Question on Ilford's Wash procedure

Bob F. · Aug 14, 2006

The long wash is the general case. There is also the special case using the reduced wash time methods, short fix and wash aid.

They are both shown on the current Ilford datasheets. I do not see your problem. The short wash times is clearly predicated on the use of a short fix time in film strength fixer and the use of a wash aid - it is in a table all by itself. The long wash time is when those special conditions are not met. Let me quote from the current Ilford Warmtone FB datasheet - I have underlined the relevant parts for greater clarity:

Code:

[B]OPTIMUM PERMANENCE[/B]
The standard fixing and washing recommendations
will give excellent print permanence for all
[U]commercial needs[/U]. When [U]optimum permanence[/U] is
needed, perhaps for archival storage of prints, the
following fixing and washing sequences at
1824°C/6575°F (including wash water) are
recommended using ILFORD WASHAID. Do not
add a hardener to the fixer. Be careful not to
exceed the capacity of the fixer and not to extend
the fixing time as both these make washing more
difficult.

[B]Optimum permanence sequence[/B]
Fixation ILFORD RAPID FIXER (1+4)                   1min
or HYPAM (1+4)                                      1min
intermittent agitation

First wash Fresh, running water                     5min

Washing aid ILFORD WASHAID (1+4)                    10min
intermittent agitation

Final wash Fresh, running water                     5min*

* Extend to 30 minutes if the warmest image
colour is needed.

And as for the April 2004 FP4+ Data sheet that you quote (again, my underlines):

Code:

[B]WASH[/B]
When a non-hardening fixer has been used wash
the films in running water for 510 minutes at a
temperature within 5ºC (9ºF) of the process
temperature.

For spiral tank use, when a non-hardening fixer
has been used, the following method of washing is
recommended. This method of washing is faster,
uses less water yet still gives negatives suitable for
long term storage.

[U]After fixing, fill the spiral tank with water at the
same temperature, +/ 5ºC (9ºF), as the
processing solutions and invert it five times. Drain
the water away and refill. Invert the tank ten times.
Once more drain the water away and refill.
Finally, invert the tank twenty times and drain the
water away[/U].

Cheers, Bob.

Ryuji · Aug 14, 2006

Bob F. said:
They are both shown on the current Ilford datasheets. I do not see your problem. The short wash times is clearly predicated on the use of a short fix time in film strength fixer and the use of a wash aid - it is in a table all by itself. The long wash time is when those special conditions are not met.

This is what I've been saying but Ralph doesn't seem to understand. He argued that if they recommend long wash then their short wash procedure cannot be trusted...

dolande · Aug 14, 2006

Ryuji said:
Distilled water is not recommended for washing.

I have my doubts about my tap water and concerns on solid contain so I started washing with distilled water. Is filtered water better?
Thanks

Rafael

Ryuji · Aug 14, 2006

If your tap water is so bad, you can use distilled water but make sure to use washing aid rather generously to ensure good washing.

If water is bad because of solid matters, you can use fiber filter to remove them. Good stuff in tap water cannot be removed by fiber filter or activated charcoal filter, but they are removed by distillation or deionization.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 14, 2006

Yes, with HCA they recommend 20-30 minutes.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 14, 2006

Correct.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 14, 2006

Bob

I've seen what you quote for paper, but since I tried and tested it (silver nitrate), I know that it doesn't work (clear stain). Also, just below your quoted text, Ilford write this:

Optimum permanence sequence
with selenium toner
Fixing ILFORD RAPID FIXER (1+4), 1min
or
HYPAM (1+4) 1min
intermittent agitation,
Toning Selenium toner diluted with * min
working strength ILFORD
WASHAID instead of water,
intermittent agitation
Rinse ILFORD WASHAID (1+4), 10min
intermittent agitation
Final wash Fresh, running water 30min
* Tone the print for the appropriate time to achieve
the depth of colour needed.
For optimum permanence with other toners that
give a protective effect, for example, sulphide
(sepia), polysulphide and some metal replacement
toners (gold and platinum), use the optimum
permanence sequence above and then tone the
print as desired.

Who seriously recommends an archival washing sequence for paper without toner? Ilford does and calls it archival and optimal!!! When toner is used, Ilford recommends 30 minutes again. Very confusing.

Back to film:

I confess not being able to test residual hypo in film accurately enough. I can't prove Ilford wrong, but I have my doubts, since I got residual hypo in FB prints after the washing sequence they recommend.

Also be aware, members of the PureSilver list reported that Ilford's print processing recommendations don't work with Kodak papers (fixing too short).

All in all, everyone can do what they prefer and believe in, but when it comes to negs and prints, I rather err on the safe side and do what I can verify in tests. Ilford's recommendations where made to save water, not to improve longevity. They are most likely a compromise. I'm not going there.

If others come to different conclusions, that's OK too.

Ryuji · Aug 14, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
Also be aware, members of the PureSilver list reported that Ilford's print processing recommendations don't work with Kodak papers (fixing too short).

Ilford changed their archival procedure from 30 seconds fix to 1 min fix for this reason at some point. I tested for this effect using Clearwash (150g/L ammonium thiosulfate and butffered at pH of 7.8) at 20C and found no problem with several papers I tested. Indeed, most papers are fine with 30 seconds, as long as the fix is fresh.

Ilford's recommendations where made to save water, not to improve longevity. They are most likely a compromise. I'm not going there.

Again, this is your personal opinion, and inconsistent with fact. My tests indicate that the materials processed according to Ilford's archival seuence meets and exceeds archival standard for residual thiosulfate. It is not a comporomise in this regard.

Concerning logevity, washing any more than necessary to a certain residue level will not improve the longevity. Proper toning and proper storage (particularly low humidity) are a lot more important than the amount of water wasted.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 14, 2006

Ryuji said:
Ilford changed their archival procedure from 30 seconds fix to 1 min fix for this reason at some point. Indeed, most papers are fine with 30 seconds, as long as the fix is fresh.

Consistent two-bath fixing needs 1 minute each, according to my tests!

Ryuji said:
Again, this is your personal opinion, and inconsistent with fact. My tests indicate that the materials processed according to Ilford's archival seuence meets and exceeds archival standard for residual thiosulfate.

You are calling my test results 'personal opinion' and yours 'facts'. I can't add to that.

Ryuji said:
Concerning logevity, washing any more than necessary to a certain residue level will not improve the longevity. Proper toning and proper storage (particularly low humidity) are a lot more important than the amount of water wasted.

All true, and there is such a thing as 'overwashing', but please explain why Ilford calls a FB-paper processing sequence, which excluding toning, 'optimal' and 'archival' and why I should not argue that view. They are calling a 5-minute wash after wash-aid and without toning, 'archival'.

Remember:

OPTIMUM PERMANENCE
The standard fixing and washing recommendations
will give excellent print permanence for all
commercial needs. When optimum permanence is
needed, perhaps for archival storage of prints, the
following fixing and washing sequences at
1824°C/6575°F (including wash water) are
recommended using ILFORD WASHAID.

Optimum permanence sequence
Fixation ILFORD RAPID FIXER (1+4) 1min
or
HYPAM (1+4) 1min
intermittent agitation
First wash Fresh, running water 5min
Washing aid ILFORD WASHAID (1+4) 10min
intermittent agitation
Final wash Fresh, running water 5min*
* Extend to 30 minutes if the warmest image
colour is needed.

My test don't verify such a claim, and I must advise against it. Actually, tests by others don't verify it either (Vestal and more recent SilverPrint comes to mind). This is also why I view their film washing recommendation with caution.

DKT · Aug 14, 2006

Film LE info:

http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/shtml_sub/dl_pubdownloads.shtml

Ryuji · Aug 14, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
Consistent two-bath fixing needs 1 minute each, according to my tests!

What did you test and what is your criterion for "cosnsistent fixing" and how does it relate to the present discussion?

You are calling my test results 'personal opinion' and yours 'facts'. I can't add to that.

"Tests" that don't describe what was tested and how the result was interpreted aren't facts.

Ilford's technical info sheets don't give full detail but they at least describe what test was used and what criterion was used, although vaguely.

I've described my tests and my criteria in previous posts as well as on my website. I even list up the original reports of each test method and other related information.

However, I don't recall reading any test you performed successfully.

All true, and there is such a thing as 'overwashing', but please explain why Ilford calls a FB-paper processing sequence, which excluding toning, 'optimal' and 'archival' and why I should not argue that view. They are calling a 5-minute wash after wash-aid and without toning, 'archival'.

Untoned prints are "archival" (this term is not used in current standards, so it is only given loose definition from previous standards) as long as it is properly processed. If you store such prints in ideal condition, the prints will live for a long time. Toning is a very effective way to give additional protection to the image, the protection that is useful in suboptimal storage condition.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 15, 2006

I see no need to continue this conversation with you. It's not progressing anymore.

Les will be at Ilford this week and talk to them about this. In addition, I will also talk to Ilford directly to get an updated view from them. I'm sure that's the better approach.

Roger Hicks · Aug 19, 2006

Dear All,

I finally got around to calling Ilford, and here's the Party Line.

1) You don't need the 5-minute wait. The inversion procedure, as it appears in the current printed literature, is correct.

2) They will, when they get around to it, put the 5-10-20 wash up on the website alongside the running water wash recommendations. They were slightly surprised it wasn't there.

So it's not a question of their no longer having faith it it; it's a question of forgetting to put it on the web-site.

Cheers,

Roger

RalphLambrecht · Aug 19, 2006

Thanks Roger

Ilford also contacted me offline and gave me a technical contact to work with. I will contact this person to clarify a few things. Why putting the 5-10-20 wash alongside the running-water wash is one of them. But still, thanks for checking into this.

Les McLean · Aug 19, 2006

I've just spent the past week at Ilford and had several conversations about film washing policy, in fact I spoke to the person that Roger talked to immediately after he called. I finally spoke to a friend who worked for Ilford as a chemist until recently and he explained that Ilford carried out comprehensive research on film washing before publishing the invert and dump method. Apparently, it is based on the Chemical Law of Dilution and the Chemical Law of Diffusion which Dave tells me is an accepted fact in chemistry. A change of water removes chemicals more efficiently than continuous running water and the aggitation helps by moving the water, and the chemicals, around the tank away from the surface of the film. Dave still uses this method.

Bob F. · Aug 19, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
2) They will, when they get around to it, put the 5-10-20 wash up on the website alongside the running water wash recommendations. They were slightly surprised it wasn't there.

So it's not a question of their no longer having faith it it; it's a question of forgetting to put it on the web-site.

Cheers,

Roger

It is there: it's all over the place. It is in all the current film datasheets I have seen and it is in their "Processing Your First B&W Film" tutorial document. Unless they want to highlight it with its own document I don't see what else they can do.

Cheers, Bob.

Roger Hicks · Aug 19, 2006

Dear Bob,

Not absolutely everywhere. Both Ilford and I found one (the only?) place where it isn't, in a quick search. But point taken.

Cheers

R.

Ryuji · Aug 19, 2006

No more brouhaha please. Conclusion was already on first few pages and readers would gain nothing from thereafter.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 19, 2006

Les

Thanks for checking and reporting on this. Did it come up in the conversation why they are still publishing the running-water method alongside the changing-water method?

Roger Hicks · Aug 20, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
Did it come up in the conversation why they are still publishing the running-water method alongside the changing-water method?

I don't know if it did for Les, but it did in my conversation with the same person.

It's because both ways of washing work equally well.

Bear in mind that many water users in the UK are still unmetered so there is no financial advantage to not being extravagant with water. Some find it quicker and easier to wash with running water because they can do something else while the film is washing. If I lived somewhere that there is never a shortage of water I might do the same.

Running water also suits those who refuse to believe that the 5-10-20 method works or who are traditionalists.

Cheers,

Roger

RalphLambrecht · Aug 20, 2006

Roger

That makes sense. Thanks again.

During my 10 minutes of washing, I actually dump the water three times, because I'm concerned about air bubbles forming. My water is mixed from the hot and cold tap, and bubbles form easily when the two come together. So in a way, I guess I'm doing a mixture of the two methods anyway.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 20, 2006

Les McLean said:
... Apparently, it is based on the Chemical Law of Dilution and the Chemical Law of Diffusion which Dave tells me is an accepted fact in chemistry...

Yes, that's clear. If two liquids of different concentration levels (dilution) come together, diffusion takes place over time and eventually an equilibrium is achieved. After equiblibrium is reached, dump as much as you can and refill with fresh water to start the process again. Do it a few times and you're done.
The question is 'how much time does it take to reach equilibrium', and that's where the literature differs a bit. The other question is 'can we rely on diffusion alone during washing', and I believe that we can more so with film but less so with paper, due to the different substrates.

Ole · Aug 20, 2006

RalphLambrecht said:
... The other question is 'can we rely on diffusion alone during washing', and I believe that we can more so with film but less so with paper, due to the different substrates.

That's the reason for the 5-10-20 agitation patters: We can't rely on diffusion alone. But helped by dilution (compare the volume of water contained in the emulsion of a film with the volume of a tankfull of water), it's effective.

Whereas running water can easily form "pockets where no fluid movement takes place at all, this is very unlikely with inversion.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 20, 2006

Ole

That's not what I meant. Of course, agitation helps diffusion, because the greater the concentration differential the faster the diffusion, and optimum agitation ensures the highest differential possible until equilibrium is reached. After that, only an exchange with fresh water will do. But I was looking for something else. Absorption?

clogz · Aug 20, 2006

Interesting article
http://www.geocities.com/researchtriangle/thinktank/5693/ilfwash2.pdf

Hans

Question on Ilford's Wash procedure

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency