Looking for cheap way to wash prints without ruining septic tank

[RLangham]

Given your age, we'll forgive you. The correct appellation is "Saint Ansel."

Oh, yeah, it's "Uncle Wegee," isn't it?

 

[removed account4]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence; of which there is none: no personal verification (hypo check), no verifiable reference.

HUH? not really extraordinary but basic science high concentration >> low concentration
Anthony Guidace at fineartphotosupply used to sell fish tanks kits for the long soak
http://web.archive.org/web/20040423204718/http://fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm
he wrote about it too.
hypo check (potassium chloride ) is the stuff to see if your fixer is spent it's got nothing to do with residual chemistry...
but residual chemistry test kits will tell you its all good, even after a long soak..

 

[bernard_L]

hypo check

I meant test for residual hypo, i.e. HT-2

Interesting promotional material from Anthony Guidace; I see in the left margin an endorsement by Fred Picker, the same that claimed that hypo sinks to the bottom of the wash tank.
Assuming that the device of A.Guidace works as he claims, at least the prints are kept vertical and separated. Your statement to the OP, who is setting up his first darkroom and going through his first box of paper:

you don't need running water for a final wash, just let the prints sit in fresh water and leech the fixer

might well be understood as leaving a pile of prints lying flat in a tray for some time; I would not bet my money on the result of HT-2 after one hour. One should be especially careful concerning beginners seeking advice.

 

[removed account4]

I meant test for residual hypo, i.e. HT-2

Interesting promotional material from Anthony Guidace; I see in the left margin an endorsement by Fred Picker, the same that claimed that hypo sinks to the bottom of the wash tank.
Assuming that the device of A.Guidace works as he claims, at least the prints are kept vertical and separated. Your statement to the OP, who is setting up his first darkroom and going through his first box of paper:

bernard_L
it does work, simple diffusion. and yes I have done this for years (decades) and used a residual chemistry test kit like I said, and I have never had a problem. its not rocket science

might well be understood as leaving a pile of prints lying flat in a tray for some time ...

hmm, I didn't advise a stack of prints or whole box of paper, but was advising the OP of a low water fool proof way to wash prints. I didn't know it was the OP's first printing session, no clue, I thought he was the person from the LF site who is experienced in photography
OP. sorry for my assumptions and sorry for the confusion or poor advice, good luck with your water conservation !
John

==
ps > added later >>. OP you really want to conserve water, print on RC paper, the prints take very little time to fix and very little time to wash after fixer remover/perma wash, and very little wash time means very little water

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Isn’t this the article that explains the diffusion principle?

Mysteries of the vortex p.1
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=296#content_start

Part 2
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=344

 

[scheimfluger_77]

...the day pigs will soar on angelic wings!...

Don’t need wings, just a Trebuchet.

 

[bernard_L]

Isn’t this the article that explains the diffusion principle?
Mysteries of the vortex p.1
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=296#content_start
Part 2
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=344

Indeed. There is diffusion within the photo paper layers (fiber, baryta, emulsion) on one hand, and diffusion in the water. In the water, diffusion (process at molecular level) co-operates with advection (transport by the motion of water).

And some quotations from page 3 of Martin Reed's document:

Let’s now forget for a moment about the rest of the water in the tank. The significant part of the process takes place in the thin layer of water at the boundary between the print surface and the wash water. The rest of the water in the tank merely acts as a reservoir to absorb the hypo diffusing into this layer. However, the rapid removal and replacement of water in this interface layer is fundamental. Paper in a still tank will wash by diffusion alone – eventually – but the strong concentration of hypo in the interface will greatly impede the process. Some degree of agitation is necessary to shift the layer of water at the print surface regularly. This can be assisted mechanically, but usually the simplest solution is providing a good flow-through.

Translating the “300 ml archival wash” method into practice is to wash prints use a tray with a moderate volume of fresh water, agitating thoroughly, then dumping the water completely and replacing it at regular intervals. Many people use this as a pre-wash technique anyway, and it’s extremely efficient. In a test by David Vestal, a single 8” x 10” double-weight print was washed to a point where it showed no trace of hypo (using the HT-2 test) after only three 20-minute baths in 500 ml of water. SaltHill engineers found that the most efficient wash that they could achieve was a single print in their Vortex washing tray, a pre-rinse device. A single print in a tray with a Kodak tray siphon also achieves an excellent wash with good efficiency.

These techniques become impractical, and too labour intensive, when many prints are involved. Methods of efficiently washing larger numbers of large-sized prints had to be found. This, not the quality of the wash, is what led to the invention of the so called “archival” washers.
​

 

[pentaxuser]

As far as film is concerned isn't the key question about water stop v acid stop very simple: Does the extra few seconds the water takes to "stop" the amount of developer left after its decant make a difference you can see in the negs compared to acid stop? Say I have developed in X developer for say 10-12 mins and with water stop the residual developer continues to develop for say 2-3 secs longer than the instant acid stop.

In a 10-12 min development can the human eye see a 3 second difference in a negative development that then translates into a different print which in no way can be the same print as far as a viewer of the print is concerned i.e. those 3 seconds have made a difference that inevitably give the print a different look that can be seen and cannot be "compensated for"?

I doubt this is true for the first part of my above sentence and doubt even more if this is true for the second part

pentaxuser

Sorry, I have just realised that we are now a million miles away from the OP's question but was caught up in the chase over water v acid stop like others here. It may have some relevance to washing prints via a cheap way but I doubt it.

 

[Arthurwg]

I didn't read every post so I may be redundant. I too have a septic system which employs a "mound" configuration. The liquids are pumped from the holding tank to the mound, which is elevated above grade and allows for more filtration. That said, I remove all my darkroom chemicals and take them to the dump for disposal, which means that they don't go into my septic system. The wash water does, but I think the trace amounts of chemicals are safe enough. BTW, I use a large Patterson print washer large enough for 20x24 prints. It has a tube that connects to a faucet and an outlet that releases into the sink as well as holes at one end that drain surface water. Works great. If you need more drainage elevate the washer by a half inch or so and drill some small holes in the bottom to add drainage.

 

[MattKing]

As far as film is concerned isn't the key question about water stop v acid stop very simple: Does the extra few seconds the water takes to "stop" the amount of developer left after its decant make a difference you can see in the negs compared to acid stop?

Nope - that is one question.
And that question is particularly important if you use a neutral or slightly alkaline fixer, which will merrily permit continued development well into the fixing stage.
The other question relates to how much developer contamination of fixer (and the related reduction of fixer capacity) you are willing to accept.
Using an acid stop protects your fixer.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Matt. So a water wash no matter how many such as 4-5 fill and dumps does not work at all if using a neutral or alkaline fixer or simply needs so many wash and dumps that it becomes impractical?.

I'd have thought that one quick wash and dump may affect fixer capacity and even allow some development carry-over but not the 4-5 fill and dumps I use with Ilford fixer which I think is slightly acid anyway

I switched a good many years ago to water stop( as above) for film but not for paper and was not aware of development carry-over nor any noticeable effect on fixer capacity after the change

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

Thanks Matt. So a water wash no matter how many such as 4-5 fill and dumps does not work at all if using a neutral or alkaline fixer or simply needs so many wash and dumps that it becomes impractical?.

I'd have thought that one quick wash and dump may affect fixer capacity and even allow some development carry-over but not the 4-5 fill and dumps I use with Ilford fixer which I think is slightly acid anyway

I switched a good many years ago to water stop( as above) for film but not for paper and was not aware of development carry-over nor any noticeable effect on fixer capacity after the change

pentaxuser

I know of people that use several running water baths between their stop and fixer to help with carry over. its a lot of water ! but sadly, with the soon to be announced water rationings its probably not prudent to use too much water, unless it is buckets saved from the shower when it gets warm, water saved in a cistern off the roof or grey water out of the clothes washer.

 

[MattKing]

So a water wash no matter how many such as 4-5 fill and dumps does not work at all

No, it works.
It just doesn't work as well, particularly with neutral or alkaline fixer.
And with respect to maximizing fixer use, it is a good idea, particularly when you consider how much more complex it is to deal with used fixer than with used developer and stop bath.