Washing Film - Best Environmentally Friendly Way to Do It?

[jeffreyg]

I have the luxury of being on my own well and use ZoneVI film and print washers (probably no longer available) but if you are changing the water by dumping you could collect the "used" water and use it for some other purpose as long as the chemicals won't affect that use.
Jeffreyg

 

[davidst]

Hi Ozphoto

I'm in Adelaide too, and like you concerned and make an effort to save water.

I am just doing film at the moment, 135, 120 and 4x5 format. I develop in a rolling drum with motor...I like it because I can develop without shaking the damn tank, and I can roll for a long time at low temps around 13 degrees C. I used to hate the stress of exact number of inversions x exact time x exact temperature. That used to always get me uneven negs. Now I do it all with a cup of coffee watching the roller do the work.

So I wash in the roller too. First lot of water (300 ml) roll for about a minute, tip out. Next lot 5 mins (300ml) tip out, next lot again just 300ml roll for 5-10 mins, tip out. Take tank off roller and add demin water+photoflow, smooth of any bubbles. Let soak for couple mins. Lift out negs...usually couple rolls of 120, or 4 sheets of 4x5, and hang. I use a car wiper rubber to get the water off so they dry faster. I reuse the final water+photoflow a couple of times before discarding. I get perfect even negs which don't go brown with hypo stain.

Advantages...very little water used, and a final rinse in demin water (from the supermarket) avoids the problem of Adelaide's very salty town water.

Rollers and large diam plastic tanks can easily be made. I got an electric old roller from eBay for $50. It's really a dream not having to do the rattle n' roll by hand.

 

[Tref Hopkins]

Washing is always a highly emotive subject!

Ilford reckoned 6 complete changes should be ok for Archival puposes, and I've always gone for 8 as a slight sop to still not quite believing that you can wash so fast. Film is obviously easier, and you can get away with 6-8 complete changes over 30second agitation periods, meaning that your film wash time is about 3-4 minutes!

Major riders: Temperature. Very cold water is never gonna shift anything anyway.

Big temp changes lead to reticulation, and may even loosen emulsions if truly excessive. There is little if any advantage to going beyond 21c.

Don't overwork your fixer. Older fixer can be almost impossible to remove due to silver complexes. Check the capacity and stick to it. Two bath fixing can boost economy significantly.

Hypo-clearing paper may be an even better idea if you want to go this route in FB.

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS carry out a silver test BEFOREHAND to check your methodology if you intend to work commercially, or sell prints. Selenium toning can show up fix problems also, silver estimation products are the most expensive option.

Michael Maunder has pointed out that seawater is quite a good substitute for HCA in the wash process, and has some historical context...

 

[removed account4]

SNIP

Major riders: Temperature. Very cold water is never gonna shift anything anyway.

regular old cold tap water will work fine.

the way the "stuff" leaves the film and paper is
through osmosis --- water exchanges + soaks work.
it really doesn't need to be more technical than that ...

 

[Tref Hopkins]

Accepted - cold tap water in a continuous flow/forced wash situation would be fine (assuming no thermal shock to emulsion; non-domestic tap water can get VERY cold in winter).

I'm unsure whether I'd agree that water temps were unimportant in a 'by changes' process though. I always make up a nice big jug of 21c water at the start, which does the pre-soak, mixes the dev and provides the plain water stop and the washes for me, so all my testing revolves around that. I believe I've read that colder water can slow the wash process a little, but I haven't tested my own cold winter tap water for film washing, so I can't really comment.

Others have pointed out that the 'by changes' approach can be pernickety and depend greatly on personal habits and local water quality for success.

I generally live by a mantra of 'bottle instructions will always work if followed perfectly, but may not be best results. If deviating from bottle instructions or mixing own chemistry be consistent and do your own testing to ensure it still works'.

Some swear by de-ionised final rinses: my filtered darkroom water gives perfectly clean negs with just a little photo-flo type rinse aid. Others may find debris on film if they do not use bottled water. Tap water is not a universal constant.

 

[Photo Engineer]

SNIP



regular old cold tap water will work fine.

the way the "stuff" leaves the film and paper is
through osmosis --- water exchanges + soaks work.
it really doesn't need to be more technical than that ...

John;

Osmosis requires a membrane such as a cell in a human body.

Film contains no membranes, per se, and therefore only diffusion applies, not osmosis.

PE

 

[removed account4]

John;

Osmosis requires a membrane such as a cell in a human body.

Film contains no membranes, per se, and therefore only diffusion applies, not osmosis.

PE

thanks ron
i used the wrong word ...
i appreciate the correct lingo

john

 

[SMBooth]

Where does something like Ilford "Washaid" fit in all this. Or is it more of a paper wash aid.

