Discussing things is about (or should be at least) finding out how they really are.
Referring to an authority in the field, to their explanations of how things are, is a good thing.
But simply bowing to authority isn't very productive, is it?
The only way to know how a process works is to try out all possibilities to know why some things don't work.
In the book on pioneering Polaroid inventor Edwin Land (Insisting on the Impossible) it is stated that he liked the process of discovery through failure and would be upset if he immediately found the solution to a problem as it wouldn't give him the knowledge of the way all the variables could affect the process.
Also it's worth remembering that there doesn't have to be just one correct way to do things.
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
Ian - I think a lot of the recent popularity of the notion of using water baths is a combination of the "Book of Pyro" suggesting the use of the alkaline afterbath (used PMK developer) and Anchell and Troop's "Film Developer Cookbook" recommendation of an "all alkaline" film development process. Bill Troop suggested the use of waterbaths instead of stop bath with his alkaline fixers.
The plain water rinse stage,was once the norm, it goes back beryond the early days of the first dry (gelatin) plates, but these were dish developed or in racks and a water rinse was quick& easy, and efficient enough.
So historically a plain water rinse has long been understood to work, Film emulsions were far softer pre 1960's but by then Pyro developers or the older film developers like D72 had gone out of mass use.
The advent of 35mm and slow working carbonate free developers meant an acid stop bath could be used safely without fear of pinholes, and manufacturers began recommending them.
People are giving far to much importance to the Stop bath stage, it's "superfluous" as Mason states in Photographic Chemistry, and Kodak & Fuji think so too as they use no stop or rinse in their Roller Transport B&W processes.
Anyone making posts in this thread needs to take that into account before attacking the notion of using a water rinse instead of a stop bath, it makes all their statements farcical.
Rational discussion of the benefits/disadvantages are quite different.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
All I can say on my own behalf is that, I do not disagree with what Kodak or any other mfgr says. They say either can be used for film. They say that a stop should be used for paper.
A stop bath is not necessary at all, neither is a water rinse.
Mason states clearly the stage is superfluous to the overall processing of films or papers, and this is also backed up by both Fuji & Kodak who include no rinse or stop in their mechanic film processing data & Ilford who state that there should be no problem in machines with no facility for a stop bath. That's for films and RC papers.
Needs very good agitation to prevent dichrioc fogging.
We are talking about using a stop bath or water rinse not leaving the stage out:
A stop baths purpose is not the removal of all residual developing agents. There's insufficient time, this will continue during fixing and washing.
The purpose of a water rinse or stop bath is the slowing of development, which is more immediate with an acid stop bath
The second purpose of a water rinse or stop bath is minimising the carry over of developer into the fixer.
The advantage of a stop bath is that the pH of the film has been changed, so helping preserve the buffering of the (acid) fixer, potentially prolonging the fixers life & throughput.
Stop bath is detrimental with some soft emulsion films with certain developers, due to pin hole issues.
If no stop bath is used there have been reports of Dichroic fogging before an Alkaline/Neutral fixer, but in numerous threads Ron (PE) has always recommended the use of a stop bath before TF-4.
It's up to people to decide which of the manufacturers recommendations they use water rinse or stop bath
As Steve says:
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
The manufactures really know what they are doing. Follow the directions.
They recommend either, and historically the water rinse is the older and in just short 140 years hasn't been shown to be less effective particularly in terms of the long term stability of the film. There can be benefits for fixer life etc using a stop bath though.
There's a reference to Ansel Adams earlier in the thread and yet many of his great negatives and those of Edward Weston were made using a water rinse not a stop bath so take that into account in your choice.
Last edited by Ian Grant; 07-24-2010 at 05:29 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I use a stop. It is so dirt cheap, why not? The only time I have not used it was in deep tanks, so I didn't have to stand there for half an hour smelling 14 liters of it. I just went straight into the Kodak Flexicolor Fixer after the developer.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."