Ilford wash method.

Photo Engineer · Jan 30, 2009

Testing will always help verify the quality of any wash method.

Mason's math and reasoning has shown me how careful you must be, because without proof, any error will not show up until your prints are 20+ years old. I have some of the first prints I ever made from the time I was about 12, and they looked great to me. Recently, I found some of them in an album and they were all brown and spotty.

PE

JohnRichard · Jan 30, 2009

I may be wrong here, and thinking of the wrong thing, but when i'm finished developing, stopping and fixing, I just set the tank under running water dumping every time its full for about 2 min. I'm "done", when I don't get that faint purple tent to the water anymore. Course, that could be an error on my part. Perhaps I missed what the subject of conversation was?
So I guess my "method" goes something like this: Develop, rinse a time or two, stop, rinse a time or two, and fix, then rinse a lot...

I guess from a chemists point of view, a wait period where the film set in still water would allow the water to "extract" bad stuff until it was saturated, then you would need to dump. Thus, I guess my "wash till the purple is gone" method would conserve water by doing less actual rinses... who knows...

pentaxuser · Jan 30, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Testing will always help verify the quality of any wash method.

Mason's math and reasoning has shown me how careful you must be, because without proof, any error will not show up until your prints are 20+ years old. I have some of the first prints I ever made from the time I was about 12, and they looked great to me. Recently, I found some of them in an album and they were all brown and spotty.

PE

PE Are we talking about the efficacy of Ilford's neg wash here rather than print wash?

Tom. It just seems to me that Ulrich's article does involve scientific comments on neg washing. I was simply saying that short of an article that proves unequivocally that the Ilford method fails to deliver archival negs and short of similar conclusions to a similar effect from two eminent photographers who have developed and printed for nearly 40 years plus TEX's experience that maybe a conclusion that the Ilford method works was a reasonable assumption.

I don't know about you but I doubt if I'll have any interest in my negs beyond the next 25 to 30 years max due to age. That's my age not the negs

pentaxuser

Tom Kershaw · Jan 30, 2009

I don't know about you but I doubt if I'll have any interest in my negs beyond the next 25 to 30 years max due to age. That's my age not the negs

I hope either you or someone else does have an interest in them.

For the record I use a combination of continuos flow and standing water diffusion for film, not rigorously tested as of yet though. I process film in a Jobo as well as Paterson tanks and trays so perhaps PE might be able to comment on potential washing efficiencies based on processing method. I am planing to test for washing soon. I suspect some process issues may turn up in the shorter term as well. Today I use film fixer either one shot or for a limited number of films; however when I got started processing my own film in 2003 I used the film fix many times, but within ILFORD stated capacities. Even so, something may show up.

Tom.

Photo Engineer · Jan 30, 2009

Well, Mason's book contains equations that are applicable to both film and paper both. They relate to the concentration of hypo+silver complexes with respect to time of wash in still and running water.

So, from that sense, you cannot differentiate in the equation between film or paper as it is independant of medium. It depends on rate of change. Thick film or paper washes more slowly than thin film or RC. I have published this entire portion of his work in simplified terms twice on APUG. It usually confounds people, but the bottom line is that the concentration of material in the photo material must change. If you use standing water or no agitation or both, then an equillibrium is reached and concentration is no longer changing. It becomes static or stagnant! You must agitate with running water to get the best wash. It is done when the material tests free of Silver and free of Hypo with appropriate test kits. This will vary depending on your water supply.

On another tack though, Haist reminds us that Metol washes out in an acid fix but HQ does not and in subsequent washes, Metol + acid fix is faster washing out in water but HQ + alkaline fix is faster washing in water. This is an interesting quandary.

The Dimezone/Phenidone family are more or less neutral wrt fix.

So, Haist suggests using something to swell gelatin (pH in this case) to speed washing and this is how TF-4 works. I'll have more to say on that in a few weeks perhaps, because there are other ways to swell emulsions and speed washes.

PE

Tom Kershaw · Jan 30, 2009

On another tack though, Haist reminds us that Metol washes out in an acid fix but HQ does not and in subsequent washes, Metol + acid fix is faster washing out in water but HQ + alkaline fix is faster washing in water. This is an interesting quandary.

The Dimezone/Phenidone family are more or less neutral wrt fix.

Considering many developers use more than one developing agent, how is a judgement made to decide which washing category is a best fit?

Tom.

trexx · Jan 30, 2009

JohnRichard said:
I may be wrong here, and thinking of the wrong thing, but when i'm finished developing, stopping and fixing, I just set the tank under running water dumping every time its full for about 2 min. I'm "done", when I don't get that faint purple tent to the water anymore.

The point of the Ilford wash is to minimize the water used. I use 2L ( 2qt ) for a 500ml tank and no tint. My main goal was to cut down the crowd around the tap. When you get 8 people with two rolls each all wanting to wash at the same time, it gets a little hectic. What I hope to institute is closer to the Ilford method. Fill, agitate, go to the end of the line, repeat at least three times.

Photo Engineer · Jan 30, 2009

Tom Kershaw said:
Considering many developers use more than one developing agent, how is a judgement made to decide which washing category is a best fit?

Tom.

The point was that Grant showed an alternative and Bill Troop gave us TF-4. There was another way found after Grant published.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jan 30, 2009

trexx said:
The point of the Ilford wash is to minimize the water used. I use 2L ( 2qt ) for a 500ml tank and no tint. My main goal was to cut down the crowd around the tap. When you get 8 people with two rolls each all wanting to wash at the same time, it gets a little hectic. What I hope to institute is closer to the Ilford method. Fill, agitate, go to the end of the line, repeat at least three times.

No crowd, minimum wash... GREAT!!!

However, if you have no proof that this is a GOOD wash, all of those bennies are nothing. Your film and prints will be toast in about 20 years or so.

PE

ntenny · Jan 30, 2009

For what this is worth, I took the very reasonable suggestion that someone made in the other thread on this subject and tested some of my negatives for residual hypo. None turned up on any of the negatives I tested, some of which were commercial-lab products that probably had a "normal" running-water wash, some Ilford-method both with and without standing time, a few "mistaken Ilford method" where I was skipping the initial 5-inversion wash, and some sheets that were vaguely sloshed around in a few changes of water.

However, the test kit does say that it's not sensitive enough for archival testing. I'm not sure how one tests hypo levels to that level of sensitivity, or whether there are other potential concerns besides residual hypo per se.

These results do leave me fairly convinced that I can quit worrying about it for a while, and concentrate on trying to take some pictures that *deserve* an archival lifetime.

-NT

Martin Aislabie · Jan 31, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
I'll have more to say on that in a few weeks perhaps, because there are other ways to swell emulsions and speed washes.

PE

Does this "something to say in a few weeks" come with a drum roll and TADA!

Looking forward to the announcement

Martin

Photo Engineer · Jan 31, 2009

Martin Aislabie said:
Does this "something to say in a few weeks" come with a drum roll and TADA!

Looking forward to the announcement

Martin

IDK. That sounds nice. I like the thought.

It is due to the fact though, that swell can be achieved chemically as well as by pH, and these two can be combined also for even greater effect. The final result is extremely short wash times due to rapid diffusion. It does not hurt that the chemical means also accelerates fix rate itself.

PE

Martin Aislabie · Jan 31, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
It is due to the fact though, that swell can be achieved chemically as well as by pH, and these two can be combined also for even greater effect. The final result is extremely short wash times due to rapid diffusion. It does not hurt that the chemical means also accelerates fix rate itself.

PE

I gathered that is what you were alluding to in an earlier post.

It all sounds so simple when you write it down like that.

I am sure the practicalities of actually doing it were far from simple & straight forward.

Looking forward to the anouncement - with or without the drum rolls

Martin

Photo Engineer · Jan 31, 2009

When I post here on washing of film and paper products, I am not just quoting Mason or Haist. I am basing my comments on years of tests that were done personally and which literally span about 1/2 of the world. It includes both color and B&W.

I find that wash rate is not simple. It depnds on water quality, temperature, flow rate and product.

At the present time, I have samples done about 3 - 4 years ago that are already turning brown, but then they failed the tests for retained silver and hypo. So.... I've been doing homework. And, at Kodak I ran such tests on a variety of products for over 5 years, just about daily, and also ran the extensive stability tests required for testing them to destruction.

The final answer though is impossible to give. You must run your own tests, under your own conditions, and determine what will work for you! One wash type does not fit all. Also, the process helps determine the wash cycle needed. As noted a phenidone HQ developer responds better to an alkaline fix than a Metol HQ developer unless you use an acid stop in the latter case to assist in removing Metol. You see how process can be critical. At least I hope you see.

I suggest that this thread and others be merged where possible and that they be made sticky as this subject keeps coming up over and over and over.

PE

skyrick · May 17, 2011

Sorry for reviving this old thread, but I couldn't find an answer in my searches...so:

Do you use the Ilford Method with 400TX? I did tonight and the emulsion side is still really sticky/tacky. I used D-76 @ 1:1 for 9 minutes (70F), water for a stop bath for 45 seconds, Ilford Rapid Fixer for 3 min, then Ilford Method wash (5, 10, 15, 20), then 30 sec Photo-Flo.

Photo Engineer · May 17, 2011

Read the massive wash thread by Greg Davis.

PE

baachitraka · Aug 30, 2012

I use Adofix and my personal washing is quite vigorous for films.

First, fill and dump.

Fill, 30 inversions vigorously then dump - repeat 4 times.

Fill, 50 inversions vigorously then dump - repeat 6 times.

It takes 10 mins.

Finally wetting agent and dry.

*End result: Good musle build up and hopefully clean negs.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 30, 2012

there must be. the fixer needs time to diffuse into the water.

pbromaghin · Aug 30, 2012

How much does hypo eliminator or a wash aid affect wash times?

baachitraka · Aug 30, 2012

RalphLambrecht said:
there must be. the fixer needs time to diffuse into the water.

Ralph, any idea how long does the fixer takes to diffuse into water. Mine is Adofix 1+10 = 300ml.

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2012

There is extensive information on this in this thread, and the other thread where there are examples by Greg Davis. It varies with water and with emulsion thickness and silver content.

There are simple tests for wash times and fix times that can be purchased or mixed from scratch.

Some posts in a recent thread indicate that there may be problems with the Ilford method. Something that I have run into myself.

Read Mason's book on photographic processing. He gives the differential equation that I posted here on APUG, and which allows you to roughly calculate the wash rate.

PE

Leigh B · Aug 30, 2012

Phenomenal waste of time, water, and effort.

Use a good hypo clearing agent like Perma-Wash and you only need two wash cycles of two minutes each,
one before and one after the Perma-Wash.

- Leigh

SkipA · Aug 30, 2012

In case anyone missed it, there is a sticky on washing in this very B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry subforum: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) started by Greg Davis.

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2012

Leigh, you are right, but then you have an extra pollutant to dispose of.

I have been working on a reformulated fix that works with a 15" wash time. Yes, that is 15", but it too introduces unique pollutants. I now have over 5 years keeping on prints as well. But, it needs more work IMHO.

PE

NedL · Aug 30, 2012

This is my first post to apug. PE, I think if you collected all your posts here you could create an encyclopedia of photography. Amazing.

I'm just getting back into developing film after about a 30 year break. I waded through the "massive wash thread" ( and the other massive one that pointed to it ) and it seemed to me that at the end of the day there's no answer except to test. I've seen hypo test kits but I'm not sure how to test for residual silver. And even if I get these test kits, it's not going to answer my fundamental question, which is more about safety than archival properties of my film:

I'm attracted to the Ilford wash method because of the low volume of wash. I have a septic system at my house and I don't want to mess it up by putting dissolved silver into it, and I don't want to pollute the groundwater here either. I can take up to 3 5-gallon containers to the hazardous waste disposal site whenever I want, but of course that means a trip. If I can minimize the waste volume I will minimize the number of trips. Ideally, something like the Illford method can get the concentration of silver down to a point where it won't be harmful to finish washing in my sink... but I don't know how to discover if this is true. Quite a few "Ilford washes" can go into a single 5 gallon bucket...

This place is pretty amazing.

Ilford wash method.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency