Question on Ilford's Wash procedure

RalphLambrecht · Aug 12, 2006

Les

I believe that the one introducing a procedure has the burden of prove, not the one doubting it. I have never seen Ilford's test results, and the reason why they proposed this method makes me nervous about the proposal. The potassiumpermanganate test is unreliable, and any other reliable test method seems to be beyond my means. Having seen Ilford's lab a few years ago, I have more doubts. The original research was made by Kodak, and they never proposed the water-saving method to wash film. I wonder why.

Anyway, time- or water-saving reasons have little meaning to me when it comes to negatives. Two-bath fixing, wash aid and a 10-min wash, followed by sulfide toning and proper storage is all I can do to maximize longevity. However, that I will do, because I just can't entertain saving a few liters of water or a few minutes after all the 'investment' that went into my negatives.

Having seen some of your images, I hope you will preserve them for future generations. They are worth it.

Ryuji · Aug 12, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
I believe that the one introducing a procedure has the burden of prove, not the one doubting it.

Ilford stated in their publications that they used methylene blue formation test and their results met or exceeded the archival standard of that time.

If you publicly announce your doubt about it, your argument would be much stronger if you present a solid reasoning and test results showing that Ilford method failed.

As I said before, in my hand, using several AGFA papers (Brovira, Portriga and MCC) Ilford archival sequence resulted in a few mg per square meter. For films, I also tested their film washing sequence and got similarly very low level of residual thiosulfate level. I have no relation with Ilford but I have nothing to complain about their processing/washing recommendations.

I have never seen Ilford's test results, and the reason why they proposed this method makes me nervous about the proposal.

I can't speak for them but I understand the reason not to publish the raw data on this matter. The result DOES vary depending on the exhaustion level of the fixer, fixing time, the content of washing water, washing agitation, etc. If raw data are exposed to the eyes of amateurs, the numbers may be used out of the context as a representative value or worse "Ilford certified value" and this will be very problematic for them.

What I can say by independently testing their recommendations (as well as Kodak protocol and my own protocols, all of which are described in the technical data section of Silvergrain Clearfix alkaline rapid fixer product sold from Digitaltruth Photo) is that all of these protocols will result in residual thiosulfate level well below 10mg/square meter level, if followed correctly.

What should be noted is that the levels I observed are given significant safety margin so that the films and prints are washed to archival standard, despite those variable factors. The safety factor doesn't mean you can slack, but it does mean security.

The original research was made by Kodak, and they never proposed the water-saving method to wash film. I wonder why.

Again, you have to understand who did the research for what goal using what materials and methods. Materials changed, standard fix formula changed, archival standard changed, and the amount of scientific knowledge available to photographic chemists increased a lot. ALL of these things go into the process of making current recommendations.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 12, 2006

Ryuji said:
What should be noted is that the levels I observed are given significant safety margin so that the films and prints are washed to archival standard, despite those variable factors. The safety factor doesn't mean you can slack, but it does mean security.

I think it is this safety factor that makes me refuse to accept any water-saving procedures, without being able to conduct a methylene-blue test myself.

Ryuji · Aug 12, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
I think it is this safety factor that makes me refuse to accept any water-saving procedures, without being able to conduct a methylene-blue test myself.

Nominal sensitivity limit of silver nitrate test is 9mg per square meter. The current ISO standard for residual thiosulfate in fiber base prints and film are well above this level. Silver nitrate test is easy enough and good enough for quality control procedure in darkroom use.

One recommendation for users of this test is to take samples several times during the course of washing process. Scissors should help you. The reading will be the optical density of the test specimen. For darkroom quality control purposes, eyeballing is ok. When the brown/yellow stain disappears, the residual thiosulfate is below 9mg/square meter (or 0.9 microgram per square centimeter).

Ilford methods were proposed when the standard for residual thiosulfate was tighter than today, and, after considering the safety factor, they had to measure the residue level lower than what would be necessary today. For that aim, they needed the sensitivity of methylene blue test.

Anyway, once you run your tests carefully with your paper, fresh, nonhardening ammoniun thiosulfate fix and tap water, you'll regret making a big deal questioning the validity of the Ilford sequences. It's risky to write about things one doesn't know...

RalphLambrecht · Aug 12, 2006

This thread is about film washing. The silver nitrate test works well for paper but not for film. Please read before writing.

Ryuji · Aug 12, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
The silver nitrate test works well for paper but not for film.

Where did you hear that?
The original proposal of Mattey and Henn was for film. The complete reference info on this test is given on my website. Just search.

One reason I can think of why silver densitometry method is not very good for film is because film washes out rather too fast to go below the sensitivity limit of the test.

Roger Hicks · Aug 13, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
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?

Dear Ralph,

Sorry for the delay in replying. August is The Season here in our village -- all France is en vacances and many of them are in villages like ours. As a result I have been to 5 parties in 7 days and am more than a little dazed. Then there are the public events. Today is the pedal-car racing (part of the French National Championship series); Tuesday, the donkey racing and heifer roast; Friday, another party...

I was much too sloppy in my use of the term 'original research'. What I meant was that several people Ilford led me to believe that they checked this periodically with new films and that there was no need for the waiting period.

The residual hypo test I used (years ago -- I saw no need to try again) was HT-2 silver nitrate. I don't know what test Ilford use/used. I have never bothered to repeat it because I believe (perhaps wrongly) that modern films, rapid-fixed, are likely to was faster than those of the 1940s in hypo.

Perhaps I could throw the ball back into your court and ask you what tests you have used which indicate that the Ilford wash sequence does not work.

Cheers,

Roger

Ole · Aug 13, 2006

I've been watching this thread with interest for a while now.

Just yesterday I processed a bunch of E6 4x5" and 5x7" in JOBO processor and chemicals. The final wash there is 4 minutes with 4 changes of water. Counting the revolutions of the drum, that's actually pretty close to the Ilford method, and without any "waiting period".

If it's good enough for E6, shouldn't it be good enough for B&W?

RalphLambrecht · Aug 13, 2006

Roger

The French may have the right idea!

My testing was more concentrated on testing the tests. Many references I could find about residual hypo tests for film are based on the potassiumpermanganate test. I tested this test and found it too insensitive to use it as a basis for the claim. The methylene-blue test is beyond my means, so I can't verify or dispute the claim.

Some posts have asked how I can doubt Ilford, since I don't have evidence to prove the opposite. Well, that's simple. Ilford doesn't seem to follow their own advise.

The Ilford Washing Sequence is decades old. But when you check their product literature now, it talks about film washing times of 5-10 minutes and FB washing times of at least 20-30 minutes. This is what I do and recommend also. In case of fiber, I was able to test it. In case of film, I like to err on the safe side.

Maybe Les, you and I should reactivate our ties to Ilford and ask why Ilford has gone away from their water saving washing recommendation and went back to conventional washing times in their technical information for film and paper.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 13, 2006

Les

As I just wrote to Roger, my doubt is purely based on not being able to test it myself, and the fact that Ilford is not promoting this washing sequence in their modern film and paper technical information. I checked some more recent product literature and in that Ilford suggests 5-10 minute wash for film and 20-30 minutes for FB papers, all after wash aid. That's what I do and recommend.

Maybe you have current technical contacts in Ilford and ask them why they are not promoting the water-saving method in their literature anymore. It would help to clarify the issue.

I hope this explains my doubts.

Roger Hicks · Aug 13, 2006

Dear Ralph,

Like you, I dismissed the permanganate test as altogether too rough and ready. Alas! Now that Mike Gristwood is gone from Ilford I can't easily call and get tech answers anything like as fast. But I will ask them.

In any case, with 35mm film, the whole question is of limited interest because the life of non-polyester film base under anything other than ideal conditions is, as I recall, 50-150 years (sorry, I can't cite a reference -- no doubt Mike could!).

Cheers,

Roger

Les McLean · Aug 13, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
Les

As I just wrote to Roger, my doubt is purely based on not being able to test it myself, and the fact that Ilford is not promoting this washing sequence in their modern film and paper technical information. I checked some more recent product literature and in that Ilford suggests 5-10 minute wash for film and 20-30 minutes for FB papers, all after wash aid. That's what I do and recommend.

Maybe you have current technical contacts in Ilford and ask them why they are not promoting the water-saving method in their literature anymore. It would help to clarify the issue.

I hope this explains my doubts.

Ralph, thank you for the info you have shared with us and the questions you have raised. Even if I am a little cavalier about my negatives after my demise I do recognise the need to promote the correct darkroom procedures for those who are new to traditional silver photography. As it happens I will be working with Ilford at Mobberley in the coming week and will check out the current views on film and paper washing for archival purposes and report back next weekend when I get home.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 13, 2006

Thanks Les. That sould shed some light on the issue. I'm eager to hear what they have to say.

Tell 'em to hire Mike back. We miss him
Never mind, I hear they tried and he refused.

Ryuji · Aug 13, 2006

Ole said:
If it's good enough for E6, shouldn't it be good enough for B&W?

Well, 4 minutes wash may be good enough, but the reasoning is not really. The differences are: E6 forms dye image but B&W is silver image (thiosulfate reacts with silver). E6 images will fade at a much faster rate than silver image anyway, so factors that matter to b&w may not matter to color.

Ryuji · Aug 13, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
Many references I could find about residual hypo tests for film are based on the potassiumpermanganate test.

That's an abandoned method a long time ago. What references are you using???

Also, why do you assert that silver densitometry test is not usable for film?

Some posts have asked how I can doubt Ilford, since I don't have evidence to prove the opposite. Well, that's simple. Ilford doesn't seem to follow their own advise.

That's a fallacy. There is evidence for the Ilford's side.

The Ilford Washing Sequence is decades old. But when you check their product literature now, it talks about film washing times of 5-10 minutes and FB washing times of at least 20-30 minutes.
...
Maybe Les, you and I should reactivate our ties to Ilford and ask why Ilford has gone away from their water saving washing recommendation and went back to conventional washing times in their technical information for film and paper.

They have general instructions that apply to any fixer and rapid archival instructions that apply only to nonhardening rapid fixers. You can't mix them. Ilford method is certainly not for people who can't make the distinction.

They haven't gone back to old method or anything.

Ryuji · Aug 13, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
In any case, with 35mm film, the whole question is of limited interest because the life of non-polyester film base under anything other than ideal conditions is, as I recall, 50-150 years (sorry, I can't cite a reference -- no doubt Mike could!).

It is correct that the life of triacetate film is significantly shorter than polyester film base used for sheet films and APS films. The quality of triacetate films varies, though.

APS films used the latest polyester film technology but the format died before the film became cheap enough to be used for 35mm and roll films. What a loss.

Helen B · Aug 13, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
...
In any case, with 35mm film, the whole question is of limited interest because the life of non-polyester film base under anything other than ideal conditions is, as I recall, 50-150 years (sorry, I can't cite a reference -- no doubt Mike could!).
...

For what it is worth, according to ISO 18901-2002 the 500-year life rating can only be given to polyester based film. Acetate based film has a maximum rating of 100 years, but bear in mind that there is no rating between 100 and 500 years, and that this is a rating classification, not an expected life.

Best,
Helen

Roger Hicks · Aug 13, 2006

Ryuji said:
APS films used the latest polyester film technology but the format died before the film became cheap enough to be used for 35mm and roll films. What a loss.

I may well be wrong -- you (and Helen) know more about the subject than I -- but my understanding was that the main problem with any polyester base was light piping, which is a particular problem with the big exposed leader on 35mm. There have been a few polyester-base films, mostly thin-base traffic control films as far as I recall.

Cheers,

Roger

Ryuji · Aug 13, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
I may well be wrong -- you (and Helen) know more about the subject than I -- but my understanding was that the main problem with any polyester base was light piping, which is a particular problem with the big exposed leader on 35mm. There have been a few polyester-base films, mostly thin-base traffic control films as far as I recall.

Light piping problem is an issue for 35mm but it can be dealt with by other means. (The index of refraction of PET is larger than that of cellulose triacetate.) The biggest problem with PET film base is curling. That's why PET almost completely replaced other materials for sheet films but not in roll and 35mm. APS films use annealed PEN which improved curling property to match the cellulose triacetate films. Why only SOME of the color negative manufacturers made APS films? Simply put, only a couple of them had the technology!

PET films are more stable, stronger, dimensionally more stable, and they dry faster, so they are ideal for sheet films and particularly lith films and line films used for printing industry. If the radius can be made larger for rolling for special spools, PET films may be used for special purpose films with few problems. The base may be made thinner than triacetate and film being stronger this way.

I agree Helen knows more than others; to be more specific she keeps things factually correct.

dancqu · Aug 13, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
I think it is this safety factor that makes me refuse
to accept any water-saving procedures,...

I take a relaxed approach. As I've said three changes
of water by any reasoning is plenty, OK by me. I do a few
inversions now and then with each change of water. Most
of the time the tank is at rest.

Diffusion is takeing place and I feel more assured. Perhaps
ten minutes pass before the Photo Flow goes in. So four
changes, in my case, would be fair to say. Perhaps the
third change of water could be the Photo Flow. BTW,
room temperature distilled. Dan

Ryuji · Aug 13, 2006

dancqu said:
room temperature distilled.

Distilled water is not recommended for washing. It is significantly less effective in washing fixer out of the emulsion than average tap water.

If tap water is that bad, use wash aid and then distilled. But that's usually not necessary.

dancqu · Aug 13, 2006

Ryuji said:
Distilled water is not recommended for washing.

My concern is very hard tap water. Some elements
may be present which might form insoluble argentous
thiosulfate compounds. We all know that the sodium
and ammonium compounds are soluble.

I'll reconsidered a HCA with distilled first wash. Dan

dancqu · Aug 14, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
The Ilford Washing Sequence is decades old.
But when you check their product literature now,
it talks about film washing times of 5-10 minutes and
FB washing times of at least 20-30 minutes.

I don't know where you've been reading. For a few years
I've kept abreast of Ilford's paper, film, and fixer PDFs. They
have and still do suggest the 5 - 10 -20 inversion with three
changes of water routine for film.

They have and still do suggest the 5 - 10 - 5 minute
wash - hca - wash routine for FB paper. The big change
with paper has been adoption of that wash routine HOW
EVER the paper is fixed or the concentration of the fixer.
Their only suggested alternative is the with-out-hca
60 minute wash. Dan

RalphLambrecht · Aug 14, 2006

Here is where I've been reading:

Ortho Plus Fact Sheet (10-15 min running water) not dated
FP4 and HP5 Plus (5-10 min running water) both 4/04
Delta 100, 400 3200 (5-10 min running water) all 9/02

... and to top it all:

Multigrade FB Warmtone (for warmest results wash for at least 30 minutes) 12/01
Multigrade IV FB Fiber (wash prints in running water for 60 minutes) 12/01

All these instructions are from current fact sheets.
So, what is Ilford really proposing?

david b · Aug 14, 2006

I just grabbed one of this instructions sheets from my Ilford paper and the 60 minute wash is based on NOT using a HCA such as Ilford's Washaid or Permawash after fixing.

Question on Ilford's Wash procedure

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency