Sorry but a couple of real novice questions

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Yes but that's the way I learned in college, so there's no harm sticking to a formula that works.

And some developers, like the Rollei devs, actually say not to use an acid stop bath. I learned that one the hard way. One of the guys here checked my work and caught that for me when I started using Rollei stuff.

It won't do any harm, except for prolonging wet time unnecessarily, but equally, it'll do no good whatsoever. Where was the college, and what was the course? I am genuinely astonished to see that anyone at any college anywhere ever recommended this.

Cheers,

R.

[Pirate]

Oakland Community College in Michigan. Hypo clear is used with the Fiber Paper and film, as well as a Stop Bath.

The classes were Basic Film and Advanced Film photography in the degree program. Once again, there's no harm using a system that is proven to work. Extra time? What's your rush?

It teaches the students a complete system and gives them every opportunity to use and try every part of the process. And before you say "it's not necessary" again, let me ask you this: If it's not necessary, why do they still make it? It has to work for something.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Oakland Community College in Michigan. Hypo clear is used with the Fiber Paper and film, as well as a Stop Bath.

The classes were Basic Film and Advanced Film photography in the degree program. Once again, there's no harm using a system that is proven to work. Extra time? What's your rush?

It teaches the students a complete system and gives them every opportunity to use and try every part of the process. And before you say "it's not necessary" again, let me ask you this: If it's not necessary, why do they still make it? It has to work for something.

Yes. I use it. When I need it. Which is for fibre-base paper. NOT for film or RC, where it's a waste of time and money.

Stop and think. If it's not needed for RC paper, why is it needed for film? And what on earth do you mean by a 'complete system'?

Cheers,

R.

[crispy12]

I use HC110 and Rodinal R09. Both liquid, fantastically easy to use. It's also very cheap, so I don't reuse my developer. The risk is if you develop is exhausted (run out of chemical power after processing your film), you next roll might be undeveloped.

I don't use stop bath, because plain water has worked just fine for me. I use Ilford Rapid Fixer because it's very readily available in the camera stores here.

Most developing tanks have volume measurements on the bottom. You might also want a changing bag to load your film if you don't have access to a darkroom.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by crispy12

I use HC110 and Rodinal R09. Both liquid, fantastically easy to use. It's also very cheap, so I don't reuse my developer. The risk is if you develop is exhausted (run out of chemical power after processing your film), you next roll might be undeveloped.

I don't use stop bath, because plain water has worked just fine for me. I use Ilford Rapid Fixer because it's very readily available in the camera stores here.

Most developing tanks have volume measurements on the bottom. You might also want a changing bag to load your film if you don't have access to a darkroom.

Only plastic ones. I still have the stainless steel tank I bought second-hand in 1966.

You are of course absolutely right about working 'one-shot'. The only other way to achieve the same consistency is with a 'seasoned' developer (regularly replenished and well used) but this wipes about a stop off film speed. On the other hand, it's surprising how forgiving the whole process can be: widely varying times, temperatures and concentrations can give printable negatives (for a given value of 'printable'.

Good point about a changing bag, too. Practise in the light with a scrap film; then in the changing bag with a scrap film; then in the changing bag with a real film.

Cheers,

R.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Yes. I use it. When I need it. Which is for fibre-base paper. NOT for film or RC, where it's a waste of time and money.

Stop and think. If it's not needed for RC paper, why is it needed for film? And what on earth do you mean by a 'complete system'?

Cheers,

R.

By "complete system" I mean that a company like Kodak or Sprint will make all the parts and use them in a system. That's what the school lab has set up, every part of the processing system from before the newer emulsions.

For RC papers we don't use the Hypo, only for the Fiber. With the films, the school recommends using Tmax, but has listings for many more, including things like Tri-X which are older emulsions. They also give us the choice of using any other films. I like to use slower films with some of the old AGFA emulsions. With the newer films, the Hypo might not do much, but with the older formulas, wouldn't it be good to use it?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Pirate

By "complete system" I mean that a company like Kodak or Sprint will make all the parts and use them in a system. That's what the school lab has set up, every part of the processing system from before the newer emulsions.

For RC papers we don't use the Hypo, only for the Fiber. With the films, the school recommends using Tmax, but has listings for many more, including things like Tri-X which are older emulsions. They also give us the choice of using any other films. I like to use slower films with some of the old AGFA emulsions. With the newer films, the Hypo might not do much, but with the older formulas, wouldn't it be good to use it?

No. Sorry. Complete and utter waste of time and money.

(I assume you mean Hypo Clear).

Cheers,

R.

[mwoenv]

The advantage of using name-brand film and chemicals (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji) is that they come with data sheets or instructions. Study those for basic deveoping techniques (developing times, how to agitate, capacity of the chemicals, etc.) rather than relying on the widely-varying opinions online.

Kodak's "How to Process and Print Black and White Film" and "Black and White TIps for Darkroom Enthusiasts" (film developing portion) provide good basic information so download those and study them.

P.S. Indicator stop is so ridiculously inexpensive per roll of film developed I see no reason to not use it.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

No. Sorry. Complete and utter waste of time and money.

(I assume you mean Hypo Clear).

Cheers,

R.

Sorry you feel this way. For me, I can not find anything in Kodak's literature that says not to use Hypo Clear any longer, and my film comes out beautifully. Plus, I want my film to be there for my great grand kids, so if using Hypo Clear helps in the archival process, then I will continue to use it. When it starts hurting my film, I'll stop.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Sorry you feel this way. For me, I can not find anything in Kodak's literature that says not to use Hypo Clear any longer, and my film comes out beautifully. Plus, I want my film to be there for my great grand kids, so if using Hypo Clear helps in the archival process, then I will continue to use it. When it starts hurting my film, I'll stop.

You're sorry I feel what way? If you want to waste time and money, why shouldn't you? Hypo clear won't do any harm. But it won't do any good either. Of course Kodak's literature doesn't say not to use Hypo Clear.This is because they can't imagine anyone is stupid enough to use it with film. If they said that it WAS a good idea, it would be another matter. But where do they say that?

Cheers,

R.

[taskoni]

To the OP

I am using D76 1:1, water as stop bath for 30 sec, than Kodak Fixer - I am fixing for 20min instead of listed 5min since I was getting constantly badly fixed negatives. Sorry to bring the topic of the subject but I will use it to ask Roger while he is still here:
Roger, is longer than recommended fixing harms the negs in any way? Also I heard that the longer the time between development and fixing, the bigger risk of fogging. Is that true?

Regards and hope your answers to my questions will help the OP too in his quest to clear and beautiful negatives!

Boris

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by taskoni

. . . Roger, is longer than recommended fixing harms the negs in any way? Also I heard that the longer the time between development and fixing, the bigger risk of fogging. Is that true?. . .

Dear Boris:

Q1: Yes, but it needs to be MUCH, MUCH longer than the minimum required: a factor of 5 or maybe even 10. In other words, if clearing time is 30 sec, fixing time 90 sec, then 450 sec (7.5 min) almost certainly won't do any harm but 900 sec (15 min) might result in some loss of shadow detail (very low silver densities reduced by over-fixing).

Q2: Dunno: never heard that one. Again, though, I'd expect we're looking at quite a long time -- at least a few minutes -- before anything detectable happens. This is assuming, of course, you've use a stop bath. Weak, partially oxidized developer (water bath only) might do almost anything.

Cheers,

R.

[taskoni]

Dear Roger,

thank you for the reply!

I will watch not to over shoot with fixing then

Regards,

Boris

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

You're sorry I feel what way? If you want to waste time and money, why shouldn't you? Hypo clear won't do any harm. But it won't do any good either. Of course Kodak's literature doesn't say not to use Hypo Clear.This is because they can't imagine anyone is stupid enough to use it with film. If they said that it WAS a good idea, it would be another matter. But where do they say that?

Cheers,

R.

Well, actually:

from the suggested reading in a post above- "KODAK PROFESSIONAL Hypo Clearing Agent. Ideal when water or time is at a premium. Use to facilitate the removal of hypo (fixer) from black-and-white fiber-base papers, films, and plates."

So, according to this, no, the Hypo Clear is not needed. But, it will cut my water bill down by cutting the wash time. I'd call that a "good idea."

from the other suggested reading above- "KODAK Hypo Clearing Agent. Shortens washing times and makes possible more thorough washing of films and prints. It reduces the wash time to 5 minutes for films, 10 minutes for single-weight papers, and 20 minutes for double-weight papers."

Looks like another good idea.

Roger, I do enjoy a good civilized conversation like this, and I know that I will walk away with some new knowledge, but I still do not see a reason to not use Hypo Clear.

[Roger Hicks]

Hold on. How are you washing your film?

For decades I've used the Ilford method.

Use non-hardening fixer (hardening fixers have not been needed for any Ilford or Kodak films for a very long time).

Drain the tank of fixer. Fill with water at about the same temperature as the fixer. Invert 5 times. Drain.

Repeat, but invert 10 times.

Repeat, but invert 20 times.

The film will now be washed to ANSI archival standard.

It's almost impossible to believe, but it's true.

In fact, I add two more steps before drying. After the above sequence I fill the tank with distilled or de-ionized water and invert 20 times. Hard water washes better than soft, but can leave drying marks.

Finally, a 30 second rinse in distilled water with a few drops of Agepon (Agfa's version of Photo-Flo) added.

Elapsed time maybe 5 min. Water usage: a pint and a half from the tap, a pint of distilled
(for 2x 35m films in a stainless tank).

Cheers,

R.

[Pirate]

I don't think I'm too far off from your method above. I use non-hardening fixer, then the hypo clear, then one full rinse, then the fill-agitate-dump, repeat. I do this for about ten minutes. Some places where I develop (relatives homes) have a well. Since they don't pay for the water, and don't mind, I do a continuous running water rinse for ten minutes. If I'm using a system at one of my college campuses, they have a continuous running rinse tank.

After the rinse I'll do about 30 seconds or so with the photo flo, then shake off the reel and dry, either hang in a cabinet or an air dryer.

I would really like my film to be around in a hundred years for my future family members to see what I have seen.

[Dhughes]

Thanks again for all the replies and encouragement. I'll defiantly be going for the liquid based chemicals and probably go for the cheaper films mentioned. Could someone point me in the direction of a tutorial about using water as a stop or explain it a little?

Cheers

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Dhughes

Thanks again for all the replies and encouragement. I'll defiantly be going for the liquid based chemicals and probably go for the cheaper films mentioned. Could someone point me in the direction of a tutorial about using water as a stop or explain it a little?

Cheers

Literally, just dump out the dev; tip in water at the same temperature; agitate for 30 sec; tip in the fix.

Cheers,

R.

[MartinP]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Literally, just dump out the dev; tip in water at the same temperature; agitate for 30 sec; tip in the fix.

Like Roger says - but better empty the water out before the fix goes in

In case this is the next question, for paper there would be expected to be more developer agent in the emulsion (as it's thicker) so a stop-bath makes an important contribution to stopping all of the residual development action as quickly and evenly as possible - as compared to someone trying a water stop-bath for paper. In fact, in times past, a water bath was used for contrast control by letting the residual developer work a little longer, with some developers.

[NeeZee]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Literally, just dump out the dev; tip in water at the same temperature; agitate for 30 sec; tip in the fix.

Cheers,

R.

What Roger said, but just to make it VERY clear: dump out the water before you tip in the fix!

[NeeZee]

beat me to it, martin...

[ColSebastianMoran]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Hold on. How are you washing your film?

For decades I've used the Ilford method.

Use non-hardening fixer (hardening fixers have not been needed for any Ilford or Kodak films for a very long time).

Drain the tank of fixer. Fill with water at about the same temperature as the fixer. Invert 5 times. Drain.

Repeat, but invert 10 times.

Repeat, but invert 20 times.

The film will now be washed to ANSI archival standard.

It's almost impossible to believe, but it's true.

In fact, I add two more steps before drying. After the above sequence I fill the tank with distilled or de-ionized water and invert 20 times. Hard water washes better than soft, but can leave drying marks.

Finally, a 30 second rinse in distilled water with a few drops of Agepon (Agfa's version of Photo-Flo) added.

Elapsed time maybe 5 min. Water usage: a pint and a half from the tap, a pint of distilled
(for 2x 35m films in a stainless tank).

Cheers,

R.

Roger, thanks. I didn't know this. My thanks to you and all the other real "pros" here for sharing your knowledge and experience.

[Dhughes]

Oh right that's easy enough then, thanks :-)

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by MartinP

Like Roger says - but better empty the water out before the fix goes in

Fair enough!

Cheers,

R.