After a brief discussion on the topic in another thread, I'm interested on getting more opinions. Personally I use a Kodak Indicator Stop Bath. This is more just because this was the first method I learned about. I know some swear there is no need for it and just use water baths, while I've read of some just using vinegar. I've also read about some films that you should not use a stop bath with such as Efke's R25/R50 films. Just curious what everyone else uses and your thoughts on it's necessity.

Aaron

Thanks for starting a new thread, Aaron.

I use a stop bath, but it's just water. Here's my understanding of stop baths. Obviously, they are intended to halt the effects of the developer after it is drained from the tank. Chemical stop baths do this immediately by neutralizing the developer. Water stop baths simply dilute and wash off the developer, and so the effects are not as immediate. I suppose the use of a chemical stop bath might be more important with more active developers...when your developing time is short. In practice, I don't know how much difference it makes. I think consistency is the key, because even if a small amount of development takes place after the developer is drained out, that will become part of your process if you do it the same way every time. Hopefully someone else can elaborate on this.

As far as I know, the only reason not to completely skip the stop bath step, is because your fixer will quickly become contaminated with developer, shortening it's life.

Paul

Stop bath neutralizes the developer and stops the development process.
And "Indicator Stop Bath, changes colors when it is exhausted.

This is a better explanation:
After the prescribed development time, the plate is placed in a dilute solution of a weak acid (usually acetic acid), known as stop bath. Most developers are active only when alkaline, so the stop bath immediately halts the conversion of silver halide to metallic silver grains. It then rinses most of the developer out of the gelatin.

I found it HERE (http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Media-Arts-and-Sciences/MAS-450Holographic-ImagingSpring2003/D09E5820-A84D-4F96-A36C-26A45792A3F7/0/holochembasics.pdf)
Brian

Sorry guys, I meant the necessity of a chemical stop bath over just water. I edited the title to clarify that. I know that some form of stop bath is needed though to stop the development process. There are a lot of variations/methods used though and wanted to see what other use in their routines.

As far as I know, the only reason not to completely skip the stop bath step, is because your fixer will quickly become contaminated with developer, shortening it's life.

Paul

Which in the long run will cost you more money!
$$$$$

Use a stop bath!
Brian

You can use water, only if you have no other choice, but I would proabaly soup it a lot longer in a water "stop bath" than I would a chemical one.
Brian

Paul I know you mentioned in the other thread about two 30 second water stop baths. Now do you just let water run through your tank or do you fill with water and agitate for 30 seconds each cycle or...?

Read this discussion from photo.net on using water versus a stop bath.
"Water instead of short stop when developing film" (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004tHM.)

Brian

Read this discussion from photo.net on using water versus a stop bath.
"Water instead of short stop when developing film" (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004tHM.)

Brian

That link isn't working:( :

We had a problem processing your entry:

Couldn't find message 004tHM.. It was probably deleted by the forum maintainer.

Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.

That link isn't working:( :
Hmmmmm?
It worked at first for me, but has been working off an on now.
Keep trying it too.
If you are familar with photo.net, look up stop bath there.
Find it by going through these options, Community > Forums > Large Format > Darkroom:film processing >
Maybe try this link too. http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004N5n
Make sense?
Brian

I never used a chemical stop bath, just water.
I just wash/drain several times before fixing.

That link isn't working:( :
I see you changed your avatar!
Now we know who we are dealing with!
:rolleyes: :D :p
Brian

Paul I know you mentioned in the other thread about two 30 second water stop baths. Now do you just let water run through your tank or do you fill with water and agitate for 30 seconds each cycle or...?

Immediately after draining the developer, I fill the tank with water and agitate for 30 seconds, about 1 inversion per second, then drain it. Then I do it again, but I'm not as careful to go for a full 30 seconds the second time.

Here's my logic (which could very well be wrong): As soon as you pour in the stop water, any developer that is on the outside of the film will be washed off and diluted to a point where it would take hours to actually effect the development. There is still developer that was absorbed into the emulsion, which will not wash off as easily. The time I spend agitating will remove most of it, but after 30 seconds or so, it's pointless, because that tiny amount of developer remaining inside the film emulsion will have exhausted itself by the time I'm through shaking the tank. So, I suspect a small amount of developing continues in the initial 30 second "stop" wash, but as long as I'm consistent with this process, it is factored in. I've never noticed any visible defects on my negatives, and I've never had a problem with premature death of my fixer. I hope there are no problems that I'm just overlooking.

Paul

Thanks Brian. That second article is a good read. Still can't get the first link to go through though :(

Thanks for chiming in Paul :D Good to see you over here :thumbsup: Just curious, was there any particular reason you used just water? Was it a preference thing or how your were taught or...?

I see you changed your avatar!
Now we know who we are dealing with!
:rolleyes: :D :p
Brian

There's a bigger version in my gallery titled "My Ugly Mug" if you need a closer look :p

There's a bigger version in my gallery titled "My Ugly Mug" if you need a closer look :p
I'll just stay with the avatar view, Thanks!:D :rolleyes: :p
You're in good company in that you, like the rest of (especially Paul) belong BEHIND the camera!
Just kidding Paul!
:thumbsup:

Brian

Immediately after draining the developer, I fill the tank with water and agitate for 30 seconds, about 1 inversion per second, then drain it. Then I do it again, but I'm not as careful to go for a full 30 seconds the second time.

Here's my logic (which could very well be wrong): As soon as you pour in the stop water, any developer that is on the outside of the film will be washed off and diluted to a point where it would take hours to actually effect the development. There is still developer that was absorbed into the emulsion, which will not wash off as easily. The time I spend agitating will remove most of it, but after 30 seconds or so, it's pointless, because that tiny amount of developer remaining inside the film emulsion will have exhausted itself by the time I'm through shaking the tank. So, I suspect a small amount of developing continues in the initial 30 second "stop" wash, but as long as I'm consistent with this process, it is factored in. I've never noticed any visible defects on my negatives, and I've never had a problem with premature death of my fixer. I hope there are no problems that I'm just overlooking.

Paul

Thanks for the explanation Paul :D

I'm curious about something though, are there any effects on final negatives going one way or the other? For example, will using a chemical stop bath give more grain or contrast over a water stop or vice versa?

I'll just stay with the avatar view, Thanks!:D :rolleyes: :p
You're in good company in that you, like the rest of (especially Paul) belong BEHIND the camera!
Just kidding Paul!
:thumbsup:

Brian

Hey no picking on Paul. A beard like that NEEDS to be photographed :eek: :wink: :D

Hey no picking on Paul. A beard like that NEEDS to be photographed :eek: :wink: :D


DOH! I forgot we had two Pauls in on this thread!
I meant "photophorous"!
I don't know the other Paul that well.
Brian

I was doing all my own chemistry.
Made up to formula from the raw chemicals (cheap).
The Ilford manual didn't mention acid stop bath, and since the fixer I as using was acidic too, I saw no need for extra expense.
First a fill and immediate drain to wash off developer.
Then a 30-60 second soak to get some more developer out of the emulsion before moving on to fixing.

Now 35 years later some of the negatives show signs of incomplete fixing.
I think I carried on using fixer after it was exhausted, rather than mixing up fresh each time.
Several films haven't survived well.

Thanks for the explanation Paul :D

I'm curious about something though, are there any effects on final negatives going one way or the other? For example, will using a chemical stop bath give more grain or contrast over a water stop or vice versa?

Now you are getting way over my head!
You might want to ask that on APUG.
Brian

Thanks for the explanation Paul :D

I'm curious about something though, are there any effects on final negatives going one way or the other? For example, will using a chemical stop bath give more grain or contrast over a water stop or vice versa?

I've never used a chemical stop bath, so I can't say for certain. But, I don't think grain and contrast would be affected. I suspect there is no difference at all, but if anything, using a water stop bath might equate to adding a few seconds to your development...which you would probably never notice.

I'd be interested to hear from someone who has tried it both ways. Seems like most people just go with what they were taught and don't experiment much with stop baths.

Paul

I was doing all my own chemistry.
Made up to formula from the raw chemicals (cheap).
The Ilford manual didn't mention acid stop bath, and since the fixer I as using was acidic too, I saw no need for extra expense.
First a fill and immediate drain to wash off developer.
Then a 30-60 second soak to get some more developer out of the emulsion before moving on to fixing.

Now 35 years later some of the negatives show signs of incomplete fixing.
I think I carried on using fixer after it was exhausted, rather than mixing up fresh each time.
Several films haven't survived well.

Thanks Paul! :D I've thought a few times about mixing my own stuff. Chemistry was always one of my favorite subjects...LOL

Your post leads me to another question now :o What happens to film over time when it hasn't been fixed properly? Does it just fade?

What happens to film over time when it hasn't been fixed properly? Does it just fade?

I don't know if fade is the correct term, I think it will show signs of discoloration, assuming it survives being exposed to light that long.
But you MIGHT, be able to fix and wash it again and it SHOULD be OK.
It's been a while since I have developed any film so I don't completely remember.
Brian

DOH! I forgot we had two Pauls in on this thread!
I meant "photophorous"!
I don't know the other Paul that well.
Brian

Ah ha! So you were talking about me. I wasn't sure.

Yeah, I don't like being in front of the camera...especially when someone else is behind it. But, I did take a couple of mirror shots to finish up that roll of Neopan 400. I might have to participate next time Adina starts up the SP thread.

Paul

Ah ha! So you where talking about me. I wasn't sure.




So now you catch up with things!
:rolleyes: :D :p
Brian

I don't know if fade is the correct term, I think it will show signs of discoloration, assuming it survives being exposed to light that long.
But you MIGHT, be able to fix and wash it again and it SHOULD be OK.
It's been a while since I have developed any film so I don't completely remember.
Brian

If it's not fixed properly, it will be cloudy. In this case, you can refix it later. I don't know how much later you can go, but I've heard of people refixing after weeks or a month. Assuming it was in the fixer for at least a minute or two, exposure to light shouldn't be a problem...unless you try to develop it again. :D

The problem The Wombat was describing sounds more like incomplete washing. Fixer is acidic and if it's not properly washed out it will slowly cause the plastic film base to deteriorate and become discolored, which can not be reversed.

Immediately after draining the developer, I fill the tank with water and agitate for 30 seconds, about 1 inversion per second, then drain it. Then I do it again, but I'm not as careful to go for a full 30 seconds the second time.

Here's my logic (which could very well be wrong): As soon as you pour in the stop water, any developer that is on the outside of the film will be washed off and diluted to a point where it would take hours to actually effect the development. There is still developer that was absorbed into the emulsion, which will not wash off as easily. The time I spend agitating will remove most of it, but after 30 seconds or so, it's pointless, because that tiny amount of developer remaining inside the film emulsion will have exhausted itself by the time I'm through shaking the tank. So, I suspect a small amount of developing continues in the initial 30 second "stop" wash, but as long as I'm consistent with this process, it is factored in. I've never noticed any visible defects on my negatives, and I've never had a problem with premature death of my fixer. I hope there are no problems that I'm just overlooking.

Paul

Paul thats a very interesting and well thought out process. I am inclined to try this with the new developer I have coming in (DiXactol) as its a dye based developer. As previously mentioned I would be a little leary of not using a chemical stop bath with a vigirous developer like d-76 or ID-11. Not to say it wouldnt work just fine...it just gives me pause.

So now you catch up with things!
:rolleyes: :D :p
Brian

Yeah, yeah...I know. :p

I'll start a new thread on this.
Because I want to try to recover them.

Using a chemical stop bath for film is a bit of overkill. Water works fine. A chemical stop is better suited for print processing, especially when you're in for a long darkroom session and/or re-use your fix. It prolongs the life of the fix...

To each his own, but using an indicator stop bath for tank processing kind of defeats the purpose. You can't see the chemistry to note a color change, and even if you could, you really should be working with fresh chemicals each time you process film.

Again, it's much better suited to a long print session where you can note the color change.

Boy, I can see I'll probably be spending a lot of time here to set you guys straight on all this stuff... :D

LF b/w films benefit from a stop bath to control contrast and negative density. The largest I shoot now is 4x5 and only a few dozen sheets a year. Water in sufficient enough quantity will 'stop' the development but over that large an area it can sometimes cause a difference in negative density from one side of the image to another.

You may not need to do more than a dip and dunk and then move to a flowing water tray before fixing. Lots of water is good, filtered or deionised or distilled or some such type depending upon you source. In this way sheet film is very similar to prints.

A key to doing color sheet film either positive or negative is temperature control and that is one place where distilled and deionized (most deionizer systems also distill unless they are an inferior filtration/osmotic unit) H20 works better. Water that is anionic/cationic -ly neutral maintains temperature better.

Asylum Steve mentioned fresh chemicals!! Yes, mix only what you need for a particular session if at all possible. If you trying to keep the cost down, one of the large charts for developing times gives numbers for dilute solutions and longer times. This will also provide much better control of the resulting negative.

One advantage to steel tanks is having several and, working in darkness of course, you can pull the spool and move it to another tank for each step that is prefilled with stop bath/water/fixer/water after the initial developer.

A tip/trick: If you have been working in very dirty conditions, use a steel tank and distilled water and rinse the film before developing. Yes, wet film! Dirt and dust can actually get stuck on the surface of your film and it will make on occasion make a 'murky' area. It will change your development times, so experiment and make notes based on you developer's molarity, temperature and agitation methods.

If you want to invest there are clean air systems that blow a flat stream of filtered air over film prior to developing but they can and do cause static without humidity control and then you are right back where you started with dust.

I've mixed some notes between b/w and color processes, but I believe they are clear. If not I won't be insulted if you ask or point out something I've twisted to and fro.

LF b/w films benefit from a stop bath to control contrast and negative density...

Good points. I should have mentioned my work was all b&w 35mm and 120 film. LF and color materials could well benefit from slightly different procedures.

I should also add that I always used a pre-soak of distilled water the same temperature as the developer. A good habit for anyone to get into. Even in normal conditions, developer coats the film more evenly when it's damp and softened a bit than completely dry...

From my limited experience, I don't see why reusing chemicals is such a bad thing provided that you keep an eye on them. I only reuse my stop bath and fixer. Developer, Hypo, and PhotoFlo are single use only. I test my fixer for exhaustion every other roll. When I mix a fresh batch, I stick in a cut piece of film and time it until it clears, usually about 1 minute. During developing, I do double what the test time was. When my test time reaches the 2 minute mark, I mix up a fresh batch of fixer and also mix up fresh stop bath. I suppose I could go even longer with my stop bath as I've never even gotten to the point the Indicator changes color.

I use stop bath too. I have heard you could just wash it out. But it is probaly the cheapest part of the process so I really don't see a reason to stop unless I am just out of stop bath. But maybe I should rethink it and just use water???????
Thanks for pointing all of this out. At least I know for sure I can just use water.

Thanks for pointing all of this out. At least I know for sure I can just use water...

Again, it depends on the way you process. When I souped my own bw film, I almost always pulled it, meaning I overexposed the shot (exposing for shadow detail) and underdeveloped it to keep the highlights from blowing out.

I used a very simplified zone system method, and in keeping with that, used a high-dilution developer at a relatively cool temp for a long developing time (again, this helps keep a wide dynamic range with lower contrast).

My point is water was fine as a stop, as the develpoment was slow.

Now, if I was using a high concentrate developer at a higher temp and short develop time, it would be much more important to halt that developing action more quickly. In that case, yes, I probably would use a chemical stop...

I always have used stopbath...somewhere in the process.:D I think it is important. My experience with large ortho negs from a graphic arts camera have instilled in me the need to ensure my chemicals are fresh and each process is insulated from the next. These are essentially line art, areas of clear film and black. I have had some of my exposures show areas of gray after developing because I did not mix new chemicals.

With 35mm negs I will be careful, unless its tri-x or plus-x, for some reason I will try anything with these films. I think because I bulk loaded them for most of my formative years, photographically speaking. I think Steve makes a good point, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. DRG also has a good point with the distilled/processed water. If you want to burn copper plates its the only way to go.