Am I rinsing wrong?

Rick A · Jul 24, 2013

Ilford's washing recommendation for non-hardening rapid fixer is 5-10 minutes in running water that is within 5 degrees of the processing temp. They also show a water saving system of washing called the 5-10-20 method.Fill the tank with clear water and invert 5 times, dump, refill and invert 10 times, dump, refill and invert 20 times. Now you are ready for the final photo-flo rinse and hang to dry. I use the 5-10-20 method with TF-4 and Ecopro Neutral fixers.

removed account4 · Jul 24, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I re-use it for a while. Seems good till it stops bubbling, when the soap suds are gone, it's not working ... That's how I figure it, so basically when the fixer goes, it's time for a new batch of stop and hypo-clear

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

if you use SPRINT stop, when the stop indicates ... the developer, fixer, stop and fix remove can be changed .. it indicates EVERYTHING

fotch · Jul 24, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
If you are not interesting between rinsing and washing, then I will step back, but the misuse of this temr can cause confusion. If you are interested then I will continue.

PE

Please do so.

Mark Feldstein · Jul 24, 2013

Rick A said:
. . .They also show a water saving system of washing called the 5-10-20 method.Fill the tank with clear water and invert 5 times, dump, refill and invert 10 times, dump, refill and invert 20 times. Now you are ready for the final photo-flo rinse and hang to dry. I use the 5-10-20 method with TF-4 and Ecopro Neutral fixers.

Very interesting. With a few modifications to the above noted technique which, coincidentally, is very popular with Tahitian faith-healers, while shaking the tank over your head and alternatively jumping up and down on one leg spinning in a circle and chanting the following: "Spunkwater spunkwater imjin meal shorts ! Spunkwater spunkwater swallow these warts !!!" [Mark Twain in Tom Sawyer]

Likewise used by tribal leaders in the Amazon AND photographers alike, this age old cure for plantars warts also cures hoarseness and sleeplessness. Honest. Really. Try it but not with prints in trays larger than 8x10 unless filled with warmer water.

As a side note, are you guys diluting your hypo clear agent differently for prints versus film? Also, are you testing your fixer for strength or exhaustion?
Mark

mr rusty · Jul 24, 2013

I have been using Ilfords 5-10-20 method except I do it 10-20-30 as I figure the extra can't do any harm! Then I take off the reel, and rinse with photoflo. Hopefully this is an OK method of washing - no sign of deterioration yet, but my oldest negs aren't 2 years old yet..........

DLawson · Jul 24, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I don't understand this, water from the tap flows underground lower than 6 feet, so the temp should be 55-60 degrees standard at all times (once you run through what's in the house pipes, but if you want hot water you have to wait till it gets to the fresh hot water also) so saying its. 72 or more doesn't make sense to me...

That depends a lot on other details of the water system, and when you are using it.

My water flows to the house several feet below ground, but most of that journey being in large-ish pipes (hence slower heat exchange), and it is coming from above-ground water tanks less than a mile away. Especially during hours when other people in the neighborhood are up, the tank temperature is the main factor.

I don't get 72F in summer (I don't think), but it is under 50F in February most years. I think I've had warmer summer water when I got water from surface reservoirs (otherwise known as lakes).

In the summer, my wife and I can comfortably take consecutive long showers in the summer. In the winter, whoever is 2nd better wait a half hour.

StoneNYC · Jul 24, 2013

jnanian said:
if you use SPRINT stop, when the stop indicates ... the developer, fixer, stop and fix remove can be changed .. it indicates EVERYTHING

I don't use those, I use Ilford mostly, and mostly because I want to support Ilford, I do test my fixer with that indicators drop stuff. I figure if the fixer is bad, the stop and clearing agent probably aren't doing so well, maybe the stop will last a long time, I don't know, but I've never had a really hard time with this method.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Roger Cole · Jul 24, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I don't use those, I use Ilford mostly, and mostly because I want to support Ilford, I do test my fixer with that indicators drop stuff. I figure if the fixer is bad, the stop and clearing agent probably aren't doing so well, maybe the stop will last a long time, I don't know, but I've never had a really hard time with this method.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Careful with that hypo test. I used it for years but started getting staining before it showed exhaustion. I now discard print fix well before the hypo check indicates, based on the published capacity figures. Film fix I will discard when the clearing time exceeds half the time I give or when the hypo check indicates, whichever comes first.

Photo Engineer · Jul 24, 2013

Mason, in his book on B&W processing appears to disavow the Ilford method even though he is from Ilford.

So, if you are washing a bunch of prints, I suggest that you use the retained hypo test to see how good the wash was. And while you are at it, use the retained Silver test to see how good fixation was.

Any wash aid only adds to your chemical load on the sewage system that you use. It adds more chemistry that you have to stock and use. It is virtually useless or un-needed with today's RC papers, and is questionable with FB prints. I have never, ever used it and I have fine keeping.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jul 24, 2013

The exhaustion test for hypo is virtually useless. It is just Potassium Iodide in water.

A better check is to use a strip of unprocessed film and compare the clear time of fresh fix with your used fix. If bad, the clear time goes up by 2x to 4x or the the film does not clear at all. If it goes to 2x or 4x, you might still have usable fix, but you have to make a drastic change in fix and wash times.

This hypo exhaustion test is NOT the same as the retained hypo test or the retained Silver test.

PE

Roger Cole · Jul 24, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Mason, in his book on B&W processing appears to disavow the Ilford method even though he is from Ilford.

So, if you are washing a bunch of prints, I suggest that you use the retained hypo test to see how good the wash was. And while you are at it, use the retained Silver test to see how good fixation was.

Any wash aid only adds to your chemical load on the sewage system that you use. It adds more chemistry that you have to stock and use. It is virtually useless or un-needed with today's RC papers, and is questionable with FB prints. I have never, ever used it and I have fine keeping.

PE

Wash aid is useless?

With RC paper that's commonly known and I don't know of anyone who uses it.

But for FB the article "Secrets of the Vortex" some years back presented the results of extensive testing and found that it was virtually impossible to get a truly thorough wash without it, no matter how long one washed and even a fair wash was shortened dramatically. Also, a wash aid can be as simple as sulphite in water, the stuff they used to spray on salad bars until the fact it gave some people headaches stopped (mostly?) that practice. Is this really an environmental load to be concerned with?

Photo Engineer · Jul 24, 2013

Roger, just run a retained hypo test to see if you have archival FB prints. I'll bet you do even with a short (relatively) wash.

As for Sulfite, it is oxidized to Sulfate in water and thus consumes oxygen needed by living organisms. In streams it will kill plant life and fish. In the sewage system it will kill the sewage bacteria used for treatment or it will short circuit oxegenation. Of course, this is all relative, but every bit hurts depending on your local sewage system and usage. Some cities prohibit dumping any chemistry and so your costs for disposal go up. I don't need to describe what the peroxide based chemistry does. You should know that.

PE

Roger Cole · Jul 24, 2013

Well yeah, but the peroxide is for hypo eliminator, no? No longer recommended and I've never known anyone who used it.

cliveh · Jul 24, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Well yeah, but the peroxide is for hypo eliminator, no? No longer recommended and I've never known anyone who used it.

I think hypo eliminators, or any extra chemicals used within the process of film is bad news. Why not keep things simple? Water is a universal solvent.

Roger Cole · Jul 24, 2013

BTW, the article I referred to is over on FADU here:

Mysteries of the Vortex, Part I

Mysteries of the Vortex, Part II

You don't have to be logged in or have an account there to read these, best I can tell.

From the conclusions page, here is the comment on wash aid:

Use hypo clearing agent

The benefits of using hypo clearing agent are so dramatic in terms of time and water saved that it is pointless to aim for a high standard without employing this step. If for some reason you need to use hardeners in the fixer, hypo clearing should be considered especially obligatory. As I said in Part 1 of this article, the importance of this step cannot be overstressed: the use of hypo clearing agent is absolutely essential to good washing technique.

Not to dispute Ron's vast experience and knowledge but I wonder why two experienced workers doing careful tests arrive at such different conclusions?

Roger Cole · Jul 24, 2013

cliveh said:
I think hypo eliminators, or any extra chemicals used within the process of film is bad news. Why not keep things simple? Water is a universal solvent.

I agree about hypo eliminator - they found years ago that a small amount of retained hypo was actually beneficial and hypo eliminator has not been recommended in decades. But wash aid, or Hypo Clearing Agent, to use the Kodak term, is a different chemical that I've always considered essential for fiber based prints.

Roger Cole · Jul 24, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
That article was Vestal, right? Not necessarily the best source when it comes to scientific aspects of photography.

No. Martin Reed of Silverprint. AFAIK Vestal had nothing to do with it.

Photo Engineer · Jul 24, 2013

Roger, HE was already mentioned in this thread by inference and name. One individual "waited for the bubbles to stop" was I think, the phrase that pointed me in that direction. Sorry if I erred.

