Why is it that there is such a cacophony of contradictory ideas regarding what is and isn't archival fixing. I poke around and find arguments about hardeners, number of fixer baths, water and acid stops, wash length. It seems given how long we have been processing film that there should be a rigorously defined best practice for post-development processing with image stability as its essential aim and resource efficiency as a secondary aim.
All I can say is I have a method, but I can't point to anything which says in believable terms it's good or not. So let me run over my understandings. 1) Two bath fix beats single bath fixation for amount of film fixed for a given volume of fixer. I believe Kodak to have issued a bulletin on this. 2) Hardening fixer is preferable. I have read stories that pre-hardened films aren't all they're cracked up to be. 3) Sodium sulfite rinse aids solve any mordanting problems with the hardners. 4) 0.7ug/cm^2 is a good residual thiosulfate. I would like a real number for image film, but found only a definition for microfiche. Anyhow, it seems there should be a single rigorous answer we can carve in stone for all time rather than lots of contradictory received wisdom. Post- development is not an aesthetic decision, but a decision about permanence; and so we should all be on the same page. What gives? -- Christopher Oliver Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
