Alkali Fixers - The Myths & Legends

[lloydapug]

I got interested in non-acid fix a long time ago when I finally admitted to myself I couldn't take the smell of acetic acid any more. Darkroom odours in general were just no longer acceptable; the two biggest candidates for elimination were sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. Either one could stop me in my tracks with just one whiff.

(As an aside, I've only become worse as I've aged. The fabric they use for tee-shirt labels now sets my skin on fire, so I have to snip them out. Same for the label in underwear shorts. There's a product called Dawn for washing dishes; if it's in the room my eyes and face feel weird and I have to leave. For washing clothing there is Gain, whose smell gases me out ... fussy photog, eh?)

Anyway, to create sulfur dioxide all that's needed is sodium sulfite (maybe from the developer) and a little acid such as found in stop bath. A little dribble action in the sink while prints get moved and there it is. Hydrogen sulfide is less common but equally unacceptable. Please, no potassium polysulfide in closed spaces. Do it in the garden. Beans in confined spaces for lunch, anyone??

Basically, if you'll pardon the pun, to eliminate common odours from a regular darkroom, eliminate acid. I use plain tap water for stop bath (I use four changes of water in the tray; takes only moments.) I never use fix that has acid as a component. (Interestingly, Kodak Fix F6 truly is odourless even though it is acidic. Kodak F5, however, is eye-stingingly of academic interest only, and can be said to have been superseded by the superior new technology of F6.)

Working with a fix that contains no acid means no untoward gases will come out of it, and also that it will be very easy to use selenium toner after the fix.

I don't care if my fix is alkaline as long as it is not acidic. The fix I use is not particularly alkaline; it's probably close to neutral. It comes from the appendix to The Print by Adams; he called it plain fix. It's not quite plain: it consists of sodium thiosulfate and sodium sulfite. I never use hardener - hardener requires acid. Commonly available black and white films today don't really need hardener. Instead of sequestering agents and the like, I just make up my fix with distilled water. No tap-water roulette. Lake Ontario was long ago declared to contain dioxins. Too bad I have to bathe in it.

Adams' plain fix is cheap. I buy hundred pound bags of sodium thiosulfate and similar packs of sulfite. It's incredibly easy to mix up. There is no need to prepare liquid concentrates or do anything but keep the dry components dry until they're needed and then dissolve them in water. (I treat developers the same way. Just keep dry powders and mix up to working solution when needed. Nothing ever goes bad any more.)

I realize the discussion is at least partly about scientific investigation. My purposes are about practical operation of my own little darkroom space. Cheap, easy and odourless are requisites. Maybe odourless should go first.

I'm only talking about a 'regular' black and white darkroom. I know nothing of color darkrooms, and specialized processes like PMK have their own needs. For ordinary processing of Kodak, Ilford, etc., currently available black and white films and papers, special darkroom substances are not necessary. Such as acetic or citric or any acid.

Speaking of 'myths', there is the myth of high capacity. In a fix used by low volume workers like me, in a plain vanilla black and white darkroom, a high capacity fix is a liability. A low capacity fix is a legitimate tool. The high capacity fix just gets to sit around longer, gathering fixing by-products, aging, waiting to be 'used up'. The low capacity fix fixes a given amount of photosensitive material and is discarded. No time to decay. Over the eons I've found that if I am ready to do a serious darkroom session, I can make up my usual three liters of fix and it's fine for the amount of work I can do in a day or two. It almost always has enough life left to do a session of trials and tests and poking around preparatory to another 'serious' session, when I will mix another fresh batch. This is not an expensive way of working, since plain fix is so cheap, nor does it take up time, since it mixes up in a swish. Throwing it down the drain is not doing serious harm to the environment - it's only thiosulfate and sulfite. The problem effluent is silver compounds. The longer a fix sits around and the more paper (silver) that runs through it, the worse the silver complexes. Another reason for a low capacity fix.

There are good reasons for using non-acid fix in the darkroom, quite apart from considerations of fixing speed, capacity, etc. Elimination of darkroom 'fumes' (hateful word) is the number one reason for me. I'd pay a lot for a sweet atmosphere where I work, but it turns out it is cheaper.

There is also the improvement in the performance of selenium toner when no acid is present in the production environment. But that is another story.

(I've pontificated on my website about this and other subjects. Under the 'technical' button on the table of contents page.)

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
________________________________

[Keith Tapscott.]

I got interested in non-acid fix a long time ago when I finally admitted to myself I couldn't take the smell of acetic acid any more.

Working with a fix that contains no acid means no untoward gases will come out of it, and also that it will be very easy to use selenium toner after the fix.

I don't care if my fix is alkaline as long as it is not acidic.

There are good reasons for using non-acid fix in the darkroom, quite apart from considerations of fixing speed, capacity, etc. Elimination of darkroom 'fumes' (hateful word) is the number one reason for me. I'd pay a lot for a sweet atmosphere where I work, but it turns out it is cheaper.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
________________________________

Lloyd, there are so called odourless fixers that are commercially available that are acidic, but they use citric acid instead of acetic acid. Fotospeed FX-30 is a fixer of this type.
There is also Tetenal Super-Fix Odourless which is claimed to be pH neutral. Either of these fixers should make the darkroom a much more pleasant place and they provide good value for money if the larger sizes are bought.

[dancqu]

Lloyd, there are so called odourless fixers that are commercially
available that are acidic, ...
There is also Tetenal Super-Fix Odourless which is claimed to
be pH neutral.

There are those who take to odorless acidified fixes. A little
acid or neutral they are not alkaline. My guesstimate, Lloyd's
fix runs about ph 8 or very close to TF-3 and 4. Perhaps
Lloyd will supply us with his fix recipe. We both favor
VERY long lasting dry components and we both
disfavor odorous brews. Dan

[Photo Engineer]

Above pH 7, you have to contend with the odor of ammonia which increases with alkalinity. So, if you use ammonium thiosulfate, and the pH is alkaline, then you have to contend with an odor.

If you use Sodium Thiosulfate you have to have the patience and lifespan of Methuselah because Sodium Hypo fixers are so much slower than Ammonium based fixers.

PE

[Richard Jepsen]

In regard to DR odors I agree with the Lloyd's post. I switched to TF-4 and a water stop which solved my slight respiratory irritation. However, I exercise an abundance of caution and use a weak acid rinse for 8x10 or larger prints in a vented community DR vs my unvented DR at home.

[billtroop]

>However, (I may be wrong!) but I think the most valuable lesson we will ever be able to learn from you is how to think like a Kodak researcher.

Surely the best way to do that is to go and find out things? Just do it!

>Strange, but I feel that Kodak research was somehow better than the Kodak products that evolved from it.

That is true to the extent that thousands of fabulous products were developed and never sold. One example is Grant Haist's developer/fix-incorporated papers. In one invention, you process the paper for 30 seconds in sodium carbonate, wash for a minute, and the entire develop/fix/wash sequence is out of the way with no environmental hazard.

In a related invention, the paper is simply heated, to achieve develop, fixation, and archival stability.

These are expired patents. You can find them. What is more, you can make them. Grant made them in his garage, with off the shelf wallpaper equipment.

So? Go out and find them. If, that is, you're interested in something that was cutting edge 30 or 40 years ago. It's certainly a lot more cutting edge than anything being discussed here. We're talking about minute refinements of a completely conventional process here that is about 150 years old. Why not simply get rid of the chemistry as best we can, which means putting it into the paper, and leaving it there?

[Photo Engineer]

Bill;

As you know, but these people probably don't, I worked with Grant on a color version of the heat processed paper. Yes, it works and very well. I have hand coated and machine coated Grant's B&W paper using the isothiouronium blocked fixing agent, and phenidone for a developer. It takes about 10" of heat to completely develop and fix the paper and the results are surprisingly good.

BTW, this grew out of the Kodak Ektaline 2000 Oscillographic papers which used a single solution stabilzer and a heat drum. The chemistry was in a single "monobath" that was activated by heat.

There are literally thousands of potential new products that never saw the light of day.

PE

[Ian Grant]

Grant made them in his garage, with off the shelf wallpaper equipment.

I've got no wallpaper in my garage Troopy in fact all that's in there is my very low mileage Austin 1300GT.

But am churning my way through very interesting research & Patents particularly from Fuji on fixers Interesting that they think stop-bath type is very helpful.

But perhaps Fuji's research was more advanced

Ian.

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

Fuji continues to work on thermally processed B&W products. I have that directly from Tadeki Tani himself.

After thinking about this, I'm adding a bit more.....

If Fuji research was so good, how come the thermally processed materials were first invented elsewhere, how come DIR couplers and color stabilizers were invented elsewhere. At one time, Kodak R&D was over 20 years ahead of Fuji. It took them a concerted effort to catch up and many man years of work.

We had reports that some of their engineers in R&D were working for 24 hours on their projects with cots in their offices, and their wives bringing them fresh clothing along with packets of food. This was all in the name of catchup. It was not anything superior, it was intensity and concentration.

PE

[Ian Grant]

There's something about the Japanese, they have something missing in the West, but they are canny. (Like the Scots).

Ian