As for the "2 investigators", the test solution gives an instant reading but my tests also included long term keeping of the final print and it shows a different story. As for the front and back differences, one of the existing texts shows that the Baryta tends to hold onto hypo-Silver complexes better than the paper itself, but then the paper sizing has a bit to do with hypo retention. As for long term keeping, it varies with fix and with HQ and Metol retention. This was considered in my tests in terms of the long term keeping.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jul 24, 2013

Michael, this is right. I am not saying you must not use an HCA but rather that you need not use it. A lot of the emphasis on HCAs is hype IMHO. I've got prints that are 65 years old that I processed and older ones that my uncle processed and none of them used HCA. In fact, it was unheard of back then and even earlier. And yet we have 100 year old prints and they never saw an HCA. They were just washed!

PE

Roger Cole · Jul 25, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Roger, HE was already mentioned in this thread by inference and name. One individual "waited for the bubbles to stop" was I think, the phrase that pointed me in that direction. Sorry if I erred.

As for the "2 investigators", the test solution gives an instant reading but my tests also included long term keeping of the final print and it shows a different story. As for the front and back differences, one of the existing texts shows that the Baryta tends to hold onto hypo-Silver complexes better than the paper itself, but then the paper sizing has a bit to do with hypo retention. As for long term keeping, it varies with fix and with HQ and Metol retention. This was considered in my tests in terms of the long term keeping.

PE

I'm pretty sure the bubble comment was in reference to the foaming of Photo-Flo.

How cheap can you get to reuse Photo Flo? I mix to half the recommended strength, because I get streaks and marks at full strength, and toss after one use. It's so cheap it might as well be free.

StoneNYC · Jul 25, 2013

Roger Cole said:
I'm pretty sure the bubble comment was in reference to the foaming of Photo-Flo.

How cheap can you get to reuse Photo Flo? I mix to half the recommended strength, because I get streaks and marks at full strength, and toss after one use. It's so cheap it might as well be free.

I thought he meant my comment about how I re-use the hypo-clear until it stops being soapy and then I figure it's done. I could be wrong...

Roger Cole · Jul 25, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I thought he meant my comment about how I re-use the hypo-clear until it stops being soapy and then I figure it's done. I could be wrong...

Hypo-clear should not be soapy to start with. I saw that and assumed you meant Photo-Flo.

Perma-wash is a "soapy" and "bubbly" wash aid, used like hypo clear but not, strictly speaking, hypo clear. The manufacturer makes all kinds of claims for it. I don't personally believe them and I don't think many others do either. It seems to be surfactants, which is very different from the way regular "hypo clear" works.

Are you using the wash aid product called Perma-Wash? Is that what you mean?

hoffy · Jul 25, 2013

mr rusty said:
I have been using Ilfords 5-10-20 method except I do it 10-20-30 as I figure the extra can't do any harm! Then I take off the reel, and rinse with photoflo. Hopefully this is an OK method of washing - no sign of deterioration yet, but my oldest negs aren't 2 years old yet..........

I think that you will find there are quite a few of us who use that method - mine is until the 2 jugs of water that I have filled for washing is done, which is usually 5-10-20-30-30

StoneNYC · Jul 25, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Hypo-clear should not be soapy to start with. I saw that and assumed you meant Photo-Flo.

Perma-wash is a "soapy" and "bubbly" wash aid, used like hypo clear but not, strictly speaking, hypo clear. The manufacturer makes all kinds of claims for it. I don't personally believe them and I don't think many others do either. It seems to be surfactants, which is very different from the way regular "hypo clear" works.

Are you using the wash aid product called Perma-Wash? Is that what you mean?

I'm using Ilford wash aid...

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Photo Engineer · Jul 25, 2013

Well, it looks like there was some confusion over the bubbly solution comment. Sorry if I erred.

Now, back to the Sulfite washing aid. This and several other salts will accelerate washing. The same thing is achieved by the use of an alkaline or neutral fix. However, for those concerned, if you use the guidelines regarding the Kodak retained hypo test you will see that the "acceptable" level is still colored a bit indicating that some level of hypo is acceptable. And the tests that Ctein made and wrote up shows us that some low level of hypo is needed for archival stability for the prevention of bronzing and other undesirable effects.

I can add this. I have worked in three production labs, and I have prints from all of them that date from the 60s. None used any sort of wash aid and all were on FB paper. All are just fine. Some are on display and others are in albums or boxes. There is no problem. We did not use it at EK in our processes either.

PE

Am I rinsing wrong?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency