Washing Film - Best Environmentally Friendly Way to Do It?

[Steve Smith]

has anyone ever explored the possibility of some kind of dry powder process instead of water?

http://www.imaginginfo.com/print/PTN/Kodak-Scuttles-Dry-Film-Processor/2$1021

Steve.

 

[lesm]

Wow! That's fascinating, Steve. So that technology is just sitting in a corner in a warehouse somewhere. Couldn't they at least sell it to Ilford or the Impossible Whatsit Project? I might just write to Messrs Kodak. Thanks for that.

Love your website, BTW.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This is dye sublimation printing for color originals. It has been in use by Kodak for years and is implemented in their small home printing dock. Heat is used to transfer digital images or scanned images onto a sheet of special paper from a sheet of meltable dye. It makes 4 passes by the heating head printing a C/M/Y/K image.

OTOH, there are ways to reduce washing by chemical additives in the fix. These are expensive but useful.

PE

 

[Steve Smith]

The process in my link was for processing of film:

It is generally agreed, even by the early naysayers, that the system was a remarkable technical achievement. It did what it was supposed to do: process negatives without wet chemicals.

Steve.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ahh, I was looking at the print part. The one of the existing Kodak C41 processes does not wash the negative, but just renders them for scanning and then they are discarded. You get a wash free CD or DVD in that case and some prints. Some stores do wash the negative and do return them to the owner.

AFAIK, there is no truly "dry" process except for the thermal processes and lamination processes, some of which were described by Haist.

PE

 

[removed account4]

ron

would it be possible for someone use a trickle tank ( or something similar )
so s/he does a primary wash in water that is "recycled"
( de-silvered wash water that went through the trickle tank )
and used fresh water for a final "rinse / soak " ?

thanks
john

 

[Photo Engineer]

I am familiar with countercurrent washes, and I assume that this is similar. However, desivering the wash water and removing the hypo both will be the problem in what you describe.

PE

 

[removed account4]

yeah, i forgot about the hypo !

too bad a good diatomaceous earth filtration system
can't be used ... campers use them to filter water and make it
potable, it would be great if one could be used to recycle used wash water,
once the silver was removed ...

 

[Photo Engineer]

A mixed bed ion exchange resin + an organic absorbing resin will work. BTDT.

PE

 

[ozphoto]

As a latecomer to all this discussion, can I address the original OP? I also live in South Australia (known as the Driest State in the Driest Continent on Earth) and I've likewise struggled with my conscience as I contemplate building a darkroom in the next few months. The solution I've decided on, which may be of some use to you, perhaps, is to dedicate one of our rainwater tanks as my photography water supply. (I'll install appropriate filters). If it runs out in mid summer, that'll be a good time to go and shoot some more film until it rains again, or -GASP! - drag out the DSLR.

I have been using rainwater to do just that; my main objective for the original question, was how to best use any/all water I had access to regardless of it being mains, or rainwater from the tank.

The less I need to use, the better.

 

[Tom S.]

Chemical Displacement

There were some studies done on film washing in the 1950s. A 2% solution of sodium sulfite was found to reduce residual thiosulfite in film to zero in two minutes. Film bathed this way, followed by a running waster wash of one minute has less residual chemistry in it than would a sheet of film washed in water alone for more than an hour. This is the mechanism used for the various hypo clearing agents.

Washing efficiency can also be improved by first bathing films in seawater or solutions of common table salt at that strength for ten minutes before a thirty minute wash with running water. One reference in the literature states that a ten minute bath with seawater dropped the residual thiosulfate content to 0.005 milligrams per square inch where after thirty minutes of tapwater washing alone only lowered it to 0.080 mg/square inch.

My preference is to use a hypo-clearing agent for about eight minutes, rinse the film thoroughly twice and then do a very low trickle wash for 15 minutes.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

if we use as much water as we can, ewe might end up with clean rivers again !

 

[Ming Rider]

Hello all,

I've just joined today. I shoot 35mm with a Leica CL, Medium Format with a Mamiya C33 and Digital (gulp) with a Leica M8.

Just to add. I've always used the Ilford Method because I don't have running water in the darkroom.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Since I have a motorbase, I started to use the Ilford method too.
After twice a 2 min. neutral-to-alcalic fixer, 2 min. KHCA and then 5 times 2 min. washing (20°C +/- 2°C) with continuous agitation (motor base) to finish with 2 min ADOSTAB.
According to the Kodak Residual Silver Test, which is actually a 1+9 KRST solution,http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j...3ITJBg&usg=AFQjCNGPaeh3TPtCQtKazc_Ny619mPuJEw, and a Sodium Permanganate 1/1000 test to test the washing, it looks good, but I am absolutely aware that those tests are not conclusive, and good for my peace of mind, but better these than notting!
I process in King's Pyro-HD, which is superb, thank you Sandy!

BTW, is it true that Pyrocat processed negatives are less archival?

 

[JohnC]

I go along with the "soak it out" policy. Preferable warm water but not hot enough to soften and damage the emulsion. I understand that if a bottle of even the most noxious liquid is emptied, refilled with water, left to sit, then emptied and refilled another 7 times, the result is clean water.
There's a test for residual hypo, but I don't know what it is.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

how does using lots of wash water harm the environment?

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is a test for retained Silver Halides and a test for retained Hypo. Both should be used to establish whether your wash is up to the standards. Both are sold premixed by several chemical supply houses that specialize in photographic chemicals. I use the Photographers Formulary.

PE

 

[spijker]

how does using lots of wash water harm the environment?

Clean water usually does not come for free. Water purification and transportation costs energy and most energy generation pollutes incl. nuclear power. Saving water is better for the environment in many ways. That's why low-flush toilets, low-flow shower heads, "grey" water circuits etc. are invented and encouraged.

I use the "Ilford method" and presume that Ilford tested that method before publishing it. I haven't done any testing myself.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Test you washed product!

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Clean water usually does not come for free. Water purification and transportation costs energy and most energy generation pollutes incl. nuclear power. Saving water is better for the environment in many ways. That's why low-flush toilets, low-flow shower heads, "grey" water circuits etc. are invented and encouraged.

I use the "Ilford method" and presume that Ilford tested that method before publishing it. I haven't done any testing myself.

And remember less than 1% of the water here on earth is fresh. Some 20% of that is in the Great Lakes. Read "The Ripple Affect." You will view water in an entirely different light.

 

[Ming Rider]

I manufacture a product called Ionic Silver. A benefit of this is a large water distiller. No dirty marks on film for me.

You wouldn't believe the crud that collects from distilling tap water. Brown and smells awfull. And I live in Cumbria with one of the cleanest supplies in the UK.

 

[ozphoto]

When I originally posted this question, it was due to severe water restrictions being in place in South Australia; rainfall is not as copious as in other parts of the world - we are known as "The driest state, in the driest continent in the world." for good reason.

Harm to the actual environment is also of concern, but it was my intention to discover the best way to use the *least* amount of water, that would achieve safe, archival results without draining our precious, natural resource that is more often than not, in short supply.

Long, hot, dry summers with very little rain the following (or preceding) winter, doesn't allow for gallons of water to be washed down the drain, when it's in short supply. Parklands (usually green in winter and only a little browning in summer) are left to wither as the restrictive time to water is only a couple of hours in the am and pm - with large fines if you attempt to do so out of the allotted timeframe.

So if I can still achieve archival results, without using *any* more water than is absolutely necessary, not only is Adelaide thankful for my prudence with water use, but I'll also be saving $$$ on my water bill and ensuring water is still available for use during the next drought that comes along.

 

[ROL]

Clean water usually does not come for free...

I grew up in an area of the Western U.S. that received less than 10 inches of rain annually, officially a desert by climatological classification. Yet the easy access of water from state irrigation projects allowed it to flourish as the breadbasket (more accurately "fruitbowl") of the nation. The profligate use of imported water allowed its residents, agriculturalists or not, to use water in ways of which I have been made increasingly sensitive. I stopped letting the faucet run in order to simply wet my toothbrush long ago. Any time spent in naturally dry climes should sensitize anyone of at least moderate intelligence that fresh water is a precious resource, unevenly distributed in a world ever more populated by a very problematic species. Here in the West, the maxim has always been, "Whiskey's for drinkin', water is for fightin' over". Ralph's comment, sincere or not, represents a massive failure of our teachers and leaders – political, religious, whatever – to communicate the importance of a finite resource, critical to the survival of everyone anywhere on the the planet we all share.

 

[JBrunner]

Water can be a big deal here where I live. In a dry year using more than necessary is both unconscionable and expensive. I have had a $200 water bill more than once, and that's being careful. I'd rather spend money on cameras and film.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

water is not a finite resource. it is recycledagainand again, but i agree, wasting it is insensible. washing film and paper according to the ilford procedure is a much better way to go.