If uncertain, always trust the instructions.The separators in my 'archival' FB print washer have one smooth side and one textured. The manufacturer's instructions state that prints will be washed most [more?] effectively when their emulsion sides face the textured side of the separator.
That surprised me. Is it really true? My inexpert understanding was that the emulsion is relatively easily washed, and that most of the contaminants reside in the fibre base. So if the fibre side rests against the smooth surface of the next separator, I would expect it to wash less effectively.
Anyone know if there are studies on this, or have an insight either way?
If uncertain, always trust the instructions.
If uncertain, always trust the instructions.
The flow is probably better away from the surface - whether or not it is textured.
You may have already noticed this, but if you look at the surface of the water while washing prints in the Ecowash, you'll see movement/ripples. I assume those are caused by the water contacting the textured surface of the divider. Since, as you observed, the prints don't stick to the divider after a minute or two, I'm going to hazard a guess and say that both sides of the print benefit from this agitation of the water. But if you're in doubt as to the efficacy of the Ecowash, then test the washed prints using a residual hypo test kit like this:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/030150-Formulary-Residual-Hypo-Test-Kit-100-ml
I confess I hadn't noticed the turbulence caused by the textured surface. I will pay more attention. But then, if the texturing is critical, why has one of the 5 slots got two smooth faces: a side wall and the non-textured side of a separator?
It's only I'm puzzled as to why one is advised to place prints into the Ecowash that way round. Call it academic curiosity, if you like.
I've wondered that myself. I can only imagine it wasn't easy to procure a divider with two textured sides
If you get bored and want to solve another mystery, tell me why the dividers bow badly if there's any water left in the bottom of the washer. I can only imagine that the remaining water causes them to expand for some reason, which makes them wider than the available space between the vertical slots that hold them in place. Just a theory. They always do go back to their original shape once the washer dries out, but it is a bit annoying.
It's done it since day one so I don't think so. I've also read other forum posts in which people mentioned the same thing.I had already reversed my separators so that I could see the images through the tank, before I read the instruction to keep them carefully in order. Then they bowed badly when re-assembled. I guess these things are hand-made and fine-tuned for each slot. I spent about an hour finding the right permutation again. So it it possible that yours have got out of sequence?
It's done it since day one so I don't think so. I've also read other forum posts in which people mentioned the same thing.
Are your dividers no longer bowing after inserting them in their original orientation?
Now I'm curious. What makes it not archival?Affirmative, they aren't bowing now/at present. I can't be certain they are in their original orientation, but it seems to be a workable permutation.
I'm reluctant to say this in a public forum, but while it works OK, this washer has some puzzling features and others that annoy, given the price. I really expected it to be unconditionally archival.
Now I'm curious. What makes it not archival?
It still should be an archival wash if the fix is being removed, which I understand is mostly through the edges of the print.Well, as explained, it supposedly works best if the emulsion side faces the textured side of the separator. But the fifth slot has no textured side, so what happens there? Of course I can (and will) test the result from that slot, but either (1) the textured surface is irrelevant, or (2) they should have made it a feature of every slot. In case (2), I am still unconvinced which side of the print should face the textured side.
The flow may be different in that 5th slot.
Most likely the texturing is there simply to stop prints from adhering, when flow conditions tend to "squeegee" the print into the divider.
It could all come down to manufacturing considerations. The NOVA products use an acrylic that is waffle-textured on one side for their processors and maybe it is easier and more efficient for them to just use the same for their washers. From their website, it seems the extra slot is for a wash-aid or can be converted as an additional print-was slot. https://www.theimagingwarehouse.com/ProductGrp/Nova-Washmaster-ECOMatt, that is a very fair suggestion, credit to you. Does it follow from the second part of your comment, that it should be easier to drop prints in if I switch the flow off momentarily? I will try that.
All the same, my original question is unresolved.
It could all come down to manufacturing considerations. The NOVA products use an acrylic that is waffle-textured on one side for their processors and maybe it is easier and more efficient for them to just use the same for their washers. From their website, it seems the extra slot is for a wash-aid or can be converted as an additional print-was slot. https://www.theimagingwarehouse.com/ProductGrp/Nova-Washmaster-ECO
Try dribbling some water over the surface of the print as you insert it.Does it follow from the second part of your comment, that it should be easier to drop prints in if I switch the flow off momentarily? I will try that.
The separators in my 'archival' FB print washer have one smooth side and one textured. The manufacturer's instructions state that prints will be washed most [more?] effectively when their emulsion sides face the textured side of the separator.
That surprised me. Is it really true? My inexpert understanding was that the emulsion is relatively easily washed, and that most of the contaminants reside in the fibre base. So if the fibre side rests against the smooth surface of the next separator, I would expect it to wash less effectively.
Anyone know if there are studies on this, or have an insight either way?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?