DieterSchuld
Dear forum members, I am currently looking into the processing of Efke 25 and have come across advice to use Hüter. I’ve read “add a little Hüter”, “add 1%”, and the Tetenal bottle says “add 25 ml per litre”. What should I do now?
Kind regards,
Dieter Schuld
cfb_de
Hi Dieter,
As harsh as it may sound: add ‘a little’ and simply see how much is needed. At worst, it’ll cost you exactly two films.
No film manufacturer’s instructions can give absolute recommendations.
*With* Hüter, however, you’ll need to fix for three to five times as long and rinse for significantly longer.
Best regards,
Franz
P.S.: With the R50, I ignore all Hüter recommendations. I simply don’t use any. However, I also don’t use any of that film-stripping torture-tongs stuff.
fotohuisrovo
The use of a buffer results in longer fixing and washing times. As Efke emulsions are very soft and tend to scratch easily during development, these films must be handled with greater care.
As a buffer has a low pH, it is important to first adjust the developer to the correct concentration. Only then should the buffer be stirred in slowly.
Another advantage is that the film’s flatness improves. The downside is the longer processing times.
Good luck with your experiments.
Best regards,
Robert
Renate
Hello,
I have been looking into the issue of ‘buffers’ for some time now. Unfortunately, there isn’t much information on the subject in the literature.
I would strongly advise against using Geladur as a buffer. It is intended as an additive for the developer. Geladur essentially contains acetic acid, which has no place in a developer. The activity of a developer is controlled by its pH value. The pH value of developers is always above 8. Acetic acid lowers the pH value and thus the activity of the developer. If Geladur is added as instructed, the film remains completely undeveloped. Why acetic acid is contained in Geladur is a mystery to me. The stopping agent, glutaraldehyde, does not require acetic acid as an auxiliary substance. According to the literature, glutaraldehyde is a very good fixing agent that can be added to the developer.
I am currently using up my stock of Geladur as a stop bath with a fixing effect. I use 20ml of Geladur to 500ml of water. I cannot say how effective the fixing effect is, as I have not yet found a suitable test to assess it.
Inorganic fixers use chromium or aluminium compounds for fixing. This only works in acidic solutions, although an optimal pH value must be set for the fixing process. However, I have not yet carried out any experiments with this, and the literature only ever states that it works, not how it works. Even with Tetenal, I have so far been unable to find any truly useful information on the fixer they sell.
My films do not usually get scratched during development. Nor has the emulsion ever peeled off so far. It is only during enlargement that there is a risk of scratches. But I do not yet have enough experience with ADOX films to say for certain. I lack the time for systematic tests.
Best regards
Renate
Gast
Hi Deter,
I’ve been using Tetenal Hüter for ADOX 25 for years.
25ml per litre of fixer is fine.
I’ve never had any problems with scratches or during rinsing.
By the way: who actually came up with the idea of the ‘bad stop bath’?
So far, I’ve treated every Efke 25 with Indicet stop bath without any layer separation or other disasters!
Regards,
Wolfgang
DieterSchuld
Dear forum members,
Thank you very much for your helpful messages. So I’ll give it a go myself. I’m not quite sure how yet, but I suppose any scratches that appear will point me in the right direction. Thank you very much!
Dieter Schuld
camerafreak
Franz,
What would be the argument against using the hardening process with a modified two-bath fixing method?
That is to say:
1. Fixing stage: standard fixer without heat, standard fixing time, possibly 30% shorter
2. Fixing stage: heat-fixing bath, standard fixing time
I haven’t tried this procedure in practice yet, but it would be the most practical approach for me (though I am a black-and-white film user).
I’m not worried about the longer rinsing time either (it’s only two more button presses :-))
Regards,
Michael
MirkoBoeddecker
The issue with the soft emulsion really isn’t a problem if you work carefully.
We develop thousands of Efke films ourselves every year without any damage or scratches, despite using a squeegee.
The warnings in the catalogue are there because there were a few know-it-alls who kept pointing out on internet forums that ADOX films scratch more easily than Ilford.
They then took this as an opportunity to conclude that:
1) FOTOIMPEX is a dishonest company that misleads its customers
2) Ilford and Kodak produce better images because you only need to look at the coating once, etc.
I don’t think either of these can be linked to the coating in any compelling causal way, but at some point I just got fed up and included the whole fuss as a warning in the catalogue, giving ADOX two points as a reference for complexity of use.
Since then, things have been quiet and it doesn’t seem to have affected sales at all :)
Anyone who uses an exotic film doesn’t do so to get an image as easily and quickly as possible, but to take pictures that are a bit different from the average.
Minor variations in processing are simply part of the deal.
I have no problem pointing all this out in advance, and if there are any questions, they’ll be answered here.
I’ve been pointing out for years that things are only going to get more turbulent in the future. Anyone not prepared to experiment a bit will have to switch to digital sooner or later. All materials will be subject to greater fluctuations, and we’ll have to dig up a lot of the old photographic knowledge from the mid-20th century to navigate these pitfalls.
Back then, it was standard practice to water and dewater (rinse), briefly bleach as a fixing booster, and in any case to tone and carry out a water test, and so on and so forth...
None of that has been necessary since the early 1970s because the materials have been stabilised to such an extent through immense technological effort that it was possible to get by with just two sheets and without giving it a second thought.
With the collapse of the mass market, this effort will no longer be financially viable in the long term.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the pictures will be any worse now!
On the contrary!
Since its introduction, the quality of photography has been on a constant downward trend in exchange for greater user-friendliness and mass appeal.
We’re now swapping that back and focusing more on the process again, which means we’ll end up with more good pictures :)
We’ll do our best to communicate this knowledge in relation to our materials.
Besides, it’s great fun when you’ve successfully put something you’ve learnt into practice and are holding a rich, glossy print from ADOX CHS 50 roll film in your hands – one that’s just been selectively bleached and has undergone its first selenium toner.
That’s way more exciting than a run-of-the-mill PE print from chromogenic C41 film from a large-scale lab.
Best regards,
Mirko
cfb_de
Michael,
That sounds plausible. But I’d skip the second fixer and just use a separate stop bath before fixing. But as I said, I don’t use a stop bath at all and haven’t had any problems with soft film layers.
Mirko,
*That* is exactly why I enjoy working in black and white and don’t sit in front of a computer fiddling with digital images. And it’s not really that much of a problem if you simply accept that photography is a craft that can’t be mastered in three minutes. It’s not for nothing that it’s a trade or a degree course.
When it comes to cooking, wallpapering, driving (okay, unfortunately less and less of that these days), or learning foreign languages, everyone accepts that you have to learn the basics first.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
The "problem" with softer emulsions usually only arises with sheet film. With roll film or K.B., it still works fine under normal development times and processing conditions. It’s only at higher processing temperatures that it can become an issue.
Depending on how you develop large-format film, it may be advisable to use separators.
Dirty and hard scraping tongs are always a bad idea, with any film. It is best to avoid any mechanical contact with wet film emulsions altogether. But even I sometimes scrape a film. There are several processing methods for developing a film quickly, scratch-free and cleanly.
Best regards,
Robert
Gast
Mirko,
Don’t exaggerate – I’ve been taking photos since 1960 and have never done any of that ‘nonsense’ (pardon me) you’re describing. My father was already enlarging photos back in the 1930s and never did any of the things described there either (the negatives are still intact).
If you take even a modicum of care and don’t go at the films with brute force, it isn’t necessary – fixing, developing, bleaching, toning, water test, etc. – you won’t find that in contemporary literature either.
Who on earth is going to buy your products if you write things like that?
That won’t happen; perhaps each emulsion will have a different processing time, but otherwise?
Roland
PS: I don’t mean this in a bad way, but what is a customer supposed to think when the retailer (who wants to make a profit) tells such horror stories?
MirkoBoeddecker
Roland,
Hmm, it didn’t strike me as a horror story, and there’s still plenty to read about it in the literature from the 1990s.
After all, there’s a good reason why the Guardian is part of every photographic chemistry manufacturer’s range, and the same goes for Calgon and the selenium toner.
The question of whether one has made the right choice is one that preoccupies many, and it is surely undisputed that toner does exactly that and also stabilises the image.
All these things together are potential process stabilizers.
So first, soften the water (or perform dilution of 1+1 with distilled water) before preparing the developer; then, if necessary, protect the emulsion in the fixer or stop bath (also to prevent the negative from being scratched during enlargement); select thoroughly and (also because of the emulsion protection) test the rinsing; then, if necessary, give it a brief selenium toning to be on the safe side.....
If you do all that, nothing really can go wrong.
You then have to decide which of these steps are necessary in each individual case.
I don’t find it particularly fiddly; I’ve been working with one or more steps from the list for years just to be on the safe side.
Incidentally, this applies to all materials, not just ours.
I certainly didn’t mean to scare anyone with that. Thanks for the tip :)
If you have enough experience, like you do, you can skip most of it because you know what’s what.
But those with less experience have to rely on the process, and a process that’s as stable as possible helps them – unless they’re overwhelmed by the complexity. Then, of course, it’s a vicious circle.
Best regards,
Mirko
