• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

washing negatives - Does the fixer leach out?


I've been catching up with this thread and I'm right here with Juan. I do a one minute water agitation between dev and an alkaline fix (TF4). I'm not opposed to replacing that water-stop with two minutes in running water.

As for washing, Bill's comments on washing requirements for films fixed in alkaline fixer leave me pretty comfortable with the five minutes in continuously running water.

I too am hoping that I'm on the right track.
 
Roger;

The point in my post was that Ctein, an expert at photography overall, accidentally produced some prints that were not archival. No matter that it was prints, not negatives. He thought they were archival prints and they were not.

This goes broadly to the point that all authors seem to agree that there is a sweet spot in time, flow and agitaion as well as the number of changes of water and the length of holds in the water. This can and has been said for both film and paper. And, the problem is that we will not know until it is too late. And, the similarity between RC prints and film is often minimized, but they are similar in many ways.

So, I prefer to use the methods suggested by Kodak, and in particular if necessary to use single changes, the method of Levenson, rather than the Ilford method, as the data produced at Kodak has been verified by image stability tests.

As for denigrating anyone's reputation, for the record I believe Ryuji to be a very intelligent person, a graduate student in a non-chemical area, but who has a lot of experience reading the literature on photography. He has little experience in actual practice when compared to many of us others but does many good things, albeit differently than I would. I differ in opinion with him on several things based on my experience in R&D at Kodak. These differences are honest, and based on lots of work by myself and friends over the years.

I have never called him a name in public or in private.

I have asked him if he would care to post any of his data on emulsions or even image stability. He has declined. This exchange is on record here on APUG. I have asked him in an e-mail if we can jointly cooperate and stop this type of exchange. His reply declined in the strongest terms.

I seem to be in the postion of having to apologize again, for my part in these unseemly exchanges, but my Kodak friends, none of whom post anywhere, warned me that this type of exchange often took place when they tried to place their knowldge before people on the internet. They read these and send me information and supportive messages. I give them thanks.

So, sorry to my fellow APUG members, and to the Kodakers reading this. I have tried to tell the true story as I experienced it by actual lab work, and to summarize the literature that exists. I can assure you that my reportage of facts are as accurate as I can possibly make them with little opinon and lots of fact. Thanks for bearing with this.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
And, the similarity between RC prints and film is often minimized, but they are similar in many ways.
Click to expand...

Very true, and the point is well taken that you can (probably) over-wash as well as under-washing. The only reason I say 'probably' is that so much depends on the washing conditions, and it is damnably hard to compare e.g. spray, immersion in flowing water, and changes-plus-agitations, so some wash approaches, especially change-and-agitate, are very unlikely to result in over-washing because you'd get bored before it happened.

Cheers,

R.
 
Overwashing is not an issue if you tone the print in any of the archival toners. Overwashing is a notion that a trace amount of residual thiosulfate can provide some image protection to unprotected silver image, but controlling the level of residual thiosulfate to the optimal range by regulating washing protocol is impractical. Furthermore, the amount of image protection from even the optimal level is insufficient to protect images for display or average (i.e., non-museum level) storage condition. Polysulfide treatment gives far greater image protection and throws the overwashing paradox out of the equation.

Thus "overwashing" should be regarded as a caution against waste of useless effort rather than an active means to increase image permanence.

Another thing is that, overwashing may be a somewhat useful concept for prints, duplicating films and microfilms, but not for contone camera negative emulsions we use. Due to the difference in the emulsion and grain morphology, negative film images are much more robust than microfilm or prints. Even when conservators found a lot of deterioration of untoned microfilm images, they didn't find any problem with the stability of camera negative images, unless there was some failure to maintain proper storage conditions (this latter case is not news worthy, of course).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The interesting note above about microfilm and camera film negative images is significant only in terms of the fact that the microfilm emulsion is closer to paper emulsion in order to get the high contrast and fine grain.

Therefore, IMO, if there is to be and approximate similarity I would expect it to be between RC paper prints and microfilm.

As for keeping, microfilm is wound tightly in rolls while camera negatives and prints are often loosely stacked in envelopes, or the prints are framed or placed in albums.

Microfilm processing is often quite different than is film or paper processing. I've done the latter two on commercial scales a lot and watched the former. The processes can be bad or good depending on lab. The lack of proper information about process or keeping will prevent anyone from making a definitive statement.

In the end, bad processing or keeping can affect any silver photographic process. I have found that the Kodak color chart published for testing film and paper gives us a good benchmark.

PE
 
I for one, continue to read PE's insightful and *well cited* comments regarding photochemistry research, and I sure hope he continues to share.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryuji, thanks for the post on page 13.

I think there are two part of people.
On the one hand the ones who like photography and on the other hand people who like chemistry (and of course the people who just like forums) ;-)

I am a hobby photographer and not a lab assistant. I use methods which have proved through practice over years.

These wohle discussion leads only to one thing: fear doing the right thing. And that is nonsense. I want to have fun with my hobby.

What do you think a beginner thinks, if he reads these 14 pages just about washing film...?

So I stick with Ilford, heard nothing bad about it (at least from photographers ;-) ).
 
diwolf said:
On the one hand the ones who like photography and on the other hand people who like chemistry (and of course the people who just like forums) ;-)
Click to expand...

Dear Dietmar,

I cannot help agreeing. Never mind flogging a dead horse: we are arguing about how long it takes to dissolve. And there are three current threads about it...

There are defensible differences of opinion -- and there's just testing it for yourself (which I have done) and accepting the results of your tests. The less testing you're prepared to do, the more you need to count on safety margins advocated by others, but paranoia serves no-one well.

Cheers,

R.
 
I agree, it's ridiculous to have 14 pages on an issue that has been resolved for decades. I, too, would rather talk about art than forum politics. (I spend 1000x more time shooting and also in art gallery than in camera stores, and I don't tell them I'm busy when my friends call me in the middle of writng an post to APUG.)

But this is like any other internet forum. People can spend 14 pages to argue whether toilet paper should come out in front or back. Don't even bother to ask if they wipe their body part.

Just to reassure you, the following page summarizes all important aspects of washing, excluding all sorts of irrelevant stuff:

Dead Link Removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
 
>Just to reassure you, the following page summarizes all important aspects of washing, excluding all sorts of irrelevant stuff:

http://wiki.silvergrain.org/wiki/ind...?title=Washing<

Just for the record, since I have been involved in this thread, I wish to say that I have read what I could of this documentation, and I find it ill-expressed and largely erroneous. Over-hasty, sloppy work -- but anyone can publish anything on the internet. In the end, you get what you pay for. But surely anyone who really wants to know what is what will take the time to consult reputable publications?
 
Bill;

What I find interesting is an earlier comment that Ryuji made, that he knew about the need to wash out hydroquinone, and its slow wash rate especially in acid fix, but left it out of his web page (I don't know if he mentioned the pH sensitivity though). This is interesting as you and I have known this for a long time, and it was not until we posted information on this that his page was supposedly changed. (I have not checked to follow this up)

I therefore suspect that among all of the other things he does not know about, he did not know about this or considered it totally unimportant. It is not unimportant, especially with acid fixes.

I also note his total lack of knowledge of superadditivity in fixing, and its effect on washing among other effects, nor does he discuss swelling agents for developers and fixes, an important subject in formulating new processing solutions.

PE
 

Apparently, the person who designed that toilet paper stand does not know that the way toilet paper comes out affects the peeHead and shit retention and what not, so it is very important in the sanitary level of the person. You can't tell the difference but all the beautiful women around you can see through that instantly. These are well known facts among people who worked at the research laboratory of Kimberly-Clark, but outsiders do not know because they are tightly guarded proprietary information. There are other 14 pages worth of issues that users of toilet paper dispensers should read and consider very seriously but I'm not going to list them. Trust me, I worked as an ass-paper engineer at K-C for many years and I can name a lot of retired colleagues of mine. I'm going to start another toilet paper thread shortly, and everyone should join there. Cheer me up with your responses. Incidentally, when you see a guy named Ryuji, watch out. You can find a lot of his published photographs of sexy women on the internet but so can anyone put any stuff up there. If you look at his photographs, it is obvious that he is too young to know about the fine art of ass or paper. No one at the K-C retiree lunch meeting has heard of his name and therefore he must be completely bogus. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Miscellaneous Engineer in this context could be 'odds and ends'. I guess that is his specialty then.

PE
 
Ryuji said:
I agree, it's ridiculous to have 14 pages on an issue that has been resolved for decades.
Click to expand...

I would not consider you to be innocent in that respect.

And for some reason or another, it seems that fixing/HCA/washing topics have been rather common in the last few months.

I think at some point a set of well-researched, nuanced information is not unnecessary. Not debating the issue would be akin to fear debates on evolution in case it would give ammunitions to the creationists.
 
I've removed Ryuji, Ron & Bill from this thread. If the thread doesn't seem to improve it will need to be locked..
 
Sean, I hope this removal was a last resort after communications we aren't (and should not be) privvy to. Without informed contributions, threads like this are of very limited value.
 
Yes, I prefer not to go into in detail but we have some personal battles going on in the forums and all involved are now in agreement to approach things differently..
 
Sorry, I was going to add something constructive, butt all I could come up with is whether or not Hypo-clearing Agent has any effect on the 'matter' in the above disucussion from the Distingushed Man Of Letters, all around Sweet Nice Guy, Senor Ruyji.
 

I deleted your erroneous post (a quote with nothing else).

HCA has been discussed in this and other threads on the same subject - I'm afraid you'll have to wade through all of it.
 
Sean said:
Yes, I prefer not to go into in detail but we have some personal battles going on in the forums and all involved are now in agreement to approach things differently..
Click to expand...

That's not the way it happened on the finale of 'Dallas'
Mark
 

Does that imply that a dry emulsion subjected to a hardening solution would 'freeze' the gelatin differently than a wetted/swollen emulsion? I am asking this not so much in reference to emulsion, but rather sizing/subbing.
 
With the Levenson procedure do you need to agitate the films in the tank or let the water do the job for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register