Ilford archival paper processing sequence - a technical question

[pdeeh]

This isn't intended as (yet) another "what is the best way to process" thread, and is much more a technical than practical question, so "Why don't you just do xyz?" answers are not what's sought here!

My darkroom facilities and equipment are rather limited, and I certainly don't possess anything as exotic (or expensive) as "proper" (Nova-type) print washer. I also need to keep my water consumption down.

Accordingly, like many people I suspect, as I process during a print run, rather than wash each print as it comes out of the fixer, it gets a quick but thorough rinse, and then gets dumped in a water bath until such time as I can get round to finishing the wash properly.

The Ilford sequence requires the fixing stage to be followed immediately by a 5 minute running wash, before the hypo clearing and final wash.

So the rather obvious question is to what extent using a holding tank compromises the Ilford sequence - my guess is that the initial wash is probably quite crucial, as it's at that point the bulk of the fixing complexes are removed.

Can any of our more well-informed members comment?

 

[R.Gould]

After the fix I dispence with the five minute wash and go straight into the Hypo clear, (I use the Kodak version and they say on the instructions that you can leave the wash before clearing out, but the capacity will be reduced), then, as I don't have running water in my darkroom, I put the prints into a holding bath, at the end of the session I wash them in a Patterson archival print washer,I personally can't see that washing prints after the session shoud in anyway compromise the archival process, The Hypo clear converts the hypo into a chemical that is easily washed out of the print, and as long as the wash is properly done,I wash for at least an hour with FB prints, then I can't see a problem,

 

[pdeeh]

Thanks, but you may have missed the point of my query

To be clear, I'm asking how I should wash my prints, or how other people wash theirs, but rather a technical question about a particular sequence and the potential impact on that of changing it in a particular way.

 

[bernard_L]

I've done more or less as you describe. Except 1% sulfite instead of proper hypo clear. And batches of <=5 prints get 3x10 min in ~5 litres recirculating water (water dumped at end of 10min, except last 5-litre is kept as first for next sequence).

Kodak HT-2 test tell me paper is OK after 2nd 10-min wash, so 3rd one is extra for peace of mind.

Returning to your precise point: I dispensed with the initial 5min running water without ill effects.

 

[David Allen]

I remember attending a demonstration by technicians from Ilford way back when they introduced this new method of fixing and washing prints.

The technicians were very insistent on several things:

• Fresh fixer (no more than 10 prints size 10" x 8" per 1 litre of fixer)
• No more than 1 minute in the fixer with constant agitation.
• Washing needs to occur immediately after the fix.

Several people asked about using a holding bath and the emphatic reply was that this would negate the effectiveness of the procedure. The reason given was that placing prints in a holding bath would allow the (albeit diluted) fixer to further penetrate the paper base and thereby render the process ineffective. They said that the key to how the system worked was the shortest time possible for the fixer to penetrate the paper and so it was essential that the first wash (which removes a large percentage of the fixer) occurred immediately after fixing and needed to be with a constant change of water and continuous agitation.

Personally, having tried the method, I found it too time consuming. I use a holding bath after fixing followed by a ten minute wash, then ten minutes in Lavaquick (Tetenal's wash aid) and then direct into the print washer for one hour.

If you have limitations on space and water, I would suggest you read Martin Reed's (founder of Silverprint in the UK) 1996 research into the requirements of archival washing. Called Mysteries of the Vortex, it is available in two parts on the UK analogue photography forum:

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=296&highlight=vortex

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=344&highlight=vortex

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Doremus Scudder]

pdeeh,

The Ilford sequence (which I don't use, btw) is predicated on not letting the fixer soak deeply into the paper base. A short fix in strong fixer and immediate washing is what accomplishes this.

I voluminous enough water holding bath, with agitation, would accomplish virtually the same thing as a running water rinse, but stacking lots of prints in a regular tray is possibly not enough to prevent fixer build up and some of the (albeit dilute) fix from soaking further in to the paper base.

The only way to really know for sure is to test your prints for residual hypo (Kodak HT-2 test kit and comparison patches). It's a good idea to test your process anyway, for both residual hypo and retained silver (ST-1 test kit). If you can get acceptable results on the tests with your fixing regime, then you're good to go.

A couple of comments about the Ilford sequence: I find it wasteful of fixer. If you use a single bath, which is the most logical with such short fixing times, the capacity of the fix, when fixing for optimum permanence is only 10 8x10s per liter. Two bath fixing (30 seconds in each bath and then drain time...) invites exposing the print to strong fix for longer than the recommended 60 seconds, thereby allowing the fixer to soak into the paper more deeply, and possibly not wash out in the rather short wash time... And, Ilford has only tested its sequence on Ilford products, so other papers may react differently (e.g., soak up fixer more quickly than the Ilford papers) and require more extended washing. Again, only testing will get you a definitive answer for your work flow.

Personally, I prefer a sequence with longer times in two fixers, a water holding bath and then a treatment in HCA and a one-hour wash. If that's not practical for you, you should really make sure you test for both residual hypo and silver to arrive at a sequence that works for your materials and water-use and space requirements. The idea of a holding bath with HCA may end up just saturating the paper with sulfite, which requires some time to wash out as well.

Best,

Doremus

P.S: I crossed posts with David above; seems we're on the same wavelength

 

[pdeeh]

Several people asked about using a holding bath and the emphatic reply was that this would negate the effectiveness of the procedure. The reason given was that placing prints in a holding bath would allow the (albeit diluted) fixer to further penetrate the paper base and thereby render the process ineffective. They said that the key to how the system worked was the shortest time possible for the fixer to penetrate the paper and so it was essential that the first wash (which removes a large percentage of the fixer) occurred immediately after fixing and needed to be with a constant change of water and continuous agitation.

]

This is exactly what I had assumed might be the case (in my simple minded way) so it's excellent to have it from the horse's mouth in mobberley.

I've read extensively about washing, we have such a plethora of informative threads here that it almost makes Martin reed's article superfluous ... But I have read that a few times and its a model of exposition about a gnarly subject.

Thanks to all that replied,query comprehensively answered.

Now I must stop typing and get the print I have washing into some hypo clear ...