Washing BW film after processing

[Cholentpot]

Hypo is fixer. You must mean Hypo Clearing Agent which is not hypo; it is anti-hypo.

Exactly. Hypo is what we’re trying to remove here.

Washing aids such as Kodak’s Hypo Clearing Agent or Heico’s Perma Wash do, indeed, cut down on wash times dramatically.

Hypo typo.

I don't use a clearing agent therefore long washing.

 

[Pentode]

Hypo typo.

 

[ic-racer]

I wash my 8x10 film in the Jobo drum like this:

Fix
Rinse 1 min 500ml
HCA (Hypo clearing agent) 1 min
Wash 1 min 500ml
Wash 2 min 500ml
Wash 3 min 500ml = 6 min total wash

 

[focus_on_infinity]

I live where there is more water than we know what to do with.

5 minutes of running water? I was taught 20, in a pinch 15. Then again I learned to process film in Buffalo NY so who knows...

If I understand it correctly, it's 5 minutes is for with HCA, 20 minutes without.

And then, there's that super huge sticky with all kinds of information and tests and commentary on it, right up in the sticky part of this forum. But I'm too lazy to link to it.

 

[David Allen]

All of my tests over the past 40 years have demonstrated to me that Hypo-Clear is not only not needed when washing films but is also a waste of time and money. Film comprises of strip or sheet of transparent film base coated on one side with a gelatine emulsion containing microscopically small light-sensitive silver halide crystals. This base can’t absorb the processing chemicals and so the wash procedure is based upon washing out the (minimal) residual chemicals in the emulsion layer. Therefore, the washing requirements for archival washed negatives is VERY different to fibre-prints that retain large amounts of fixer in the paper base,

I repeat my advice, the wash sequence that I recommend will ALWAYS deliver archival levels of washing for minimal amounts of water. As Martin Read (former owner of the Uk's first dedicated analogue photography supplier and respected photo-chemist) identified in his research during the time that he was the founding father of the UK’s Silverprint analogue photography store, there is a huge difference between the washing requirements of fibre-prints (that require a lot of effort because the base paper can absorb so many chemicals) and film (that require much less washing).

Bests,

David.

Please note that my temporary website address is: http://dsallen.carpentier-galerie.de

 

[Auer]

If I understand it correctly, it's 5 minutes is for with HCA, 20 minutes without.

And then, there's that super huge sticky with all kinds of information and tests and commentary on it, right up in the sticky part of this forum. But I'm too lazy to link to it.

If your landing page here is the "new posts" page (you know, for convenience) then you never see the stickies.
Us lazy people like to see whats new on one page rather than click thru all the forums.

 

[Vaughn]

I have always thought along David's line. And looking at the wash requirements of RC paper vs fiber based...no HCA and short wash times for the RC, it makes sense, but then I give a full wash to film without HCA.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I haven’t been at it that long but I use the ilford method extended to 5 total fill/agitate and dumps with 5min(sometimes 10 if I’m not watching the clock) soaks in between as recommended by Bill Troop in the Film Developing Cookbook.

I believe the soak time makes a big difference, I never have any problems with retained dyes. The pink dye never seemed to wash out consistently with the current Ilford method.

I do the same - 5 min soaks between agitations, although, like you, it is sometimes longer (which is not a problem of course!)

 

[mooseontheloose]

Wash aides are something that I have always used. I've got several packages of Fuji's QuickWash. One little package makes 2L, and last quite a while...and it's so cheap. Every time I go to Japan, I stock up on it.

Me too. I was taught to use wash aids when I learned to develop film and have been doing it ever since. However, even though I have ready access to Fuji's QuickWash I mostly use Ilford's (or Chugai's, now the same?) washaid.

 

[Rick A]

I only use a wash aid for fiber base prints, even though I use a neutral fixer. I need to conserve water. Where I used to live, the water company raised our bills by 112% and lowered the minimum usage, my first bill after the change was well over $100. I whittled it down to around $40 a month. I've moved to a home with a well and sand mound septic, I really have to conserve now so I don't tax the septic system.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It got fixed.

 

[juan]

Somewhere PE wrote about Kodak tests. He said they revealed that fixer was best removed by diffusion - allowing the film to sit in the water for at least five minutes. Since reading that, I first rinse off the film in running water for a few seconds to remove the surface fixer droplets, put the film in a tank of fresh water and agitate per the Ilford method then let it diffuse in the water for at least five minutes. I follow with two more sequences. Seems to work, but I have 50-year old negatives that were washed by dribbling water from the faucet into the tank and those still look good, too.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Greg Davis' thread on film-washing tests tells the tale superbly. I suggest reading it if you haven't: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-washing-test.69416/ You can use the data here to determine a method and wash time that works for you if you don't want to test yourself.

Bottom line: a wash aid will help with film wash times if that's important for you. It's not necessary if you extend wash times accordingly.

Testing with the HT-2 test is fairly easy and gives a lot of peace of mind. If you have any questions about the efficacy of your washing regime, test. Adding a bit more time to any regime won't hurt, nor will it use appreciably more water. I like safety factors.

FWIW, sulfite-based wash aids can reduce the stain from staining developers like PMK according to Gordon Hutchens, author of "The Book of Pyro." For that reason, I don't use wash aids for film. However, I wash appropriately longer. My standard is 30 minutes in a Gravity Works washer that fills and dumps through siphon action. It's a water-waster if it runs the whole time, so I run a couple of fill-and-dump cycles, turn off the water flow and let the film soak for five minutes or so, run a couple more cycles and soak some more, finishing with three or four fill/dump cycles. My film tests fine with the HT-2 test for residual hypo.

I agree that saving water is important, especially in areas where water is in short supply (thankfully not here in Eugene, OR). However, how much does two or three extra liters of water cost? And how often do you process? The cost for extra water may be negligible if you don't process that often or process in batches. One toilet flush's worth of water will likely wash several rolls of film (Come to think of it, the toilet tank is a fill-and-dump system... Perhaps one could combine tasks...)

As for the Ilford method: I've never tested it. If I were to use it, I'd definitely do an HT-2 test the first few times to ensure it's doing it's job. AFAIK, Ilford assumes a wash-aid step in their sequence. Without that, soak times and volume would have to be higher.

Best,

Doremus

 

[focus_on_infinity]

One toilet flush's worth of water will likely wash several rolls of film (Come to think of it, the toilet tank is a fill-and-dump system... Perhaps one could combine tasks...)

You know, they sell those bidets with the heated water stream. Could use that for color. We are truly living in a golden age.

 

[37th Exposure]

I don’t think anyone mentioned that the type of fixer makes a big difference. @ Cholentpot for example. The 15-20 minutes is the minimum wash time if you use a hardening fixer without HCA. Kodak always suggested going for 30 minutes.

The Ilford method and the five minute method only work with nonhardening fixers which wash out much more quickly. As shown on the Kodak sheet you need an HCA to get the wash down to five minutes with hardening fixers (all Kodak fixers are hardening). And then some non hardening fixers wash out faster than others to further complicate things. I only use Ilford fixers if I use the Ilford method because I am sure that is what it was tested with. Ilford fixers do not contain hardener except for Hypam (and only if Hypam hardener is added).

 

[37th Exposure]

Oops. Sorry Vaughn. You did mention it. Nobody else brought it up and I assumed this was a general thread on film washing so I bring it up again because it makes all the difference.

 

[russell_w_b]

'There’s the water saving Ilford way.'

I've been developing my own film for all of three years and I've never had a problem with the Ilford way. But the way I do mine now is a bit of each. I start rinsing with the tap fed into the tank after adjusting the temp for 20C, then it runs for maybe a minute or two whilst I tip the fixer back into the bottle and pour me a film capful of Ilfotol wetting agent for finishing. Then I do the Ilford inversions thing.
--

Regds,

R.

 

[Jonno85uk]

I recently tried the ilford method. I started getting white spots on my negatives. I don't understand how seeing as I didn't change how I prepared the water and I use ilfotol.

I went back to 5 cycles of invert+soak for 1min+ each. Spots went away.

 

[Vaughn]

Oops. Sorry Vaughn. You did mention it. Nobody else brought it up and I assumed this was a general thread on film washing so I bring it up again because it makes all the difference.

No problem -- I have used Kodak Rapid Fix without the Part B (the hardener).

 

[MattKing]

(all Kodak fixers are hardening).

Kodak Rapid fixer gives you the option of adding or omitting the hardener. I omit it, and save the little bottles up for when I tone prints.

 

[MattKing]

I've been developing my own film for all of three years and I've never had a problem with the Ilford way. But the way I do mine now is a bit of each. I start rinsing with the tap fed into the tank after adjusting the temp for 20C, then it runs for maybe a minute or two whilst I tip the fixer back into the bottle and pour me a film capful of Ilfotol wetting agent for finishing. Then I do the Ilford inversions thing.
--

Regds,

R.

With washing, unless you do the test for retained fixer, the only way you will know if there is a problem is to check back a few years later to see if there are signs of deterioration.
This is from the 1970s, and all look pretty good:

 

[Vaughn]

I am going thru a couple decades of 120 negatives (color and B&W) -- sorting, looking at each sheet of negatives -- mostly going, "Why did I not print this one, or this one, or?" -- then into its proper pile, never to be seen again (well, maybe), then into its new album/clamshell box. The only problems I have seen so far were there when I put them in the sleeves.

Then onwards to the 5x7, 4x10, 8x10, 5.5x14 and 11x14 negatives!

It is kinda hard to mess up washing negatives (besides mechanical damage). But good washing won't cure bad fixing.

 

[MattKing]

Of course, most of that binder was processed in a shared newspaper darkroom that I ran and maintained.
Some of the photographers I worked with probably weren't as anally retentive as I tend to be with processing.

 

[russell_w_b]

With washing, unless you do the test for retained fixer, the only way you will know if there is a problem is to check back a few years later to see if there are signs of deterioration.
This is from the 1970s, and all look pretty good:

Thanks, Matt.
That's exactly how I store my negs - in archive standard Glassene sheets - makes them handy to check, and so far, so good... Years ago when I did printing in our works darkroom I experienced fixer / rinsing problems as a few years later the prints started to go all brown and blotchy. Can negs be re-fixed and washed if they exhibit signs of deterioration or are they beyond it?

 

[Pentode]

(Come to think of it, the toilet tank is a fill-and-dump system... Perhaps one could combine tasks...)

I'm in the process of converting a tiny basement bathroom to a darkroom - a process which, thanks to industrial grade procrastination has taken years - and one of the remaining tasks is to remove the toilet. Perhaps I should reconsider!