Print washers: worth the money ?

I've been printing on FB paper lately, following the Ilford method for washing, 5min running water + 10min wash aid + 5min running water, which comes down to 20min total.
I know both Paterson and Nova make a slotted type washer with a pump to aid in washing but they're quite pricey, I asked Ilford tech about this they said they haven't run tests but in theory they should reduce wash time.

So I'm turning to you guys, anyone have any experience with those washers ? Are they worth the money, do they further shorten wash time or is there no significant improvement ?

I bought a Paterson archival print washer on Ebay last year and I think they're worth the money. The reason is that I live in California and we have a terrible drought. I used to use a Kodak tray siphon and an old Arkay tumbling print washer that was totally inefficient. On top of that, the Arky washer sometimes damaged some of my prints. The slotted print washers use a lot less water and safer for your prints. I verified how effective they are from my Kodak HT-2 residual hypo test.

I have a Zone VI 8x10 washer bought 30 years ago that I use constantly. Also have an 11x14 and recently bought a 16x20. Wouldn't print on FB without one. There are excellent print washers made in Canada:

Dead Link Removed

I've used a Paterson Major Print Washer for the last 30 years and it has been worth every cent. The water inlet is controlled by a cheap clockwork garden tap timer I installed ages ago. Now I stack the washer with fibre base, or resin coat, or sheet film, set the time, turn the tap on, and walk away. When the timer closes the tap everything is washed and archival. I don't have to stand around for another hour after a long darkroom session just flipping prints in trays.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

I bought a Paterson archival print washer on Ebay last year and I think they're worth the money. The reason is that I live in California and we have a terrible drought. I used to use a Kodak tray siphon and an old Arkay tumbling print washer that was totally inefficient. On top of that, the Arky washer sometimes damaged some of my prints. The slotted print washers use a lot less water and safer for your prints. I verified how effective they are from my Kodak HT-2 residual hypo test.

Click to expand...

I too live in California and the 11"x14" archival washer save time and water plus I believe that it does a much better job washing the paper than a Kodak tray siphon and a large tray.

I make my own archival slot washers, but I'm reasonably skilled and equipped for acrylic fabrication. I have three: 11X14, 16x20, and 20x24.
I also have a single sheet washer with a Kodak tray siphon for 30x40 color prints. These are first washed in several changes of water in the
processing drum, and only transferred to the big tray for a final rinse when it comes to archival peace of mind (probably overkill).

I went to Rayco in SF

Sirius Glass said:

I too live in California and the 11"x14" archival washer save time and water plus I believe that it does a much better job washing the paper than a Kodak tray siphon and a large tray.

Click to expand...

I was in SF and visited Rayco. I was chatting with a fellow loading fiber prints in their archival print washer. They suggest 5-10 minutes in Permawash and 10 minutes in the archival print washer. He said the work flow gives a decent wash.

My workflow is 1 minute in rapid fix then a holding bath. Then I fix again in a 2nd bath for rapid for a minute. I wash them for 10 minutes to remove majority of the fix, then HCA for 5-10 minutes and wash in the archival print washer for 20 minutes. I might try 10 minutes and do a Kodak HT-2 residual hypo test. In the old days, I'd just let the washer run for over an hour for good measure. I think those days are over.

I, too, am working on how to work HCA into my use of the archival print washer.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

I bought a Paterson archival print washer on Ebay last year and I think they're worth the money. The reason is that I live in California and we have a terrible drought. I used to use a Kodak tray siphon and an old Arkay tumbling print washer that was totally inefficient. On top of that, the Arky washer sometimes damaged some of my prints. The slotted print washers use a lot less water and safer for your prints. I verified how effective they are from my Kodak HT-2 residual hypo test.

Click to expand...

Sirius Glass said:

I too live in California and the 11"x14" archival washer save time and water plus I believe that it does a much better job washing the paper than a Kodak tray siphon and a large tray.

Click to expand...

For those of us in California, or recently Texas and Oklahoma, the droughts put a moral price on saving water that is more important than the cost savings.

lauffray said:

I've been printing on FB paper lately, following the Ilford method for washing, 5min running water + 10min wash aid + 5min running water, which comes down to 20min total.
I know both Paterson and Nova make a slotted type washer with a pump to aid in washing but they're quite pricey, I asked Ilford tech about this they said they haven't run tests but in theory they should reduce wash time.

So I'm turning to you guys, anyone have any experience with those washers ? Are they worth the money, do they further shorten wash time or is there no significant improvement ?

Click to expand...

hi lauffray

i have an oriental print washer and an oriental film washer.
the film washer has an insert to wash ( it fills and dumps with a siphon )4x5 film
you can also put prints in there if you want, or reels of film. i use that very often.
the print washer is an 11x14 one. i have used less than a dozen times in almost 30 years.
i found it just as easy to soak and fill and dump and flip prints in a large tray and use perma wash ( fixer remover )
and i have wanted to sell it but know i won't get anything for it so i put my trays on top of it under my sink.
it probably costs more to ship than it is worth monetarily. if i was offered a print washer, even a 20x24 one, i wouldn't take it, even if it was free.
everyone has their own methods of washing prints and what works for them works ... a washer never worked for me.
( and i submit photographs to state and federal archives and they are tested for residual chemicals, i never had a problem with residual chemicals )

as with everything YMMV

Sirius Glass said:

For those of us in California, or recently Texas and Oklahoma, the droughts put a moral price on saving water that is more important than the cost savings.

Click to expand...

Not an issue in South Louisiana. We don't know what to do with all the water!

Luis-F-S said:

Not an issue in South Louisiana. We don't know what to do with all the water!

Click to expand...

You could drink it instead of Mint Juleps. Just a thought. :munch:

I say horses for courses. Everyone has a method but my oriental SAVES WATER..A DUH!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Print washers: worth the money?

Sirius Glass said:

You could drink it instead of Mint Juleps. Just a thought. :munch:

Click to expand...

Louisiana is the wrong part of the South for Mint Juleps. Must better to drink Bloody Marys as they use plenty of Tabasco Sauce in those. By the way, our local River (the Red River which drains Southern Oklahoma and NE Texas) has been out of its banks twice this past year, last Spring and this past December and the folks east of here are having problems with the Mississippi as this is written. The crawfish
are larger this season than usual so some good has come of all this.........Regards!

lauffray said:

I've been printing on FB paper lately, following the Ilford method for washing, 5min running water + 10min wash aid + 5min running water, which comes down to 20min total.
I know both Paterson and Nova make a slotted type washer with a pump to aid in washing but they're quite pricey, I asked Ilford tech about this they said they haven't run tests but in theory they should reduce wash time.

So I'm turning to you guys, anyone have any experience with those washers ? Are they worth the money, do they further shorten wash time or is there no significant improvement ?

Click to expand...

First thing, if you're processing fiber-base prints, you are likely washing way too little! I certainly wouldn't trust a print washed only 10 minutes after the wash aid step regardless of what Ilford says... and be aware that the Ilford sequence is predicated on using their products and a very short time in a strong fixing bath.

My work flow: ... fix 2 - wash aid 5-10 minutes - wash in a slotted archival washer; 60 minutes minimum - stabilizer - squeegee - dry on screens.
@Sirius: It's easy to add the wash-aid step to your work flow. If you don't need to get the most out of your wash aid, you can transfer directly to it from fix 2 and directly from it to the wash. If you add a rinse before the wash aid, you'll extend its capacity. However, I mix my own (sod. sulfite + bisulfite) and its capacity matches the fix when transferring without the rinse.

Really, the only way to know if your fixing and washing regime is doing the job is to test (regularly) for retained hypo and silver using the HT-2 and ST-1 tests respectively. You can also use selenium toner to test for residual silver. Do a search on these and learn how to use them.

As for washers. Yes they are more than worth it just because you don't have to hang around agitating prints in trays. I usually print upwards of 36 prints a session and can't imagine standing around agitating for hours... Water consumption with slotted washers is generally less than using a tray siphon.

Best,

Doremus

The problem with these sorts of threads is that people describe what they do (washing sequence, type of washer, etc) but do not explain the efficacy of their particular washing procedure.

Discussions about the usefulness or effectiveness of any particular methodology is pointless without evidence of appropriate testing to identify if such methodology delivers archival standards (should that be your aim of course).

Many people use the Kodak HT-2 spot test. However, this can give misleading results because you are only testing one spot and are assuming that the whole print has received the same level of washing as they test spot (for a comprehensive understanding of the washing process, I would recommend reading “Mysteries Of The Vortex” which is a thorough investigation of the subject conducted by Martin Reed and which is available on the UK analogue photographers’ site: http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=296&highlight=vortex).

The most effective test for determining a thorough washing methodology, is to immerse a complete print that you believe that you have thoroughly washed in the HT-2 solution. When I periodically test with this solution (typically when I have moved darkroom - thus encountering the possibility of different quality of water - or the washaid that I was using has been discontinued) I use the ANSI PH4.8-1978 formula published by Ansel Adams in the 1980 version of “The Print”:

Distilled water 750ml
Glacial acetic acid 30ml
Silver Nitrate* 10g
Distilled water to make 1L

Mix in the sequence above.
*Note great care needs to be taken with Silver Nitrate as it is a poison! - you should wear suitable protective clothing and only use in a very well ventilated space.

If the print (both front and back) show any staining, however faint, then your washing sequence is not delivering prints that have been washed to archival standards.

So back to the OP’s original question:

If the Ilford wash sequence works for you (subject to adequate testing of course) then you will have no benefit using a dedicated washer. If the sequence works for you but you plan to do more prints per session, then you may find that the Ilford sequence becomes much more time consuming because each print needs to be washed separately. In this case you may find a dedicated washer more advantageous.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of using an efficient* archival print washer is that you can leave the prints to wash at the end of a printing session and get on with something else. In my case, I may get on with mounting prints from a previous printing session or go home for my supper or go to the pub for a couple of beers.

*If you read Martin’s treatise on effective washing of prints, he clearly demonstrates that being able to dump the majority of water in the archival washer at the 10 - 15 minutes stage of a 60 minute wash makes an enormous contribution to the efficacy of the washer. Previously this was only available with the Salt Hill washer and Martin’s own design that Silverpoint sold (now sadly discontinued). Of those archival washers currently available, I believe Nova now offer a washer with this total dump facility.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

I've got an old calumet 8x10 that I fixed up replacing tubing and clamps. I would like something bigger like 11x14 but don't have the space for such a thing. So I've only stayed with tray washing and using rc paper for those larger sizes above 8x10. It actually saves you time and water, just have the flow low or even just stop the flows and let sit periodically. You should plan for a heavy duty table or sink area. These things get really heavy when full.

Luis-F-S said:

Not an issue in South Louisiana. We don't know what to do with all the water!

Click to expand...

Although I live in the desert southwest, until recently water saving has not been an issue as we steal our water, if water is not an issue you may want to consider a rotary drum washer. I have both an archival washer and a drum washer, my preference is drum washer, I can wash many more prints in a less time than with the archival washer, just need to watch to make sure the prints are not sticking together. My work flow, after fixing I store the prints in the washer filled with water with a very low flow of water but not enough to rotate the drum. After I finish printing I turn the water on to rotate the drum and wash or 2 or 3 minutes then 2 minutes in Permawash, then 20 minutes in washer, either drying for toning and rewashing.

After I finish printing I turn the water on to rotate the drum and wash or 2 or 3 minutes then 2 minutes in Permawash, then 20 minutes in washer, either drying for toning and rewashing.

Click to expand...

And what does this achieve? - prints washed to archival standards, prints that are adequately washed or prints that have been insufficiently washed?

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

oldtimermetoo said:

Louisiana is the wrong part of the South for Mint Juleps. Must better to drink Bloody Marys as they use plenty of Tabasco Sauce in those. By the way, our local River (the Red River which drains Southern Oklahoma and NE Texas) has been out of its banks twice this past year, last Spring and this past December and the folks east of here are having problems with the Mississippi as this is written. The crawfish are larger this season than usual so some good has come of all this.........Regards!

Click to expand...

I knew that Mint Juleps was not the right drink, but I could not remember what was the proper regional drink.

I was born in south America. Really, I was born in New Orleans Louisiana. It is not my fault if you did not notice that I used a small 's' in south.

After washing, if you tone a print with gold or selenium toner you need to rewash the print. From Kodak

After you have soaked prints in toner solution, wash them
as directed in the toner instructions.

I don't recall how long the rewash to, is after selenium toning.

Doremus Scudder said:

and be aware that the Ilford sequence is predicated on using their products and a very short time in a strong fixing bath.

Click to expand...

That's what I do, 1 minute in 1+4 strength fixer, again based on their recommendations.

There's so many figures thrown around when it comes to washing I don't know what to believe. Nova claims the first 5 minutes of washing are crucial because they eliminate the most fixer per second at any time. Ilford recommends 20min including wash aid step, but other printers I know wash for 30-40min even with wash aid.

I want archival quality prints obviously, but also to be able to wash multiple prints at once and not wait 5 hours for everything to wash

The Kodak recommendations for the last fibre based paper they made - Kodak Polymax Fine Art Paper - were to either wash the prints for 60 minutes or, if you use Hypo Clearing Agent:

a) 2 minutes HCA followed by 10 minutes wash for single weight paper; or
b) 3 minutes HCA followed by 20 minutes wash for double weight paper.

It is important to understand though that those recommendations include two other criteria: "

"Wash ... in running water at 10 to 30°C (50 to 86°F) ... The wash-water flow rate should provide at least one complete change of water in the container every 5 minutes."

I would hazard a guess that many people use a much more rapid water flow.

MattKing said:

The Kodak recommendations for the last fibre based paper they made - Kodak Polymax Fine Art Paper - were to either wash the prints for 60 minutes or, if you use Hypo Clearing Agent:

a) 2 minutes HCA followed by 10 minutes wash for single weight paper; or
b) 3 minutes HCA followed by 20 minutes wash for double weight paper.

Click to expand...

So how much time should I wash single and double weight paper using Hypo Clearing Agent and an archival [vertically separated] print washer? I cannot nail that down.

Sirius Glass said:

So how much time should I wash single and double weight paper using Hypo Clearing Agent and an archival [vertically separated] print washer? I cannot nail that down.

Click to expand...

If your flow rate is appropriate, I would suggest that the Kodak recommendation would provide you with excellent results.

Shorter times may be sufficient, but that would be dependent on the efficiency of the washer. Testing would be in order.