixer; I have the same reservations.

A while ago, a colleague gave me 4 gallons of TF-5 - that’s a lot of fixer but at 1+3 it went fast. Draining the prints took 15+ seconds out of each tray. I spent the better part of one day testing for proper fixing and proper washing before working on the prints (11x14).
I am now back to a 1+7 fixer that requires 2 minutes - the margin for error is reassuring.

[Tin Can]

Incorrect


Wasting

TF5

[Michael R]

In the original work at Ilford that led to its archival/optimum permanence sequence it was found 30s fixing in the "film-strength" rapid fixer was sufficient. Since it was also found that extending this to 60s did not materially impact the efficiency of the remainder of the process, it was decided 60s would be a better recommendation to provide a good safety margin.