Fixer, hardener or not?

I read in Popular Photographer (and older issue) not to use the

hardener given with Kodak Rapid Fixer, saying that it shortens the

life of modern black and white films. I've been adding the hardener

to my fixer since I've began using the rapid fixer. Is this true?

and should I not be using it? I shoot TMax100 and Tri-x 400. Thanks

 

Brian

I don't know if it is true or not but I regularly use the hardener with my films. I shoot Efke and I find that without the hardener the film scratches easier. Some people say yes to hardener, and some say no. I think it is more of a matter of personal preference and what kind of film you are using.

I would say use it for the films and NOT for Paper. The hardener will make selenium toning less effective for papers.

I regularly use a fixer very similar to Kodak Rapid Fixer without the hardener incorporated for my film with no problems at all. In fact, it works better (faster anyway) than the pre-packaged, hardener incorporated, sodium thiosulfate based fixers that a lot of us old-timers cut our teeth on with the films you mention. Hardeners offer some scratch protection to the emulsion, and no protection to the support, only while the film is wet. Once dry, the hardener provides no residual scratch resistance. Since I switched over to non-hardening fixers I've never had a problem with scratches to the emulsion that were not due to unusually rough handling on my part. There are some exceptions. Efke and perhaps Forte films are said to have exceptionally soft emulsions and, if that's true, would benefit from having a hardener incorporated into the fixer. Otherwise, don't bother. Use of hardening fixers do require longer wash times, and improperly washed negatives will not last very long at all.

Try it without the hardner and see if you get scratches. Don't use it if you don't

need it.. it is just more toxic crap to pour down the drain.

I have been using Kodak Rapid Fix for many, many years. There is no problem with using the hardner with film. I also use it with paper with no hardner. As stated befor, this makes the paper much easier to tone.

I just tossed the hardener all together with no ill effect - only used it for Kodak films anyway. Now that I don't use them, I haven't even thought of this issue. I use Ilford rapid fixer and it works great, negatives are nice and durable.

Modern films are much tougher than the older ones so hardener is not really necessary. In any event a hardened film is more difficult to wash thoroughly so you may eventualy see problems due to fixer remaining in the negs.

Modern films don't need it, only old-fashioned films like Efke KBxx. Tri-X counts as a modern film for this purpose.

Harden a film and you won't be able to go back and tone it. If that's an issue

at all. Copy above, less chemistry down the drain. But this stuff shouldn't go

to the drain anyway.

<p>I am noting a fair amount of confusion about fixer and hardener as it relates to various products. <p>

Please allow me to clear up some facts. Older technology films utilized 'animal gels' in their emulsions. Those films all need hardener as animal gels absorb water based chemicals and become tacky and soft in the process. The tackiness can cause jamming in processors and the utilization of hardener can have minor impact on drying times and transport in dryers.<p>

If one omits the hardener in the fix, animal gelatin designed films tend to scratch and get stuck in the dryer adhering to and wrapping around hot rollers. Several manufacturers have always utilized animal gelatins and continue to do so. Animal gelatins offer the advantage of quick absorption of hydroquinone and enhance contrast. The downside is all of the issues that come with hardener itself and the softer emulsions.<p>

Fuji is one company that has historically stuck with animal gelatins. Animal gelatins are also prone to causing larger moisture/humidity size holding issues as animal gels expand and contract more quickly than the alternatives.<p>

The alternative technology to animal gelatins is synthetic gelatin. These are made without any use of animal products. No cows are killed to create synthetic gelatins which are PETA friendly products. Synthetic gelatins not only do not require hardener, but hardener has virtually no impact on a synthetic gelatin base. As I am reluctant to make broad statements about every film in the market, one can check with their manufacture to inquire about the need for hardener.<p>

We have found that the best fixer available in the market is that sold by #1 Network dealers under the #1 Network brand. <a href="http://www.number1network.com/">www.number1network.com</a> This fixer was designed for X-Ray film which has emulsions on both sides. The fixer comes with or without hardener as requested by the customer. If one has a fixer that comes with hardener it is generally not complicated to dispose of the product. The active ingredient in hardener is very similar to a product utilized to make dill pickles. It is what makes your mouth pucker when you eat the pickle.<p>

Except for the PETA concern there are very few significant differences between animal gel and synthetic gel films or papers. Each technology has minor advantages.<p>

Synthetic gels hold size significantly better than animal gels. Synthetic gel products a less prone to scratching and are considered to be more consistent and predictable to manufacture. Animal gels are easier to coat and miniscule impurities in the animal gelatin can work to enhance the silver response producing higher densities with equivalent quantities of silver. A manufacturer might chose to coat with an animal gel allow the utilization of less silver but produce a similar effect to a higher silver synthetic gelatin product.<p>

To my knowledge Eastman Kodak began a project back in the mid-80’s to become an 100% synthetic manufacturer, but has never to my knowledge, capitalized on this feature. As a sympathizer with PETA I appreciate their good citizen efforts although it seems to have meant little in the marketplace.<p>

Bob Roberts</p>