Ilford washing technique

Dave Miller said:

Ray, why the final running water for 10 minutes. Don't you trust Ilford either?

Click to expand...

g'day dave

just as i posted the above the same question occured to me

before i processed my first roll of film, in 1987, i read various books and magazine articles and got it into my head that the method recommended by Ilford was fill with tap water, invert 5 times, pour out, refill etc, 10 times then 20 times then wash for around 20 minutes

i never thought the sequence of 5/10/20 was the only washing necessary

Ray

so all

further question/comment

what is the actual/real/traditional Ilford recommendation?

is it 5/10/20 and nothing more?

is it 5/10 whatever and a bit extra?

??

Ray

Ray Heath said:

g'day dave

just as i posted the above the same question occured to me

before i processed my first roll of film, in 1987, i read various books and magazine articles and got it into my head that the method recommended by Ilford was fill with tap water, invert 5 times, pour out, refill etc, 10 times then 20 times then wash for around 20 minutes

i never thought the sequence of 5/10/20 was the only washing necessary

Ray

Click to expand...

Thanks Ray.

My quote earlier in the thread was from the current Ilford recommendation which is 5/10/20 and nothing more; that's if I've read it right of course. Don't know if this has changed over the years though.

Where did paper come in to the question? This is for film: Ilford have never recommended the 5-10-20 method for paper that I have ever read.

There is only one "Ilford method" - the one published by Ilford. If others want to add cycles etc that is fine, but that does not make them the "Ilford method".

In any case, the maths is not sufficient, however good you are at it. In the real-world there are innumerable variations from the ideal as expressed in the maths. You can calculate all you like but the acid test is to do it and measure the results. Very few of us have access to the kind of equipment, materials and know-how necessary to do this with sufficient accuracy, although there are a few scientists here that could do a good job with the right tools.

There is a large body of personal experience to suggest that the method, if not optimum, appears to be at least sufficient as demonstrated by the continuing survival over decades of negatives washed in this (or similar) manner.

Given that the Ilford method has been around for a long time perhaps it is time for someone in Harman/Ilford's lab to be given the job of retesting the method on today's film? Publishing the result would be nice.

Bob.

Someone above questioned whether there was a misprint or error in Ilford's method of washing. I'm going to try to clear this up a bit.

The Ilford method, as posted, is correct for film. It represents a methodology devised during water shortages in Britain many years ago and represents the low end of washing. It also represents only one type of water, that used at the Ilford site and a limited combinations of film and fixers.

In this article: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/ilfwash.pdf posted above, it shows exactly what I describe, and that is that the level of hypo approaches a low level and then the rate of change during washing slows down and finally stops, leaving some residual hypo and silver behind. This always takes place, and as Ctein has shown, some hypo is needed for optimum stability.

Mason shows mathematically that this whole scenario is to be expected by laws of diffusion, and that the most efficient wash is in running water with agitation. So, he describes the high end and recommends it. He is generalizing for all films, fixers and water supplies - which I might mention is what I'm doing as well.

Why do I do this?

Since water differs all over the world, and many films and fixers are in use, it is impossible to tell whether the low end is sufficient for any given condition and that is why I err (if I am indeed erring) on the side of caution and give you the high end condition. Mason, knowing all of these variables has suggested the high end as well. Besides, this high end method works for film and paper both with the appropriate times being used!

In any event, I always say "use what works for you". I also say "test". So, if you are determined to use a given set of conditions and it includes the Ilford method, then I suggest that you test your photo material for retained hypo and retained silver both. If it fails the test, then your conditions are not proper.

So, if any of you are using the Ilford method, and have not tested your film or paper for residuals, then you may (may) be in for a surprise. Actually, I used that method when I was a teen, and today (over 50 years later), I have prints and film that are beginning to stain. I was taught at some point along this line to use the long wash in running water and those negatives and prints that were washed better survive without stain. That has made me sensitive to this problem.

You see, when I started doing photography, I was told to stop wasting water, so I used the 3 short wash method which was known even in the 40s. This is nothing new, just the times and numbers of soaks vary over the ages. So, when I went to work at Kodak I had the chance to talk to some of the experts there about wash and learned how to do it their way and how to test for it. I also learned the reasons which were related to the types of film, water and fixers being used by the customers.

I hope this helps a bit to explain things from my POV a bit better.

PE

The publisher of the article would prefer THIS link with some corrections and additional information:

Current Version: 1.07 from 12 FEB 05, including now advice for print washing as below.

http://www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/thinktank/5693/photogra.html#fwash

Best regards,

Robert

Photo Engineer said:

...
Since water differs all over the world, and many films and fixers are in use, it is impossible to tell whether the low end is sufficient for any given condition and that is why I err (if I am indeed erring) on the side of caution and give you the high end condition. ...
PE

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the use of hypo clearing agent or a similar treatment largely compensate for the differences in water? If it would, you could determine a minimum sufficient wash using hypo clearing agent that would pretty well work everywhere.

HCA or the equivalent would help, but you would still need to test. Also, you are faced with the need to wash the HCA out entirely anyhow. If you add the two washes together it comes close to the process without HCA and with one less chemical to dispose of. It has always seemed to me to be a tossup.

So, the question is "what works for you"?

PE

Hi PE !
My negatives, treated in a lot of different fixes and water (from highly carbonated south of France to pure water of the mountains(you know the water making your hands still feeling soapy even after an hour rinse) ) are still fine with no stain after a not so fine storage since the early 70's...
So I trust the original Ilford washing sequence. And I tend to trust the Ilford processing sequence for papers asking for a short fix and an as short as possible wash. This was, indirectly, I must admit, confirmed by chemical analysis from a French lab.
So, I stick to the 5/10/20 method to wash the so thin gelatin layer of my films and, for now they're fine !

I've used the Ilford wash method for the last 2 years, being in rural Australia on rain water. My negatives are fine, but I was always a bit suspicious of the whole thing and exactly how archival it is.
I might run my own tests later this year, when I can abuse the university darkroom facilities - it sounds like a fun project, really.

I didn't use the ilford method till I print some neg for a photographer who use it till 30 years and his 30 years negative show really good conservation, by the way no marks of degradation ( by comparing vintage to recent print). I use to add 2 step more Just to keep it on the safe side.
best

I've never trusted the gentle running water technique as it has seemed to be washing film or paper in a dilute bath of unwanted byproducts. Long ago I started using a fill and dump wash, but with more changes than the Illford process. Regardless, it sounds like PE has a point - that to be sure - test.

C

I have been re-reading Haist, Volume #1, page 664 ff. He states nearly the same thing as Mason, but leaves out the math.

PE

Interesting article supplied by Robert from Fotohuis. The author attempted to test the Ilford method of 5/10/20 rinse and dumps.I had some difficulty folowing it all but it seems as if the author's recommendations based on tests he carried out get close to Les' additional rinse and dumps. Interestingly he regards carryover as being the thing to avoid and recommends that on each rinse sequence the top of the tank is taken off and the reel is then shaken to remove even residual drops and , I think, the tank is wiped on the first dump so carryover is minimised.

If you have two reels in the tank then the rinse and dump sequence is increased to achieve the same level of fixer elimination which seems reasonable based on film area.On the other hand most tanks taking two films are bigger anyway and need twice as much water to fill so the water per film remains the same.

As far as the Ilford method being the product of a U.K. "drought" I can only think of 1976 which in most of the U.K. was probably the longest period without rain we have had since records began. I think that in the Midlands and South East there was no rain from about the end of the first week in June until about the first week in September. Water conservation was almost a crusade and one Labour Minister was made the Minister for Drought. About a week after he was appointed it rained and that was the end of the problem. It was a standing political joke for years afterwards.

So I wonder if Simon Galley and the good folk from Ilford can cast any light on the year of the birth of the Ilford wash method and what prompted it?

pentaxuser

Both Haist and Mason were published in the mid 70s.

PE

Fotohuis said:

The publisher of the article would prefer THIS link with some corrections and additional information:

Current Version: 1.07 from 12 FEB 05, including now advice for print washing as below.

http://www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/thinktank/5693/photogra.html#fwash

Best regards,

Robert

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting this - observed facts are always good! And thanks to everyone else who has contributed, I teach B&W photo at basic and intermediate level and have always used the IWT, good to have some more info about it, because I do get asked sometimes by students "does it really work?".

g'day all

we could all post links to some unproved web page, but what does Ilford actually recommend?

Ray

Ray Heath said:

g'day all

we could all post links to some unproved web page, but what does Ilford actually recommend?

Ray

Click to expand...

You can find Ilford's recommendations on their film fact sheets – e.g. http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf

See page five under wash

/C

Please note this:

• This paper does not prove that the Ilford washing instruction under all conditions leads to films of archival purity.
The only issue is that there are obviously very early conditions reached, where washing can be stopped, because
subsequent washing is just a waste of water without any decrease of hypo concentration in the film. (A
statement about archival purity would only be possible if the hypo content would have been really determined,
which is beyond my ability).
• This paper does not say, that the Ilford method can just be used as published by Ilford. In my opinion the
instruction is too course and does not consider water volume per film available

These disclaimers are at the top of the PDF file referenced above and located here:

http://www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/thinktank/5693/ilfwash.pdf

Please note that the first disclaimer is almost exactly what I said above! The author doesn't claim that this method gives archival washing. It does wash, but offers a minimum wash condition that will 'just pass', my words for many conditions, and may not for some.

PE

Another note on this article.

In part 7, the author assumes that 90% of the chemicals are removed from the fillm in each wash step, but both Haist and Mason use the more widely accpeted figure of 50% and which seems to have some basis considering the diffustion equations they used. Therefore the wash rates are quite different by a considerable margin in the textbooks and in this article.

In addition, the only thing being tested for is residual hypo, but in fact, you are also trying to remove silver complexes, hydroquinone and metol (if that is what your developer contains). No one here has mentioned this yet, so I thought I might just drop this into the mix for you to consider.

PE

FYI, Bill Troop is rather busy but he has sent me a private note with his permission to publish it here. It relates directly to this thread.

This is a direct quote from his e-mail, minus some private chit chat. Since he just got married 2 weeks ago, he is kinda busy.
--------------------------------------------
Ron, there is no 'Ilford' multiple soak wash method. There is a Kodak method, researched by and published by G.I.P. Levinson, one of the most eminent of the scientists at Kodak Harrow, in the 1970s, during a period of water shortages in Britain. This was misread by someone at Ilford and incorporated into Ilford instructions by accident -- minus the obligatory five-minute waiting times. Ilford has unfortunately never corrected its error. Ilford's own leading scientist, L.F.A. Mason, did not fall into this error. I would have thought that would all that was needed to be said about the subject -- ever.
-----------------------------------------------

So, here is Bill's personal note to everyone and confirms the data in Mason and points to the errors in the Ilford data.

PE

You can quote me on this!

Ohhh I see... this is an Ilford bashing thread by ex-Kodak employees...

Andy;

Please tell me when and where Bill worked for Kodak?

Thanks.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

FYI, Bill Troop is rather busy but he has sent me a private note with his permission to publish it here. It relates directly to this thread.

This is a direct quote from his e-mail, minus some private chit chat. Since he just got married 2 weeks ago, he is kinda busy.
--------------------------------------------
Ron, there is no 'Ilford' multiple soak wash method. There is a Kodak method, researched by and published by G.I.P. Levinson, one of the most eminent of the scientists at Kodak Harrow, in the 1970s, during a period of water shortages in Britain. This was misread by someone at Ilford and incorporated into Ilford instructions by accident -- minus the obligatory five-minute waiting times. Ilford has unfortunately never corrected its error. Ilford's own leading scientist, L.F.A. Mason, did not fall into this error. I would have thought that would all that was needed to be said about the subject -- ever.
-----------------------------------------------

So, here is Bill's personal note to everyone and confirms the data in Mason and points to the errors in the Ilford data.

PE

You can quote me on this!

Click to expand...

Ron, you seem hell bent on proving that you are right and Ilford are wrong for you have "chewed" this topic to death in your search to be seen to be right, and I'm sorry to say that this is not the first time. I have also witnessed this by other Kodak or ex Kodak employees. For what it is worth the last time I saw Bill Troop was in Montana where I was doing a workshop and Bill was trying to create a new type of developer at my request. When I processed the film I started to wash it in my normal "Ilford" method, Bill's response was "that will take too long just rinse it once that will be quite sufficient, film only needs a quick rinse". We then had a chat when I said I always washed film properly and he agreed with the method I was using.

I had not intended to repeat this because I like Bill very much and did not wish to cast a bad light on a very clever and helpful friend.
I'm not wishing to start any sort of argument with you for I respect you too much but neither an I prepared to sit quiet when you are clearly out to prove wrong Ilford people I know and trust who have constantly assured me that the Ilford washing method is archival.