using water as stop bath for films: any comment?
massimo lanzoni
instead of acetic acid ??
somebody says it improves image quality even if is is suggested only
after developing times exceeding 10 min.
any comment???
ciao
massimo
Terry Shwetz
sky areas, seemed to be unevenly developed. After this happened, I went
back to acetic acid and that eliminated the problem.
My opinion is water bath probably works better with older, thick emulsion
sheet films. Current film technology, for the most part, uses very thin
emulsion, so a water stop bath is ineffective. Acetic acid immediately
arrests further development, controlling tone development more precisely.
This could be a pH function: the film going from an alkaline environment
to acidic.
However, that being said, I have found using a two minute pre-soak in
water before the developer very beneficial. It allows the developer to
diffuse into the film more evenly, also reducing mottling in continuous
tone areas.
Hope this helps
Terry
Ray C.
I recently tried a water stop with TMX/Y and found
that it caused uneven development in the highlight
areas. In addition, you need to make sure your rinse
water is precisely the same temp as your developer.
TMX/Y is very sensitive to developer temperatures.
I used to do a quick water rinse between developer
and stop bath hoping to mitigate the effects of any
strong chemical reactions from occuring on the surface
of the film. I've never been able to veryify if this
is a realistic concern because I have gone right from
developer to stop with not noticable effects.
Maybe someone can comment...
I'm half tempted to mix-up a 50% weaker solution of
Indicator bath and give that a try.
Agreed though, longer development times should (in theory)
mitigate the effects of a slow stopping rinse; however,
I think you should try to be very consistent about the
rate at which you pour-in and drain your solutions.
Regards
Ray
Mike Corn
this group, but as yet I haven't heard anyone emphatically claim normal
acidic stop baths result in lower quality images (than say water). I can
understand using water to avoid the smell of the standard acetic stop,
but beyond that it seems like an unnecessary complication. Stop is cheap
and stops development fast - and has no negative impact on the image
(film or paper). As far as claims that it improves image quality, I'm
skeptical. I suppose it's possible that in some fantastically subtle way
it results in a vaguely different character to the image. But unless this
were shown to be noticable without absurd levels of analysis, I'd say,
stick with a standard stop bath.
MC
Sandy King
> I've seen this thread about using water instead of stop periodically in
> this group, but as yet I haven't heard anyone emphatically claim normal
> acidic stop baths result in lower quality images (than say water). I can
> understand using water to avoid the smell of the standard acetic stop,
> but beyond that it seems like an unnecessary complication.
Why is it a complication to use water for your stop bath instead of acetic
acid, other than the slightly longer time required?
I have used nothing but a water stop bath for years with a variety of films
and different formats and never had any problem with uneven development as
a consequence. I stop development by placing the film in running water for
at least a minute, then transfer the film directly to the fixer. My
develoment is rotary in tubes.
I would add that the reason I started to use the water stop bath instead of
acetic was to maximize the stain with tanning devleopers. However now I use
it for all development and so far have had no problem at all.
Sandy King
Peter Wright
created by the acid stop. Ilford recommends water for that reason.
Peter
Mike Corn wrote:
--
In the end;
We will only conserve what we love;
We will love only what we understand;
We will understand only what we are taught.
-Senegal Proverb
Peter Lawrence Wright pwr...@cyberus.ca
Post Office Box 3, Voice: (613)720-2921
Carleton Place, Ontario Facsimile: (613)253-4911
K7C 3P3 http://www.cyberus.ca/~pwright
Jason Li
>
>> I've seen this thread about using water instead of stop periodically in
>> this group, but as yet I haven't heard anyone emphatically claim normal
>> acidic stop baths result in lower quality images (than say water). I can
The use of water instead of chemical stop bath is to reduce the chances of
getting pinholes. You pour the clean tempered water into the tank, then pour
the water out down into the drain. Repeat the same procedure once more. That
is suffice.
I learned that trick from New York Institute of Photography courses.
cheers
Douglas K
instead of a stop bath, and in what circumstances? The
documentation for Delta 400 Professional does not state a
preference:
"After development, rinse the film in water or an acid
stop bath (ILFORD ILFOSTOP or ILFOSTOP PRO) ... "
--http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/400_Delta.pdf
January, 2001
Douglas
Gene A. Townsend
King) wrote:
>
>Why is it a complication to use water for your stop bath instead of acetic
>acid, other than the slightly longer time required?
>
It is a complication because it requires one to replace their fixer
much more frequently, and to always be extending the fixing times just
a little bit more (if your one who fixes by inspection like I do) to
get maximum fixer life. Otherwise, your negatives may not be fixed
properly, and that is also a complication, having to refix them later,
or having them fade away to nothingness because of this.
In print processing, not using stop bath, particularly with fiber
based papers, probably results in many images becoming non-permanent
because the fixer was unknowingly exhausted prior to use, the images
may be impermanent, even though the photographer elected to use the
old fashioned, obsolete fiber based papers because he was lead to
believe his images would be more permanent.
Fixing by inspection is easy, since after only a few minutes in the
fixer, the film is no longer light sensitive. By looking at the film,
the time when the film first becomes clear can be noted, then the film
left in the fixer about half again that long, to be sure it is fully
fixed. This is especially germain for those who use TMAX films, which
require considerably more fixation than other films.
The idea of using a water stop bath being superior some how, is simply
garbage. It is one more link in the chain of causation leading to
impermanant images. If you want to use your fixer as a one shot, then
okay, water stop is okay. Is that convenient?
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mike Corn
acid stop may
1. cause pinholes in soft emulsions
2. stain using tannin developers
Both good reasons if
1. you're using a soft emulsion film (the poster said infrared)
2. you're using tannin developers
Which seem like somewhat out-of-the-ordinary circumstances, and ones in which
it's perfectly reasonable to use water instead. But as yet, there doesn't seem
to be anyone making any claims for an improved image quality.
Another poster pointed out that using water is no more complicated than stop.
Probably true - but! I would suggest that reviewing the darkroom literature
suggests that mastering/controlling the processing of film is one of the keys
to being successful (or at least, consistent) - since stop bath has a chemical
halting effect on development (presumably more immediate), while water has a
diluting or rinsing/removal effect on the developer, acid stop bath should in
theory result in more consistent processing (greater control of when
development stops).
My personal conclusion - use an acid stop unless you're in one of the special
situations mentioned above, or you just don't want to. In that case use H2O.
MC
Michael Gudzinowicz
>anybody has some experience in stopping film development using water
>instead of acetic acid ??
>somebody says it improves image quality even if is is suggested only
>after developing times exceeding 10 min.
indicative of a dilute or weakly alkaline developer, which won't develop
much silver halide in the water bath, and the effect on the fixer is less
than with a more alkaline/concentrated developer. In other words, they
"hope" there won't be a problem. The usual advantage cited is increased
shadow density, however, if the photgrapher were competent, they would
expose the film properly (more) if there is a problem.
There are many reasons why stop baths are used. This is a short list:
1. Alkaline developers decrease the effect of alum hardeners added to the
emulsion during manufacture. An acid stop restores their effectiveness
which is retained by acid fixers and hypoclearing agents.
2. The acid stop has a higher osmolarity than plain water (more
"particles" per volume). As a result, the swelling of gelatin
due to osmotic shock when going from a solution with high osmolarity
to one of low osmolarity is minimized. Grain clumping is reduced, and
in cases where temperatures are high, reticulation may be minimized.
In extreme cases, other salts such as sodium sulfate are added to the
acid stop to minimize swelling, and tearing of the emulsion from the
support.
3. With highly alkaline concentrated developers (short times) uneven
development is prevented due to rapid inactivation of the developer.
4. Dichroic fogging and generalized staining by developers caused by
soluble silver (fixer) reduction are prevented by the inactivation
of the developer by stop baths. There are a few people who feel
that increased staining may be desirable, however, they assume
that it is image staining rather than testing for generalized and often
uneven staining due to fog resulting from soluble silver reduction.
5. A rise in fixer pH may again decrease hardening, and increase the
risk of reticulation when washed with plain water.
6. Fixer life is decreased by alkali and developer carryover, and sludging
may result (hardener precipitation and silver reduction).
Usually, pinholes and blisters are not caused by a properly mixed stop bath
or a buffered salt solution (acetic acid with acetate or borate), but may
be generated by strong acids or concentrated acetic acid solutions which
liberate sulfur dioxide from sulfite or carbon dioxide from carbonate
contained in developers.
TheYankeeSnapper
A water bath is/was sometimes used to try to coax a bit more shadow detail.
After the film has been developed, place the reel in a container of water of
similiar temp.. The highlight areas will exhaust the developer rather quickly,
but not so quickly in the shadow areas. After a couple of minutes, (use the
stop bath and) go on and fix the film as you normally would. I used this
procedure alot when I use to shoot night scenes with Tri-x in 4x5, and
developed in d-76. Sometimes it worked better than other times, I don't think
you'll be able to see much of a difference with 35mm or 645.
Bob McCarthy
theyanke...@aol.com
Richard Knoppow
>Some softer emulsion films, such as Kodak 4x5 infrared, will have pinholes
>created by the acid stop. Ilford recommends water for that reason.
>
>Peter
>
This occurs only when used with a carbonate containing developer.
Carbonate efferveses in the acid. Pinholes or disruptions of the
emulsion are possible but rare mostly because most modern film is
pretty well hardened. IR film is not so there could well be a problem
with it.
Few current film developers contain carbonate. Most use Borax or
metaborate (Kodalk) neither of which effervesses in the stop bath.
Since there is considerable emulsion swelling when going from
developer to stop bath it is conceivable that there may be a problem
with a very soft emulsion even in the absense of gassing.
For general use an acid stop bath has several advantages over a water
bath.
1, it stops the development instantly.
2, by stopping the development it prevents staining from developer
reaction products in the absence of sulfite.
3, it extends the life of acid fixing baths.
There is no advantage of using a water bath unless a completely
alkaline processing system is used. Obviously, an acid stop bath
should not be used if an alkaline fixing bath is employed.
If one does use a plain water stop bath it should have plenty of
volume and the film or paper should be well agitated in it to wash out
the developer quickly.
Some developers are much more prone to staining than others so
staining in the stop bath is not always going to occur.
Ansel Adams used alternating devleoper and water baths for both
negatives and prints to control contrast and evidently did not have
trouble with staining.
I have never heard of a claim of lower image quality from the use of
a stop bath even from staunch advocates of alkaline processing.
It may be that a sulfate containing non-swelling stop bath like
Kodak SB-5, or a tropical hardening stop bath like Kodak SB-4, may be
useful for IR film.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Sandy King
(Gene A. Townsend) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2001 01:58:06 -0400, san...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Sandy
> King) wrote:
>
> >
> >Why is it a complication to use water for your stop bath instead of acetic
> >acid, other than the slightly longer time required?
> >
>
> It is a complication because it requires one to replace their fixer
> much more frequently, and to always be extending the fixing times just
> a little bit more (if your one who fixes by inspection like I do) to
> get maximum fixer life. Otherwise, your negatives may not be fixed
> properly, and that is also a complication, having to refix them later,
> or having them fade away to nothingness because of this.
Why do you state that the use of water for the stop bath requires one to
replace their fixer much more frequently? Is this a pesonal observation or
one based on information from published research?
>
> In print processing, not using stop bath, particularly with fiber
> based papers, probably results in many images becoming non-permanent
> because the fixer was unknowingly exhausted prior to use, the images
> may be impermanent, even though the photographer elected to use the
> old fashioned, obsolete fiber based papers because he was lead to
> believe his images would be more permanent.
Whoaa, this thread is about negative processing, not print processing, at
least so far as I understood.
>
> The idea of using a water stop bath being superior some how, is simply
> garbage. It is one more link in the chain of causation leading to
> impermanant images.
Again, is this a personal observation or one based on information from
published research?
Sandy King
Gene A. Townsend
King) wrote:
>In article <3afc4f3b...@news.dakotacom.net>, wi...@dakotacom.net
>(Gene A. Townsend) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 May 2001 01:58:06 -0400, san...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Sandy
>> King) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Why is it a complication to use water for your stop bath instead of acetic
>> >acid, other than the slightly longer time required?
>> >
>>
>> It is a complication because it requires one to replace their fixer
>> much more frequently, and to always be extending the fixing times just
>> a little bit more (if your one who fixes by inspection like I do) to
>> get maximum fixer life. Otherwise, your negatives may not be fixed
>> properly, and that is also a complication, having to refix them later,
>> or having them fade away to nothingness because of this.
>
>
>Why do you state that the use of water for the stop bath requires one to
>replace their fixer much more frequently? Is this a pesonal observation or
>one based on information from published research?
Didn't you read my post? I explained that I am a person who fixes by
inspection. I do this to extend the life of my fixing baths.
Therefore, it is through observation of the well known effects of most
developers on most fixing baths. Many years ago, I experimented with
plain water stop baths, which for some strange reason college
professors advocate. It was from a college class I took nearly 30
years ago that I used plain water stop baths, and found that they
caused the fixer times to lengthen greatly. It is also consistent
with known facts experienced by many other photographers, as well as
photographic theory.
>>
>> In print processing, not using stop bath, particularly with fiber
>> based papers, probably results in many images becoming non-permanent
>> because the fixer was unknowingly exhausted prior to use, the images
>> may be impermanent, even though the photographer elected to use the
>> old fashioned, obsolete fiber based papers because he was lead to
>> believe his images would be more permanent.
>
>Whoaa, this thread is about negative processing, not print processing, at
>least so far as I understood.
Well pardon me for stating my opinion on the subject. Maybe you will
give me permission next time? Are you the net police this week? It
certainly seems to me that comments on print processing, where the
developer carry over in to the fixing bath is even more problematic.
Maybe you should try to consider the perspective of other people in
the world, since you are not at it's center, perhaps?
>>
>
>> The idea of using a water stop bath being superior some how, is simply
>> garbage. It is one more link in the chain of causation leading to
>> impermanant images.
>
>Again, is this a personal observation or one based on information from
>published research?
Again, perhaps you should try to learn to improve your reading
comprehension. If you do as I suggested, fix by inspection, then you
too would have a much clearer idea of what is going on, rather than
relying on academic idiots to do your thinking for you. I know very
well that this idea of plain water stop bath comes from the college
educated photographers out there, since I learned the same garbage
when I was there.
GAT
>
>Sandy King
John
> I explained that I am a person who fixes by
>inspection. I do this to extend the life of my fixing baths.
So the developed silver of the image has some detrimental effect on
fixer ? Or is it oxidation that you are concerned about ? Sorry, but I don't
understand how fixing by inspection would extend the life of fixer.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer
http://www.photographers-darkroom.com
===============================
Richard Knoppow
>In article <3afc4f3b...@news.dakotacom.net>, wi...@dakotacom.net
>(Gene A. Townsend) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 May 2001 01:58:06 -0400, san...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Sandy
>> King) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Why is it a complication to use water for your stop bath instead of acetic
>> >acid, other than the slightly longer time required?
>> >
>>
>> It is a complication because it requires one to replace their fixer
>> much more frequently, and to always be extending the fixing times just
>> a little bit more (if your one who fixes by inspection like I do) to
>> get maximum fixer life. Otherwise, your negatives may not be fixed
>> properly, and that is also a complication, having to refix them later,
>> or having them fade away to nothingness because of this.
>
>
>Why do you state that the use of water for the stop bath requires one to
>replace their fixer much more frequently? Is this a pesonal observation or
>one based on information from published research?
>
On this point. Its not the effectiveness of the fixer so much as
hardener in hardening fixing baths. The hardener is effective only
over a narrow range of pH so carryover of alkali can shorten the
hardening life.
For non-hardening fixing baths this is not an issue.
Most acid hardening fixing baths have enough buffering and enough
excess sulfite to take care of some developer carryover but for
greatest life the developer needs to be either inactivated by a stop
bath or pretty thoroughly washed out by a water bath. The water bath
will also tend to lower the pH of the film.
For the most part the capacity of fixing baths is limited more by
exhaustion of the thiosulfate than by hardener life. A single bath
will reach the point where it is not producing soluble complexes long
before it stops hardening.
The use of an acid stop bath with acid fixer is considered good
practice. There is no particular advantage in not using it. Again,
where alkaline systems are used a water stop bath is necessary.
>> In print processing, not using stop bath, particularly with fiber
>> based papers, probably results in many images becoming non-permanent
>> because the fixer was unknowingly exhausted prior to use, the images
>> may be impermanent, even though the photographer elected to use the
>> old fashioned, obsolete fiber based papers because he was lead to
>> believe his images would be more permanent.
>
>Whoaa, this thread is about negative processing, not print processing, at
>least so far as I understood.
>>
>
>> The idea of using a water stop bath being superior some how, is simply
>> garbage. It is one more link in the chain of causation leading to
>> impermanant images.
>
>Again, is this a personal observation or one based on information from
>published research?
>
>Sandy King
---
Richard Knoppow
Nor I since fixer will continue to clear the halide long after it
reaches the point where it is leaving insoluble complexes in the
emulsion. At some point the fixing bath will not result in permanent
images no matter how long the fixing time is extended unless a second,
fresh, fixing bath is used in sequence.
Those interested in the chemistry should search Google for a post by
Micheal Gudzinowicz which explains the series of reactions needed for
archival fixing.
About the only way to tell if a fixing bath is working is to test for
halides left in the emulsion. One way to do this is to use a 2%
sulfide test. Kodak gives a simple sulfide test; put a few drops if
the sulfide solution on the wet emulsion and leave it for about three
minutes. There should be no stain. The test can be used in a more
elaborate form where the stain is fixed with a sodium chloride bath
and measured with a densitometer. There are even more sensitive tests
but they are not very practical for a home darkroom.
Halide or insoluble fixing reaction products left in the emulsion
will eventually destroy the image. Because the reaction products
change within hours of drying poorly fixed film or paper can not be
remedied by later re-fixing.
Mike
(more than 12 hours) on the newsgroup messages.
The reason why some recommend using water instead of acetic acid for film
stop bath is that it decreases the likelihood of pinholes (small specs where
the silver is completely eaten away) that sometimes form in thin emulsion
films when using an acetic acid stop bath. Years ago, I experienced pinholes
with Kodak Panatomic-X film and I switched to a water stop bath. I think
that this is more prevalent with certain developers interacting with the
acetic acid. I am not sure whether pinholes are as big of a problem with
modern films such as TMAX. Aside from preventing pinholes, there are no
other "image quality" advantages of using water for a stop bath.
The disadvantage of using a water stop bath is that it exhausts the fixer
more rapidly than if acetic acid stop bath is used. TMAX films in
particular are especially tough on fixer. Many people complain about a
purple hue remaining after developing TMAX films. This is a sure sign of
inadequate fixing.
"massimo lanzoni" <mlan...@deis.unibo.it> wrote in message
news:3AFBCDDD...@deis.unibo.it...
Lloyd Erlick
I'm old-fashioned and college educated, and I plan to
stay that way.
I'm also obsolete, and I plan to stay that way, too!
regards,
--le
-------------------------------------
Lloyd Erlick,
357 Richmond Street West,
Toronto M5V 1X3 Canada.
---
voice 416-596-8751
ll...@the-wire.com
http://www.heylloyd.com
-------------------------------------
Richard Knoppow
Lloyd, I am thinking of organizing a dinosaur's club. For those of
us who definitely notice the scales and plodding movements. I am not
sure of what the entrance requirements should be, perhaps simply
feeling like a dinasaur.
I am sure we can find some other potential members on this list.
Paula and David
tried stop bath too. I can't see any difference in the quality of my
pictures. I use all alkaline process now so I use water rinse. It's
nice to have one less chemical to buy. I do five full exchanges of
water since that's what the instructions are on the T4 Fixer bottle.
This system works fine for me.
I think it's a good idea to find a combination that works for you and
stick with it. From my own results, I think it is fine to use stop
bath or water. But I believe if you use acid fixer and reuse it, you
will get longer fixer life by using acid stop since you will not have
any alkaline developer carry over into the fixer, which would cause it
to exhaust sooner.
John
wrote:
>ll...@the-wire.com (Lloyd Erlick) wrote:
>>may1201 from Lloyd Erlick,
>>I'm old-fashioned and college educated, and I plan to
>>stay that way.
>>
>>I'm also obsolete, and I plan to stay that way, too!
>>
>>regards,
>>--le
>>-------------------------------------
>>Lloyd Erlick,
> Lloyd, I am thinking of organizing a dinosaur's club. For those of
>us who definitely notice the scales and plodding movements. I am not
>sure of what the entrance requirements should be, perhaps simply
>feeling like a dinasaur.
> I am sure we can find some other potential members on this list.
>---
>Richard Knoppow
Rec.photo.dinosaurs ? Do I hear a CFD in the works ? after being
surrounded by digi-widgets all day, it's quite a pleasure to pick up my Speed
Graphic.
brook martin
I'm old enough to feel like a dinosaur, maybe a cave man, or a sturgeon.
Brook
> From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
> Reply-To: dick...@ix.netcom.com
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
> Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:51:37 GMT
> Subject: Re: using water as stop bath for films: any comment?
>
Gary W. Marklund
larger font?
Thanks,
Gary
Sandy King
pau...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I have used water rinse as my stop bath for a couple of years. I've
> tried stop bath too. I can't see any difference in the quality of my
> pictures. I use all alkaline process now so I use water rinse. It's
> nice to have one less chemical to buy. I do five full exchanges of
> water since that's what the instructions are on the T4 Fixer bottle.
> This system works fine for me.
I too use an all alkaline process with a water stop bath, usually with
tanning developers. Typically a developing routine runs as follows.
1. Devlelopment times are usually 10-15 minutes.
2. Water stop bath in running water of at least one full minute.
3. Fix in an Ammmonium Thiosulfate alkaline fixer for 3-4X clearing time.
4. Final wash in running water for 10 minutes.
My negatives show no signs of uneven development, and as far as I can
determine from the available literature this method of processing is at
least as effective and permanent as the use of an acid stop bath with acid
fixers. And if fixer life is a consideration the capacity of alkaline
fixers is perhaps even greater than that of acid fixers.
Now if there is something wrong with the above reasoning, especially as it
regards processing for permanence I would appreciate being corrected
because negative stability is for all of us a primary consideration.
Sandy King
Lloyd Erlick
may1301 from Lloyd Erlick,
I'm definitely in! (But I'm not stuck in the mud...)
Robert E. Smith
Friends say I'm being dragged kicking and screeming into the
Millinium: my computer is a 486, all my super-duper electronic gagets
from ten years back (tv, "sterio" [that should give one a clue], cassett
tape, cd rom, turntable) are all on the fritz and require replacement.
Only my manual cameras are reliable. My fixed income (less annual print
sales of $150.00 average total, disallows the expense of new
auto-everything digital wonderthings, _and_ I like the smell of fixer in
the morning. It smells like...creativity.
Truly, dr bob.
Tim Daneliuk
I am in the same situation, using virtually the identical process with
PMK Pyro development. Hutchings claims (I have not checked) that PMK
devloped film fixed with ordinary acidic fixers will not hold stain well. He
recommends an alkalai fix (I use PF TF-4) and a water stop between dev and fix.
I develop all film in open tanks with manual agitation. In the case of Pyro,
I wear nitrile rubber gloves so that I can agitate regularly (very 15 sec).
I then place the film in a tank that has a contiuous supply of *running* water
fed from the bottom and overflowing at the top for 1 minute or so, and then fix in
the TF-4. I have never had uneven development, pinholing, or streaking from this
process...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
tun...@tundraware.com
Mel1wood1
san...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Sandy King) writes:
>Now if there is something wrong with the above reasoning, especially as it
>regards processing for permanence I would appreciate being corrected
>because negative stability is for all of us a primary consideration.
>
I've been following tis thread for sometime now, and am seriously wondering why
would anyony chance foregoing the use of stop bath for water when the stuff is
the cheapest chemical availiable??? Now if we could substitute fixer or
developer, I may possibly may pay more attention to it.
mel
W. Paul Mills
Most of us who do not use a stop bath are not using water to be
cheap. Some of the reasons are:
1. That is how I was shown, it works for me, why change.
2. Eliminates air bells.
3. Finer grain.
4. All alkiline processing.
I do it because of #1 above. Merits of the other reasons are not
known to me.
--
* For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, *
* that whoever believes in Him should not perish... John 3:16 *
pl...@yahoo.comremovethisbeforesending
developer. It also prevents carryover of developer into the fix, thereby
extending the effectiveness and life of the fix.
Yes, you can use water in its stead. When I was first shown how to process b/w
films in a high school camera club darkroom in the 60's, it was rather common to
use water as the intermediary step. Then I read some of Ansel Adams' work where
he recommends the stop bath instead of water. Since then, I have been doing the
same.
The advantage of the stop bath is to assure consistency in your development
process. With water, developer action ceases but at a much slower pace. In
theory, you could be extending your development time ever so much.
For most films we process ourselves, this degree of being so critical is
probably not necessary. We really don't know the difference and probably
wouldn't know what to do with that difference.
Adams was a purist when it came to his work. He was meticulous and trying to
achieve precise results as well as predictable ones.
The secret to good lab work is to devise a system which works for you and then
do not deviate from it. Be consistent always and you will always get consistent
and predictable results.
On Fri, 11 May 2001 13:32:45 +0200, massimo lanzoni <mlan...@deis.unibo.it>
wrote: