Temperature consistency - advice please

David M said:
In fact, I use a rather longer soak and dump method, which gives me time to wash up and tidy up.
I was just trying to think of an explanation. A bit of extra washing time will do no harm. Modern films don’t seem to suffer from things like frilling, which can be induced by excess immersion.
Click to expand...

I use a Gravity Works automatic fill and dump system to rinse the film for 25 minutes or a bottom fed tank that overflows intro the sink running a very low water rate. I've never seen frilling or other washing related artefacts.

The one issue I've seen is occasional emulsion peeling from the older Efke roll films which I believe to be due to their emulsion formulation, not the wash discipline. I normally use TF-4, but for my remaining Efke stock I use Kodak Fixer which has a hardener in it.

N.B. I live in a place with an abundant water supply, fairly good temperature regulation, and I've installed 20 micron water filtration in my water inlet from the mains, so I am able to do the above without any serious concerns.
 
Have you read “Mysteries of the Vortex” by Martin Reed?

Mysteries Of The Vortex (Part One) - Film and Darkroom User

Mysteries Of The Vortex (Part One) Articles
www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk
It is mainly concerned with washing fibre prints, but the same lessons should apply.
I looked up Gravity Works washers and found a site where somebody worried that the top of the film would get less washing because it would be exposed first when the siphon operated. Even more fastidious than the Magic Zone One negative density chasers, I thought.
In fact, he was mistaken. A film of water would cling to the surface and continue to leach out the residual chemicals until the tank re-filled itself.
 
David M said:
Have you read “Mysteries of the Vortex” by Martin Reed?

Mysteries Of The Vortex (Part One) - Film and Darkroom User

Mysteries Of The Vortex (Part One) Articles
www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk
It is mainly concerned with washing fibre prints, but the same lessons should apply.
I looked up Gravity Works washers and found a site where somebody worried that the top of the film would get less washing because it would be exposed first when the siphon operated. Even more fastidious than the Magic Zone One negative density chasers, I thought.
In fact, he was mistaken. A film of water would cling to the surface and continue to leach out the residual chemicals until the tank re-filled itself.
Click to expand...

I read this many years ago. I use a Gravity Works for film, and an Eco Washer for prints and have never had an issue with either. Years ago, I did some residual hypo testing on prints and got good results.

I would note that 50 years ago, I washed prints using a Kodak Tray Siphon. Those prints today demonstrate no fading or yellowing. As I recall, Reed's main finding was that it was more about having time for the hypo to leach out the print than it was having a very high water exchange rate.

I also switched to Ilford's rapid fix discipline for fiber prints - 1min in Hypam, 5 min wash, toner, hypo clear/Permawash, 1 hour low exchange rate washing in the Ecowasher. Thus far, no issue. I suspect that the minimal time spent in fixer, coupled with the protective effects of the toner plus a hypo clearing stage is really what makes this all work.

At my age, I am well aware that I am not archival, so I am somewhat less concerned about very long duration archival properties of my prints ;)
 
Yes, indeed. He tested various print washers and discovered one that swirled the water convincingly, but left a dead zone in the middle of the print. Periodic dumping seems to have been the only cure. The fixer is removed by diffusion and not by the scrubbing action of a vigorous flow.
He also dispelled the “fixer is heavier than water” myth. At the dilutions we are discussing, there is no practical difference.
 
David M said:
Yes, indeed. He tested various print washers and discovered one that swirled the water convincingly, but left a dead zone in the middle of the print. Periodic dumping seems to have been the only cure. The fixer is removed by diffusion and not by the scrubbing action of a vigorous flow.
He also dispelled the “fixer is heavier than water” myth. At the dilutions we are discussing, there is no practical difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, hence my very low exchange rate, long duration final wash cycle - to give time for the naughties to leach out. I guess I should do another HT-1 test someday just as a quality control thing.
 
David M said:
In fact, I use a rather longer soak and dump method, which gives me time to wash up and tidy up.
I was just trying to think of an explanation. A bit of extra washing time will do no harm. Modern films don’t seem to suffer from things like frilling, which can be induced by excess immersion.
Click to expand...
We're on the same page, David.
 
David M said:
It’s possible that the extended Kodak method was designed for yesterday’s thicker emulsions. I’d have expected Ilford to have done their own homework.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that the Ilford washing method was shorter because of the use of a non-hardening fixer, where as the longer washing times recommended by Kodak is due to the use of a hardening fixer.
Can someone confirm this?
 
Last edited:
Ilford's film wash technique was introduced when we had a major water shortage here in the UK, I'd guess 1976. Water was rationed in some areas, hosepipes were banned etc. I spent all that hot summer, in hospital, on traction with a broken leg :D

Ian
 
Keith tapscott. said:
I read somewhere that the Ilford washing method was shorter because of the use of a non-hardening fixer, where as the longer washing times recommended by Kodak is due to the use of a hardening fixer.
Can someone confirm this?
Click to expand...
I can't but the naked photographer I think had something on this. In the last few years I use the Ilford method plus a bit more. Back in the day when water wasn't metered or thought to be in short supply I just washed to hell. Either way no problems with yellowing. I don't use hardening fixer.
 
Thanks. I have my own washing method for roll films based on Ilford method.
I fill a 5 litres jug with water at around 20/21*C and give 4 changes of water in the developer tank. 5,10,15 and 20 inversions followed by a final rinse.
I have never waited 5 minutes between rinses though. So far so good as my negatives from 1990s are as good as new. Maybe I've just been lucky.
 
USe teh ilford wash system, the changes are the best way.
 
Those long continuous washes were specified when we thought we had infinite supplies of water. I suspect one attraction was that you could go away and leave them as long as you liked. You could boast about how hyper-archival you were, down at the Fixer's Arms.
...and of course, the makers of those very expensive print washers liked the story too.
 
Last edited:
David M said:
Those long continuous washes were specified when we thought we had infinite supplies of water. I suspect one attraction was that you could go away and leave them as long as you liked. You could boast about how hyper-archival down at the Fixer's Arms.
...and of course, the makers of those very expensive print washers liked the story too.
Click to expand...

I live near a great deal of more-or-less inexhaustible water supply and still do washing the old fashioned way. Does that make me a bad person? To whom shall I confess my sins ;)
 
You’ve just confessed to the entire Forum. Pax vobiscum.
 
David M said:
You’ve just confessed to the entire Forum. Pax vobiscum.
Click to expand...

At least I didn't get a penance ;)

On a more serious note... here in the middle of the US we seem to have an endless supply of lakes, not to mention the "Great Lakes" which provide a nonstop supply of water. The heavy rain and storms we experience in spring and summer refresh these nicely. So water supply isn't much of a discussion as it is in, say, the Southwest US or California or, apparently, the UK.
 
thronobulax said:
At least I didn't get a penance ;)

On a more serious note... here in the middle of the US we seem to have an endless supply of lakes, not to mention the "Great Lakes" which provide a nonstop supply of water. The heavy rain and storms we experience in spring and summer refresh these nicely. So water supply isn't much of a discussion as it is in, say, the Southwest US or California or, apparently, the UK.
Click to expand...
the word you are overlooking is the word "seem".

Since 1990 the state of california has been trying to establish legislation that would allow them to have an intercontinental pipeline/canal to drain water from the great lakes.
 
Here in the UK, our government placed great faith in the value of competition, so they sold our monopoly water and sewage suppliers to private companies. It’s the duty of private companies to look after the interests of their shareholders and in this, they have been very successful.
 
David M said:
Here in the UK, our government placed great faith in the value of competition, so they sold our monopoly water and sewage suppliers to private companies. It’s the duty of private companies to look after the interests of their shareholders and in this, they have been very successful.
Click to expand...

Where I live, private entities are avaricious, but competent, and I can get some of the profits by becoming a shareholder.

On the other hand, government is avaricious and incompetent, and forces me to pay them more and more to do less and less more poorly.

That said, water, sewer, and trash collection are all run and managed through local government, with trash being outsourced to a private entity. All three are done well, if not economically.
 
I do two things to control and adjust for temperature:

1) I set the room thermometer to the desired temperature (easier if you have a wireless thermostat)
2) I take the temperature half way through the development time and adjust the time according to the Ilford compensation charts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top