Ilford says extended wash = "warmest image colour" -- why is this?

[Jarred McCaffrey]

Reading the insert for Ilford Mulitgrade Warmtone FB I noticed a strange notation in the section entitled "Optimum permanence - FB paper". They recommend the use of a washing aid then a 5 minute wash with the caveat "Extend to 30 minutes if the warmest image colour is needed."

I'm familiar with warm/cold developers, but I didn't realize that super-washing could affect print color. Is this true and what is going on chemically here?

 

[Jon Shiu]

The brighteners on this paper will wash out, I think.

Jon

 

[Gay Larson]

I've never read the insert (duh) but it explains why recently one of my prints on Ilford warm tone was considerably darker. Thanks, I'll follow the recommendations. I just didn't think 5 minutes would be enough rinse.

 

[dancqu]

"Optimum permanence - FB paper".
They recommend the use of a washing
aid then a 5 minute wash ...

How old is that paper? Ilford is no longer pushing their
quick fix, 5, 10, 5, minute rinse-hca-rinse routine. They
do encourage the use of a two bath fix.

Personally I would not want to be one of the last few
through a 40 8x10s per/liter working strength fix. Dan

 

[Jarred McCaffrey]

How old is that paper---errr... one week. That explains why the price was better than B&H at my local photo shop.

 

[FrankB]

How old is that paper? Ilford is no longer pushing their
quick fix, 5, 10, 5, minute rinse-hca-rinse routine. They
do encourage the use of a two bath fix.

Are you sure about this, Dan? Only this PDF on Ilford's website still gives those recommendations (see the last page) - http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/warm_tone.pdf

 

[dancqu]

Are you sure about this, Dan? Only this PDF on
Ilford's website still gives those recommendations ...

And that may be the only PDF that still does. At the
Ilford site check out Ilford Rapid Fixer. I just reread the
March 2002 PDF. I think you will agree that Ilford has
dropped it's 5-10-5 Archival wash sequence. In fact
that 5-10-5 minute sequence is not suggested
for any purpose. Dan

 

[FrankB]

Hi Dan,

This is odd!

I've been to the Ilford site and clicked the link for Rapid Fixer (http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Rapid_fixer.pdf) and got a PDF dated Aug 2002 which still does recommend the 5-10-5 (page 2 near top right).

Are we looking at the same site?!

 

[ann]

I just read the pdf file on Ilford's site, rapid fixer and they still recommend the 5-10-5 and when you read the hypam pdf, it indicates the same.

 

[lee]

I agree with the fact that Ilford still is promoting 5-10-5 in washing fiber base paper.

Ann and FrankB are certainly correct in their statements. Page 2 right hand column third paragraph from the top.

lee\c

 

[FrankB]

Thank god for that; I thought my eyesight was going!

 

[dancqu]

I agree with the fact that Ilford still is promoting
5-10-5 in washing fiber base paper.

Ann and FrankB are certainly correct in their statements.
Page 2 right hand column third paragraph from the top.

You have not read the March 2002 PDF which indicates a
5-10-20 minute sequence.

This matter is somewhat complex. Does anybody
remember the Ilford Archival Wash Sequence? That
sequence was predicated upon a 1 minute fix in FILM
1:3 strength Rapid Fixer followed by the 5-10-5
minute wash, their HCA, wash, routine.

A year or two ago Ilford updated at least some PDFs.
For those that remember the older PDFs you may
recall specific mention of the Ilford Archival
Sequence.

Two important points: 1, that sequence is no longer
mentioned March or August and 2, they do NOT distinguish
twixt the 1:3 - 1:4 and 1:9 dilutions.

My conclusion is that Ilford is no longer promoting their
Archival Wash Sequence and the 5-10-5 wash routine
which was part and partial with that sequence.

So, it might be asked, will 5-10-5 do the job? Not for
archival results and that is according to Ilford because
the current PDFs also include the 1:9 2 minute fix.

"For prints that need maximum stability ... " Ilford does
mention the lower per unit volume silver levels permissable.

Although Ilford does not even mention an Archival Sequence
they do go into the details of the "extremely efficient" two
bath method. Dan

 

[lee]

first the link that I went to is the dec 2001 and I dont know where the pdf for 2002 is. Can you supply a link for this? If so, I would like to read it.

I think I will continue to use a method of washing for about an hour as I know that I can get clean paper that way.

lee\c

 

[lee]

the only Mar 2002 pdf I found on ilford.com is for gallery paper and if you follow down to the washing proceedures it does recommend 60 min now if you contiue down to Optimum it touts the old 5-10-5 routine.

lee\c

 

[photomc]

have to agree with Lee, Ann and Frank...just went to Ilfords website and looked at the PDF for Ilford Rapid Fixer and it list the 5-10-5. The 60 min wash time is listed, but only when not using a wash aid. (this PDF was from Aug. 2002). So it is possible that Ilford has dropped the 5-10-5, but I find nothing on the website that indicates this.

 

[FrankB]

You have not read the March 2002 PDF which indicates a
5-10-20 minute sequence.

Two important points: 1, that sequence is no longer
mentioned March or August and 2, they do NOT distinguish
twixt the 1:3 - 1:4 and 1:9 dilutions.

My conclusion is that Ilford is no longer promoting their
Archival Wash Sequence and the 5-10-5 wash routine
which was part and partial with that sequence.

Dan, I'm confused as to which PDF's you're consulting. Could you post some links?

Alternatively, please follow the links I've posted to the Ilford website where the PDF's (dated Aug 2002) myself and others have indicated do still refer to the 5-10-5 sequence.

 

[Lee Shively]

There is something different about the Ilford recommendations on the 12/2001 pdf than the Ilford WT paper insert I have hanging on the wall of my darkroom. The fixing/washing procedure appears to be different and there's nothing in the pdf about a two-fixer bath. A separate 12/2001 pdf, "Processing B&W Paper", does mention the two fixers.

I'm at work right now, doing this while I'm trying to do other stuff, so I can't compare the information and I might have missed something in the pdfs from the Ilford website.

 

[ann]

well, the easiest thing is to go to the horses mouth, i am going to check with Ilford, or at least with someone who has their ear.

 

[dancqu]

So, it might be asked, will 5-10-5 do the job? Not for
archival results and that is according to Ilford because
the current PDFs also include the 1:9 2 minute fix.

I'll put that above quote differently as it is misleading.
At least according to Ilford an adherence to the Ilford
Archival Sequence will yield archival results.

According to Martin Reed in his article Mysteries of the
Vortex, Photo Techniques Special Issue #11, "Major research
by Ilford culminated in the 1981 publication of their archival
processing sequence, based on careful control of the quality
and timing of the fixing stage."

In a nut shell; a very short wash time results from the use
of a high strength fixer for a short period of time. In 1981
the time was 30 seconds in Ilford Universal Rapid Fixer
diluted 1:3. The paper base, which is slow to wash,
is, even with a stronger fix, less affected.

But the sequence, due to the high levels of silver at full or
near full capacity in that one fix, is very dependent upon
an extended 10 minute stay in Ilford's brand of HCA.

This whole issue is much ado about nearly nothing. With
FB papers I consider nothing less than an Archival routine.
I've mentioned the word archival several times. That is
the context in which I write. The OP's mention of a
5 minute wash is what set me off. I didn't mean
to ruffle any feathers. Dan

 

[lee]

but the point is Dan they STILL recommend the 5-10-5 in EACH of the pdfs. You said the recommendations from Ilford had changed and now that people challenged you, you have attempted to change the conversation. It may be much ado about nothing to you but you attempted to tell me that I did not know what I have read on Ilford's site. I don't appreciate being called a liar in so many words. Where you get your ideas I will never know and until you show me work you have actually produced that proves you know what the heck you think you know I will take you as someone trying to appear to be something you are not. Time to put up or shut up, Dan.

lee\c

 

[FrankB]

At the end of the day, we'll each use which approach we believe to be best.

Please let's not start another "I'm right, you're wrong" session. There have been far too many of these on APUG recently and I haven't seen anything good come out of any of them.

If anyone feels that they have a personal disagreement to settle then please, PM is the way to do this.

 

[Les McLean]

To help clarify this discussion I spoke to the Technical Director of IlfordPhoto in the UK who assured me that the information on the website was checked by his department last year and they stand by it.

 

[dancqu]

... information on the website was checked by his
department last year and they stand by it.

www.ilford.fr/pdf/chimie/CH_RapidFixer.pdf -

The above PDF contains the 5-10-20 minute wash routine.
Do you think they mixed it up with their 5-10-20 inversion film
wash routine? That 5-10-20 minute wash sequence is in part
responsible for some misunderstandings and confusion. Dan

 

[FrankB]

Interesting, Dan. I wasn't aware of the French site. (Very Anglo-centric of me! )

Their PDF's don't seem to be in synch with the .com version. http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Rapid_fixer.pdf is dated Aug 2002 and gives the 5-10-5!

No wonder there was confusion all round. (Personally I use a 5-10-30, but then I'm paranoid!)

Thanks for clearing this up.

All the best,

Frank

 

[Les McLean]

www.ilford.fr/pdf/chimie/CH_RapidFixer.pdf -

The above PDF contains the 5-10-20 minute wash routine.
Do you think they mixed it up with their 5-10-20 inversion film
wash routine? That 5-10-20 minute wash sequence is in part
responsible for some misunderstandings and confusion. Dan

Dan, when I spoke to Martin yesterday he assured me that his staff had checked every method and technique on the website for accuracy so I don't think there can be any mix up. I have known and worked with the people who did the checking for many years and know that they are very reliable.