Ilford Rapid Fix considerations

[John Kasaian]

I'm in need some fresh chemicals, so on a whim I picked up a small bottle of Ilford Rapid Fix instead of my usual Kodak, basically because
1. It's a liquid so it should be easy to mix.
2. I want to be comfortable with options as recent Kodak/Alaris chemicals, D-76 in particular, has disappointed me with a regatta crud floating in the solution.
3. It was cheaper than the Kodak Fixer---hey, it's the holidays and I've got a lot of expenses right now.

Apparently one can lift the label to read the mixing instructions, but my label is unliftable.
No big deal, I went on line and got the data straight from the horse's (Ilford's) mouth.

Here are my issues

1. I learned that it's a non-hardening fixer---that's new to me---does it matter that much for negatives? I know non-hardening is preferred when it comes to toning prints, but I won't be using this on prints (see below)
2. Recommended wash time for fiber based paper is 60 minutes under running water. This is a no go as we're under drought restrictions here when it comes to water usage.

So my Ilford Rapid Fix is only suitable for (my) negatives in my corner of the world. I'm good with that, but I wanted to ask any Ilford Rapid Fix users here what their practical experiences are with Ilford Rapid Fix.

Thanks in advance.

[Michael R]

It’s all you need. Hardening fixers are more or less from a bygone age and should really only be potentially useful if you are using delicate emulsions. Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford film emulsions are hardened during manufacture. I’m less certain about other stuff - Foma etc.

If you are under water restrictions and printing FB, a hypo clearing agent which will make washing much faster. See Ilford’s FB paper processing instructions with hypo clearing agent for example.


I'm in need some fresh chemicals, so on a whim I picked up a small bottle of Ilford Rapid Fix instead of my usual Kodak, basically because
1. It's a liquid so it should be easy to mix.
2. I want to be comfortable with options as recent Kodak/Alaris chemicals, D-76 in particular, has disappointed me with a regatta crud floating in the solution.
3. It was cheaper than the Kodak Fixer---hey, it's the holidays and I've got a lot of expenses right now.

Apparently one can lift the label to read the mixing instructions, but my label is unliftable.
No big deal, I went on line and got the data straight from the horse's (Ilford's) mouth.

Here are my issues

1. I learned that it's a non-hardening fixer---that's new to me---does it matter that much for negatives? I know non-hardening is preferred when it comes to toning prints, but I won't be using this on prints (see below)
2. Recommended wash time for fiber based paper is 60 minutes under running water. This is a no go as we're under drought restrictions here when it comes to water usage.

So my Ilford Rapid Fix is only suitable for (my) negatives in my corner of the world. I'm good with that, but I wanted to ask any Ilford Rapid Fix users here what their practical experiences are with Ilford Rapid Fix.

Thanks in advance.

[jnantz]

hi John
what Michael said, get some perma wash, it will save you water and time.

have fun!
John

[Peter De Smidt]

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Reducing-Wash-Water.pdf

[Willie]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?112015-Water-wise-washing

Might give you some information.

The soak and dump method has worked for many.

[LabRat]

Hardening fixer is helpful if there are differences in temperature during processing (especially if wash water is too warm during warmer months)... I have seen results from pro labs where hardening was not used and slight changes were leading to softening where frilling and reticulation could begin easily... And if film is wiped or rewashed, there was usually some damage or effect... And films could have a strange wave or flatness issue without being hardened... And film emulsions dried with heat can melt or distort if way too hot... I have seen others negs in the lab that the prints show an indistinct (or mushy) look, especially from summer processing...

Full (chrome) or formalin hardening is not always needed, but there are other degrees of other hardeners one can brew up...

Steve K

[koraks]

Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford film emulsions are hardened during manufacture. I’m less certain about other stuff - Foma etc.
All photographic emulsions are hardened. The only question is, by how much. There are distinct differences here and indeed it appears (subjective assessment) that Foma's film and paper tend to be less hardened than e.g. Kodak's. In any case, a hardening fixer is not necessary for film. It won't hurt either, but it serves no particular purpose in normal use of the material.


Concerning washing: there's no reason why Ilford's fix would require more or more extended washing than e.g. Kodak's. In fact, comparing an acid hardening fixer (such as Kodak's) with an acid non-hardening fixer, the latter would logically do fine with shorter washing instead of requiring longer wash times. This is mostly relevant for paper and only if the emulsion isn't already hardened to such an extent that additional hardening makes no discernible difference anymore. Sorry, I can't comment to what extent this will be the case, but what still stands is that there's no reason why Ilford fix would require more washing than Kodak's. That one manufacturer gives different wash times can have several underlying reasons which don't necessarily relate to the fixer itself, but rather stem from acceptable trace silver and fixer residues in washed prints, tested paper, nature of the wash routine (especially temperature) etc.

If water consumption is a concern, consider a wash regime that uses no permanent stream of water but rather relies on staged washing where a fixed and potentially very limited quantity of water is used, with agitation, and changed a couple of times. Wash tests have been performed many times over the years, some of this data is easily accessible online, and quite informative. 'Wash curves' clearly show invariably that (1) a perfect wash doesn't exist and (2) there is a very distinct/extreme law of diminishing returns. I.e. the majority of the washing happens in the first stage of the process, with the remainder of the process serving to reduce remaining traces only marginally. How this qualitative description works out quantitatively depends of course again on the wash regime, materials and process parameters. More agitation = better washing, higher temperature = faster washing, more changes of water = better washing...all within certain limits and there are dependencies between these (and other) parameters. Finally the use of a wash-aid, typically sodium sulfite, has been proven to be very effective indeed and can cut water requirements roughly in half if memory serve. It is indeed perfectly feasible to wash with very high effectiveness while using only a very minimal amount of water. It does take some effort (agitation) and attention to detail, and as such it's a more involved process than just having the paper drift in a tray with a permanent stream of water going through it, which is of course the easiest but also the most wasteful method.

[John Kasaian]

Thanks guys!

[Doremus Scudder]

The amount of washing you need depends heavily on the time in the fixer and if you tone or not. The Ilford page on optimum permanence has all the details: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-optimum-permanance-wash-sequence-fb-papers/ If you go the shortest route, you can get away with one five-minute wash before the wash aid and one five-minute wash after. If you tone, you need a longer final wash (30 min.).

FWIW, I use Ilford Rapid Fixer at the weaker, "print" dilution (1+9), use two-bath fixation, use hypo-clear and wash for 60 minutes. That doesn't mean I use a whole heck of a lot of water. A low-flow archival washer uses little water in 60 minutes. If you turn off the flow and let prints soak for part of the time, then dump and fill the washer, you can save even more.

Test the efficiency of your washing with a test for residual hypo (Kodak HT-2) to streamline your workflow.

Best,

Doremus

[LabRat]

Let's not mix-up film and FB paper... Different requirements as film base is non permeable to chems, but paper base can catch/release chems + thiosulfate compounds (slowly)...

Research each separately...

Steve K

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's been my main fixer forever. I never wash fibre-based papers in running water for 60 min. Instead, they get HCA bath, then Ilford's fill, and dump method.

[John Layton]

Maybe I should reread this discussion more carefully...but for those like myself who "fill, agitate, and dump," I cannot find much information regarding recommended wash water volumes per total surface area of the print(s) being washed. This would seem to be important, as a lower volume of wash water would reach equilibrium with leached chems more quickly than would a larger volume of wash water.

While my tendency with respect to wash water volume has always aimed to be "generous," it would still be nice to know with a bit more specificity (based on actual testing), and also in consideration of material/procedural specifics before the wash (paper type/time in developer/stop/fixation method), just what constitutes a "thorough" fill, agitate, and dump print washing scenario - in terms of water volume per total print area, how total numbers of prints might affect agitation protocols, and recommended number of water changes, both with and without the incorporation of a wash aid.

...and while I continue to hold Ilford and their products in the highest regard - I must say that their "running water" recommendation completely falls short for me, as it contains no further details about concurrent agitation cycles (if any), recommended flow rates, temperatures, and what constitutes an adequate physical setup to best promote a thorough wash - vis a vis washing dynamics. (I am also a bit surprised that Ilford did not carry their "fill, agitate, and dump recommendation for film washing over to that for prints). I say this mostly out of respect for those just beginning darkroom work, as they are at a time in their experience when good habits must be incorporated if they are to be carried forward. More than once have I witnessed a wash tray full of prints...wash hose placed haphazardly on one side introducing a weak flow of icy cold water, with the (stack of) prints themselves remaining entirely unagitated for the “complete” wash cycle!

Having said the above, I am thoroughly in the camp of "fill, agitate, and dump" (as opposed to that of running water) as a much more efficacious approach to print (and film) washing.

[bob carnie]

Hi John

I use Ilford sequence with hypo clear and vertical wash.

The fill dump method is viable for those who want to do this, basically when washing the fibres of the paper are releasing the unwanted fix and I am more concerned about the back of the print which does not have a clay coat and gelatin layer. The process
leeches out the unwanted material rather than washing it off .

I cannot tell how much volume is needed, I think that someone mentioned 10 complete changes of water was enough but that is only here say on my part.

[Michael R]

Indeed, it is a diffusion process. And washing efficiency depends importantly on how used your fixer is, as well as fixing time. You want to minimize fixing time, and change the fixer more often. This is all part of the Ilford maximum permanence sequence and how they came up with the recommendation to use “film-strength” rapid fix for 60s, and reduced throughput/capacity guidelines (in fact, Ilford determined 30s was sufficient but decided to go with 60s).

If you want to get into the weeds on this in an effort to get archival washing with the minimum amount of water, read the Mysteries of the Vortex articles. They were initially published in Photo Techniques magazine (in the 1990s IIRC) but that particular set of articles is online if you google.

You can use surprisingly little water. The tradeoff is manual effort.

[LabRat]

The reference I adopted is contained in the book "Life of a Photograph" by Keefer and Inch (published by Light Impressions Press) covered in detail fixing/washing processes for different materials, as well as a reference for most photo processes from a conservator's perspective...

Well worth locating a copy for an informed foundation for archival printers...

Steve K

[Andrew O'Neill]

I used to own two vertical print washers (one could do up to 20x24 prints) but they were a tremendous waste of time and water... The fill and dump method is well suited for those of us who have tiny darkrooms, and make at most, a couple of prints per session. It was proven to be a very effective way to wash.

[nmp]

Very useful insight into the issue of archival washing (continuous vs fill and dump) here:

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=296#content_start

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=344#content_start

Edit: Oops...should have read earlier responses thoroughly before posting as others had already cited these papers.

[John Layton]

While I find Martin Reed’s "Mysteries of the Vortex" article informative, it still falls short for me as a “two traditional fixing baths, fill and dump wash” guy.

While Martin does indeed begin by stating the tremendous wash efficiencies possible by filling and dumping in principle (and while some extrapolation from this might be possible to suit my own approach - as Martin’s initial citation references actual tests using very small volumes of water), and while he references “fill and dump” washing throughout part one of his article…it is in terms of quantifiable results that he quickly moves on to providing greater detail and actual data based on commercially available print washers. Plus, he leans very heavily towards Ilford’s “minimal wash procedure” which assumes a single, high strength fixing bath as part of this process.

While Martin does offer a decent amount of comparative data referencing the wash process both with and without the inclusion of a wash aid…I will assume that, as he seems to have circumvented the needs of folks such as myself (traditional two fixing bath, fill and dump wash folks processing a relatively small number of prints per run) he has likely, to the extent that his aim was to provide truly useful information, let a significant number of us fall through the cracks.

And while, about one third into the first part of his article, Martin mentions that practitioners who utilize a relatively short “fill and dump” procedure (prior to using a wash aid) realize a great reduction in residual thiosulphates just from this first step, he quickly dismisses the use of “fill and dump” for the much longer, post-wash-aid washing procedure, based on his assumption that this would be somehow “inconvenient” due to the (once again assumed) relatively large numbers of prints being washed.

In my own case, a “typical” run of prints might consist of between two and five 16x20’s. In this scenario, my wash procedure is as follows:

After the second fix, the prints go into one of two 16x20 wash trays, each filled with appx. 3.5 gallons of fresh water. Prints are agitated in the first tray for about four minutes, then transferred to the second tray…where they are agitated once more for about four minutes. Meanwhile, the first tray is emptied, thoroughly rinsed and refilled, after which the prints are introduced and agitated for a third “pre wash” cycle, while the other wash tray is rinsed and filled with one gallon of Heico Perma-Wash.

Prints are then agitated in the Perma Wash for between five and seven minutes, then transferred to the other tray of fresh water.

Finally, the prints are again cycled through the two wash trays as in the first “pre-wash” step…but this time they are cycled back and forth between the two trays between six and seven times over the next 30 to 45 minutes, prior to being squeegeed and hung up to dry.

Note that I am using two wash trays, each with a thorough rinse prior to re-filling, to help minimize the amount of residual thiosulphate (and other contaminants) carryover.

Another note: that although its been awhile since I’ve done a residual hypo test for prints washed with the above procedure, I’m still confident that my original test would still hold at this time.

I’ve outlined my own print wash procedure here under the assumption that a significant number of folks on this forum might utilize something equal or at least close to this…and I’d be curious to know how this has worked out for others, and/or if there might be some variations which others have found to work best for them.

Not sure if the above is helpful in any way…but I would invite further feedback/discussion/commiseration/critique/flaming, as folks might feel appropriate. Thanks!

[Michael R]

There are too many variables involved for a definitive one-size-fits all method unless the method overshoots (conservatism), which someone trying to minimize water usage presumably wouldn't want to resort to. Therefore it is up to the individual to determine empirically with residual thiosulfate testing etc. As Ron Mowrey would often say - "if it works, it works".

[nmp]

There are too many variables involved for a definitive one-size-fits all method unless the method overshoots (conservatism), which someone trying to minimize water usage presumably wouldn't want to resort to. Therefore it is up to the individual to determine empirically with residual thiosulfate testing etc. As Ron Mowrey would often say - "if it works, it works".

True. With salt prints (made per a particular set of process conditions,) I did my own testing using residual hypo test and found that 4 (or 5 for safety) fill/dumps of 10 minutes each were adequate:

232794

The whole washing sequence involved:

1) initial tap water rinse of 2+5 minutes, continuous agitation

2) Hypo clear of 10 minutes, "semi-stand" - 2 minutes agitation + 7 minutes stand upside down + 1 minute final agitation

3) Tap water fill/dump of 10 minutes each, same "semi-stand" as above

The amount of water used at each stage was at the rate of about 10cc per sq inch of paper that was exposed half with the full dose and the other half covered where the residual hypo test was conducted.

The quantification of the residual test was done by scanning the stains and measuring the RGB values - higher the number, less thiosulfate present.

[jnantz]

I've been looking for those markers to detect chemical contamination in prints (and films) they were much easier to work with then the chemical stain-kit .. I haven't seen the markers(and the print retouching markers) in decades, mine all got all used up and tossed...

.. anyone have a line on where to purchase them?

[Doremus Scudder]

There are too many variables involved for a definitive one-size-fits all method unless the method overshoots (conservatism), which someone trying to minimize water usage presumably wouldn't want to resort to. Therefore it is up to the individual to determine empirically with residual thiosulfate testing etc. As Ron Mowrey would often say - "if it works, it works".

+1000

The HT-2 test is simple. It's a lot easier and takes less time than reading "Mysteries of the Vortex," not that I'm saying you shouldn't.

What you should do is quit complaining about the lack of available resources telling you exactly what to do with your particular style of fixing and washing and just do the blanking tests.

Want to know if your fill-and-dump regime washes film and fiber-base prints effectively? Test.

Best,

Doremus

P.S: you can get the formula for HT-2 and download the "Hypo Estimator" comparison scale here: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Archival/archival.html

[John Layton]

Thanks folks...sorry for being so picky-picky (don't know what got into me). Happy Thanksgiving!

[Tin Can]

https://www.digitaltruth.com/data/formula.php?FormulaID=158

Hypo CLEAR

Never used it

no plans to use it

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hypo+CLEAR&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS850US850&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Michael R]

It’s not necessary, but useful to reduce water consumption and wash time.

Incidentally for those wishing to mix their own HCA the formula can be simplified to just sodium sulfite if distilled water or a calcium sequestering agent is used. The function of the bisulfite is to lower the pH from alkaline to neutral, to avoid calcium precipitation from hard water.


https://www.digitaltruth.com/data/formula.php?FormulaID=158

Hypo CLEAR

Never used it

no plans to use it

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hypo+CLEAR&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS850US850&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[jnantz]

It’s not necessary, but useful to reduce water consumption and wash time.

Incidentally for those wishing to mix their own HCA the formula can be simplified to just sodium sulfite if distilled water or a calcium sequestering agent is used. The function of the bisulfite is to lower the pH from alkaline to neutral, to avoid calcium precipitation from hard water.


yup, that's pretty much what the navy figured out when they washed their film and prints in ocean water in WW2, the sodium sulfite recaptured and neutralized/hooked up with the fixer, and they didn't have to endlessly wash things and waste regular (rare on a navy vessel) water.

[Tin Can]

all good to know

What pissed me off was NOBODY years ago could tell me what is HYPO!

I don't use enough water at my location, water is cheaper the more I use

75 years ago locally was called Little Egypt (https://sic.edu/about/facts-and-history/legends-and-lore/), then they made lakes, dams, and water flowed well even this year, my yard is almost all clay at the moment

[Michael R]

Yeah the HYPO thing is an old mistake that stuck. People called fixer hypo which was incorrect since fixer is thiosulfate, not hyposulfate. Likewise hypo clearing agent should be called thio clearing agent but the old hypo name stuck.

Either way, the active ingredient in HCA is the sulfite ion, which does its clearing job by ion exchange.


all good to know

What pissed me off was NOBODY years ago could tell me what is HYPO!

I don't use enough water at my location, water is cheaper the more I use

75 years ago locally was called Little Egypt (https://sic.edu/about/facts-and-history/legends-and-lore/), then they made lakes, dams, and water flowed well even this year, my yard is almost all clay at the moment

[Tin Can]

Perhaps we should stop this old man idiocy

1 old man at a time

[Michael R]

Seems a little excessive for bad nomenclature, but alright. I volunteer to be dealt with first.


Perhaps we should stop this old man idiocy

1 old man at a time