Question regarding poor print wash

[NB23]

Hello dear knowledgeable people.

I’m very perplexed and I don’t feel like starting over 400 prints that I have just finished.

I usually overwash my fiber prints and my HT-2 test prove it with results regularly in the 0-1 (Zero-to-One) grade scale.
Yes, depending on which paper you use, even a grade-2 result can be accepted as an archival wash.

However, this is my problem: Ilford Art-300 paper floats like crazy and the papers tend to stick together. And combine to that the fact that we have a curfew that has been forcing me to hurry up, I ended up washing the prints only 30 minutes versus the usual 1.5-2 hours I am used to.

Yes, the Ilford and Kodak recomendations are far below 30 minutes washing when a Hypo clearing agent is used, but I just can’t trust their recomendation of a 10 minutes wash.

Anyhow, this has been my workflow for the past 400 sheets of ilford art-300:

-fix in bath 1
-fix bath 2
-water holding bath
-when all the prints are done, I rinse all the prints for 5 minutes
-Viradon toning for maximum archival
-rinse the prints
-10 minutes Kodak Hypo clear
-wash 30 minutes. I would love to wash for 1 hour but the curfew cuts my time. I’d also love to leave the prints soaking overnight as I do with FB prints but Ilford strongly suggests a 30-45 minutes wash with a maximum of 45 minutes soak time. And if a Hypo eliminator is used, they recomend a 10 minutes wash.
I sometimes wash the prints back to back and they stick together, which can prevent a good wash.

With my method above, my HT-2 tests gives me a stain corresponding to grade 2.5/3 (I do get the occasional grade 1 but let’s stick to a grade 3 for the sake good measure).
Although a grade 3 can be acceptable for a few papers, according to Kodak litterature, I am not very happy about this.

My question: if my prints have a grade-2.5/3 stain (see attached photo for the scale in question), but they are Toned in viradon (polysulfide toner), are the prints well protected?

I’m ambivalent because on one side a toned print will be protected from an frame matboard containing acid, but on the other side if the print itself has some acid left, how can the silver image on which it rests resist it in the long run?

So, what says you, oh experts? Good for 100 years?

 

[R.Gould]

I use a fair amount of art 300, and follow this regime with no problems, following Ilfords method for archival keeping.
after develop and stop I fix in single bath fixer at 1 in 4, film strength, then 5 minutes in kodak HCA for 5 minutes, and wash for 30 minutes, when washed if I want to tone in sepia and after toning wash again for 30 minutes I use a Paterson print washer, which works fine, I think that your problem could be toning in viradon before the HCA, the HCA then wash before toning is the only way it works, the toning before hca/final wash means you are toning prints with the fixer still in the paper

 

[grain elevator]

What good does washing before polysulfide toning do? I just rinse, even shorten than the OP does, haven't seen problems.
I think two prints back to back could cause problems, especially with heavy papers and short times. Maybe you need to wash in several batches, start the first ones while you're still printing the later ones?

 

[koraks]

My question: if my prints have a grade-2.5/3 stain (see attached photo for the scale in question), but they are Toned in viradon (polysulfide toner), are the prints well protected?

The image itself will probably be protected quite OK, but the whites may stain over time due to remaining silver complexes in the paper base or emulsion.
When considering longevity of a print, you have to think about both the image (metallic silver and its desired complexes) and staining of the base & emulsion.

What good does washing before polysulfide toning do?

Prevention of staining which can result of unwashed silver complexes binding with the sulfer in the toner where you don't want this to happen. Sepia toning prints without sufficient rinsing is doomed to go wrong at some point.

 

[Rudeofus]

Please be aware of the working mechanism of HCA. It will gain you absolutely nothing to put prints into HCA right after fixing. If you put paper from fixer into wash, it will wash out most of the thiosulfate within a few minutes, but not enough to make the print archival. This first phase is a simple dilution phase. After this initial phase thiosulfate removal will become very slow. Thiosulfate will be bound to the gelatin and to the paper, and will let go only in the form of an ion exchange process. This is the point, where HCA really helps, because it provides the ions to make this ion exchange happen.

If you put fixed paper directly into HCA, you will dilute fixer out into the HCA, and the HCA+thiosulfate will no longer perform this ion exchange. After that you put paper still loaded with thiosulfate into the wash, which will be quick initially, only to come to a crawl soon after.

If you put washed paper into HCA, most thiosulfate will be out within a few minutes. After that you wash again to remove the remaining HCA plus some extra thiosulfate.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I use a fair amount of art 300, and follow this regime with no problems, following Ilfords method for archival keeping.
after develop and stop I fix in single bath fixer at 1 in 4, film strength, then 5 minutes in kodak HCA for 5 minutes, and wash for 30 minutes, when washed if I want to tone in sepia and after toning wash again for 30 minutes I use a Paterson print washer, which works fine, I think that your problem could be toning in viradon before the HCA, the HCA then wash before toning is the only way it works, the toning before hca/final wash means you are toning prints with the fixer still in the paper

Your method seems sound to me. You can tryst Kodak's and Ilford's processing instructions. They have done ton of quality research on this subject. If pieces of paper stick to the walls or together in an archival asher,separate them half through the wash and continue. Your two-fixer method is ideal for arcival processing. fix strong and short rather than weak and long and fixer will be easier to wash out of fibers.

 

[grain elevator]

Prevention of staining which can result of unwashed silver complexes binding with the sulfer in the toner where you don't want this to happen. Sepia toning prints without sufficient rinsing is doomed to go wrong at some point.

Sure. It seems my rinsing (after holding tray and two bath fixing just like the OP, so second fix isn't loaded with silver anyway) is sufficient then. However there was talk of full blown washing before toning...

 

[NB23]

I use a fair amount of art 300, and follow this regime with no problems, following Ilfords method for archival keeping.
after develop and stop I fix in single bath fixer at 1 in 4, film strength, then 5 minutes in kodak HCA for 5 minutes, and wash for 30 minutes, when washed if I want to tone in sepia and after toning wash again for 30 minutes I use a Paterson print washer, which works fine, I think that your problem could be toning in viradon before the HCA, the HCA then wash before toning is the only way it works, the toning before hca/final wash means you are toning prints with the fixer still in the paper

Toning with fixer still in the paper is easy to know when it happens, there will be stains on the print in the form of clouds and/or big spots. This happens only on one print out of about 35-40, to the one print that got sticky to another print and didn’t have its fix rinsed out properly.
It also happens on the backs of prints where a fixer flush couldn’t properly take place thanks to the stickiness and cork-like behavior of this amazing but PITA Ilford art-300 paper.

All this to say that my method of toning after fixing and rinsing is on point, because every error shows right away. It’s just the washing bsck to back that’s annoying me.

Even turning the prints halfway into the wash seems too short to me.
30 minutes of washing just seems too short even though ilford recomends only 10 if a HCA was used.

Maybe I’m just over reacting about the grade-3 stain. Grade-2 I’d be sleeping well but grade-3 is annoying me.

So, does polysulfide toning protect against (what I choose to se as) insufficient washing? Especially since all these prints are stacked one over another, poorly washed backside on top of emulsion?

I agree with the answer that there might be a formation of staining because that’s what happens with fixer and polysulfide.

Now, to what extent is a grade 2/3 stain on the Kodak scale acceptable for ilford art-300 paper in particular?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

How are you washing prints Ned? Tray? Vertical archival washer?

 

[NB23]

How are you washing prints Ned? Tray? Vertical archival washer?

zone VI washer 11x14 washer with a very good waterflow.

When I’m pressed by time and only have a straight 30 minutes to wash, which is supposedly enough for this paper, I will add an extra syphon (1/2” inch flexible pipe) in the washer to evacuate more water, faster, and I’ll top off the Zone VI with a gallon of fresh water simultaneously. The flushing is quite powerful when I do this, both drains are maxed out.

I do this Boosting method 3 or 4 times during a washing session. I have a lot of gallons with clean water in my darkroom and I believe this is a welcome additional method.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I can't see any problems with what you are doing except what was suggested, to use hypo clear before toning.

One suggestion that might help is to put sulfite in the holding bath. I've been doing that for years and it seems to work well.

Hope that helps.

 

[NB23]

I can't see any problems with what you are doing except what was suggested, to use hypo clear before toning.

One suggestion that might help is to put sulfite in the holding bath. I've been doing that for years and it seems to work well.

Hope that helps.

Yes that is a good idea. Still, this particular paper sticks like crazy and any waterflow between prints is unexistant.

The definitive smart action would simply be to wash one print per slot... when this paper is used. But 14 prints per session seems very low, and unproductive.

In the end I am the stupid one. I should start 1 hour earlier and have enough time to do 2 washes cycles of 45 minutes each, 14 prints each.

 

[R.Gould]

Toning with fixer still in the paper is easy to know when it happens, there will be stains on the print in the form of clouds and/or big spots. This happens only on one print out of about 35-40, to the one print that got sticky to another print and didn’t have its fix rinsed out properly.
It also happens on the backs of prints where a fixer flush couldn’t properly take place thanks to the stickiness and cork-like behavior of this amazing but PITA Ilford art-300 paper.

All this to say that my method of toning after fixing and rinsing is on point, because every error shows right away. It’s just the washing bsck to back that’s annoying me.

Even turning the prints halfway into the wash seems too short to me.
30 minutes of washing just seems too short even though ilford recomends only 10 if a HCA was used.

Maybe I’m just over reacting about the grade-3 stain. Grade-2 I’d be sleeping well but grade-3 is annoying me.

So, does polysulfide toning protect against (what I choose to se as) insufficient washing? Especially since all these prints are stacked one over another, poorly washed backside on top of emulsion?

I agree with the answer that there might be a formation of staining because that’s what happens with fixer and polysulfide.

Now, to what extent is a grade 2/3 stain on the Kodak scale acceptable for ilford art-300 paper in particular?

I can't say anything about polysulphide toning, I have never used it, I use the 2 bath sepia toner, My method is directly quoted from Ilfords archival processing methods, develop, stop, fix in film strength fixer (1in 4) for 1 minute,which reduces the fixer in the paper, from there, using Kodak's HCA you can either give the paper a short rinse, which allows the HCA to last longer, or you can put the paper straight into the HCA, then wash, I use a paterson FB paper washer, for 10 minute, I prefer 30 minutes, after washing tone, then wash again after toning, the problem with the art 300 is it is a paper rag base, and there fore is much lighter, and so to wash in an upright washer you must weigh it down with something or it will rise in the wash and will not be properly washed, as fore the paper sticking together Ect, that has never happened with me, also, Ilford say to keep the wet time down to 45 minutes, , although I have found 60 minutes total to be OK, Ilford shoud know their papers, and I follow their method as far as posiblble to the letter, but certainly keeping it in wet for too long can lead to problems such as occasional staining, or once or twice breaking up, It is a lovely paper, but needs very careful handling, but is worth the effort, I have been using the paper ever since it was launched and following the Ilford method as outlined above the only stains or problems is when I make a mistake

 

[NB23]

Thanks for answering.

Have you tested your prints with HT-2? What does it say?

I can't say anything about polysulphide toning, I have never used it, I use the 2 bath sepia toner, My method is directly quoted from Ilfords archival processing methods, develop, stop, fix in film strength fixer (1in 4) for 1 minute,which reduces the fixer in the paper, from there, using Kodak's HCA you can either give the paper a short rinse, which allows the HCA to last longer, or you can put the paper straight into the HCA, then wash, I use a paterson FB paper washer, for 10 minute, I prefer 30 minutes, after washing tone, then wash again after toning, the problem with the art 300 is it is a paper rag base, and there fore is much lighter, and so to wash in an upright washer you must weigh it down with something or it will rise in the wash and will not be properly washed, as fore the paper sticking together Ect, that has never happened with me, also, Ilford say to keep the wet time down to 45 minutes, , although I have found 60 minutes total to be OK, Ilford shoud know their papers, and I follow their method as far as posiblble to the letter, but certainly keeping it in wet for too long can lead to problems such as occasional staining, or once or twice breaking up, It is a lovely paper, but needs very careful handling, but is worth the effort, I have been using the paper ever since it was launched and following the Ilford method as outlined above the only stains or problems is when I make a mistake

 

[koraks]

So, does polysulfide toning protect against (what I choose to se as) insufficient washing?

No, I don't think so.

 

[NB23]

Well, actually it appears I am more stupid than I thought.

the HT-2 test is to be done while the print is wet. Which means I can test a given print throughout the washing cycle and monitor the evolution of each new drop at every 5 minutes, for example. This method would also permit me to adjust my washing to an optimum standard. Instead, I have been overwashing even my rc prints (like, who really washes them for 2 minutes? But then again 45 minutes might be overkill)

Well, no. In my great wisdom, I decided that testing a orint while wet was goint to dilute the drop of HT-2 and might give erroneous results. I therefore totally forgot about testing while wet and I’ve been testing dry prints... maybe a method which really might give erroneous results versus wet prints.

Okay, I’ll go wet a print and do the ht-2 test to see if both droplets concord, one while dry, the other while wet.

 

[NB23]

Update:

Dear friends, I am somewhat relieved (but not completely).

It appears indeed that a HT-2 test, done as per the instructions on wet paper, gives results a whole Whopping grade less than when done on a dry photograph.

I am relieved because suddenly my Prints have all jumped from “acceptable” to “Good”, with a few of them now well into the “excellent” category instead of just “Good”, if we go by the HT-2 instructions where the categories are as follows: Excellent, Good, Acceptable, Bad.

However (!) these new upgraded results are a mere result of the HT-2 droplets getting diluted by water on wet paper.

Again, I am ambivalent. While the instructions say that the HT-2 is to be used on wet paper, I will continue to trust the results on dry paper just because it seems to me is the more proper way.

And as a second thought, these results have confirmed that all other fb prints I have spent countless hours on, are indeed even better washed than what I had thought was already perfect.

I am attaching a few test results. Please note that the drop encircled in RED was on a dry part of the print and the YELLOW circle encapsulates a HT-2 droplet done on a wet part of the print. You can clearly see a Whole grade difference or at the very least a Half (1/2) grade.

Please let me know wht you think.

 

[NB23]

But isn't this precisely why they're supposed to be used on a wet paper, because they've been formulated to be partially diluted by wet paper?

I do not print, I just have been following this thread with great interest and this is just a logical conclusion I am making here.

well... maybe!

Let’s wait for a knowledgeable person that doesn’t have me on his block list to answer

 

[R.Gould]

Thanks for answering.

Have you tested your prints with HT-2? What does it say?

No Never, never heard of till you mentioned, it, could be not available over here, I just go by 60 years of darkroom experience, and following Ilford advice, or if in doubt a mixture of my own for testing for residual fixer, which is the main problem of print staining I have found, formula is selenium toner 10 ml and 90 ml of water, remove all surplus water, put a drop of the solution onto the white print margin, leave for 2 minutes then rinse and blot dry, no more than a very slight tone is acceptable, if darker then there is too much fixer in the paper fibers so continue washing

 

[grain elevator]

No Never, never heard of till you mentioned, it, could be not available over here, I just go by 60 years of darkroom experience, and following Ilford advice, or if in doubt a mixture of my own for testing for residual fixer, which is the main problem of print staining I have found, formula is selenium toner 10 ml and 90 ml of water, remove all surplus water, put a drop of the solution onto the white print margin, leave for 2 minutes then rinse and blot dry, no more than a very slight tone is acceptable, if darker then there is too much fixer in the paper fibers so continue washing

Selenium toner is more of a test for sufficient fixing than for residual fixer (sufficient washing) afaik...

 

[R.Gould]

I have another, old, Kodak formula,Kodak HT2 distilled water 350ml
acetic acid 10% solution 175 ml
silver nitrate 3.75g
deionsed water to make 500mlk
remove surplus water, place a drop of solution on clear film rebate or white margin of print leave for 2 or 3 minutes,then rinse and blot dry, no more than a light cream colour is correct
srore the solution in a brown glass bottle,

both solutions do exactly the same job, I use the first solution because I have problems getting raw chemistry where I live, these are both old formulas, I have used them both over my time in the darkroom, but no difference between the way they work for testing residual fixer, if there is I have produced a awful lot of prints with too much residual fixer.

 

[Old_Dick]

Great video https://www.linabessonova.photography/videos#/archival-washing/

 

[Old_Dick]

This one comes from Lina's site. The idea of using an aquarium filter is smart.

https://justinrichards.xyz/blog/reduced-water-usage-print-washer/

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... both solutions do exactly the same job ...

No they don't. HT-2 (Hypo Test #2) tests for residual hypo, aka fixer, or more precisely, thiosulfate compounds in the paper. It is a test of how well-washed your print is.

ST-1 (Silver Test #1) is a test for residual silver in the print and tells you how well-fixed it is.

An alternate test for ST-1 is using selenium toner at a rather high dilution (e.g., KRST at 1+9 or stronger). It, too, tests for residual silver in the print and tells you how well-fixed your print is.

Don't confuse tests for residual silver with tests for residual hypo. They are tests for fixing efficacy and washing efficacy, respectively.

Best,

Doremus

 

[R.Gould]

No they don't. HT-2 (Hypo Test #2) tests for residual hypo, aka fixer, or more precisely, thiosulfate compounds in the paper. It is a test of how well-washed your print is.

ST-1 (Silver Test #1) is a test for residual silver in the print and tells you how well-fixed it is.

An alternate test for ST-1 is using selenium toner at a rather high dilution (e.g., KRST at 1+9 or stronger). It, too, tests for residual silver in the print and tells you how well-fixed your print is.

Don't confuse tests for residual silver with tests for residual hypo. They are tests for fixing efficacy and washing efficacy, respectively.

Best,

Doremus

The two formulas I gave if ! the seleenium toner test and the HT2 test, I have used both for 60 years, both give the same results, I did not give any formula for ST1, are, over here, used for as a residual fixer test, at least where I grew up, and bot are given as residual fixer tests in many formula books as tests for residual fixer tests for both film and paper, as these days I print mainly on RC I don't need these tests, and evn with FB paper I don't bother, but neither test has let me down in my experiance,