When you compare the small amount of hca used with the dramatic decrease in the volume of wash water used,
the environmental impact balance is strongly in favor of hca.
- Leigh
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilford wash method.
-
A
- Thread starter trexx
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale ORIGINAL ROLLEIFLEX LENS SHADE
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale T-max 4x5 100 kodak ready loads. expired 2008, kept frozen
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Images in Science, excellent scientific imaging. $10
- Started by laser
-
Sold Book: PhotoShop Restoration and Retouching. $20
- Started by laser
Forum statistics
the environmental impact balance is strongly in favor of hca.
- Leigh
NedL;
I try to do my best, but miss it sometimes. Thanks though.
You are right, trial and error is best, and the test for Silver retention is a kit which has Sodium Sulfide in it. It turns yellow, brown or black depending on the level of retained silver.
However, I point you to a thread with the subject the yellowing of prints. This person was using the Ilford method, but had prints that turned yellow quite rapidly. This was also experienced by Ctein who wrote an article on it. You see, water varies world wide, photoproducts vary in thickness and silver level and etc. Therefore it is hard to predict.
In the US we use Chlorine to treat water, but in other parts of the world, they use Ozone for purification. This greatly complicates the situation.
You should run your own quality assurance tests, and be aware that overwashing is as bad as underwashing.
PE
I try to do my best, but miss it sometimes. Thanks though.
You are right, trial and error is best, and the test for Silver retention is a kit which has Sodium Sulfide in it. It turns yellow, brown or black depending on the level of retained silver.
However, I point you to a thread with the subject the yellowing of prints. This person was using the Ilford method, but had prints that turned yellow quite rapidly. This was also experienced by Ctein who wrote an article on it. You see, water varies world wide, photoproducts vary in thickness and silver level and etc. Therefore it is hard to predict.
In the US we use Chlorine to treat water, but in other parts of the world, they use Ozone for purification. This greatly complicates the situation.
You should run your own quality assurance tests, and be aware that overwashing is as bad as underwashing.
PE
Leigh;
Go here for the MSDS of HCA : Dead Link Removed
The working solution is up to 50 g/l Na2SO3 which has a very high COD. It ranks up there with some developers and near or below hypo itself! I don't deny it is useful, but rather I argue that if you dump a 1 L tray, you have to contend with normal hypo/silver in wash #1, HCA that you dumped, and HCA / silver in wash #2. It is the hca dumped and wash #2 that I am pointing to. These must be at least handled properly.
PE
PE: Thanks very much, I'll look for a kit with some Na2S. ( I only had a year of chemistry in college, so I'll just follow the directions! )
Our water is from our well, run through a calcite filter and then a water softener ( with KCl instead of sodium ) and finally a reverse osmosis filter. There aren't many dissolved solids after that, but our water is probably different from other places. Testing it will be!
Ned
Our water is from our well, run through a calcite filter and then a water softener ( with KCl instead of sodium ) and finally a reverse osmosis filter. There aren't many dissolved solids after that, but our water is probably different from other places. Testing it will be!
Ned
a normalrunning-water wash is perfectly archival, and that's my main concern!
Photo flo caused the stickiness. After draining the film container add distilled water until the reel is covered. Agitate for 10s. Hang film to dry without touching the emulsion.
Distilled water avoids spots and there is no need to squeegee the negative. If you don't touch the wet negative emulsion the potential for scratches is eliminated.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have discovered after all these years in photography that about 1 drop of photo-flo in a tankfull of water and let bathe for 5 or 10 minutes is all you need. The instructions on photo-flo are 1:200. I figure my dilution is about 1:2000, but it works just fine. Perfectly, in fact.
This does not mean I'm advocating the Rodinal crowd who stand develop for sixty years at obscene dilutions. In the case of photo-flo, as long as you see a few suds around the perimeter, it's doing its job. I've lived in the city half my life with wonderful high-quality city water, and the other half in the country with well water that would gag a fish, but the photo-flo results are the same.
This does not mean I'm advocating the Rodinal crowd who stand develop for sixty years at obscene dilutions. In the case of photo-flo, as long as you see a few suds around the perimeter, it's doing its job. I've lived in the city half my life with wonderful high-quality city water, and the other half in the country with well water that would gag a fish, but the photo-flo results are the same.
Yes.
freshslowly running water is the best washing method for film and paperunless you have a need to reduce your fresh water consumption,but then,why do you flush your toilet with drinking water?
Photo flo
I have heard time and again that PhotoFlo works best when you err on the side of overdiluting, so I guess it is true. I used to get some "soap scum" with it. I recently switched to Tetenal Mirasol and the negs are crystal clear every time and the stuff costs the same as the Kodak stuff if not less (Mirasol is twice the concentration). So I won't be looking back.
I have heard time and again that PhotoFlo works best when you err on the side of overdiluting, so I guess it is true. I used to get some "soap scum" with it. I recently switched to Tetenal Mirasol and the negs are crystal clear every time and the stuff costs the same as the Kodak stuff if not less (Mirasol is twice the concentration). So I won't be looking back.
Trust but verify
PE:
Is there anyway for someone without a degree in chemistry to determine if their wash is truly archival? I'm sure Kodak tested its washing advice and 30 minutes running water is as close to a guarantee of complete washing as one can get. But how come a company with the resources of Kodak never did a study of washing in cases of water famine? Kodak literature at one time did mention using 5 changes of water, 5 minutes each with agitation if 30 minutes worth of running water wasn't available, assuming hardening hypo fixer and no HCA. Has this advice been discredited?
PE:
Is there anyway for someone without a degree in chemistry to determine if their wash is truly archival? I'm sure Kodak tested its washing advice and 30 minutes running water is as close to a guarantee of complete washing as one can get. But how come a company with the resources of Kodak never did a study of washing in cases of water famine? Kodak literature at one time did mention using 5 changes of water, 5 minutes each with agitation if 30 minutes worth of running water wasn't available, assuming hardening hypo fixer and no HCA. Has this advice been discredited?
The retained Silver test kits and the retained Hypo test kits on the market in the US and Europe will verify archival washing if you follow the instructions.
PE
PE
Last edited by a moderator:
I use Mirasol as well, just be careful as you get down to the last dregs in the bottle. 1+400 is not enough. Better to work 1+1,200!
RR
RC prints vs FB prints differ as do soft films and hard films (referring to the degree of swell), and also the type of fixer is another variable thrown into the mix considering the pH range of fixers from 4.5 to 8.0 and some having hardeners.
PE
Thanks for the info. I'll look into that. At least for curiosity's sake is there still any merit to the old advice from Kodak's Non Curl (NC) Film literature that suggested a good rinse followed by five changes fresh water, five minutes each with agitation instead of 30 minutes running water (assuming hypo with hardener and no HCA)? It still turns up today. Ilford used to offer the same advice, but to increase to at least 7 changes, if using hardening fixer.
Read the earlier posts here for complete answers. I hate to rehash this again.
PE
PE
Other warnings
Hello, i just re-made an account on apug.
I runned a printing lab in Rome, Italy in the 90's and i regularly teach BW techniques. For my artistic work i tend to produce very high enlargements.
All my negs since the 80's are just fine with no signs of deterioration. I used running water at the beginning, but since early '90's I adopted a prolonged Ilford sequence (1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 this lasts for about 8 mins) or 5 water changes with increasing time with the Jobos.
But as a teacher and printer I happened to see many, many negatives that showed very rapid deterioration. I asked all the people how those were processed and washed and it is my opinion that in most cases this rapid deterioration was due to (over) used fixer, rather than poor washing. Maybe the expert technicians here can explain this.
My love for big enlargements forced me to concentrate on grain appearance. I noticed that prolonged washing or long processing reduced grain sharpness. Imho the use of hca, or other products that can svell the gelatine, for the negatives can have some effect on grain sharpness.
Hello, i just re-made an account on apug.
I runned a printing lab in Rome, Italy in the 90's and i regularly teach BW techniques. For my artistic work i tend to produce very high enlargements.
All my negs since the 80's are just fine with no signs of deterioration. I used running water at the beginning, but since early '90's I adopted a prolonged Ilford sequence (1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 this lasts for about 8 mins) or 5 water changes with increasing time with the Jobos.
But as a teacher and printer I happened to see many, many negatives that showed very rapid deterioration. I asked all the people how those were processed and washed and it is my opinion that in most cases this rapid deterioration was due to (over) used fixer, rather than poor washing. Maybe the expert technicians here can explain this.
My love for big enlargements forced me to concentrate on grain appearance. I noticed that prolonged washing or long processing reduced grain sharpness. Imho the use of hca, or other products that can svell the gelatine, for the negatives can have some effect on grain sharpness.
I agreeunderfixing and underwashing are the main causes of premature image deterioration.adopting a two-bath fixing regimen will reduce the chance of theseprocessing failures.
(just for archive note)
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |