Print washer water flow rates - seeking guidelines

Hello,

Is there any consensus on the water flow rate for ‘archival’ print washers? From what I can gather Kodak says the water should be changed every 5 minutes. The versalab site seems to say that 1-1.5 liters/min is effective. There's quite a discrepancy between these two amounts.

I use a community darkroom, and water wastage is an issue.

I suppose what I’m looking for is some sort of guideline that members could follow, and still be assured that print washing would be adequate. I understand that there are many steps to making a true archival print, and that washing is just one of these steps.

For what it’s worth I believe both washers are Kostiner brand. The water is unfiltered Toronto tap water.

Eventually I would like to see everyone using hypo clear to save on washing times, and it would be nice to have access to a simple test (HT-2, or whatever is used these days) to determine if ones washing method was effective or not. One step at a time, though.

Any help on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Are you a member of Gallery 44 Marco ? If so, surely someone there should know this.

I have a Cascade washer made by Summitek and they suggest for the 11x16 model, a minimum of 250 ml per minute. That's pretty miserly. I haven't printed in a while but I usually run it somewhere in that flow rate and have the temp at about 22c or so.

It seems to be agreed that washing fb with high flows is a waste of water and that prints wash best through slow diffusion, with some printers leaving prints soaking overnight.

Regardless, I usually have a sacrificial print that I test at semi regular intervals using Kodak's hypo test kit.

Try and find a copy of David Vestal's "The Art of Black and White Enlarging" , a very fine resource.

I use a Gravity Works archival washer, I have a 16x20 and an 11x14. They hold about 9 and 5 gallons of water. I set the water flow rate to fill whichever washer I'm using in about 25 minutes (I just time the filling of a quart - or liter and multiply). Then I let it run at this slow rate for 2-3 hours (70F). I try to do this final wash when I have enough prints to fill the washer, usually after toning, which I don't do every printing session.
This is with alkaline TF4 fixer and no HCA.

Canuhead; I am a member at G44 - it's a great facility. To my knowledge, they don't have guidelines for this sort of thing. That's why I'm asking here

250ml is really miserly, as you say. If it does an effective job, than that's really fantastic. I would guess that sometimes the print washers at the gallery are running at 4-6L/min, sometimes for over an hour. It strikes me as a bit much.

The problem, as I see it, is that photographers obviously want to make sure their work is washed properly. After all the time and money spent on making an image, the last thing one wants to do is subject it to an inefficient wash. In doing so, it's easy to go overboard. A suggested 5 min wash after Perma Wash becomes 10 min to 'be safe', then 20 min, and then an even half hour just for the sake of it. Combined with high flow rates (ie: *not* 250ml/min), this gets a bit ridiculous. Especially if it's completely unneccesary.

I'm guilty of this as well - no doubt. It's very easy to crank the water flow to obscene amounts and not really notice it. It's not until you fill up a measuring jug that you realize what sort of consumption you're dealing with!

Anyways, I've written to RIT's Image Permanence Institute. I've not heard back yet; it might not really be up their alley. I'll check at the reference library and see if they've got a copy of Vestal's book as well. I've probably skimmed through it at one point years ago.

Thanks!

George Collier said:

I use a Gravity Works archival washer, I have a 16x20 and an 11x14. They hold about 9 and 5 gallons of water. I set the water flow rate to fill whichever washer I'm using in about 25 minutes (I just time the filling of a quart - or liter and multiply). Then I let it run at this slow rate for 2-3 hours (70F). I try to do this final wash when I have enough prints to fill the washer, usually after toning, which I don't do every printing session.
This is with alkaline TF4 fixer and no HCA.

Click to expand...

My washer is one of those with a miserly flow rate. I adjust it so that I get the most I can without overflowing, but it is still only about 2 liters per minute. For a 16X20 washer, that doesn't make for many full exchanges. I usually rinse the prints very fully before washing them. That takes care of most of the washing. Then I wash for an hour plus. But I worry a bit about soaking RC prints for too long a time. I am thinking of installing a larger drain on my print washer, if i can find the appropriate fittings.

For RC , I skip my fb washer and just do the tray fill and dump method.

Marco, it's too bad that no one there has come up with guidelines re: washing fibre prints. 4-6 litres per minute sounds overboard. I'd suggest looking for Vestal's book and also to get a hold of a residual hypo test kit and do some stain tests at say five or ten minute intervals.

On another note, how are people drying their prints ? Screens ? Heated dryers ? Clothesline ?


ttyl,

Fred

Canuhead, I've dried my FB prints by two methods. Clothesline, with a small clip at each corner, but have migrated to screen dying now as there is far less risk of damage.

You can make the screens your self from kits at Home depot, or you can use regular Anderson window screens. (Just don't let the wife know!!) I think at some point, I will get a print dryer/flattener

I used to use blotters when I had the space but now use a Salthill dryer. Very nice. Shame they went out of business.

Probably shouldn't mention I have used those two sided heated dryers with the cloth of indeterminate cleanliness but that was a looong time ago

My old Zone VI 11x14 print washer's instructions recommend one gallon per minute. I generally follow that, and have had no trouble with prints I made 20 years ago. I sometimes run it for a while, let the prints soak, then run it for a little longer. I suspect it would work as well with less volume and more soaking.

Peter Gomena

Peter Gomena