Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,246

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    It was Wimberley who started the revival in the late 1970s. Also Hutchings used regular mildly acidic Kodak fixers. In any case it doesn’t matter. If you like TF-4 there is no reason not to use it. As long as there is sufficient rinsing/stopping between development and fixation alkaline fixers are perfectly good. The more alkaline, the stronger the ammonia odour tends to be so buffering to a mildly alkaline pH is preferable. TF-4 is fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    I had a jug of that Ilford Rapid Fix on hand, and no, it did not work as well for my PMK pyro purposes as TF4. Gordon Hutchings got it right, and certainly was the father of the current popularity of pyrog. developers.

  2. #22
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta
    Posts
    1,542

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    This thread is of interest to me as I'm getting back into photography after a several years hiatus meaning that liquid fixers will need to be discarded and replaced (from what I read in that other thread on the bad batches of Kodak RF, they tend to sulferize over some period after which they are useless.)

    I've used crtric acid based stop baths for years as my darkroom was never ventilated very well (if at all, sometimes.) My new darkroom (building out the rest of my basement, including plumbing, lead me to think "hey I could finally have a PROPER darkroom..." and that lead to getting excited about getting back into photography and here I am) will be better ventilated, but if there's no downside to something like TF-5 then I might as well use it.

    If The Book of Pyro isn't a great book about pyro, what is? I've never used it, read enough about it years ago to be familiar with the general idea back then but never tried it. If I wanted to try it out, where would be the place to read about it? A bit of aside thread-creep, I know, but TF-5 sounds like a winner with no real downside.

  3. #23
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19,399

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    I use food grade citric acid powder for paper stop

    TF5 was designed by 'PE' Photo Engineer RIP

    I think he worked for KODAK

    There are many references and examples only on APUG where is was authoritative

    He sold me

    and John

    just do it


    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    This thread is of interest to me as I'm getting back into photography after a several years hiatus meaning that liquid fixers will need to be discarded and replaced (from what I read in that other thread on the bad batches of Kodak RF, they tend to sulferize over some period after which they are useless.)

    I've used crtric acid based stop baths for years as my darkroom was never ventilated very well (if at all, sometimes.) My new darkroom (building out the rest of my basement, including plumbing, lead me to think "hey I could finally have a PROPER darkroom..." and that lead to getting excited about getting back into photography and here I am) will be better ventilated, but if there's no downside to something like TF-5 then I might as well use it.

    If The Book of Pyro isn't a great book about pyro, what is? I've never used it, read enough about it years ago to be familiar with the general idea back then but never tried it. If I wanted to try it out, where would be the place to read about it? A bit of aside thread-creep, I know, but TF-5 sounds like a winner with no real downside.
    Tin Can

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    3,094

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    I had a jug of that Ilford Rapid Fix on hand, and no, it did not work as well for my PMK pyro purposes as TF4. Gordon Hutchings got it right, and certainly was the father of the current popularity of pyrog. developers.
    Strange, I've compared PMK negatives with both TF-4 and Ilford Rapid Fixer and found absolutely zero difference; stain was the same, base fog was the same (visual comparison only, but that should be adequate in this case).

    The thing that gets me about simply saying that capacity is "30 8x10s per liter" for TF-4/TF-5 is the discrepancy with the Ilford information. Ilford states that for "optimum permanence," the capacity of their Rapid Fixer is only 10 8x10-inch prints per liter (assuming single bath use) while for "commercial" standards, the capacity increases to 40 8x10s per liter. Here's the relevant section from the Ilford tech sheet:

    "If a high level of image permanence is required for commercial use the silver concentration in the fixer should be kept below 2 g/l when fixing FB
    papers. This approximates to 40, 20.3 x 25.4 cm, (8 x 10 inch) FB prints.
    Above this level compounds may remain in the paper base after washing and over time possibly contribute to print staining. For prints that need maximum stability for long term storage a the maximum silver level in the fixer should not rise above 0.5 g/l i.e., approximately 10 20.3 x 25.4cm (8 x 10in) prints." [emphasis added]

    If, as it seems logical to extrapolate from the Ilford information, the capacity of the fixer is linked directly to the amount of dissolved silver in the fixing bath, then why in the world should the TF fixers be any different? Is there some "secret ingredient" that allows more thorough fixing at a higher concentration of dissolved silver? And, if so, why aren't the manufacturers/distributors shouting this from the rooftops, since it would make great marketing?

    I'm sure Ron Mowrey did his research and has/had all kinds of data about dissolved silver concentrations vs. efficiency and completeness of fixing, but I've certainly never seen any of them. At least Ilford gives you some reasoning for why they recommend certain capacities.

    And, if as Michael suggests, the TF products are similar in activity and capacity to Ilford and other rapid fixers, why is the capacity for those fixers listed as some number between Ilford's "commercial" and "optimum permanence" standards?

    It's not that I couldn't test myself for adequate fixation using ST-1 or the KRST tests (however imprecise and unquantifiable those are); I do those tests regularly when printing. It's just that I would expect that a product that was so carefully developed for a specific and discriminating market to have much, much better documentation.

    I quit using TF-4 for other reasons, but until I really am convinced that TF-5 or whatever is substantially better than the Ilford products I'm currently using, I'll stick with them. PF could go a long way toward convincing me that their products were as good or better if they'd simply publish the research data in more detail.

    Best,

    Doremus

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,447

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    From previous LFF discussion about pyro developers, note post# 23 by Steve Simmons regarding W2D2 and PMK.
    https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ructions/page3

    "Now, suddenly, a new group has rediscovered the wheel, or perhaps they think they have invented the wheel, with new staining developers. It is touted as being the best, etc., etc. In reality it/they are just a variation of an older wheel. If you like it fine. Use whatever you like. But it is not revolutionary by any means. Wimberly and Hutchings did something that could be called evolutionary. The fact that not everyone thinks these brand new formula are better wheels should not result in them being personally attacked."

    BTW, John Wimberly had 16x20 prints on display at Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto CA.. John Wimberly was among a long list of others that displayed prints at Keeble & Shuchat back in them days..


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    If The Book of Pyro isn't a great book about pyro, what is? I've never used it, read enough about it years ago to be familiar with the general idea back then but never tried it. If I wanted to try it out, where would be the place to read about it? A bit of aside thread-creep, I know, but TF-5 sounds like a winner with no real downside.

  6. #26
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta
    Posts
    1,542

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    From previous LFF discussion about pyro developers, note post# 23 by Steve Simmons regarding W2D2 and PMK.
    https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ructions/page3

    "Now, suddenly, a new group has rediscovered the wheel, or perhaps they think they have invented the wheel, with new staining developers. It is touted as being the best, etc., etc. In reality it/they are just a variation of an older wheel. If you like it fine. Use whatever you like. But it is not revolutionary by any means. Wimberly and Hutchings did something that could be called evolutionary. The fact that not everyone thinks these brand new formula are better wheels should not result in them being personally attacked."

    BTW, John Wimberly had 16x20 prints on display at Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto CA.. John Wimberly was among a long list of others that displayed prints at Keeble & Shuchat back in them days..


    Bernice
    Thanks Bernice. That was pretty much my conclusion when i read up on them way back when - interesting, but didn't seem to offer that much advantage, if any. But if I'm restarting my photography after several years, which is what I plan to do, it's not a bad time to revisit such questions.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,447

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    Used PMK back when (circa later 1990's) it was introduced by Gordon H, which prompted trying other Pyro developers like W2D2...

    As mentioned by Steve S, they are not a lot more than another "tool" in the tool box to achieve an image goal results.
    There are no "magic elixirs" just what might be the better solution to a given need and problem to be solved.. Awful lot of this has to do with fully understating what this stuff does and cannot do, then apply as needed.


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Thanks Bernice. That was pretty much my conclusion when i read up on them way back when - interesting, but didn't seem to offer that much advantage, if any. But if I'm restarting my photography after several years, which is what I plan to do, it's not a bad time to revisit such questions.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,246

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    Doremus, just some things to keep in mind which make direct comparisons difficult:

    1. Different assumptions regarding acceptable final amounts of retained thiosulfate/silver-thiosulfate complexes in the paper for different levels of permanence.

    2. Initial concentration of thiosulfate per litre of working solution, although similar, may not be the same

    3. The allowable concentration of silver depends to some extent on fixing time assumptions. For example, Kodak suggests a capacity for its rapid fixer of ~25 8x10s/litre working solution at half the concentration of the dilution for film fixation (so more prints than Ilford, and at a lower concentration than Ilford) but with much longer fixing time.

    4. Capacities based on the silver content of the fixing bath are basically assuming these are insoluble complexes. However there are compounds which can be added to a thiosulfate fixer which can increase the solubility of fixing by-products. There was research into this at Kodak etc. mostly in the context of rapid access processing. Some of the more obvious ones have potential downsides such as gelatin softening but Ron hinted at others. TF5 and TF4 do contain additional ingredients not present in standard rapid fixers, and these may (or may not) affect throughput capacity.

    5. Besides Ilford’s thoroughly disclosed research into fixing times and washing with respect to permanence, manufacturers’ instructions are basically “black boxes”. Rely on them or don’t. We know companies like Kodak did the work, so taking their recommendations at face value is sensible. Other companies? Not as clear. There’s probably some extrapolation going on, but that isn’t necessarily unreasonable. After all, fixation of photographic materials is quite well understood and has been around for a very long time.

    I would say whenever venturing into non-Ilford/non-Kodak fixers, some testing (including wash results) is probably wise. Simple stuff like retained silver etc. Or, simply apply Ilford’s instructions. They are the most conservative, so things are unlikely to go wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    Strange, I've compared PMK negatives with both TF-4 and Ilford Rapid Fixer and found absolutely zero difference; stain was the same, base fog was the same (visual comparison only, but that should be adequate in this case).

    The thing that gets me about simply saying that capacity is "30 8x10s per liter" for TF-4/TF-5 is the discrepancy with the Ilford information. Ilford states that for "optimum permanence," the capacity of their Rapid Fixer is only 10 8x10-inch prints per liter (assuming single bath use) while for "commercial" standards, the capacity increases to 40 8x10s per liter. Here's the relevant section from the Ilford tech sheet:

    "If a high level of image permanence is required for commercial use the silver concentration in the fixer should be kept below 2 g/l when fixing FB
    papers. This approximates to 40, 20.3 x 25.4 cm, (8 x 10 inch) FB prints.
    Above this level compounds may remain in the paper base after washing and over time possibly contribute to print staining. For prints that need maximum stability for long term storage a the maximum silver level in the fixer should not rise above 0.5 g/l i.e., approximately 10 20.3 x 25.4cm (8 x 10in) prints." [emphasis added]

    If, as it seems logical to extrapolate from the Ilford information, the capacity of the fixer is linked directly to the amount of dissolved silver in the fixing bath, then why in the world should the TF fixers be any different? Is there some "secret ingredient" that allows more thorough fixing at a higher concentration of dissolved silver? And, if so, why aren't the manufacturers/distributors shouting this from the rooftops, since it would make great marketing?

    I'm sure Ron Mowrey did his research and has/had all kinds of data about dissolved silver concentrations vs. efficiency and completeness of fixing, but I've certainly never seen any of them. At least Ilford gives you some reasoning for why they recommend certain capacities.

    And, if as Michael suggests, the TF products are similar in activity and capacity to Ilford and other rapid fixers, why is the capacity for those fixers listed as some number between Ilford's "commercial" and "optimum permanence" standards?

    It's not that I couldn't test myself for adequate fixation using ST-1 or the KRST tests (however imprecise and unquantifiable those are); I do those tests regularly when printing. It's just that I would expect that a product that was so carefully developed for a specific and discriminating market to have much, much better documentation.

    I quit using TF-4 for other reasons, but until I really am convinced that TF-5 or whatever is substantially better than the Ilford products I'm currently using, I'll stick with them. PF could go a long way toward convincing me that their products were as good or better if they'd simply publish the research data in more detail.

    Best,

    Doremus

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Suwanee, GA
    Posts
    959

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    The only difference I have found between TF4 and TF5 was the final color tone given to Moersch's Lobotype print process . It uses an iron and silver coating similar to Kallitype. I have used both with FP4+ and variations of Pyrocat and found it to have no difference other than TF4 always seemed to have more silver/sulfide left in the bottom of the container. TF5 lasts a long time if not frequently used. Undiluted I have made it to 3 years even in partially filled gallon container, diluted at least six months, but I discard if that old or once a test strip takes longer than 30 seconds to clear.
    I tend to use TF5 1-9 instead of 1-4 because I do not process much or frequently.
    Adventure is worthwhile in itself. ... Never interrupt someone doing what you said couldn't be done. -- Amelia Earhart
    http://www.searing.photography

  10. #30
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19,399

    Re: TF-4 User For Years...Want To Try TF-5

    PE aka

    Ron Mowery worked for KODAK designing TF5

    "PHOTOGRAPHIC EMULSION MAKING, COATING AND TESTING" BOOK BY RON MOWREY

    Available at https://stores.photoformulary.com/ph...by-ron-mowrey/
    Tin Can

Similar Threads

  1. At last! It's only taken me four years...
    By welly in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 26-Feb-2014, 08:45
  2. new years day
    By madmax12 in forum On Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2-Jan-2010, 10:39
  3. From new user - User manual for Toyo 45A
    By jonashallgrimsson in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 3-Oct-2009, 11:41

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •