Leave fiber prints in water (long time)

MartinP said:

The 20 hours was in a static tank/tray, not in a running washer . . .

"... I decided to leave the prints in the water tray (no running water)..."

Click to expand...

Using standing water, overnight. David Vestal did some HT-1 testing for residual hypo and found the results so remarkably low he had them confirmed by a professional lab.

I wish I could remember where I read this... but some years ago I read an article describing how to use very long soak times for fiber based prints instead of washing. The author documented how the fixer was eventually diluted after several changes of water over a period of days. The reason to do it this way was for conservation of water. Perhaps someone else will remember the source.

henk@apug said:

I indeed proceed as Doremus : from fixer (Ilford Rapid Fix 1+9), I go straight to Selenium toner. After toner to washaid, then wash.

As to washing, with the new Classic emulsion, I wash the prints for 10minutes in a print washer.

But I am going to try the following for washing : Leave the prints in a tray (no running water) for 5 to 10 minutes, and change 4 times. Apparently as efficient, but with less water consumption.
What are your thoughts on this ?

Click to expand...

Henk,

I would think that 10 minutes for a fiber-base paper might be too short...

An HT-2 test will tell the tale.

Whatever washing method we decide to use for fiber-base papers, we can easily test it's efficiency with the good old retained hypo test (I think unblinkingeye.com even has pdfs of the comparison strips). Calibrate your wash once by doing a series of prints (blank developed and fixed sheets) and pulling the first one long before adequate washing has been reached (so you'll definitely have some stain with the HT-2 test). Do test edges and centers, or the whole sheet as Kodak recommends. Pull others in 10-minute intervals or so and test till you find the one with no stain anywhere. Add a safety factor and you've got your basic wash set up. Then, test the last print through every session (or run a blank test print, even better) as a control. Peace of mind is way worth the trouble. There's no reason why successive soaks in fresh water should not yield a well-washed print; you just have to find the right number of changes and the right soak times.

FWIW, my comments on the Ilford wash sequence for minimum water use linked to above. For reference it is:

• Fixation ILFORD RAPID FIXER (1+4) or HYPAM (1+4) 1min
• First wash Fresh, running water 5min
• ILFORD WASHAID (1+4) intermittent agitation 10min
• Final wash Fresh, running water 5min

This method is based on using film-strength fixer for a short period of time. This fixes the emulsion without soaking into the paper base (as far...). Ilford tested this with their papers and, with careful time and capacity controls, it works.

However (and it's a big however), fixer capacity is greatly reduced (Ilford says 10 8x10-inch prints per liter!). Two-bath fixing with 1+4-strength fixer becomes problematic: how do you deal with drain times? Ignore them? No this would add more time to the total a print is exposed to fixer, thus saturating the paper base more. So, one minute in two baths including drain times? I can't even drain a 16x20 print twice in 30 seconds. That would leave less than 15 seconds per fixing bath; just not practical for me. And, what if you end up taking more time than 60 seconds from the time the print hits the fix till it hits the running water wash? How much leeway is there in this process? I read somewhere that the paper base on most papers becomes completely saturated at the 90 second mark. That means there would be only 30 seconds to play with. But, if you fix for 1'15", how much longer should you wash? Certainly, 90 seconds total eliminates any advantage to this method and makes one wash a lot longer. And, we can't be sure that Ilford's method works with other manufacturer's papers (at least without testing, which we should do anyway...).

The upshot of this for me is: I use Rapid Fix 1+9, two bath, 1.5min. in each (or a bit longer if you include drain times). I get 36 8x10s per liter of bath one before I discard it and replace it with bath two. This saves me a lot of fixer expense, some of which I can spend on water to wash my prints longer with.

Paper is expensive and the time, expertise and effort needed to make a beautiful print is worth the time and expense of finding a wash method that yields well-washed prints. I wash in vertical "archival" washers for a minimum of 60 minutes after a treatment in a wash-aid. This is likely a bit longer than needed, but part of my goal is to get rid of as much of the optical brighteners as possible before damaging the print with a too-long wash. (I much prefer the look of natural, unbrightened paper white; brighteners make the whites look artificial to me. 90% of them are gone after an hour wash).

Bottom line, test your wash sequence with your equipment, materials and methods. It's easy and takes the guesswork out of the mix.

Best,

Doremus

I have left prints in water way too long but fortunately I never had a problem with it.

Is this it?

keithostertag said:

I wish I could remember where I read this... but some years ago I read an article describing how to use very long soak times for fiber based prints instead of washing. The author documented how the fixer was eventually diluted after several changes of water over a period of days. The reason to do it this way was for conservation of water. Perhaps someone else will remember the source.

Click to expand...

I've been doing a lot of reading on how to save water since I live in the California. Is this the article?

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=296

That's a great article! Very useful information for anyone washing FB prints.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

I've been doing a lot of reading on how to save water since I live in the California. Is this the article?

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=296

Click to expand...

Interesting. Thank you.

keithostertag said:

That's a great article! Very useful information for anyone washing FB prints.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that Martin's research is the most comprehensive and photographer accessible out there.

What is a real shame is the archival washer that he designed as a result of his research and sold when he was the owner of Silverprint in London (fantastic piece of kit by the way) is no longer made by the new owners.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

fineartphotosupply used to sell a kit to convert a fish tank to a print washer

they aren't around anymore but the way back machine has info on this kit

http://web.archive.org/web/20030208101351/http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwasherpage.htm

its just pvc tube with slots cut in it and plexi in the slots ...

If extended time in the water damages prints, it seems I would have experienced problems by now. 48 hours in a holding bath is not uncommon, never with a problem. Understanding that water sources differ. Get this: once finished a looooong toning session with many larger liths, i.e. toning until I couldn't stand up any more, turned the hose on trickle and passed out. In the morning I went down to clean up the mess and dry the prints, stuck my hand in the tub and got burned. Accidentally turned on the hot instead of cold, and the wife keeps the water tank dial which only goes from 1 to 10, she keeps it at 11. It burned my hand. Those prints are all on mounts and doing fine, maybe 10 years on. Anecdotal yes, and of course not to be recommended, but I literally cooked the prints and they don't seem any worse for it. I doubt rc paper would hold up to this abuse, but I see no point in testing.

Rich Ullsmith said:

If extended time in the water damages prints, it seems I would have experienced problems by now. 48 hours in a holding bath is not uncommon, never with a problem. Understanding that water sources differ. Get this: once finished a looooong toning session with many larger liths, i.e. toning until I couldn't stand up any more, turned the hose on trickle and passed out. In the morning I went down to clean up the mess and dry the prints, stuck my hand in the tub and got burned. Accidentally turned on the hot instead of cold, and the wife keeps the water tank dial which only goes from 1 to 10, she keeps it at 11. It burned my hand. Those prints are all on mounts and doing fine, maybe 10 years on. Anecdotal yes, and of course not to be recommended, but I literally cooked the prints and they don't seem any worse for it. I doubt rc paper would hold up to this abuse, but I see no point in testing.

Click to expand...

You were lucky that the emulsion did not slide off the paper. Been there, done that.

I haven't been keeping up. So past problems with optical brighteners washing out with long wash times have been solved in modern papers?

ChuckP said:

I haven't been keeping up. So past problems with optical brighteners washing out with long wash times have been solved in modern papers?

Click to expand...

No, Simon Galley of Ilford mentioned the washing out of optical brighten ears in their Warmtone paper here on APU, some people prefer to remove it.

Ian