Washing Film - Best Environmentally Friendly Way to Do It?

[like2fiddle]

I too use the Ilford method for film wash, and have for a couple of years now with good results. I use distilled water only in the final step, a 30 second photo-flo bath.

 

[odonoghue]

You cannot waste water - it will always flow to the sea unless evaporated into the atmosphere. What you can do is send it through your darkroom before it makes its way. A five minute rinse in the Jobo tank and then in distilled water with a wetting agent for roll films. Equivalent for sheet films in their trays. Prints: fill the bathtub one third and put your prints in. Shuffle them from time to time. I do this over a couple of hours -- but I don't hang around the bathroom -- just check in and shuffle from time to time. I've fiber based prints made over 20 years ago and they've held up just fine.

 

[thebdt]

I've decided to stick with my method; it works for me. Also, my lab certainly isn't changing its methods based upon what someone said somewhere on some internet forum.

 

[michael9793]

permawash
film 1min wash, 1 min permawash, 1 min wash they are archival
paper DW 5 min wash, 5 min permawash, 5 min wash achival

 

[bdial]

permawash
film 1min wash, 1 min permawash, 1 min wash they are archival
paper DW 5 min wash, 5 min permawash, 5 min wash achival

Have you tested your prints for retained hypo?

 

[CBG]

permawash
film 1min wash, 1 min permawash, 1 min wash they are archival
paper DW 5 min wash, 5 min Permawash, 5 min wash achival

I'm not sure I'd trust Permawash's claimed numbers. They are so far off everyone else's results that I suspect they are unadulterated voodoo marketing hype.

OK ... Lets talk prints, since paper based prints are the real test of washing. The numbers might work if you have one single very low key very dark print with little silver to be removed, fixed in pristine absolutely fresh unused rapid fix just mixed in two baths used something like the Ilford method, absolutely fresh unused Permawash just mixed, all for only that first single print being treated, and a deluge of water blasting over the print in an utterly wasteful manner.

Maybe. Maybe for that first single print, if handled perfectly, just one print so all solutions are working at utmost performance. But I wouldn't trust the claims even for just one print. I can't see how any wash aid can so greatly outperform very similar competitors.

I am sure Permawash is a very good product. I have used it. I have some now and use it without worry. Just not for such short process times. I don't believe in magic or miracles.

 

[ruilourosa]

hello

i´ve been reading this thread and become curious...

i´m doing my own rapid fixer adapting a old agfa formula (maybe 105 0r 108) and i mix this:

h20 750ml 52ºc
sodium thiosulfate - 200gr
ammonium chloride - 40gr
sodium metabisulfite - 20 gr
borax - 20gr
h2o to 1000ml

it comes out just a bit acidic and almost odorless and i use one liter to fix around 10 films for 5 mins each at 20ºc running water

for paper it´s around the same amonunt! when doing important stuff i use the two bath method

always undiluted


i wash the film for 20-30 mins and fb paper 45min-1hour 20º +-2º


sometimes for film (mainly at home) i use this alcaline fixer


h20 750ml 52ºc
sodium thiosulfate - 200gr
ammonium chloride - 40gr
sodium sulfite - 15 gr
borax - 12gr
h2o to 1000ml


it gets just a bit alcaline and has a faint ammonia smell

clearing times are always under 30 seconds even in colder solutions

for safety i always wash for 15-20min running water

am i doing well?



:confused:

 

[dancqu]

Unbelievable

I've decided to stick with my method; it works for me.

That method, 15 to 20 changes of water, is a waste of
time and water. A leisurely conducted Ilford sequence
will allow some additional margin of safety and save
a lot of water and one's time. Filling and dumping
15 to 20 times is throwing water and one's time
down the drain.

To increase that margin of safety even farther keep
a jug or two of room temperature wash water
on hand. Dan

 

[37th Exposure]

What do you think?
Just contacted Ilford on their website and they recommended their usual 5, 10, 20 sequence if you use nonhardening fixer and to repeat the sequence twice (without wash aid) if you use a hardening fix. Sounds hard to believe but I would suppose they know better than I would. I'm tired of running scores of gallons of water down the drain just to wash one roll like Kodak recommends. Neither I nor the planet can afford that when I must go through dozens of rolls a month.

 

[MattKing]

37th Exposure:

When you consider the Kodak recommendation, you should remember the flow rate suggested - one change of water every 5 minutes.

That means if you are washing in a 1 liter tank, and use the flow rate recommended, you will use 4 to 6 liters of water in the 20 to 30 minutes required (per Kodak's data-sheets).

 

[michael9793]

Why is this so hard. Buy permawash. 3oz per gal and good for some 80 rolls. Nonarchival is 1 min wash 1 min permawash then 1 min wash. Double for achival. All the other stuff is second best to permawash.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Do you guys all believe the hype, or do you actually test your films and papers for residual silver and hypo content with the appropriate test kits?

I'll bet most of you don't and have never done it.

PE

 

[railwayman3]

What do you think?
Just contacted Ilford on their website and they recommended their usual 5, 10, 20 sequence if you use nonhardening fixer and to repeat the sequence twice (without wash aid) if you use a hardening fix. Sounds hard to believe but I would suppose they know better than I would. I'm tired of running scores of gallons of water down the drain just to wash one roll like Kodak recommends. Neither I nor the planet can afford that when I must go through dozens of rolls a month.

I've kept with the Ilford method since I restarted my own B&W processing a couple of years ago. I always hated "wasting" water before...I'm not a fanatical environmentalist, just think that it's sensible to use our resources carefully.

 

[CBG]

Why is this so hard. Buy permawash. 3oz per gal and good for some 80 rolls. Nonarchival is 1 min wash 1 min permawash then 1 min wash. Double for achival. All the other stuff is second best to permawash.

I've said before, Permawash is a fine product as long as you don't believe their directions. Yes, it is a real wash aid. But, no, it's not magic. You can't get real washing that fast. Permawash is no better, and no worse, than all the various sulfite based wash aid products out there.

Their directions and claims are hogwash.

If you believe their statements, it's brainwash.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I'm not sure I'd trust Permawash's claimed numbers. They are so far off everyone else's results that I suspect they are unadulterated voodoo marketing hype.

OK ... Lets talk prints, since paper based prints are the real test of washing. The numbers might work if you have one single very low key very dark print with little silver to be removed, fixed in pristine absolutely fresh unused rapid fix just mixed in two baths used something like the Ilford method, absolutely fresh unused Permawash just mixed, all for only that first single print being treated, and a deluge of water blasting over the print in an utterly wasteful manner.

Maybe. Maybe for that first single print, if handled perfectly, just one print so all solutions are working at utmost performance. But I wouldn't trust the claims even for just one print. I can't see how any wash aid can so greatly outperform very similar competitors.

I am sure Permawash is a very good product. I have used it. I have some now and use it without worry. Just not for such short process times. I don't believe in magic or miracles.

Not that I am being a negative-nelly just to be mean but... how do you know it works? The best test for proper fixing is to look at a print in say... 5 years to see if it has suffered from insufficient wash after fix. Have you been using the product that long?

 

[hrst]

Not that I am being a negative-nelly just to be mean but... how do you know it works? The best test for proper fixing is to look at a print in say... 5 years to see if it has suffered from insufficient wash after fix. Have you been using the product that long?

There are tests for retained fixer (hypo) so you don't have to wait.

 

[CBG]

... The best test for proper fixing is to look at a print in say... 5 years to see if it has suffered from insufficient wash after fix ...

Short of testing for retained hypo, I think I'd want to wait considerably longer than five years to have any kind of certainty. If something is visibly failing in just five years, the processing is not just bad, it's awful.

But in one respect you are right to ask. I take it on faith that all your basic wash aid products are based on sodium sulfite or ammonium sulfite, and that they all do about the same job, and that the original research on sulfite based washing aids was accurate. You don't have to. I haven't the expertise to do an analytical chemistry analysis of Permawash, Clayton's or Lauder's wash aids, Orbit Bath, and the like. But if what I've read is here and other places to be believed, they're all sulfite based wash aids. And if the original research is to be believed, they all do about the same thing.

Personally, I tend to wash more than the minimum recommendations anyway, just to be sure.

 

[dancqu]

Hypo clearing agents exist primarily for the purpose
of breaking the bonds twixt fixers and the cellulose and
the baryta coatings of FB paper. Little to nothing is to be
gained by using the agents with film or RC papers.

Advised are a very few rinses with some agitation and
an increase in time with each rinse cycle. If working
with FB paper add to that a HCA. Dan

 

[SchwinnParamount]

There are tests for retained fixer (hypo) so you don't have to wait.

Are the tests uniformly reliable? Is a test kit made by one manufacturer any more foolproof than another?

 

[dancqu]

The HT-2 test is the at home test for residual hypo.
The Ilford version is nothing more than a 1% solution
of silver nitrate. The silver will combine with any
remaining sulfur producing a stain. The test is
conducted drop wise. Very little of the test
solution will go a long ways.

If interested I can detail the method for using
the HT-2 test. Dan

 

[CBG]

dancqu, I would be interested in the details of the Ilford test if the application differs from Kodak's. Can you post them here? Is Kodak's acetic pretty much a optional add on?

For others, below is the HT-2 test

----------------
Kodak Hypo Test HT-2 residual hypo test

Distilled Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 ml
28% Acetic Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* .125 ml
Silver Nitrate, Crystals . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 g
Distilled Water to Make . . . . . . . . . . .* * 1 L

Silver nitrate takes around 24 hours to fully dissolve.

(Store in a tightly sealed brown glass bottle away from strong light sources.* This solution stains everything it touches, so don’t splash it around.)

For paper, place one drop on the border of the print, let it stand for 2 minutes, then rinse with water.* If the print is thoroughly washed the solution will produce only a very faint tea-colored stain, or possibly no stain at all.* If it is inadequately washed, the solution will produce a rather dark tea-colored stain. To judge the stains accurately you should purchase a Kodak® Hypo Estimator, which costs about $3.

For film, cut off a small piece of film and drop it into the test solution for 3 minutes.* Properly washed films should show virtually no discoloration.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And, the retained Silver test is very immediate and obvious. It is a solution of Na2S (Sodium Sulfide) in water. One drop on an improperly fixed print turns black or brown instantly.

PE

 

[Anon Ymous]

And, the retained Silver test is very immediate and obvious. It is a solution of Na2S (Sodium Sulfide) in water. One drop on an improperly fixed print turns black or brown instantly.

PE

Or alternatively, proposed by Kodak, a 1+9 solution of KRST. The good thing about it is that it has much better shelf life than Na2S solutions. Only a drop is needed to prove if film/paper has been properly fixed. Film that has only cleared will give obvious stain. Likewise, improperly fixed paper will stain, but don't let the drop for more than 2-3 minutes, as leaving it for far too long will stain it anyway.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I use Na2S due to the greater toxicity of Se over S, but yes both are usable.

PE

 

[dancqu]

Some Details

dancqu, I would be interested in the details of the Ilford test
if the application differs from Kodak's. Can you post them
here? Is Kodak's acetic pretty much a optional add on?

Yes, an optional add on. The acetic version is less sensitive to
light and the drop spots on paper do not discolor so much over
time. Otherwise the two yield the same results.

I test my wash method by scattering one or two drop measures
about a sheet of paper. With safe lights on the measures are
placed at half minute intervals and after 3 minutes blotted
up in succession. A night light is used for evaluation.

The acetic version leaves more time for evaluation but
IMO the Ilford version allows enough.

A gram of silver nitrate for 100ml of test solution
will last and last and ... Zero stain is good
enough for me. Dan