fiber print washing

pmu · Jun 21, 2006

I would love to use fiber paper for my prints, but there is one thing that is not practical at all in my case; too long washing times... It takes too much time and it will cost me much since I have to pay for my water based on the amount how much I use it. Is there any tricks how to reduce the washing time and how to use less water? HCA of course, but anything else? Thanks.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 21, 2006

Check out the Ilford washing sequence. I'm not a fan (yet), but it uses the least amount of water. Combined with HCA, it should get you below a penny a print.

Claire Senft · Jun 21, 2006

look up hypo eliminator (HE1) on the net. Much more effective than HCA.

Ryuji · Jun 21, 2006

You can use fill-and-dump proceudure similar to what Ilford tech sheets mention for film. I'd replace water more frequently at the beginning, and less so at the end. An example is to use 1-3 min rinse after fix, 5-10 min wash aid, and fill-and-dump procedure with 1, 2, 4 and 4 min interval, all with good agitation. When I tested with my alkaline rapid fix and wash aid, this procedure left residual thiosulfate level well below 10mg/square meter of processed print, meaning that the washing is adequate for archival purposes.

Ryuji · Jun 21, 2006

Claire Senft said:
look up hypo eliminator (HE1) on the net. Much more effective than HCA.

Hypo eliminator was listed in old formulary but it is not recommended for current practice, as it is known to have some damaging effect to the image. HCA is the better approach.

unregistered · Jun 21, 2006

Ryuji said:
You can use fill-and-dump proceudure similar to what Ilford tech sheets mention for film. I'd replace water more frequently at the beginning, and less so at the end. An example is to use 1-3 min rinse after fix, 5-10 min wash aid, and fill-and-dump procedure with 1, 2, 4 and 4 min interval, all with good agitation. When I tested with my alkaline rapid fix and wash aid, this procedure left residual thiosulfate level well below 10mg/square meter of processed print, meaning that the washing is adequate for archival purposes.

PermaWashes cycle is 5 minutes wash, 5 minutes PermaWash, and 5 minutes final wash for archival prints. This is less time, and less water than the above. With strong agitation, both the wash cycles can be reduced to 4 minutes. And the wash rate is only 1 gal. per minute.

Ryuji · Jun 21, 2006

Alexis Neel said:
PermaWashes cycle is 5 minutes wash, 5 minutes PermaWash, and 5 minutes final wash for archival prints. This is less time, and less water than the above. With strong agitation, both the wash cycles can be reduced to 4 minutes. And the wash rate is only 1 gal. per minute.

Sure there are many variations that work, as long as you test to make sure that the procedure meets the residual thiosulfate level for archival standard. From my own tests I know what level of residual thiosulfate can be achieved with Kodak and Ilford procedures. They include a significant safety margin to exceed the 10mg/sq m level. I do the same for my product.

Increased agitation is effective in expediting RC and film washing, but fiber papers have a different factor that doesn't respond to increased agitation as much, during washing. I wouldn't count on extra agitation to cut the wash time from anything published by Ilford, Kodak or anyone else.

genecrumpler · Jun 21, 2006

I'd second the Ilford Procedure, as I have been using it for several years. It does cut processing and wash times significantly. I found the orginal published Ilford reports and read them before making the switch. I'm a Chemical Engineer with 40 years experience.

unregistered · Jun 21, 2006

I've done the tests and posted what I did because I know it works.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 21, 2006

Alexis

I took a look at your site. Very impressive!!!

As far as the washing goes, I suspect that your system works more because of the 5-minute intervals than the 'strong' agitation. The Ilford washing technique and its many variations are based on the process of diffusion. For it to work, you need a certain time in between water replacements for the chemicals to diffuse into the surrounding liquid, which is in average about 5 minutes. There is also some agitation required to always get less diluted liquid to the print surface at all times, but moderate agitation will do that. Increasing the agitation won't help. Your method can be improved by repeating your last cycle one or two more times, but to make a print truely archival one must tone the print.

unregistered · Jun 21, 2006

Thanks.

I am very familiar with diffusion washing.

PermaWash used to list the archival specification on their label, and a check on it when it did stated that the standard considered the highest you could get without toning a print, somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 years.

dancqu · Jun 21, 2006

Claire Senft said:
Look up hypo eliminator (HE1) on the net.
Much more effective than HCA.

IIRC, what amounts to a good washing precedes HE1
treatment. That treatment with hydrogen peroxide and
ammonia is intended to bring to Zero any sulfur remaining
in the paper. That has left me wondering what of the silver
that tags along. One thought is it's being oxidised then
complexed by the ammonia and washed out.

From Photo Tech. I've an article on toning where in it is
recommended that HE-1 be used prior to ANY toning.
Can be careful enough but just barely. Dan

dancqu · Jun 22, 2006

pmu said:
I would love to use fiber paper for my prints, but
there is one thing that is not practical at all in my
case; too long washing times

Is there any tricks how to reduce the washing time
and how to use less water? HCA of course, but
anything else? Thanks.

How about 12 to 20 hours if NO water were needed?
Would that be too much time?

Personally I don't care for the Ilford 5, 10, 5 minute
wash, hca, wash routine. I've other things to do while
prints wash. Of course NO water is not possible.

After an hca and rinse I place prints in a tray one at a
time. They are kept apart by use of hydrophobic fabric
sheets. Some water, a separator, a print, a separator,
and so on. Two trays are needed and three or four
transfers. Very little water is needed. You've the
trays and non-woven polyester is nearby. I call
it the Still Water Diffusion Method. Dan

Tom Hoskinson · Jun 22, 2006

Simple and elegant, Dan.

pmu · Jun 25, 2006

dancqu said:
After an hca and rinse I place prints in a tray one at a
time. They are kept apart by use of hydrophobic fabric
sheets. Some water, a separator, a print, a separator,
and so on. Two trays are needed and three or four
transfers. Very little water is needed. You've the
trays and non-woven polyester is nearby. I call
it the Still Water Diffusion Method. Dan

Actually I had something like that in my mind... I planned on using HCA, then rinsing and then putting the prints on a "flat bucket" filled with water -- and changing that water maybe 3 times within 24 hours. Good idea?

Ryuji · Jun 25, 2006

pmu said:
Actually I had something like that in my mind... I planned on using HCA, then rinsing and then putting the prints on a "flat bucket" filled with water -- and changing that water maybe 3 times within 24 hours. Good idea?

That approach works better if you get a water circulation pump for fish tanks, and keep the water flowing in the bucket. You can save time to 10-30min with maybe 4-5 times of water change, but to be sure of the technique with the particular setup, you should run a test.

If image permanence is important to you, as a general rule, I strongly recommend to run a test to see how much thiosulfate remains in the print after washing in your particular setup. If this is too much of a hassle to you, I'd rather recommend to stick with proven techniques (like Ilford or Kodak technique).

dancqu · Jun 26, 2006

pmu said:
Actually I had something like that in my mind...
I planned on using HCA, then rinsing and then
putting the prints on a "flat bucket" filled with
water -- and changing that water maybe 3
times within 24 hours. Good idea?

On a "flat bucket"? How about in a rectangular tub?
Say a shallow one like a processing tray. For 8x10s
good for 4 to 6 prints.

I think the separators I mentioned are essential
to a thorough whole surface still water wash. Also
with them less water is needed. Once I place the
prints with separator sheets I need not touch
them until transfer.

The material I've used so far is a thin non-woven
polyester batting material; extremely permeable. It is
used for quilting this and that. There is a break-in
time as they do not wet well when new. Small
entrapped air pockets can form. I've taken to
keeping them moist in a caped container;
ready to go.

Rinse, hca, rinse then a half hour for your first still
water diffusion wash. An hour for the next then over
night if that suits you. Suggested times. Dan

dancqu · Jun 26, 2006

Ryuji said:
...to be sure of the technique with the
particular setup, you should run a test.

I strongly recommend to run a test to see
how much thiosulfate remains ... after washing
in your particular setup. If this is too much of a
hassle to you,

Any particular test in mind? There are a few.
The hassel free is the silver for sulfur test.
Kodak's is the HT-2 and Ilford's version
has no name.

Kodak's test solution calls for silver nitrate
plus acetic acid while Ilford's uses only
silver nitrate. Dan

Ryuji · Jun 27, 2006

dancqu said:
Any particular test in mind? There are a few.
The hassel free is the silver for sulfur test.
Kodak's is the HT-2 and Ilford's version
has no name.

Kodak's test solution calls for silver nitrate
plus acetic acid while Ilford's uses only
silver nitrate. Dan

There are several tests that vary in sensitivity, accuracy and complexity. Silver nitrate test is least sensitive and least accurate but the simplest as well. It's best to use silver nitrate with acetic acid as in Kodak test formula, on well blotted sample, which is allowed to warm up to room temperature (if the water is cold).

Borohydride reduction test (methylene blue test) is more sensitive and accurate, but is also more complicated. There is another colorimetric test using iodine and starch. Each of these tests have its advantages and disadvantages. Older Crabtree-Ross test is not preferred. There are also other techniques developed to measure the washing properties. One technique was due to electric conductivity, developed by Green and Levenson of Kodak Harrow lab.

If you study the correct use of silver nitrate test (e.g. original report by Mattey and Henn in 1966), and use this method carefully, you can get enough sensitivity to ensure archival standard for residual thiosulfate. I would determine the point where you get 10mg thiosulfate per square meter is achieved, and add a significant safety factor to this level, just to make sure that no part of any print is substantially worse than this level.

The processing recommendations for Silvergrain Clearfix are designed to give 4mg or less of residual thiosulfate per square meter, when executed properly.

catem · Jun 27, 2006

Thanks for posting all this info here. It's easy to stick with old habits but this is making me think afresh - I particularly like the idea of separators which I haven't yet used, and will probably give it a try...
cate

Daniel_OB · Jun 27, 2006

To all said above I would add. To use min water pay (spend) is and my problem, and to many more too.
Custom made archival print washer could make a lot better things. Soon I will make one myself with water recirculation (not exchange) to take chamicals out of the paper and contamine recirculating water (by a very small pump running on timer for it spend too). After recirculating of contamined water for some time the valve can be opened for full exchange of water. The new batch now can recirculate to take further out of the papers (photographs). Three times exchange should zero papers contamination. This way one can get consistent and standard washing with really min cost. The only cost should be to build the washer and one have to be handy enough. And all can be combined with "washing aid chemical" too if it can drop the price of the procedure.

www.LEICA-R.com

Tom Hoskinson · Jun 27, 2006

Daniel_OB said:
To all said above I would add. To use min water pay (spend) is and my problem, and to many more too.
Custom made archival print washer could make a lot better things. Soon I will make one myself with water recirculation (not exchange) to take chamicals out of the paper and contamine recirculating water (by a very small pump running on timer for it spend too). After recirculating of contamined water for some time the valve can be opened for full exchange of water. The new batch now can recirculate to take further out of the papers (photographs). Three times exchange should zero papers contamination. This way one can get consistent and standard washing with really min cost. The only cost should be to build the washer and one have to be handy enough. And all can be combined with "washing aid chemical" too if it can drop the price of the procedure.

www.LEICA-R.com

Just remember that washing fixer out of film and paper is primarily a diffusion process. To be certain that your recirculating washing process is effective (and not contaminating your prints), you will need to test the washed prints for residuals.

Ryuji · Jun 27, 2006

Tom Hoskinson said:
Just remember that washing fixer out of film and paper is primarily a diffusion process.

That's only a half of the story. Washing process of fiber paper is actually a combination of desorption and diffusion. Of the two, desorption is the slower process.

Daniel_OB · Jun 27, 2006

The intention with a special washer is to keep the prints vertical and separated, and water moving most of the time, and as I remember it is more effective then to keep them one above another. In the tray the prints can stick to each other and prevent washing. Also if the prints are in still water air bubbles collect on the surface of paper preventing washing too for water cannot penetrate the paper. Also long time washing (say 12 hours) weakens emulsion which can show up as pill-off with time. So the washing should not last, say more then 2 hours. And even with archival washer water have to be exchanged completely at least 3 times.
- rinse all prints together in the tray once for c.10 min after last print is added to the tray.
- move prints to archival washer with circulating water with washing aid for around 8 min.
- drain the water and get new to circulate 10 min
- drain water and add selenium toner (1:20,...) for 8 min
- drain toner and get new water to circulate 10 min
- drain water add new and circulate for 10 min
- get prints out, remove water from the surfaces, let dry on air.

All together effective treatment is 1 hour per session
I think it could work with washing around 5-6 prints at once, with washer volume equal to volume of a tray.

It should yield 1-3 mg/m2, and once proved no more checking is needed. And it is 1 gal of water per print 11x14", or 1/2 gal per print for 8x10" print.

Daniel_OB · Jun 27, 2006

Alexis
You use a tray PermaWashes system. Do you talk about one print washing at the time.
When I print I make around 12-16 prints at once (around 4 different negs), and washing one by one can be very costly. Also washing all at once is even more costly for they will not wash.
Thanks

fiber print washing

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency