BW: Fixer/hardner or just fixer

[Ken Smith]

Getting ready to develope my first BW film since 30 years ago. Will be using Kodak Rapid Fixer/Hardner. Should I include the hardner or skip it? What are the pros and cons of both routes? Film will be 120 if that matters.

Thanks

 

[Melvin]

Hardener is desirable when processing film to avoid scratches. The reason for leaving it out is if you are fixing prints that will be toned. Sources: Adams' The Print and Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook.

In my experience the larger the format, the more prone the negs are to scratching. If I were processing 4x5 I would definitely use hardener, but with 35mm I usually don't.

 

[jordanstarr]

I imagine it will depend on the type of film you are using as well. Ilford FP4 and HP5 sit flat and as long as you don't mishandle your negatives and keep your camera clean, you shouldn't have scratches.

 

[oftheherd]

Just to make it even more confusing, some films are specifically said by their manufacturer to be processed w/o hardener. Unless that is the case, I always use hardener. More out of habit that having experimented to find any advantages or disadvantages. It's just the way I started and i haven't changed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ken,

Skip it. Modern films DON'T need hardener unless the manufacturer specifically recommends it. AA's advice is frankly out of date. One of the changes that was made with the last iteration of Tri-X, for example, appears to have been on-line hardening. Reticulation disappeared at the same time.

And, as Oftheherd says, some manufacturers (most notably Ilford) specifically counsel against it. Hardening greatly lengthens wash time -- you can't use the Ilford wash sequence -- which means, of course, that the emulsion is greatly softened by the prolonged soaking, so it needs the hardener...

I've not used it in 30+ years, on any format from 16mm to 12x15 inch, and I've only ever had scratches from the camera/cassette (which obviously are there before you process) or from clumsy handling of LF (which are normally acquired during processing, usually before fixing).

The impression I've gained over the years -- and it is no more than an impression, not a detailed survey -- is that nowadays hardening vs. not hardening is a sort of cultural historical accident, with many more Americans (and possibly Japanese) believing in it than any other nation(s). Why? Dunno, but as I say, that's my impression, and one that a couple of manufacturers and distributors share, when I've discussed it with them.

Look at it this way: if hardener really were useful, it wouldn't be an option. But if you know that some of your customers have a blind prejudice in favour of it, you give 'em the option.

Cheers,

R.

 

[maddoc]

I have never ever heard a Japanese photographer (who is developing BW films by himself) speaking about using hardener for his films. 😕

 

[ChrisPlatt]

The APX clones sold after AGFA went bust reportedly scratch fairly
easily and probably would benefit from the use of a hardening fixer.
I suspect the same applies to other Eastern European films too.

Chris

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have never ever heard a Japanese photographer (who is developing BW films by himself) speaking about using hardener for his films. 😕

Dear Gabor,

Well, my information about Japan was second-hand, and I can't remember where I heard it, which was why I said 'and possibly Japanese'. Your version sounds a lot more believable.

Cheers,

R.

 

[skibeerr]

Adox and Efke advice the use of hardener because of their old school emulsions.

 

[Dante_Stella]

The typical reason given not to use hardener is that it makes it harder to archivally process the film (I disagree - buy some Perma-Wash, and that's that). I'm sure there is some discussion about some films not needing it - but most fixers include it, so it's something of a moot point.

I don't think that archival life is an issue anymore. Realistically, most film shot today is scanned (all color film going into minilabs is scanned too) - and the possibility of scratches is a here-and-now proposition.

By contrast, in a couple of decades, when there are no more enlarger bulbs, possibly no remotely affordable silver-based paper, and no competent film scanners on the market, whether you decided to extend the life of the negatives by 10 years (from, say, 30 to 40) is going to be a moot point.

I know from personal experience that even with careless b/w processing, you can get at least 20 years out of a negative - as my negatives from high school attest!

Dante

Getting ready to develope my first BW film since 30 years ago. Will be using Kodak Rapid Fixer/Hardner. Should I include the hardner or skip it? What are the pros and cons of both routes? Film will be 120 if that matters.

Thanks

 

[Ken Smith]

Thanks gentlemen. I'll skip the viagra for film.

 

[Chris101]

Dear Gabor,

Well, my information about Japan was second-hand, and I can't remember where I heard it, which was why I said 'and possibly Japanese'. Your version sounds a lot more believable.

Cheers,

R.

I don't know any Americans either, who add hardener, unless it's called for. Most of us have those little bottles of sulfuric acid sitting around, unopened.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't know any Americans either, who add hardener, unless it's called for. Most of us have those little bottles of sulfuric acid sitting around, unopened.

It shouldn't be sulphuric (or even sulfuric) acid! The usual hardeners, as far as I recall, are alum or formalin. On looking up the chemistry, I see that although they toughen the dry emulsion, they lead to additional swelling during fixing, thereby rendering the wet emulsion more vulnerable. As far as I can see, therefore, unless you habitually mistreat dry negatives, there's not much excuse for hardening.

As I say, it was just an impression that it was more popular in the USA, and I've not discussed it with manufacturers/distributors for years, so I'm delighted if (a) I was wrong all along or (b) I used to be right but people have since come to their senses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sahe69]

Adox and Efke advice the use of hardener because of their old school emulsions.

And for a good reason. My experience with the Efke (CHS) films is that they scratch very easily. Hence I use a hardener with those, but never with any modern emulsions (i.e. Agfa/ Kodak / Fuji / Ilford BW films)

 

[Chris101]

It shouldn't be sulphuric (or even sulfuric) acid! The usual hardeners, as far as I recall, are alum or formalin. On looking up the chemistry, I see that although they toughen the dry emulsion, they lead to additional swelling during fixing, thereby rendering the wet emulsion more vulnerable. As far as I can see, therefore, unless you habitually mistreat dry negatives, there's not much excuse for hardening.

As I say, it was just an impression that it was more popular in the USA, and I've not discussed it with manufacturers/distributors for years, so I'm delighted if (a) I was wrong all along or (b) I used to be right but people have since come to their senses.

Cheers,

R.

Hey Roger - according to the MSDS, hardener (Kodak Rapid Fixer, part B) is ~15% aluminum (or aluminium) sulfate, ~15% sulfuric acid, with the rest being water. Back in Ansel Adam's day, Americans probably did use hardener more. In the 1970s and 80s I used it, because our film god in Carmel said to do so.

 

[maddoc]

or formalin.

Dear Roger,

indeed for C-41 processing it is recommended to ad 5 vol % formalin to the wetting agent solution. The formalin acts as a stabilizing agent for the dyes in the emulsion.

Gabor