 

[wogster]

Where does something like Ilford "Washaid" fit in all this. Or is it more of a paper wash aid.

Washaid is a hypo eliminator, not really needed with rapid fixers and film, probably not needed with rapid fixers and RC papers either, since the chemicals don't get the opportunity to get absorbed into the paper in the short fixing time. Fibre base paper, yeah, especially if using a traditional hypo fixer. If you have a huge jug of the stuff, then feel free to use it, if your thinking of adding it to your next shopping trip, then unless your using FB papers, I would skip it, get the Ilfotol wetting agent or a jug of Photoflo instead.

 

[CBG]

Washaid is a hypo eliminator ...

Your conclusions about when to use wash aids are right on, but I have a problem with the term "wash aid" being characterized as synonymous with "hypo eliminator". They are not at all the same.

I know it sounds rather nitpicky, but I hope the terminology of wash aids and hypo eliminators becomes better understood and used since all these terms can be so confusing to beginners under even the best circumstances.

Wash aids like Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent are not hypo eliminators; the sulfite based wash aids are merely aids to wash hypo out of the paper.

Hypo eliminators are completely different; they destroy hypo within the paper rather than helping it be removed from the paper. Recent research suggests that hypo eliminators may actually be detrimental. It has not been fully studied, but total elimination of hypo may make for a less permanent print. Research suggest that an infinitessimal amount of hypo needs to be retained for best permanence. I do not know why. How much residual hypo? About what remains after a thorough washing using wash aids and plenty of clean water.

Wash aids are rather gentle in effect, merely allowing better diffusion of water and chemicals in and out of the paper base.

Hypo eliminators are rather different, much more aggressive chemically, and must be used with restraint, after the majority of hypo has been already removed through normal washing procedures(with the prior help of wash aids). I'm no chemist but if I get it right, a strong enough eliminator to destroy all the hypo would also seriously attack the image.


According to Ryuji Suzuki in Dead Link Removed :

"Hypo eliminator usually refers to a solution containing hydrogen peroxide or peroxide-releasing compound such as percarbonate, perborate or persulfate. These solutions may also contain ammonia, other alkaline agents, bromide, iodide, and other additives.

The idea behind hypo eliminator is to oxidize thiosulfate to harmless compounds that are not adsorbed by silver surface. However, it was later found that peroxide solutions damage and undermine image-forming metallic silver. Today, the use of hypo eliminators are discouraged."

 

[Photo Engineer]

In either case, you are adding a burden to the environment. The sodium sulfite in a wash aid has to go somewhere, and peroxide in your effluent is not nice either.

PE

 

[SchwinnParamount]

In either case, you are adding a burden to the environment. The sodium sulfite in a wash aid has to go somewhere, and peroxide in your effluent is not nice either.

PE

I don't want that stuff in the environment either but you're right... it has to go someplace.

So I drink it.


On another and probably un-related note, I've got this weird third ear growing out of the back of my head. I can hear 33% better of course, but people look at me funny.

 

[SMBooth]

good info, a product I don't really need. Thanks

 

[wogster]

Your conclusions about when to use wash aids are right on, but I have a problem with the term "wash aid" being characterized as synonymous with "hypo eliminator". They are not at all the same.

I know it sounds rather nitpicky, but I hope the terminology of wash aids and hypo eliminators becomes better understood and used since all these terms can be so confusing to beginners under even the best circumstances.

If you look back at my message you will find that Washaid was capitalized as a single word, that is usually an indication that it's being used as a product name, not a generic term. In this case you really need to take that up with Ilford. Considering that I first heard of that product 3 decades ago, it's been around a long time, they do refer to it as a hypo eliminator on their web site.

I also don't know if hypo eliminators really make a huge difference with rapid fixers that do not contain any hypo, when using the short fixing times with modern films and RC papers.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I also don't know if hypo eliminators really make a huge difference with rapid fixers that do not contain any hypo, when using the short fixing times with modern films and RC papers.

I know of no fixer today that has another fixing agent in it that exclusively replaces Hypo. Can you explain a bit? Thanks.

PE

 

[dancqu]

P. K. Turner 1943

Hypo eliminators are completely different; they
destroy hypo within the paper rather than
helping it be removed from the paper.

"What hypo is not washed out is then turned to sodium
sulfate, which is harmless." He is writing of potassium
permanganate and the washing of film.

After a first wash the film is further washed in water
tinted with the permanganate. If the the tinted water
goes colorless further washing is needed. Dan

 

[CBG]

Wogster - Ilford's info on their "Washaid" branded washing aid simple adds to the confusion. They misuse the term hypo eliminator too. I think I'm fighting a losing battle.

 

[dancqu]

Wash aids are rather gentle in effect, merely allowing better
diffusion of water and chemicals in and out of the paper base.

Wash aids are invariably alkaline, mildly to quite. As well
as sodium sulfite alone or laced with the bisulfite there is
sodium carbonate. The latter recommended by Agfa.

I believe the mechanism involved is ion exchange.
The hydroxyl ion population being high results in
detachment of the silver bering thiosulfate
ions. Non silver laden thiosulfate, I'd
suppose ditto.

Quite a few chemicals can serve well as hypo
clearing agents. Sodium sulfite is the only
one to be quantified, publicly. Dan

 

[wogster]

I know of no fixer today that has another fixing agent in it that exclusively replaces Hypo. Can you explain a bit? Thanks.

PE

I thought Hypo referred to hyposulphate of soda - AKA sodium thiosulphate, the fixer I currently use is based on ammonium thiosulphate, which isn't hypo.

The real question then is, does a hypo eliminator do anything when you use an ammonium thiosulphate based fixer?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hypo refers only to the Thiosulfate end of the molecule Paul.

HEs work on any thiosulfate, but since Ammonium Thiosulfate and its complexes with silver are more soluable and smaller, the effect is harder to see in some cases. But then, you have the HE to eliminate somehow!

PE

 

[Richard Harris]

Question to all,
1, Method for B & W Films in Jobo tanks 2500 series,
2, Method for C41 Films in same tanks
3, Method for B & W prints (Resin coated)
4, Method for RA4 prints. (Kodak Endura & Fuji CA)

I use about 8 water changes with rotary agitation to both types of films, I then put a slow running hose in to the tank neck but only fairly briefly.
The whole process taking about 10 minutes.
Is the above any good?
I hand wash B & W prints and RA4 under a tempered water supply with a light cloth rub to remove the surface Blix of fixer. I then put in to a tank of about 2 gallon capacity with an agitation pump which moves the water vigourously. Prints remain in this second tank for 4 to 10 mins depending on darkroom load and activity.
I then hand wash under tempered water for another 20 to 30 seconds. I put RA4 prints in to a print stabilizer brightener for 20 to 120 secs.
Q, Is this any good?
Q, Does print brightener stabilizer work for B& W prints?
I know my method is a bit hap hazard as I carry out these washing and water changing activities while waiting for the next print to emerge from the Printo or fix bath. I have never seen fading on any of my prints or films since I started home developing 10 years ago but who am I to say this is Archival when Kodak claims 80 year stability for Endura papers and B & W prints should have a massive lifespan?

Really would like the opinions of APUGers on my process.

Richard

 

[thebdt]

The lab at my school uses those hoses that connect to the bottom of a dedicated washing cylinder for film; the cylinders are advertised to completely change the water 3-4 times a minute; we run them for five minutes. Maybe this is a sophomoric assumption, but I figured that as long as there are 15-20 total changes of water, I'd be good. What I currently do, then, when using a inversion tank to develop film is:

I empty the tank of fixer

I fill the tank up completely with water once and dump it

I fill the tank up with water to just barely cover the developing reels and dump it

I repeat the "fill to the reels" step 15 times

I repeat the "fill to the reels" step twice more with distilled water

I remove the film from the reels and hang to dry

Does this method sound plausible? I've read through this thread and, while there's lots of interesting discussions of chemistry, I couldn't apply it to my method. I figure (guess) that this method should be at least as effective as the Illford method.

 

[dancqu]

Maybe this is a sophomoric assumption, but I figured that
as long as there are 15-20 total changes of water, I'd be
good. What I currently do, then, when using a inversion
tank to develop film is:

I empty the tank of fixer - I fill the tank up completely
with water once and dump it - I fill the tank up with
water to just barely cover the developing reels and
dump it - I repeat the "fill to the reels" step 15
times - I repeat the "fill to the reels" step -
twice more with distilled water

Unbelievable. Extremely wasteful of water and time.
I suggest you and the lab adopt the Ilford sequence
or something similar for a wash routine.

I perform the sequence somewhat leisurely allowing
more time for the chemistry to diffuse outwardly.
So little water is used that room temperature
distilled does the job.

Same for prints; still water soaks with print
separators saves a Lot of water. Dan

 

[Micky]

I'm another that use the Ilford method. I haven't had any issues since switching to this method, as opposed to a continuos flow. I found the key to the method, as outlined above, is to let the water sit for five to ten minutes between agitations. First cycle is about seven agitations, second about fifteen, and the third is around twenty five. The biggest concern that I have is dust.

 

[Juergen]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry 8300: BlackBerry8300/4.5.0.55 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

Just use the Ilford wash method for film. It's archival and uses a minimal amount of water.

Nick

+1 This is a very effective method for washing film. I always do a 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 cycle. Very environmentally friendly.