Ilford washing technique

An afterthought!

Bill hates these kinds of forums and rarely logs on but rather just reads. I suppose this type of comment is what keeps him away. This kind of comment will also keep Kodak away. I have been called a liar and a fake, on forums such as this Andy. I've stuck with it and disproved them (I hope), so I hope you retract your comment for Bill's sake.

I did not know of the information that Bill sent me, but merely posted it here. I believe his honesty and he has done a lot more research on this than any of us. So, with that kind of comment you run the risk that you keep experts from posting the results of their research.

I think that we would benefit a lot by having Bill welcome here rather than have him instantly criticized.

PE

Les;

I too respect Bill and was happy to pass this on. This is the result of his extensive researches and just briefly touches on mine. I'm trying to prevent problems which Grant has described in his book. I'm not defending Kodak at all, but in fact it seems as if the 'method' originated with Kodak not with Ilford. I leave it to others to eke out the truth of the matter then. I don't feel, with this attitude that you wish to hear from my expertise in fixing and washing nor do you wish to hear from Bill.

I'm sorry. I guess I should withdraw from this discussion.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Andy;

Please tell me when and where Bill worked for Kodak?

Thanks.

PE

Click to expand...

g'day all

who is Bill Troop?

Ray

Co author of Anchell & Troop, "The Film Developing Cookbook" and a noted historian of photographic processes.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Les;

I too respect Bill and was happy to pass this on. This is the result of his extensive researches and just briefly touches on mine. I'm trying to prevent problems which Grant has described in his book. I'm not defending Kodak at all, but in fact it seems as if the 'method' originated with Kodak not with Ilford. I leave it to others to eke out the truth of the matter then. I don't feel, with this attitude that you wish to hear from my expertise in fixing and washing nor do you wish to hear from Bill.

I'm sorry. I guess I should withdraw from this discussion.

PE

Click to expand...

Ron, I simply repeated a conversation I had with Bill and did not say that did not wish to hear from him, those were your words not mine so please do not credit me with them. With regard to hearing and learning from yours or anyone elses expertise in matters related to photography I am extremely interested, again you are wrongly assuming that you know my thoughts. I'll repeat what I said in my first post "I'm not wishing to start any sort of argument with you for I respect you too much".

Les;

Coincidentally, Bill called me on another matter as I was writing a note to you. He and I both wish to keep the dialog open, but I got the impression that you wanted to close this particular dialog, not all dialog. I'm sorry that I was unclear in my post.

I am quite pro Ilford actually and only disagree in this one tiny matter on washing as I've tried to explain. It is NOT always archival for all conditions as explained by Haist and Mason (of Ilford). They both seem to disagree with their parent companies and I agree with them.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Les;

Coincidentally, Bill called me on another matter as I was writing a note to you. He and I both wish to keep the dialog open, but I got the impression that you wanted to close this particular dialog, not all dialog. I'm sorry that I was unclear in my post.

I am quite pro Ilford actually and only disagree in this one tiny matter on washing as I've tried to explain. It is NOT always archival for all conditions as explained by Haist and Mason (of Ilford). They both seem to disagree with their parent companies and I agree with them.

PE

Click to expand...

Ron it is not my right to to close dialogue such as this in a Forum that is there for the benefit of all, in any event it was never in my mind to stop the discussion. The good thing about our last few posts is that no one is getting silly and making accusations. Yes we have a difference of opinion that has been discussed in a very civilised manner and I thank you for that.

Thanks Les. I appreciate your comments.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't wish to be seen as ranting. Nor do I wish to be seen as anti Ilford. I respect them too much for that. I especially don't want to appear as a hard case Kodaker or ex Kodaker. I hope we can continue this dialog in a manner that might lead to a satisfactory position for all explaining factors leading to archival film and paper images.

Thanks again.

Ron

I always thought Ron was Kodakistani

Some people cant stand me.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

...There is a Kodak method...

Click to expand...

Just to refocus this on the original posted question I don't think there IS a published Kodak rinse+dump method, they seem to recommend rinse, HCA, running water rinse (possibly because they want to publish one method to deal with fixers with & without hardener). There definitely isn't one that is "like the Ilford method + 5 minutes stands" that I have found (if anyone can point to it as something current, published by the company for their customers to use please do so).

The idea of adding 5 minute stands comes from the "Cookbook" (apparently, I haven't read it but am quoting the OP).

Conceptually the 5 minute stands make no sense as a way to improve a film washing process - but that book wouldn't be the first written by a human to contain an error, that is not my point. The approach of adding volume and agitation cycles (in the German report one poster provided a link to) does. If anyone is not convinced the Ilford method as published is quite enough and wants to add some safety margin that is a route to go that is reasonable from a chemical point of view.

IMHO it really has nothing to do with Ilford vs Kodak and supposed water shortages 30 years ago etc etc. It's just chemistry, and at least at a conceptual level fairly straightforward.

Bill Troop researched this and found two Kodak methods. One was the generic running water wash used from day 1 in photography. The second was described by G. I. P. Levenson of the Kodak Harrow labs, published in the 70s and using the 3 standing washes with times and agitation specified. Later, this work was also published (as we see it today) by Ilford, but with some modification from the Kodak method. Afterwards, Haist (of Kodak) and Mason (of Ilford) both published books which show why the "Ilford" or "Kodak" method of 3 or more rinses will not work and that the running water method will in order to achieve archival results from all possible conditions.

Further work has illuminated this to the extent that it seems the Ilford/Kodak method will work but has not been tested with a wide variety of films, waters and fixers, nor for a long period of time, but the one using continuously running water has had more extensive testing just by its age. It has been around a looooong time.

The German report has a disclaimer at the very top and I quoted it earlier. In the disclaimer, he effectively says that this method may not be suitable under all conditions to meet the criteria established for archival washing.

I cannot separate the wheat from the chaff here anymore except to say that it is clear that the older method works. It has been around long enough to prove itself. It is also clear that the Kodak and Ilford methods differ in critical aspects such as timing and agitation.

My position has been to use what works, but test! Believe but verify! And, this goes for all films, fixers, papers and methodologies.

PE