Salt water final wash observation

Paul Verizzo · Mar 8, 2008

Lately, I've been doing reading in Haist and other places about fixing and washing. One of the topics is that on ships the print wash has usually been salt water, and because of that, it was discovered how simple salts can rid the print of hypo.

My father was a Photographers Mate on two ships in the Coast Guard in WWII. Over the past year I have been scanning several thousand images, personal and professional, of our family. See www.vphotoestate.com , it's a work in progress, no photos up yet but you can get the drift of the project. A few weeks ago I discovered - again! - four boxes of 4x5 prints of his time on those two ships. I had seen about a fourth of them before, usually enlarged. I'm guessing that these 450 images were contact printed, wow, the detail even enlarged.

OK, OK, I'm getting there. It dawned on me that every one of these prints is in perfect condition! Compare that to many of his and his father's images done 1900-1938 in studio conditions. A lot of those show hypo degradations. If nothing else, a general yellowing. But the shipboard photos, perfect! (Not all of the old photos have the degradation, but many do.)

My father, age 90 and with Alzheimer's, can't remember if the wash was fresh or salt. Of course, I can't remember what I ate for breakfast......

What say you? About salt water washing, not my breakfast.

Monophoto · Mar 8, 2008

My understanding is that the US Navy instituted the shipboard practice of washing prints in salt water specifically to conserve potable water. The actual practice was to wash the prints in seawater, but with a final brief rinse in potable water.

"Salt water may be used to wash negatives if it is followed by a fresh water rinse. Salt water removes the hypo from films in about two-thirds the time required for a fresh water wash. However, a short rinse with fresh water is required to remove the salt from the films. It is considered a safe and economical procedure to wash the films in sea water for hoe-half the usual washing time and then rinse the film in fresh water for 5 minutes with thorough agitation."

from Photographer's Mate 3 and 2 Rate Training Manual
NAVPERS 10355-A, 1971 edition

Paul Verizzo · Mar 8, 2008

Thanks, makes sense

Monophoto said:
My understanding is that the US Navy instituted the shipboard practice of washing prints in salt water specifically to conserve potable water. The actual practice was to wash the prints in seawater, but with a final brief rinse in potable water.

"Salt water may be used to wash negatives if it is followed by a fresh water rinse. Salt water removes the hypo from films in about two-thirds the time required for a fresh water wash. However, a short rinse with fresh water is required to remove the salt from the films. It is considered a safe and economical procedure to wash the films in sea water for hoe-half the usual washing time and then rinse the film in fresh water for 5 minutes with thorough agitation."

from Photographer's Mate 3 and 2 Rate Training Manual
NAVPERS 10355-A, 1971 edition

Reading Haist and his Kodak references indicates that the practice, or at least benefits, were new to them back then. My father's father was the photographer on a ship in the Austrian navy - yes, Virginia, there was such a thing - and I doubt if those old clunkers had fresh water to spare. But they probably had no idea of the benefits.

removed account4 · Mar 8, 2008

i remember reading somewhere that
sulfides, present in salt water, are also
what perma wash is made of ...
perhaps the folks who make permawash
knew the benefits of a good salt water rinse
to encapsulate and remove residual fixer ..

Anscojohn · Mar 8, 2008

Paul, Yes, the others are correct. Sea Water actually removes the hypo nasties better than "fresh" water. But the final rinse in "fresh" water was a vital necessity.
And yes, Jnanian is correct; that the formulas for EK Hypo Clear and Perma Wash are, AFIK, derivitave of the chemistry of sea water, after the discovery of the good wash effects found during the war, and which are demonstrated by the longevity of your Dad's prints, which were doubtless done "down and dirty" without modern archival techniques even being considered.

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

arigram · Mar 8, 2008

So, I only need a private pipe a few hundred meters long to the sea and I am all set!

David A. Goldfarb · Mar 8, 2008

If it's just a few hundred meters, two buckets and a pole will do.

Photo Engineer · Mar 8, 2008

David A. Goldfarb said:
If it's just a few hundred meters, two buckets and a pole will do.

David;

Do you use the Pole to carry the water with a pole and the buckets?

I think I better Czech out of this discussion.

PE

arigram · Mar 8, 2008

David A. Goldfarb said:
If it's just a few hundred meters, two buckets and a pole will do.

Call me lazy, but I would prefer to use a mule then.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Mar 8, 2008

*sigh*

Allow me to repeat myself once again: when we are talking about thiosulfate removal, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SODIUM CHLORIDE! It's about the other ions.

Sea water contains a lot of salts besides sodium chloride, so it's likely that true sea water can serve as a decent hypoclearing agent, but tap water+table salt won't make a difference from normal tap water.

Here are some numbers from Haist, p. 649 of MPP v.1, that come from G.I.P Levenson's paper "The Washing Powers of Water" in Journal of Photographic Science, v.15, n.215. 1967.

Effect of Various Solutions on Thiosulfate Residue in Positive Film

Solution........................pH at M/250...............Effectiveness relative
.................................................. ....................to pure water

Demineralized water...............~6............................ ...1.0
Sodium chloride.....................6.1.......................... .....1.5
Sodium bisulfite.....................4.1................. ..............2.8
Sodium sulfate.......................6.4................. ..............14
Sodium bicarbonate................8.4.................... ............49
Sodium sulfite........................9.2....................... ........87
Sodium hydroxide...................11.6.................. ............89

So yes, salted water will clear thiosulfates a tad faster than plain water (1.5x faster). But compared to even using bicarbonate (49x faster), which is as easily available, it would be a bad idea. Actually, Levenson says "the most important component of tap waters favouring rapid washing would appear to be the alkali bicarbonate."

Sodium sulfite is the best overall hypo clearing agent (87x faster), and for an efficiency similar to sodium hydroxide, it is way less hazardous to manipulate.

You said you read Haist, but I fear you haven't really read it...

There's more to film stability than only residual thiosulfates, but it's also the most commonly tested variable. And I don't know much about the effect of other residual chemicals in film on stability, so I won't say anything about them.

David A. Goldfarb · Mar 8, 2008

That's interesting that bicarbonate is as effective as it is, given how easy it is to come by.

Photo Engineer · Mar 8, 2008

Michel;

Thanks for posting that. The use of alkali as a wash component led to the discovery of alkaline fixes and that is why Bill Troop developed his TF-4 fixer. It is because the alkali swells the emulsion and allows faster removal of hypo that washing goes faster.

Sea water is more of an ion exchange mechanism in which all of the ions replace the hypo. So there may be several mechanisms going on here. AFAIK, seawater does not swell the emulsion as it is slightly acidic.

I might add that back then, many coatings used pig gelatin and the swell was greater on the acidic side. Just the opposite as we find in today's bone gelatin products.

PE

arigram · Mar 8, 2008

Seriously now, what would be the whole practical procedure in using sea water in the darkroom?
Let's say I go down to the port and fill a few canisters with sea water.
Should I use the Ilford procedure then?
Leave the paper in for a few?
How many sheets can I wash?
Can I recycle the water or should I throw it away?
Is there a problem with any sea water residue left in the canisters, basin, pipes, etc?
How can I make sure it doesn't contain any harmful chemicals (I live in a city)?

Photo Engineer · Mar 8, 2008

Use your mule. Didn't you say you had one?

PE

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Mar 8, 2008

Ron, thanks for saying. I reposted the data I posted in (there was a url link here which no longer exists),
and I think it's the third or fourth time I repost it.

Eventually people will learn

removed account4 · Mar 8, 2008

i thought it was understood it was sea water,
not just salt + water

Anscojohn · Mar 8, 2008

arigram said:
So, I only need a private pipe a few hundred meters long to the sea and I am all set!

Nah, just drag them behind your boat for half an hour or so!

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Paul Verizzo · Mar 8, 2008

mhv said:
*sigh*

Did I say anything about sodium chloride? Do you see those words in my post? Did I say anything about alternative salts being beneficial?

All I did was present an interesting observation that seemingly confirmed what Kodak and others used to good advantage, and asked for thoughts on the matter. Your additional information is interesting, but why the polemical attitude?

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Mar 8, 2008

"One of the topics is that on ships the print wash has usually been salt water, and because of that, it was discovered how simple salts can rid the print of hypo."

OK, maybe it's ambiguous, and does not warrant the attitude, but every other 2 month someone on APUG "discovers" that people on ships used sea water and thus wonders how a pinch of salt in tap water would replace hypoclearing.

Nobody understands "salt water" to mean "water with calcium chloride" or "water with sodium bicarbonate." It always point to "water with sodium chloride."

It's such a commonplace "discovery" that it sets me on fire easily. Sorry.

Paul Verizzo · Mar 8, 2008

Sorry we can't all be as clever as you.

mhv said:
"One of the topics is that on ships the print wash has usually been salt water, and because of that, it was discovered how simple salts can rid the print of hypo."

OK, maybe it's ambiguous, and does not warrant the attitude, but every other 2 month someone on APUG "discovers" that people on ships used sea water and thus wonders how a pinch of salt in tap water would replace hypoclearing.

Nobody understands "salt water" to mean "water with calcium chloride" or "water with sodium bicarbonate." It always point to "water with sodium chloride."

It's such a commonplace "discovery" that it sets me on fire easily. Sorry for being a d**k.

In case you missed this fact, people join forums on a continuous basis. They have not been privy to all that has transpired before. A lot of the same questions and comments get recycled; I've seen it elsewhere. SO WHAT?

As to my post, I did not claim to have discovered anything, I did not suggest a bit of kosher salt as a clearing agent, I did not get into the chemistry of sea water. I made the observation that 450 photos processed that way were in perfect condition 62 years later. No washing aides, no selenium toner. I would imagine that this verification of prior knowledge is NEW to this forum.

Just because you have graced the world with your knowledge of knowledge does not make you qualified to cop an attitude.

It's Saturday night, time for some wine, maybe?

Photo Engineer · Mar 8, 2008

Paul;

Relax. This subject is well known and has been discussed several times here. There is no problem about either posting it or replying to it. I too have posted information several times here on different topics.

I too have prints from the same era that were processed by a photofinisher with no special treatment that were just fine. The fact is that many prints survive and many do not, and sometimes it is the process and other times it is the paper itself. Who can say at this great remove in time.

You have made your point, and so has Michel.

Now lets have that wine.

PE

arigram · Mar 9, 2008

Mule...boat...do you see my last name to be Onasis?

No other advice on how to use sea water?

janjohansson · Mar 9, 2008

arigram said:
Mule...boat...do you see my last name to be Onasis?

No other advice on how to use sea water?

I would hesitate using port-water as i believe it contains quite a bit more pollutants
than sea-water from middle of the ocean. however, maybe the portwater is in fact
better? anybody interested in making comparative tests?
I myself have problems with doing that as the sea is frozen up here.

bw,

-j

arigram · Mar 9, 2008

I wouldn't take the water from -inside- the port, but from the outside, I don't think there would be a problem.

fschifano · Mar 9, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
Sea water is more of an ion exchange mechanism in which all of the ions replace the hypo. So there may be several mechanisms going on here. AFAIK, seawater does not swell the emulsion as it is slightly acidic.
PE

Seawater acidic? I recall from the days when I kept a salt water aquarium, that I'd shoot for a slightly alkaline ph of around 8 or so. That, and lots of very expensive actinic lighting, would keep the fish and corals happy.

And if anyone thought photography was expensive, try a reef tank on for size.

Salt water final wash observation

Paul Verizzo

Monophoto

Paul Verizzo

removed account4

Anscojohn

arigram

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

arigram

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

arigram

Photo Engineer

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

removed account4

Anscojohn

Paul Verizzo

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Paul Verizzo

Photo Engineer

arigram

janjohansson

arigram

fschifano

Salt water final wash observation

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency