Print washers: worth the money ?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have two print washers. One for 11x14 and another for 20x24. I bought them second hand. They're Zone VI. Before I bought them, I used Ilford's method. The washers are now sitting in my garage. They take up too much space, and use too much water. Ilford's method is sound. I don't mass produce prints so not necessary for me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We only shower so the bathtub holds the print washer. I use the print washer in the bathtub so I do not have to move it.

 

[Jim Jones]

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

I believe, but have not tested, that the method of washing prints that uses the least water is in trays. Any siphon wastes water. For RC prints used as press releases where durability wasn't really important, I would shuffle up to 32 8x10 prints in a deep tray that held a gallon of water. That tray was dumped, and the process repeated twice. Three trays were used. After dumping the first, the water from the second filled the first and the water from the third filled the second. The third tray was filled with tap water. Thus, a gallon of water washed 32 prints; four ounces per print. Almost none of the thousand or so prints retained from that time 40 years ago show any deterioration. The process is labor intensive, but hiring a pleasant young lady to do it freed me to operate the enlarger. We could produce up to 200 prints in an evening, often with the name of the subject on the back. Fiber paper should have a wash, a washing aid, and more than three water washes.

 

[David Allen]

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.

As I mentioned previously, the only way to be sure is to do a test. Thereafter, if nothing in your processing sequence changes you have it nailed down for ever.

My personal processing sequence is:

• Develop in Dokumol for 3 minutes
• Stop bath for 1 minute (I use frequently changed plain water)
• First fix bath Adox Rapid Fixer at 1 + 4 for 1 minute
• Second fix bath Adox Rapid Fixer at 1 + 4 for 1 minute
• Print goes into a vertical archival washer (each slot is completely separated from the others)
• At end of printing session, last print goes into washer
• After 5 minutes the total contents of the washer are dumped, refilled and washing continues for 10 minutes
• Print are then individually toned in Selenium toner and then placed into a holding tray
• Once all prints have been toned, holding tray water is dumped and fresh water is used to rinse the prints
• Prints then go into the washaid (Tetenal Lavaquick) for minimum of 5 minutes
• Prints directly into the archival washer and start clock
• After 10 minutes, total dump of water
• Refill and wash for 50 minutes
• Drain and place on screens to dry

I tested the efficacy of this sequence last year when I renovated the darkroom. The final test was total immersion of a several complete prints (from varying slots in the washer) in HT-2. This demonstrated that the prints had been thoroughly washed as there was absolutely no staining on the prints.

Now other people have reported different washing sequences and these may well be effective. However, without testing no one can be sure how effective their washing sequence is. We also do not know to what tolerances the manufactures are working when they suggest a washing sequence.

Therefore, the simple answer is for each person to do their own test. It doesn't take very long to do and, subject to no changes in fixer, washaid, water or washing sequence, you only have to do it once. So, for the investment of a little bit of time and paper, you can be sure that your own personal washing sequence is effective (or not and then you will have to test further of course).

In previous makeshift darkrooms where space was at a premium and I had no running water, I have washed prints in trays with multiple changes of water. Testing showed that this was also effective in thoroughly washing prints but somewhat time consuming. Going back to the OP's original question, the great advantage of a dedicated archival washer is that you can just leave it to get on with the job. It is not De Facto better than washing in trays but a great deal more convenient when more than a couple of prints are to be washed.

If water consumption is a significant factor where you live but you wish to use an archival washer, then you can follow the test recommended by Ansel Adams in "The Print". Which is to wash 1 print for 10 minutes and then immerse the whole print in the HT-2 bath. If this proves to be sufficient (no staining) then you can wash for 10 minutes in the future (although Adams recommends doubling the time to ensure a safety factor). If it proves to be insufficient wash another print for 20 minutes and then immerse the whole print in the HT-2 bath. Keep repeating the test with wash extended by 10 minutes until you achieve a time that produces absolutely no stain on the print when it is immersed in the HT-2 bath.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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 ?

No,They do not reduce wash time.However,They reduce water consumption and are very convinient when it comes to washing a larger quantity of prints as you can wash unattended without having to worry about under or overwashing or water gushing all over the place.Total wash time for prints will still be around 30 minutes minutes minimum..Thry are worth the money to mebecause,they allow me to do something else during print washing.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

+1

 

[RalphLambrecht]

all my tests show that tray washing is every bit of archival than archival washers.They just do it unattendedwith less water

 

[lauffray]

"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."

Are prints not as sensitive to temperature then ? I know for film for example even the rinse water is recommended to be within +/- 2ºC of the dev temperature

 

[DREW WILEY]

A well-designed slot washer will use water gently and conservatively, even over long wash cycles. Plus it can handle multiple prints at the
same time, with the same water volume, unlike tray washers. I put a few tweaks on my own design that improve functionality over the
commercial options. Everyone by now knows about all sorts of technical ways one can monitor archival performance. But from a common
sense low-tech standpoint, a simple way to visually judge the efficiency of water changes in any such washer is simply to introduce some
bright food coloring dye into the water inlet, then study how it moves around, and whether or not it is consistently dispersed and efficiently
removed.

 

[Paul Howell]

Are prints not as sensitive to temperature then ? I know for film for example even the rinse water is recommended to be within +/- 2ºC of the dev temperature

Paper, either FB or RC can tolerate higher temps than film, during the ummer my tap water hovers around 90F, I have not noticed any issues with prints that now 30 years old.

 

[MattKing]

In addition, prints are designed to flex while being handled and, even if there was some reticulation in a print, one doesn't enlarge those prints.

 

[John Koehrer]

all my tests show that tray washing is every bit of archival than archival washers.They just do it unattendedwith less water

David Vestal did some testing back in the 70's/80's that proved archival standards using standing water bath.
Fixer isn't really washed out of the emulsion it diffuses into the water. If you want a slot washer use it with no flow.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No,They do not reduce wash time.However,They reduce water consumption and are very convinient when it comes to washing a larger quantity of prints as you can wash unattended without having to worry about under or overwashing or water gushing all over the place.Total wash time for prints will still be around 30 minutes minutes minimum..Thry are worth the money to mebecause,they allow me to do something else during print washing.

Thank you. That is what I wanted to know.

 

[Paul Howell]

In addition a slot washer washes each print in it's own slot, so as you print each print can washed as soon as it ready for washing, and following wash taken out for toning or drying as the more recently fixed prints are still washing, for some can be help to work flow. On the other when I use my rotary washer the prints just soak until the end of the printing session, all washed and either toned and dried at the same time, I just to make sure I don't print more prints than I can dry at the same time.

 

[Nathan King]

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 ?

1. I'm nearly certain you are under washing. I use Ilford Rapid Fixer 1+4 for one minute, 10 minutes of wash aid, followed by at least one hour of washing before my prints test negative for retained thiosulfate.

2. If you're making more than a few fiber prints per session I would highly recommend the Versalab archival washer, which is inexpensive compared to the other options. It works with a very low flow rate and is easy to use. Sitting around for over an hour shuffling prints and changing water isn't my idea of fun, so yes, they're worth the money for me to retain what's left of my sanity.

 

[lauffray]

1. I'm nearly certain you are under washing. I use Ilford Rapid Fixer 1+4 for one minute, 10 minutes of wash aid, followed by at least one hour of washing before my prints test negative for retained thiosulfate.

2. If you're making more than a few fiber prints per session I would highly recommend the Versalab archival washer, which is inexpensive compared to the other options. It works with a very low flow rate and is easy to use. Sitting around for over an hour shuffling prints and changing water isn't my idea of fun, so yes, they're worth the money for me to retain what's left of my sanity.

Thanks for the tip about Versalab, I'll have to test my prints after washing

 

[Ronald Moravec]

All print washers work by continuously diluting the wash water, i.e. it is never clean.

For 50+ years I use two trays, fill with clean water, add prints one by one and agitate while filling second. When full, move the prints one by one to new tray, agitate while filling the other tray.

Eight changes of water in 20 minutes with always clean water. One can not dilute out fix with contaminated water.

One day I spoke to the Kodak rep and was ask how I did it. When I explained , I got a smile and approval. NEVER have I had a print go bad.

 

[eddie]

I use slot washers, and wouldn't want to be without one. When I print, I generally print a lot. Testing when I set up this darkroom (a long time ago) showed less water use with the slot washers. I also don't want to spend 20-30 minutes shuffling prints through trays before I can get back to the enlarger.

 

[naaldvoerder]

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 realise this is old, but can you elaborate on how you build your print washer, specifically how the flow of water is directed through the slots?

 

[AERO]

You have to wonder how these hundred year old prints have lasted without the use of auto washers!!

 

[ic-racer]

I have a 20x24 Nova washer. Was it 'worth the money?' Yes, because I got it around 2001 when darkroom equipment was dirt cheap.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have a lot of improperly fixed and improperly washed antique photos. The silver gelatin ones often exhibit "bronzing" as well as some image loss. They can sometimes be quite beautiful in that state, like unintentional split-toning.