fiber print washing

[unregistered]

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

I couldn't make any money and stay in business if I did one at a time. After fix, I put the prints in a tray of water that I occasionally dump part of and refill. The prints are in there for a long time...at least 5 hours, till I'm done printing, or have enough to fill up a archival print washer. I then take them to the wash area and put them in a tray of permawahs, and flip thru them, like constant agitation doing sheet film in a tray, for at least 5 minutes, but usually a tad more. Then into the archival washer for 5 to 10 minutes. I can't remember what gal/liter per minute I use...its just a line on the meter and I just turn on the valve till the floater is at the line.


"Also washing all at once is even more costly for they will not wash."

What do you mean by this? In an archival verticle print washer, of course they all wash properly.

 

[MikeM1977]

Use an alkaline fixer like TF-4.

Reduces the required washing time of acid fixes.

 

[dancqu]

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.

Diffusion is movement. In solution particles DO move
from areas of greater concentration to areas of lower
concentration. Water molecules move into the paper
and molecules and ions of chemistry move out into
the body of the surrounding fluid. Agitation/flow
of the whole of the fluid is NOT required.

A good rinse and a long soak would do the job if it
were not for a print's extreme cleaning needs. RAPID
this and SPEEDY that sums up a lot of the chemistries
and methods employed. Dan

 

[Ryuji]

Agitation/flow of the whole of the fluid is NOT required.

However, without sufficient agitation of the bulk water, the diffusion itself slows down and the proper washing will take much longer time.

 

[Jim Jones]

After fixing I rinse prints a minute or two in water and transfer to a water holding bath. When all prints are in the holding bath, I drain them and transfer fiber prints to a washing aid or RC prints to a tray of clean water. Washing is finished in trays with the prints shuffled every minute or two. After several minutes, they are drained and transfered to another tray of clean water. This is repeated several times for fiber prints. Draining the prints between trays might be more efficient than an archival washer. I don't test the prints for residual fixer, but haven't noticed problems in prints many years old.

 

[Ryuji]

Please allow me to briefly remind people one thing.

Failure to meet archival standard does not guarantee or entail to degrade the image or support in X years.

The reason to meet proper archival standards (i.e., proper material, processing, and storage/display condition. ALL of them.) is to maximize the likelihood that a piece of work can survive for 50 years, 100 years, or even longer.

Survival of a few pieces of work does not mean a process in which said pieces were made met archival standard.

As you see, not everyone needs archival standard for what they do. The concept is very conservative, and the term is rather strict.

 

[Daniel_OB]

Ryuji
"The reason to meet proper archival standards (i.e., proper material, processing, and storage/display condition. ALL of them.) is to maximize the likelihood that a piece of work can survive for 50 years, 100 years, or even longer."

Fiber silver gelatin print, archival washed and selenium tonned, is predicted to survive as long as holding paper does, and around 400 years without visible change, when stored away from polutants from air (smoke,...) and UV rays. These conditions are found in most museums, walls in good ventilated home rooms, ... The best storage is steanless still box where it could survive and twice longer. Just cannot remember this moment more details.

www.LEICA-R.com

 

[Ryuji]

The most important factors are low humidity and absence of ozone, NOx and other oxidizing agents.

Also, I'm not sure about "without visible change" part. Most tests and calculations allow a small amount of density loss, for example, and the prediction of the life expectancy varies depending on the criterion being used.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Daniel

Consider sulphide over selenium toning, and both combined over either one alone, for archival treatment.

 

[Daniel_OB]

Visible change means, as I know, change in the print visible to trained eye, not measured by densitometer. However this can means many different things to different people for it is subjective criterion, but it does not differs a lot. It just leaves some tolerances to different museums. I am not in that kind of business and it is not known to me yet what it can means after 400 years. But there guys taking care of it. Our business is to produce the best we can when we gues that the print desirve it.

Ralph. Might be sulphide toner can add moons to the print toned in selenium, but as have learned, when properly done selenium toner should be sufficient to extend "life" of the image to life of the base paper. I just do not know more. Do you have some more infos on it. That could be interesting, or you can run a tread for it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Daniel

Toning is a biiiiiiig subject. All we know for sure is that some toning is better than none. Sulphide is most likely to be better than selenium, and both are likely to be better than either. (IMHO, combination toning creates some very pleasing tones.)

Also, good toning changes image tones, but changed image tone is no guarantee for protection. Nevertheless, any change of image tone needs to be balanced with esthetic demands, because only a pleasing image is worth protecting.

I tone for esthetics and appreciate the protection.

 

[dancqu]

...meaning that the washing is adequate for archival purposes.

Archival. The forth post this thread, by Ryuji,
is first with the word archival. He associates the
word with washing. That association is correct.
There are established maximum residual levels
of thiosulfate for commercial and
archival processing.

I've seen no mention of archival fixing. From my
reading and study of the matter, there is no reason
to expect a print to be processed to archival standards
without having been fixed to archival standards.

Essentially an archival fix is a complete fixing in a
fixer with very low silver levels. Posts this thread
where in archival wash is mentioned presuppose
an archival fix. There is NO wash routine which
will make archival a print not fixed for the
purpose. Plan ahead. Dan

 

[Ryuji]

As I said in previous posts in this thread, if a print is to be made for the archival standard, the material, the quality of processing, the washing process and the storage condition, ALL of them must meet respective archival standard. In short, failure of one means failure of the resulting piece to meet archival standard.

In this sense, I agree that there is no use to worry about archival wash if the print isn't fixed sufficiently. Inadequately fixed print is very obviously non-archival.

Essentially an archival fix is a complete fixing in a fixer with very low silver levels.

One major reason why wash aid should be used for fiber paper is that, not just because it shortens the washing time, but also because it can reverse the undesirable effect from partially exhausted fixer. That is, use of washing aid will extend the processing capacity of the fixer. Considering how inexpensive the wash aid is, and how costly it is to dispose of silver-loaded fixer, it is definitely a wise choice to use washing aid for ALL fiber print processing.