Help with TF4 / TF5 vs ilford rapid fixer - pros & cons

[Serge S]

There was a post about TF2 - got me wondering about potential benefits of TF4 / TF5

I process HP5/FP4 in DDX & use a water stop bath & Ilford rapid fix
(On rare occasion use Tmax or Foma film)

Is there any benefit to switching to TF4 or TF5?

I'm still setting up my darkroom - so have not resumed printing yet,
but thinking of using Ilford Multigrade Developer.
Would I need to use a stop bath?

Used to use Dektol & D76
I prefer liquid chemistry.

Thanks in advance!

Serge

[Mark Sampson]

I've used TF-5 for a few years now. It's long-lasting, works quickly, and doesn't stink. Washes out of DW FB paper quickly, too. I use a citric acid stop bath with paper and film. The materials I use now don't seem to require a hardener in the fixer, so that's not an issue.
TF-5 seems to be a big improvement over traditional rapid fixers, and I'm not going back.

[Michael R]

There was a post about TF2 - got me wondering about potential benefits of TF4 / TF5

I process HP5/FP4 in DDX & use a water stop bath & Ilford rapid fix
(On rare occasion use Tmax or Foma film)

Is there any benefit to switching to TF4 or TF5?

I'm still setting up my darkroom - so have not resumed printing yet,
but thinking of using Ilford Multigrade Developer.
Would I need to use a stop bath?

Used to use Dektol & D76
I prefer liquid chemistry.

Thanks in advance!

Serge

-All three are rapid fixers based on ammonium thiosulfate
-All three are buffered to be compatible with acid stop baths
-All three are non-hardening fixers

Ilford Rapid Fixer is mildly acidic
TF-5 is neutral
TF-4 is alkaline

-A neutral or alkaline fixer will not bleach silver and will be less difficult to wash if fixing times are much longer than recommended
-A neutral or alkaline fixer will have a longer shelf life than an acidic fixer
-A neutral or alkaline fixer will tend to wash somewhat faster although this is frequently exaggerated
-The closer the pH is to neutral, the less odour the fixer will tend to have

All things being equal, TF-5 is therefore somewhat more ideal than the other two, and it is easier to mix than TF-4. From a personal perspective I don’t bother with formulary products and just use Ilford.

[monochromeFan]

Just use ilford.. reliability, consistency, and well its comes it rather nice containers that match so well with other things like rodinal...

And ive never thought much of fixer guidelines... "till completion" can mean so many things..

[paulbarden]

And ive never thought much of fixer guidelines... "till completion" can mean so many things..

No, it doesn't. It means a very specific thing that is knowable, measurable, applicable.

[Drew Wiley]

If you value your time and the amount of water consumption during washing, TF4 and TF5 make a lot of sense. I long standardized on TF4 for both film and paper, but have since switched to TF5 mainly due to the fact it doesn't settle in the jugs and need aggressive stirring like TF4 did. The only downside to these "Archival fixers" is their greater expense. They're not intended for reuse. I mix only enough at a time for a single day's session.

[Ulophot]

I switched to TF5 from Ilford Rapid after hearing many positive comments about it. Since I bleach prints sometimes, the lower tendency to bleach delicate highlight detail appealed. So did the shorter wash time, but, although I have not conducted a rigorous test, it would be a pain, because my workflow/wash-setup is such that it would be expensive to do. One recent test to see how 15 minutes of washing fared without the use of a washing aid, discouraged me. For my situation, I am far more confident in using wash aid and then washing the prints through 5 changes of water or more over a half hour or so.

For any interested, I typically print one or two images in a session of 5-6 hours including toning and wash. Most of the time is evaluating prints as I refine my procedure on a given image, which may involve special cutouts for dodging or burning, or even a mask. I try to economize on paper during pre-proof and pre-final prints. Often I'll make 6-9 on-the-ways before settling on a final procedure, which, depending on the image's importance, my energy level, and the hour, may be realized in only a few prints, rarely more than four -- especially with 11x14s. I'm neither that good nor that rich.

So, the proof will have been in the water bath for several hours or more with new prints (rinsed) from the fixer coming in periodically. The finals may have come in during the last half hour. At this point, they have only had Fix A. Running water is periodic, with occasional dumps and refills.

Fix B of contacts (if any), proofs, and finals, and any prints reserved for a toning test, then get another water refresh. I set up Fix B, toner, and half-strength wash aid; fix proof(s)/contact(s) without toning; fix and directly tone the finals, give them a few minutes of agitation in the wash aid, then to running water. Fresh, full strength wash aid is next for 10 minutes, then the wash sequence.

[bmikiten]

I use TF-4 when using Pyro developers as it doesn't affect the staining. I have been using it for years due to the lack of a need for a stop bath, hypo-clear or super long washes. Water is an issue for me so those are important features. I've always been happy with Photographer's Formulary and never had any issues with their service or products. I have shelves of it in my darkroom.

[Fred L]

...They're not intended for reuse. I mix only enough at a time for a single day's session.

TF-5 is the only fixer I use for film and print as well, I do however mix up enough for several film runs. Curious why you mention that it's not meant for reuse Drew ? I'm going by PF's capacity numbers (and always stop short of them). For prints, it's one and done. I haven't seen any issues with my film after reusing fixer over multiple sessions, as long as it's within stated capacities.


thanks

[jp]

TF5 is very reusable. A typical empirical method for testing it before re-use is to put a small scrap of film in and when it takes twice as long to clear as when fresh, it's done.

[Michael R]

All of these fixers are re-usable subject to capacity/throughput and they are all similar in that respect too.

One potential downside to alkaline fixers which I forgot to mention above is that with those it becomes more important to either use a stop bath or do a thorough water rinse after development particularly in the case of FB papers. You don't want development to restart in the alkaline fixing bath. On balance this is why neutral fixers such as TF-5, Sprint, or something like Kodak C-41 Flexicolor are the best.

[paulbarden]

There’s no reason to think TF fixers are less reusable than any other rapid fixer. If you want to be super fussy about making archival fiber base prints, then go ahead and use it for one print session, but for film, it can be saved and reused for many rolls/sheets.

I use nothing but TF-4/TF-5 these days, it washes out faster and more readily, it will not bleach my salted paper prints, and it doesn’t have that nasty acrid smell other rapid fixers do.

[Michael R]

I think it's worth making the point this shouldn't be overcomplicated (which unfortunately it often is due to cookbooks and other nonsense). From a photographic processing perspective the important thing about fixers is to use them properly, which means not exceeding fixing times (although this is less important with neutral or alkaline fixers) and not exceeding capacity. That's really all there is to it. It's all the same thiosulfate fixation in the end.

[paulbarden]

I think it's worth making the point this shouldn't be overcomplicated (which unfortunately it often is due to cookbooks and other nonsense). From a photographic processing perspective the important thing about fixers is to use them properly, which means not exceeding fixing times (although this is less important with neutral or alkaline fixers) and not exceeding capacity. That's really all there is to it. It's all the same thiosulfate fixation in the end.

Yup!

[Tin Can]

I prefer no stink

[Joe O'Hara]

FWIW I use two-bath fixing with TF5 (formerly with TF4). The first bath, which does most of the work and takes the beating from the citric acid stop bath, gets dumped at the end of the session. The second bath becomes the first bath the next time. I try to not keep that used fixer around more than a few weeks since I've been burned by dying fixer in the past. I am not averse to using the second bath for fixing (again) prints that I've done ferricyanide bleaching on that day or earlier. I used to mix up TF4 but my volumes are very low these days so I'm happy to have PF mix the TF5 for me. They get to concern themselves with the quality of the starting materials they get from their suppliers rather than leaving it to me.

Out of an abundance of caution, old habit, and a virtually unlimited supply of pure water from the Kirkwood-Conhasey aquifer, I still wash my prints for an hour afterwards. After a brief dalliance in my backyard system the water goes back into the ground where it came from, so no harm done there.

[monochromeFan]

FWIW I use two-bath fixing with TF5 (formerly with TF4). The first bath, which does most of the work and takes the beating from the citric acid stop bath, gets dumped at the end of the session. The second bath becomes the first bath the next time. I try to not keep that used fixer around more than a few weeks since I've been burned by dying fixer in the past. I am not averse to using the second bath for fixing (again) prints that I've done ferricyanide bleaching on that day or earlier. I used to mix up TF4 but my volumes are very low these days so I'm happy to have PF mix the TF5 for me. They get to concern themselves with the quality of the starting materials they get from their suppliers rather than leaving it to me.

Out of an abundance of caution, old habit, and a virtually unlimited supply of pure water from the Kirkwood-Conhasey aquifer, I still wash my prints for an hour afterwards. After a brief dalliance in my backyard system the water goes back into the ground where it came from, so no harm done there.

Have never seen any source saying photographic chemical run off is safe for septic tanks.

[Willie]

Have never seen any source saying photographic chemical run off is safe for septic tanks.

Some years ago Kodak had a publication that said it was not harmful "in small amounts" - such as generally used in a home darkroom.

You will have to check their publications for more information.

[Drew Wiley]

Septic tanks can be sensitive. You can opt to learn that the hard way, or else do your best to avoid trouble in the first place.

[Kevin Crisp]

Silver (as present in used fixer) is a powerful antibacterial element. I don't think used fixer going into the septic is a good idea, even in small quantities.

[Mark Sampson]

No. Anything containing silver (used fixer) should NOT go down the drain. Save it and donate it to your local photo lab (if there is one); they will have a silver-recovery unit and should be happy to take it.
If you don't have a lab nearby, give it to your local (county?) hazardous-waste facility, clearly marked.
I treat used toners the same way; better safe than sorry.

[monochromeFan]

there is a reason that municipalities will state on their websites that they charge extra fees and even charge permits for anyone doing "large volumes" of used photochemicals down the public sewer.

They will even be nice and give you monthly and yearly limits at which time you HAVE to file for a photo lab permit.

[Michael R]

Just go digital, then. No fixer. Problem solved.

[Drew Wiley]

monochrome - industrial permits might apply to the handful of large labs which still exist, but a home darkroom is an entirely different situation. In this area, the hazardous effluent which goes from the typical electronics or biotech mfg film is probably in the order of tens of thousands of times all the photo labs in the region put together. I doubt they're even monitored. I wish meth labs were.

The last significant cases I knew about were the big Cibachrome labs because the bleach involved was strong sulfuric acid. The big machines used up to two hundred of gallons of it at a time, and even if partially neutralized afterwards, it could wreak havoc on drainage pipes over time. But hazmat permits were required in those cases. That was quite awhile back.

The EPA once mainly monitored the volume and disposal hospital XRay chemicals, which far exceeded any other photographic usage.

[monochromeFan]

monochrome - industrial permits might apply to the handful of large labs which still exist, but a home darkroom is an entirely different situation. In this area, the hazardous effluent which goes from the typical electronics or biotech mfg film is probably in the order of tens of thousands of times all the photo labs in the region put together. I doubt they're even monitored. I wish meth labs were.

The last significant cases I knew about were the big Cibachrome labs because the bleach involved was strong sulfuric acid. The big machines used up to two hundred of gallons of it at a time, and even if partially neutralized afterwards, it could wreak havoc on drainage pipes over time. But hazmat permits were required in those cases. That was quite awhile back.

The EPA once mainly monitored the volume and disposal hospital XRay chemicals, which far exceeded any other photographic usage.

id have to find it again. but my searching in my local waste water website said that anything over a certain limit, i believe 30 gallons a year, required a permit from them.

[Drew Wiley]

Well... as someone said, just go digital. But that industry routinely pumps out effluent far more toxic, and vastly higher in volume, than anything photo related. Its an open dirty secret.
You can buy simple silver trapping buckets. I'm in an industrial city (thankfully, quite a distance from any actual heavy industry), and have a business permit here. Never an inspection. They're more worried about thousands of gallons of something very nasty getting accidentally released into the Bay, or a major oil spill. And if they want to go after home industries, they should start with the meth labs first - another open dirty little secret.

[Gary L. Quay]

I used TF4 for years for film, and recently switch ed to TF5. I like the ease of use, and the short washing times.

[LFCC]

I used TF4 for years for film, and recently switch ed to TF5. I like the ease of use, and the short washing times.

Hey Gary
I have been using tf4 for several years developing film. I have recently joined a community darkroom and I bought some tf5. Do you use tf5 for prints and film? Everything work well? Any advantages to using it over tf4 for film?
I don’t really see a need to continue with tf4 for film?

TIA
Chris

[esearing]

TF5 has great shelf life in the bottle and is easy to keep mixed and dilute for use. TF4 is harder to keep mixed and for some alt processes can alter the print tone which may be desirable or not. Either work great for standard VC paper or film and I prefer TF5, but sometimes buy Ilford Rapid fix from my local camera shop if they have it. I have some hypo crystals too but only use them for salt prints which I rarely make.

[Tin Can]

TF5 is all I use




Hey Gary
I have been using tf4 for several years developing film. I have recently joined a community darkroom and I bought some tf5. Do you use tf5 for prints and film? Everything work well? Any advantages to using it over tf4 for film?
I don’t really see a need to continue with tf4 for film?

TIA
Chris

[Genas]

There was a post about TF2 - got me wondering about potential benefits of TF4 / TF5

I process HP5/FP4 in DDX & use a water stop bath & Ilford rapid fix
(On rare occasion use Tmax or Foma film)

Is there any benefit to switching to TF4 or TF5?

I'm still setting up my darkroom - so have not resumed printing yet,
but thinking of using Ilford Multigrade Developer.
Would I need to use a stop bath?

Used to use Dektol & D76
I prefer liquid chemistry.

Thanks in advance!

Serge

Hi Serge,

Switching to TF4 or TF5 can offer some benefits, particularly their neutral pH which is less harsh on films and papers. This can help maintain image quality and archival properties. Using Ilford Multigrade Developer is a great choice, and while a stop bath isn't strictly necessary, it can help halt development more effectively than water alone. Given your preference for liquid chemistry, both TF4 and TF5 should fit well into your workflow.

[david@bigeleisenlaw.com]

For what it's worth, i wanted to see if a batch of TF4 that i mixed up in 1986 was still good. That's right, eight years old. I took the leader from some tri-x. It cleared very nicely.
David

[John Layton]

Well, eight years old if you'd mixed it on February 29th - otherwise more like 38! :rolleyes:

[david@bigeleisenlaw.com]

Well, my bad typing. I mixed the TF4 in 2016.
David