PDA

View Full Version : How many water changes to wash film?



John Kasaian
22-Feb-2017, 19:48
The number of trays of water needed to thoroughly wash film has slipped my mind. I do have a washer, but I've only a few sheets to develop this time 'round so I'm thinking that filling up the washer and running it would probably waste more water than the tray method.
Can anyone please tell me how many tray change-outs it takes to wash a sheet of film?
Thanks!

loonatic45414
22-Feb-2017, 20:14
I built a small setup in the interest of saving water. With a small circulating pump, I'll do three 5 minute washes in a gallon of water each wash. That's for a Jobo reel with four 4x5 films maximum, a spool of 120 or two spools of 35mm.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Jim Noel
22-Feb-2017, 20:23
Five 1 minute rinses with constant agitation will do the job. This is one method proposed byIlford in times of limited water.

Michael Clark
22-Feb-2017, 20:30
I just processed 4 rolls of 120, 2 rolls at a time fixed in T-5 then one rinse 800ml, then hypo clear (T-5 is not suppose to need a hypo clear, but for Tmax films I do) then 3 to 4 changes of water, 800ml of water for each change of water as the film is still on the reels and in the tank, 10min,20min, and 25minutes. Sheet film is about the same but Tmax films always need more washing to get that red dye out.. What I need is a small 4x5, 5x7 sheet film washer, but the nikor tank and reels are pretty effective for 120.

loonatic45414
22-Feb-2017, 20:33
I agree - I shoot a lot of Tmax & 5 minutes isn't near enough in my experience. But 5 water changes sounds like excellent advice.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

stawastawa
22-Feb-2017, 22:34
I second following Ilford's water wise methods:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/assets/20154231237291446.pdf

although I do 5 changes of the wash not 3... I wonder if they changed their recommendation at some point.

Barry Kirsten
22-Feb-2017, 22:59
I use 6 changes of water and at least 10 min in each. I think time is just as important as number of water changes to allow maximum diffusion of chemical out of the emulsion.

Jerry Bodine
22-Feb-2017, 23:45
...Can anyone please tell me how many tray change-outs it takes to wash a sheet of film?...

John, I looked this up in 'The Negative':
If water is in short supply, a series of repeated soakings in containers of fresh water can be efficient in removing hypo. The recommended procedure is to give at least one-half hour of continuous soakings, with agitation, changing water every five minutes.

locutus
22-Feb-2017, 23:51
Personally i do 9 fill/agitate/dump cycles followed by a final rinse with 1+200 Photoflo when developing in a Mod54/Paterson tank.

Has worked for me so far!

neil poulsen
23-Feb-2017, 00:13
I have a continuous fill containers for 4x5 and medium format cassettes that flow over the top. I let it go for 30 minutes or so. I've never had a problem.

Dirk Rsler
23-Feb-2017, 00:53
I do three changes, 4-5-6 minutes, rotary

Doremus Scudder
23-Feb-2017, 02:29
There's a lot of hearsay and speculation here. Really, if we haven't tested for residual hypo, we shouldn't be recommending methods based on things like, "it's worked for me so far," or "I've never experienced any problems"... That's not to say that these methods don't do the job, just that maybe we should be passing on more authoritative sources rather than untested personal adaptations.

The recommendations given by Ilford have been tested, but you need to follow their regime explicitly (i.e., non-hardening fixer, Ilford materials, etc.). Furthermore, Ilford is a bit tight-lipped about just how washed their film is after their wash sequence. Erring on the side of longer would certainly not hurt. Keep in mind that the Ilford recommendations are a minimum. In my experience, they seem to be on the short side of adequate.

The information quoted above from Ansel Adams' The Negative is likely directly from Kodak and can be considered authoritative. The fact that it doesn't agree well with the Ilford recommendations gives me pause... I think I'd go with the longer method with more changes of water just out of caution. In essence, it is a 30-minute wash with water changes every five minutes (this after a thorough rinse).

John, if you are washing just a few sheets, I'd recommend the AA/Kodak method in a tray one size larger and with constant agitation. Yes, you'll have to baby-sit the film for 30 minutes :( Sometimes I soak with water changes every five minutes, but mostly use a continuous-flow washer. And yes, I have tested for residual hypo. FWIW, I have found that 30-minute wash time for film processed without a hypo-clearing step is adequate. If you include a hypo-clearing step, you can likely reduce the wash time.

There's a lengthy thread on film washing on APUG that's worth reading and absorbing here: http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/film-washing-test.69416/ .

Best,

Doremus

loonatic45414
23-Feb-2017, 06:42
There's a lot of hearsay and speculation here....

we shouldn't be recommending methods based on things like, "it's worked for me so far," or "I've never experienced any problems"...

maybe we should be passing on more authoritative sources rather than untested personal adaptations.

Keep in mind that the Ilford recommendations are a minimum. In my experience, they seem to be on the short side of adequate.

...the fact that it doesn't agree well with the Ilford recommendations gives me pause...


Aren't we being a bit contradictory here? Just an observation.

Also, it's not "untested" if it's something we've done prior to recommending it.

I'm not a fan of continuous agitation since we're not necessarily scrubbing the hypo off with mechanical means. It's more of a soak and release process throughout the gelatin. Therefore, I find it's okay to allow the film to stand between agitations after a couple minutes of continuous agitation. I use a circulating pump to keep water moving, however.

My concern with continuous agitation throughout is that gelatin is soft and this could promote spreading. I have read about not soaking the film too long in a pre-develop rinse to minimize gelatin drift; therefore it seems logical to keep that in the back of our minds as we wash. Continuous agitation just seems to further exacerbate a delicate situation with the gelatin in a soft state.

Therefore, I have developed my method from these principles... Not too much agitation, don't leave the film soaking too long, yet long enough... also promote some kind of continuous flow.

I have developed my style by taking into account the factors I believe affect quality.

1) Agitate in rinse water for 2 minutes to remove traces of fixer.

2) Three 5-minute soakings in water with continuous flow.

3) Final rinse in photo-flo, hang & dry.

Enjoy.

John Layton
23-Feb-2017, 06:42
Hmmm...well - back in the day when I was young and perhaps even more foolish than I am now (highly debatable!) I usually went by the directions on the back of the Heico bottle - starting with their "30-30-30" (as in seconds)...of water, then hypo clear, then water before a brief hit with photo flo. I shortly advanced to the "archival" recommendation of 60-60-60. Do keep in mind that this "wash" followed a hardening fix! Oh...the Horror!

But y'know what? Those negatives go back almost half a century - and to this day are still every bit as good as when processed.

These days...I'm typically washing for twenty one minutes (after a non-hardening fix - usually TF-4 after Pyrocat) with six changes, starting at one minute, going to two, then three, then four, then five, then six minutes (constant agitation) - on the assumption that successive baths are more effective than preceding ones for longer periods of time. Also, when using TF-4 with Fp4, I usually use just water for washes. When using TM-Y, however, I'll usually use the Perma-Wash for a couple of minutes after the first couple of water baths. Hey...seems to work!

Years ago (1982 I think) I sat down to dinner with a guy named Ochoa (Jose?), who was then the head conservator of photographs at either the MOMA or the MET (can't remember which), and we spoke at length about compliance with "archival standards." Know what? Jose basically threw up his hands and said something to the effect that "we have no idea!" (of a verifiably bullet-proof protocol for archival processing). To his credit, Mr. Ochoa went on to recommend a discipline of care and thoroughness with respect to washes - but not to the point of insanity. Then again, some clients for fine art are truly uptight about this.

I can remember making one sale where the customer, prior to plunking down his cash, drew out of his pocket a vial of residual fix tester - and demanded that I unframe the print, lift the mat, and allow him to apply his test before closing the deal. My response surprised me. Instead of telling him where to shove it - I went through with this (admittedly out of curiosity) and the print tested fine.

A few years after my meal with Jose, I took a platinum/palladium/albumen workshop with Robert Steinberg. This was 1987 - and Robert was at that time producing these amazingly beautiful portfolios of 11x14 contact albumen prints in two editions - one being "portraits" of flowers, the other a series of architectural studies from Prague. Each portfolio consisted of ten matted prints, bound up in its own handmade custom italian leather case. Stunning! Prices started at 7500.00, and they were flying out the door - despite Robert's complete honesty with his buyers as he explained to each one that the albumen prints would change in tone, slightly but visibly, over the course of about fifty years before they actually became stable!

...and then there was Edward Weston's darkroom...but I digress! (don't get me wrong, E.W. is my hero)

Sorry for the ramble - beats work sometimes!

John Layton
23-Feb-2017, 06:48
ps...out of respect for Jose - his sense of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of "archival" processing was more in the context of what happens to negatives/prints after processing (how they are handled, mounted/matted/framed, displayed, etc). His conclusion was that the best way to protect our precious work would be to seal it hermetically in something totally inert, and then never let it see the light of day!

jnanian
23-Feb-2017, 07:04
20 mins of "fill and dumps"
and sheets get shuffled
or i stick it in the oriental negative washer for 20 mins ..

good luck john!

john

Randy Moe
23-Feb-2017, 07:43
How about Government work standards for HABS 500 year desires?

https://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/PhotoGuidelines.pdf

Doremus Scudder
23-Feb-2017, 09:23
Aren't we being a bit contradictory here? Just an observation.

Also, it's not "untested" if it's something we've done prior to recommending it.

I'm not a fan of continuous agitation since we're not necessarily scrubbing the hypo off with mechanical means. It's more of a soak and release process throughout the gelatin. Therefore, I find it's okay to allow the film to stand between agitations after a couple minutes of continuous agitation. I use a circulating pump to keep water moving, however.

My concern with continuous agitation throughout is that gelatin is soft and this could promote spreading. I have read about not soaking the film too long in a pre-develop rinse to minimize gelatin drift; therefore it seems logical to keep that in the back of our minds as we wash. Continuous agitation just seems to further exacerbate a delicate situation with the gelatin in a soft state.

Therefore, I have developed my method from these principles... Not too much agitation, don't leave the film soaking too long, yet long enough... also promote some kind of continuous flow.

I have developed my style by taking into account the factors I believe affect quality.

1) Agitate in rinse water for 2 minutes to remove traces of fixer.

2) Three 5-minute soakings in water with continuous flow.

3) Final rinse in photo-flo, hang & dry.

Enjoy.

loonatic,

By "tested," I mean doing tests for residual hypo with the Kodak HT-2 test or other similar test to ensure that washing is adequate. Sorry, and with all due respect, but "something you've done prior to recommending it" is not a quantifiable test. Note that the HABS document Randy linked to mentions that film washing can take from 5 to 60 minutes. They also recommend testing for residual hypo. Reliance on recommendations from Ilford and Kodak are usually safe, since the, assumably, do adequate testing. Filling and dumping 3, 5, 6, times over 15, 20, or 30 minutes may all work for some films. The point is, we can't know if we don't test. Sure, one can wait 50 years and see (that's a kind of test...), but who wants to wait 100 or more?

As far as continuous agitation goes: The OP is processing sheet film. If one processes multiple sheets in a single tray, agitation, usually by shuffling from bottom to top, should be continuous and rapid enough to go through the stack at least once every 60 seconds. With films on reels or in separator slots, the water needs only to be moving slightly, or replaced at regular intervals.

As far as "gelatin drift" goes: I've never heard or read of such a phenomenon with commercially available film. If you have a resource you could direct me to, I would be grateful. I certainly have never seen any evidence of drifting emulsions in my 35+ years of serious photography.

I agree fully that film should be not be left soaking too long, but just long enough. My long enough gets determined by the HT-2 test. I imagine your three 5-minute soaks will be just fine, especially if you use a hypo-clear step. However, you'll never be sure till you test.

Best,

Doremus

Jim Jones
23-Feb-2017, 10:28
In college 40+ years ago I offered thousands of 8x10 RC prints to the PR office on speculation. Since these were for prompt publication rather than for galleries, processing was hasty. Up to 32 prints at a time were shuffled through three deep wash trays. Almost all of the thousand prints that weren't accepted for use remain in good condition. A few show problems from handling with contaminated fingers. This is RC paper, not film, and the goal was prompt delivery, not great imagery. Of course personal prints were treated better.

Tim Meisburger
23-Feb-2017, 13:10
I find five minutes or five changes sufficient, but if I want archival I go for six ;)

Vaughn
23-Feb-2017, 13:54
I can not keep close track. I'll do five 8x10s in a Jobo 3005, do two or three changes of water in the drum, then each neg goes into its own 8x10 tray. I fill and dump the trays a few times while I have a snack and get the next drum ready and start processing the next 5 negs. By the time the second set is done, I figure the first 5 are more than washed enough.

Greg
23-Feb-2017, 15:48
In the 1970s I was a student at the Rochester Institute of Technology. In my Materials & Process class was taught the following by Tom Hill and Hollis Todd. Per memory (highly questionable after all these years), if there are any traces of hypo in the negative it will be in the form of sulphur and sooner or later it will attack the silver image forming a light brown silver sulphide... I stand to be corrected.

Archival process for film when I was at RIT:
First wash in running water for 30 minutes.
Hypo-eliminator for 6 minutes
Final wash for 10 minutes
All solutions around 70 degrees
Running water can be as low as one total volume water change per minute

Since the 1980s? I have been using PERMA WASH as my hypo eliminator. PERMA WASH recommends a 1 minute wash, 1 minute in a PERMA WASH solution, and finally a 1 minute final wash.

I split the difference:
1 minute first wash
PERMA WASH (hypo eliminator) for 2-3 minutes
Final wash 5 minutes

Still have some of my 8x10 Super-XX negatives washed this way from the 1970s. I have seen no staining or deterioration in any of them. Last year reprinted a few of them and they amazingly showed no signs of aging.

Ron789
23-Feb-2017, 16:02
My experience: it depends on the film. Ilford FP4 will do fine with some 4 or 5 fill/agitate/dump cycles over 10-15 minutes. Kodak Tmax needs more: I take at least 30 minutes and some 8 refills.

stawastawa
23-Feb-2017, 19:02
when people say some films take longer, how do you determine that? what cues tell you it is not fully washed?

Michael Clark
23-Feb-2017, 19:43
Kodak TMax film has a dye that is stubborn to remove, it will leave a pink stain in the emulsion. I think it does not matter if it stays in there but I try to get as much of it out as possible. It was put in the film to block a certain amount of uv light, so the film sensibility is closer to what your eye sees. Tmax 100 is the hardest to clear for me.

stawastawa
23-Feb-2017, 21:02
Kodak TMax film has a dye that is stubborn to remove, it will leave a pink stain in the emulsion. I think it does not matter if it stays in there but I try to get as much of it out as possible. It was put in the film to block a certain amount of uv light, so the film sensibility is closer to what your eye sees. Tmax 100 is the hardest to clear for me.

ahh I see, so probably not a permanence thing. I imagine it might have some slight effect on contrast, and possibly on alternative processes. they key would be consistency!

have you noticed any differenc ein wash times depending on what developer is used? wondering if some developers are better at removing it.

Michael Clark
23-Feb-2017, 21:33
I do not think it will interfere with permanence and really do not know about the contrast, but it seems every body wants to clear it out.

LabRat
24-Feb-2017, 00:15
And remember that hypo based fixers take longer to wash out (esp. with colder wash water), than Rapid (ammonium thiosulfate) fixers, and if the fixers are hardening or not...

A half hour with several changes of water should do it, and one can test the materials for it's wash (and complexes)... But because film bases don't trap thiosulfate complexes like paper bases, it washes out the complexes well... Getting the dyes out will take as long as it will take, but a pre-soak before development helps a lot to remove much of the dye beforehand... And using a one-shot developer also means that excess dye will not build-up in it, preventing it from being even harder to remove later...

Steve K

Vaughn
24-Feb-2017, 01:29
ahh I see, so probably not a permanence thing. I imagine it might have some slight effect on contrast, and possibly on alternative processes. they key would be consistency!

have you noticed any differenc ein wash times depending on what developer is used? wondering if some developers are better at removing it.

TMax100 is not recommended for alt processes when the negative is to be used directly in the exposure with UV light. TMax100 (at least in sheet film) has a permanent UV blocking layer (not related to the pink color) which will greatly increase your exposure time -- 4x or more. I have been staying away from TMax100 in 120 rolls because of it, but I have not tested it. I enjoy making platinum prints directly from 6cmx6cm negatives. Oddly enough, and thankfully, TMax400 does not have the UV blocking layer.

Doremus Scudder
24-Feb-2017, 02:48
when people say some films take longer, how do you determine that? what cues tell you it is not fully washed?

You've put your finger on the problem. There are no clues to tell if the film is adequately washed unless you test for residual hypo. Both adequate fixing and washing are necessary for permanence. Testing your process for both once and then checking occasionally is relatively painless and brings a lot of peace of mind. The Kodak ST-1 test for residual silver and HT-2 for residual hypo are easy enough.

In lieu of testing yourself, you can rely on test results from reliable sources, e.g., Kodak,Ilford, Adams' books and the link to the film washing tests I posted earlier.

For those still interested, here are the guidelines from the horses' mouths:

Ilford (from the tech pubs on HP5+ and FP4+):
"5.6 WASHING
Where film has not been hardened, wash in running water for 5–10 minutes.
For spiral tank use, when a non-hardening fixer has been used and the washing temperature is below 77F, the following method of washing is recommended. This method of washing is faster, uses less water and gives negatives of archival permanence.
1. Process the film in a spiral tank.
2. Fix it using ILFORD UNIVERSAL Rapid fixer.
3. After fixing, fill the tank with water at the same temperature as the processing solutions, and invert it five times.
4. Drain the water away and refill. Invert the tank ten times.
5. Drain and refill it for the third time; invert the tank twenty times. Drain the water.
When a hardening fixer has been used, wash the film in running water for 15–20 minutes at a temperature within 10F of the processing temperature. Use of a hardening fixer makes the film more difficult to wash and is therefore not recommended.
A final rinse of water to which ILFOTOL Wetting Agent (1+200) has been added will aid rapid and uniform drying."

Note that Ilford's recommendations don't include a fill-and-dump method for film fixed in hardening fixer, nor do they include a hypo-clearing step.

Kodak (from the tech pubs, How to Process and Print Black-and-White Film • AJ-3 and Processing KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black-And-White Films • ED-BWF)
"Rinse 30 seconds Rinse the film in the tank under running water.
Hypo Clearing Agent 1 to 2 minutes Agitate continuously for the first 30 seconds and then at 30-second
intervals.
Water Wash 5 minutes after Hypo Clearing Agent OR 20 to 30 minutes without
Hypo Clearing Agent step. Remove the top from the tank. Run the wash water at least fast enough to provide a complete change of water in the tank in 5 minutes. For rapid washing in a small tank, fill the tank to overflowing with fresh water and then dump it all out. Repeat this cycle 10 times.
Wetting Agent 30 seconds Provide gentle agitation for 5 seconds of the total time. To reduce drying scum, mix KODAK PHOTO-FLO Solution with distilled water in areas that have hard water."

Note: we have to assume that Kodak's fill-and-dump regime is predicated on the use of a hypo-clearing step beforehand. Also, Kodak recommends their hardening fixers (Rapid Fix and Kodak Fixer) so the times are based on those.

There are other combinations of time, temp, running water or fill-and-dump, hypo-clear or not, etc., etc. that may work, but all of them will have one thing in common: enough changes of water and enough time to leach out the residual fixer and soluble compounds. The fixer used has a large influence on wash time as well. Going moderately longer than the recommendations above will not do any damage whatsoever; wash for shorter than this at your own risk.


Hope this helps,

Doremus

Randy Moe
24-Feb-2017, 05:04
Finally, a 'Fixer affects washing comment'.

What about modern fixers?

I 'think' TF5 has distinct advantages.

Thalmees
24-Feb-2017, 06:16
Using TF4 for films.
Washing in JOBO rotary 3 cycles usually.
Amount of 1 liter for each cycle.
First cycle for just few minutes, 3-4 min.
Second wash time equals fixing time at least. 6-8min usually, according to the film.
Third wash, just repeating second wash, but with distilled water.
Regardless of any circumstances, the total wash time should exceed double fixing time.
Do not remember who's procedure I'm following,
but I remember I've settled on this maneuver after reading a lot
about the subject, including ILFORD guide lines.

Doremus Scudder
24-Feb-2017, 09:44
Finally, a 'Fixer affects washing comment'.

What about modern fixers?

I 'think' TF5 has distinct advantages.

Randy,

It's generally accepted that hardening fixers lengthen the washing time, simply due to the slowing of diffusion caused by the hardening. Alkaline fixers are also generally thought to speed washing by optimizing the diffusion. I think that PE designed TF-5 to be a pH that holds the emulsion swelling at the sweet spot for fastest washing.

Best,

Doremus

Milton Tierney
26-Feb-2017, 11:17
This is the method I wash my b&w film roll or sheet film for tray or tank.
1). 5min rinse
2) 15min soak in fresh water
3)30 min soak in fresh water
4)60 min soak in fresh water
5) 1min soak in distilled water
6) 1min in photo flo & distilled water.
7) dry
Depending on amount of film, I may use 1gal to 3gals max . I do not like to waste water, besides running water can run up the water bill fast. I've been processing my b&w's this way for about 30+ years now and never seen any issue with chemical stains, fog or emulsion shifting. The Tmax -100 and TXP-320 film I shot in the 80's still looks good today. The only test I have perform is time which is 30yrs now, so in 400 or 500 years I will need to get back to you.
Just my two cents.

Cor
27-Feb-2017, 06:58
There is actually some Kodak Literature stating that complete removal of fixer is not good..trace amounts of fixer left in film (and paper) seem to protect the silver image..now define trace amounts..:confused:..

Best,

Cor

Milton Tierney
27-Feb-2017, 08:31
That's interesting

tgtaylor
27-Feb-2017, 11:44
I follow Jobo's recommendation that the number of water changes is important. After a 5 minute fix with TF5 I treat with hypo clear for 2 minutes and then wash for at least 5 minutes changing the water in the tank every 30 seconds for a total of 10 complete changes of water.In reality the total wash time is probably 8 minutes with 10 changes of water.

Thomas

Cor
28-Feb-2017, 07:20
More (perhaps too much..;-)..) on fixing here http://www.freelists.org/post/pure-silver/Some-Notes-on-Fixing-by-Michael-Gudzinowicz



There is actually some Kodak Literature stating that complete removal of fixer is not good..trace amounts of fixer left in film (and paper) seem to protect the silver image..now define trace amounts..:confused:..

Best,

Cor

Duolab123
1-Mar-2017, 20:38
Rinse for 30 seconds, hypo clear agent 90 seconds continuously agitating. 10 30 second fill and dumps or 5 minutes in rapidly flowing water @ 20C from start to finish. I use a rubber hose and insert down the column of my Jobo for roll films and the 2509n reels. The Expert tanks follow the 10 fill and dump
Mike

schafphoto
8-Apr-2017, 17:52
Hi all,

Just to add another element to the process...

I got this washing process from Jet Lowe at Heritage Documentation Programs at the National Park Service in DC. They administer the HABS, HAER, HALS documentation programs. Their standard is based on hypo tests and seeks LE500 (a life expectancy of 500 years) in cold/dry storage: 45 F and 35% Relative Humidity (negatives are stored at Fort Meade, Maryland in a specially built facility). I imagine Jack Boucher and Jet were using this for decades. If this blog is still around in 500 years somebody set a reminder to check and see if it worked. ;-)

This is Jet's reply when I asked him for his selenium-added wash times:

"Add 3oz selenium toner per gallon of your permawash solution. After fixing your film, water rinse 2 minutes, transfer to the permawash-selenium solution for 4 minutes, then 15 minutes water rinse. We used 3.5 gallon tanks in a dip and dunk manual film processing line. It was not unusual to process 200-300 sheets of 5x7 film in one day.” – Jet Lowe.

163657

163656
All the work I do for HABS, HAER, HALS is now washed this way with added selenium toner in the mix. I use the hanging stainless racks from CARR (4x5 or 5x7) and four small clear plastic tubs for the wash sequence.

-Schaf

Doremus Scudder
9-Apr-2017, 02:32
I question the use of selenium toner as described above as an aid in archival washing or increasing negative permanence for a couple of reasons.

First, selenium toning as a protective treatment has to be rather aggressive, which the process referred to above certainly isn't. It has been rather conclusively shown that selenium doesn't really provide archival protection unless the image-forming silver has all been pretty much toned to completion. I think the tests were done on microfilm, but should apply to regular film and prints as well. In the case of prints, complete toning would result in a marked shift in image tone that most would find undesirable. For film, a change in contrast would be the main issue (think negative intensifying in strong selenium toner).

The 3 oz. per gallon that was recommended works out to a 1+43 dilution; too weak to do much toning at all in the short time (4 min.) the negative is in the "PermaWash" (I question using PermaWash as a wash aid anyway, but that's another issue). The slight toning that a negative might get at that weak dilution and short time isn't going to protect it from much of anything as far as I can see. It seems a waste of toner to me.

Second, I don't believe that a weak selenium toner solution can help the wash aid do its job better. If there's a mechanism by which a weak selenium toner solution can speed washing of negatives, I am not aware of it.

I'd love to learn if there is really something to this claim or if it simply ineffectual, as I suspect.

Best,

Doremus

esearing
9-Apr-2017, 09:13
I question the use of selenium toner as described above as an aid in archival washing or increasing negative permanence for a couple of reasons.
I'd love to learn if there is really something to this claim or if it simply ineffectual, as I suspect.


ON the bottle of KRST:
For tone change, dilute 1 part toner with 3-19 parts water. Toning occurs in 2-8 minutes at 68F (20C) depending on the paper weight. To enhance D-max areas and protect the image, dilute toner 1:20 or 1:40. To save time, mix toner with hypo clearing agent instead of water. Wash completely-toned prints for 30 minutes, partially-toned prints 1 hour in running water at 65-75F (18-24C).

... Use toners to protect prints stored or displayed under adverse conditions.

So Kodak is implying their toners do protect the image, but I suspect all the extra washing has a hand in it too.

Kodak's Sepia toning data sheet doesn't mention protection. However we do know that there is a chemical change if bleached fully.

schafphoto
9-Apr-2017, 15:05
I question the use of selenium toner as described above as an aid in archival washing or increasing negative permanence ... I'd love to learn if there is really something to this claim or if it simply ineffectual, as I suspect.

Doremus

Questioning is good, and so it took me down the rabbit hole. In which I found that the best toner tested in 1988 on Tmax 100 for archival permanence was Kodak brown toner at 1:200 dilution. Selenium 1:19 was an improvement over untoned film, so I would imagine a lower dilution would lessen the effect. It would be tricky to determine what the payoff is in terms of time and expense... does $10.00 of selenium toner buy you 100 years (in theory)? Is that worth it since you and I will presumably be dead? (In theory)

I may be switching to Brown toner 1:200...

Here are the conclusions of the test from 1988
Selenium showed some protection to the TMax film, but some red spots and discoloration were present. Complete protection when used with the Direct Duplicating Film.
Brown Toner provided almost complete protection to TMax film. Results showed almost no discoloration or red spot formation. Brown Toner when used with the Direct Duplicating Film prevented the formation of red spots, however, some noticeably overall discoloration of the film was observed.

An Examination of the Effectiveness
of Various Toning Solutions on Black
and White Silver Halide Emulsions
By Hugh Talman, Chief, Laboratory Branch
Office of Printing and Photographic Services
Smithsonian Institution (1988)

The process tested by Hugh Talman is as follows:

Selenium - The solution tested was prepared 1 part Kodak
Rapid Selenium Toner to 19 parts water. Treatment was for two
minutes, followed by a two minute wash at 70F.

Kodak Brown Toner - The solution tested was prepared 1 part
Brown Toner to 200 parts water. Treatment was for two minutes
followed by a two minute wash.

My question would be is Brown Toner compatible with PermaWash or Orbit Bath or Kodak Hypo Clear in combination.

-Schaf

schafphoto
9-Apr-2017, 16:22
I see HCA is used to stop sulfide (brown) toning, so I guess my question of mixing it with Kodak Brown Toner would be akin to mixing developer and stop bath.
What could possibly go wrong?
-Schaf

plaubel
10-Apr-2017, 01:38
100 years ago, people have tested everything around film (plates), so I love to answer my questions from old books.
They not only give me the "how", they always describe the "why".

1920, Dr. E. Vogel described, that fixing film gives mainly two byproducts which wash out easy in fixing solution but not so easy in clear water.
That's the reason why we have to fix the doubled time after clearing the film.
The film has been already fixed, but we want o remove this byproducts.
Fresh fixer and twobath as an option is recommended in the book.

For me this means, after fixing in weak or old solutions I have to wash very long, so I have an eye on my fixing solution to avoid long washing sessions.

For washing plates, Dr.Vogel recommended half an hour in rinsing water.
That's it, no science further.
And: there exists no gelatine drift after soaking for some hours in water; Vogel describes this soaking as a first step, if you are in holidays.
Back at home, you can rewash as usual, that's what he recommend.
Of course, for now 75 years old plates their exist other rules...

Since old film plates have had thick emulsion and contained more silver ( to remove) than our today's products, I have a good feeling with washing sheet film for half an hour with changing the water from time to time.

Ritchie

EdWorkman
10-Apr-2017, 10:57
I skimmed thru the many many replies. Most are "I like this"
I use Ilford's method, because it is based on TESTS [that I didn't have to do]
If one muses on that scheme, one sees the first wash is very quick- to remove wet residuals from the surface, and are successively longer as the freest products leave.
A tray of water that is full of all the first rinse products is not efficient in removing more- water that has less 'ions' attracts more from the source, so a 5-10 min soak in 'loaded' water is a waste of time. That's called osmosis- and why it takes electricity to produce pure water from heavily mineralled water- one has to overpower the natural flow of ions from heavy to pure water
Thus 'reverse osmosis'. The last wash could be a throwaway purified water with a bit of surfactant
So when using one-shot developer dilutions, I do the first rinse with spent developer, then wash aid, etc etc.
Running water is wasteful and how do you folks that swear by it know that the pattern of fresh water is even? [unless you have tested]
ANd speaking of tests- Did Dr Henry, in his "Controls in Black & White Photography" do any?
That source would be worth checking and quoting. { Years ago I copied some bits from it- don't have a copy]