Question on Ilford's Wash procedure

JHannon · Aug 10, 2006

Hello,

I have been following the Ilford invert and dump 5X procedure for film and it has saved a lot of water. I have read somewhere that you should let the tank sit for a while before each tank dump. Any idea how long and if this is necessary?

Thanks!

Roger Hicks · Aug 10, 2006

It is not necessary at all. I have discussed this with the people at Ilford who did the original research. There is a frankly incorrect statement in one of the Anchell and Troop books that gave rise to the idea of waits.

The 5x, 10x, 20x procedure is all you need for ANSI-standard washing. If you are not comfortable with it, carry out a residual hypo test.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Lee L · Aug 10, 2006

John,

This looks like a sound study, based on the Ilford recommendations. I've been using these procedures for the last couple of years. The recommended times and procedures are further into the piece. However, my sink is a few steps from my development bench, and I switch between two containers for alternating baths, so I often end up with slightly longer times in each rinse.

www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/ilfwash.pdf

Lee

RalphLambrecht · Aug 10, 2006

Roger

After much reserach and many tests, I remain unconvinced about Ilford's washing procedure for film. The original research (1942!) calls for a 5 to 6 minute wait between baths. By the way, what residual hypo test are you referring to?

david b · Aug 10, 2006

I have slightly modified Ilford's method.

I do a 10-20-40 rinse and then a 5 minute hold with no agitation and I have never ever had a problem.

Fotohuis · Aug 10, 2006

By the way, what residual hypo test are you referring to?

Commercial available test kits are going up to 1mg/Ltr. residue on ammonium/sodiumthiosulfate. For archival purposes I thought less than 0,1mg/cm2 should be in the material. Without scientific instruments I don't think it's possible to check.
But maybe somebody has another solution?

Robert

JHannon · Aug 10, 2006

Thanks everyone! There is a formula mentioned in the PDF file Lee posted. I don't know how it will work. I have been waiting 2 minutes for each dump cycle.

"It is known that a very diluted solution of Potassiumpermanganate may be used as test fluid for residual hypo.

0.1g Potassiumpermanganate

1.0g Sodiumcarbonate

1.0l Demineralized Water

Mixed in a

volumetric equal ratio with wash water the color should not change within two minutes. otherwise hypo is still present."

RalphLambrecht · Aug 10, 2006

If you assume total diffusion, you can convert g/l into g/m^2, but any test based on testing for residual hypo in the last wash water (potassiumpermanganate) is fundamentally flawed, because total diffusion cannot be assumed.

mark · Aug 10, 2006

SInce this has come up I will ask my question here.

How does one do this with sheet film in trays? Fill the tray, rock and dump?

Lee L · Aug 10, 2006

mark said:
SInce this has come up I will ask my question here.

How does one do this with sheet film in trays? Fill the tray, rock and dump?

I'd go with two trays. Lift the film, let it drain into the tray you lifted it from, then transfer to a second tray of water. While the film is in the second tray, dump and quickly rinse the first tray, then fill with water for the next rinse bath. Cycle back and forth between the two rinse trays. If you don't lift the film and drain it, you're not getting adequate rinsing of the side of the film stuck to the tray.

Lee

mark · Aug 10, 2006

I will do that. I have been using the siphon method but not liking how much water it uses.

Les McLean · Aug 11, 2006

I've been using the Ilford fill and dump method for at least 15 years without having any problems at all. I use 5 - 10 - 20 -10 - 5 with no standing time between each set of inversions and have my film washed and hung up to dry in less than 10 minutes.

Ryuji · Aug 12, 2006

JHannon said:
Thanks everyone! There is a formula mentioned in the PDF file Lee posted. I don't know how it will work. I have been waiting 2 minutes for each dump cycle.

"It is known that a very diluted solution of Potassiumpermanganate may be used as test fluid for residual hypo.

0.1g Potassiumpermanganate

1.0g Sodiumcarbonate

1.0l Demineralized Water

Mixed in a

volumetric equal ratio with wash water the color should not change within two minutes. otherwise hypo is still present."

The solution mentioned above is not recommended because it is inaccurate. It's a very old solution that is not used in past few decades.

To quantitatively measure residual thiosulfate level in film, methylene blue test (Warburton and Przybylowicz 1966) or iodide-amylose test (Owerbach 1986; ISO 417-1993) should be used. For semiquantitative tests, silver-nitrate test is sufficient, but it is not sensitive enough (10mg/square meter is about the limit). You can combine densitometry with silver nitrate test, but great care is needed to obtain reliable readings. (Other tests mentioned above use spectrophotometry for reading.)

Ryuji · Aug 12, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
After much reserach and many tests, I remain unconvinced about Ilford's washing procedure for film. The original research (1942!) calls for a 5 to 6 minute wait between baths. By the way, what residual hypo test are you referring to?

1942 and today, we have a big difference in the composition of fixer. In 1942, alum hardening sodium thiosulfate fixer was very common. Today, most people use non-hardening ammonium thiosulfate fixer.

I independently tested Ilford sequences and they work very well as long as the procedure is followed exactly, using relatively fresh non-hardening ammonium thiosulfate fixer.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 12, 2006

How did you test for residual fixer in film?

RalphLambrecht · Aug 12, 2006

With all due respect Les, 15 years are no proof for longevity. I have some negatives from my Dad. Many of them are 50 and 60 years old. They were all fine 40 years ago. Now, some show serious signs of aging, while others are still OK. Unfortunately, I don't know what the difference between them is.

Les McLean · Aug 12, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
With all due respect Les, 15 years are no proof for longevity. I have some negatives from my Dad. Many of them are 50 and 60 years old. They were all fine 40 years ago. Now, some show serious signs of aging, while others are still OK. Unfortunately, I don't know what the difference between them is.

With respect Ralph, the comparision you make is no grounds on which to base doubts about the Ilford method of washing, by your own addmision you do not know the different methods of washing.

I have worked with the Ilford backroom staff for many years and have seen how thorough they are in their methods and testing and although depleted in the past two years the same standards apply. I certainly trust their findings and use them as my standard methods.

I agree that 15 years is not longevity but I am under no illusions about my negatives being of any interest or importance after my demise so I will be happy for them to remain good for my lifetime. I have already made arrangements for them to accompany me down the firery road to the next darkroom

Fotohuis · Aug 12, 2006

I have already made arrangements for them to accompany me down the firery road to the next darkroom

Special insurance? (Two coffins?? )

Les McLean · Aug 12, 2006

Fotohuis said:
Special insurance? (Two coffins?? )

The second coffin is for the enlarger, the negatives will stay with me in the first, along with 10 rolls of FP4 120, one box of 12 x 16 Ilford Warmtone Fibre glossy paper and sufficient dev and fix to produce new negatives and the subsequent prints.

Tom Stanworth · Aug 12, 2006

Les McLean said:
The second coffin is for the enlarger, the negatives will stay with me in the first, along with 10 rolls of FP4 120, one box of 12 x 16 Ilford Warmtone Fibre glossy paper and sufficient dev and fix to produce new negatives and the subsequent prints.

Les, You might wish to have a special cross shaped coffin to allow sufficient lateral room for mat cutting.

Please dont burn your negs. Give them to a person or organisation such that they will remain a part of the photographic community.

Bob F. · Aug 12, 2006

Having some idea of Ryuji's chemical knowledge from his previous posts and other's comments, I will go with his observations and those of Ilford's research scientists for now until someone can point me at serious experiments that show a different conclusion. I have never seen anyone even claim to know of any such experiment - it is always "that doesn't look right to me" or "I am unconvinced" without any substantive, objective reason given.

There are a number of chemists with decades of experience in the photo industry on here, perhaps they could get together via PM and devise a series of experiments to test the Ilford method independently? Might be fun! It'd certainly be useful.

Of course, if they need access to spectrographic analysis equipment, they could always ask to borrow Ilford's...

Cheers, Bob.

Les McLean · Aug 12, 2006

Tom Stanworth said:
Les, You might wish to have a special cross shaped coffin to allow sufficient lateral room for mat cutting.

Please dont burn your negs. Give them to a person or organisation such that they will remain a part of the photographic community.

Good idea Tom but pity the poor photographer friends whose job will be to transport me to the proper place.

With regard to leaving negatives to an organisation for them to remain part of the photographic community; together with a few very high profile Scottish Photographers we approached several colleges and even museums to try to set up a system where negatives left by photographers could be used as a teaching aid. None were interested on the grounds that it could lead to lawsuits arising from sale of prints made from the negatives even when used for teaching purposes. Consequently I have arranged for my neice to place them with me in the box when I depart.

pentaxuser · Aug 12, 2006

Les McLean said:
Good idea Tom but pity the poor photographer friends whose job will be to transport me to the proper place.

With regard to leaving negatives to an organisation for them to remain part of the photographic community; together with a few very high profile Scottish Photographers we approached several colleges and even museums to try to set up a system where negatives left by photographers could be used as a teaching aid. None were interested on the grounds that it could lead to lawsuits arising from sale of prints made from the negatives even when used for teaching purposes. Consequently I have arranged for my neice to place them with me in the box when I depart.

Les. Don't forget that on the other side(s) there are other expressive arts that require motor skills with arms and hands similar to those used in the darkroom. OK harping is more obvious but even stoking, done properly, involves a certain timing and fluidity not unlike ballet dancing.

pentaxuser

JHannon · Aug 12, 2006

Thanks everyone! I was not questioning Ilford's procedures -- just the added wait time before dumping I heard about. I will keep on with the wash procedure the way it is.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 12, 2006

Bob wrote:

Of course, if they need access to spectrographic analysis equipment, they could always ask to borrow Ilford's...

Bob

You would be very disappointed. I've seen it. When I was there, some of it was on loan to Agfa, and they hadn't returned it yet. I wonder if they ever did.

Question on Ilford's Wash procedure

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency