Water wise washing.

[Kirk Gittings]

Looking down the road........Water here gets increasingly expensive and will only get worse. They get us to conserve and then hit us with a rate hike because revenues are down. It happens like clockwork.

I vaguely remember some water issue some years ago in England? And if I remember correctly Ilford came out with some water conservation guidelines that included something like intermittent water flow for print washing as "washing" was actually a leaching process and didn't require a constant flow of clean water.

Anyone remember this or have some insight.

[Ken Lee]

I never use running water, just osmosis. See Dishrack Film Washer.

[Kirk Gittings]

You da man Ken! Question on prints though which are a bit more difficult to wash. Any guidelines on water changes? I am thinking of hooking up a yard sprinkler timer or such.

[Mark Sawyer]

For negatives and glass plates, I run them through a series of water-baths in cereal containers like the type in the attached photo. They come in three sizes (4x5, 5x7, and 8x10! ). The local Family Dollar Store has a set of all three for $7, but sometimes the 99-cent stores get the two smaller sizes at 99 cents each. Be sure to get the oval shaped without the indentation for handling, as that can touch the plate or film and scratch it.

For fiber prints, I just run an archival washer outside with the run-off going to the garden, bushes, or trees, and don't worry about it. It keeps the plants happy!

[Darin Boville]

And if I remember correctly Ilford came out with some water conservation guidelines that included something like intermittent water flow for print washing as "washing" was actually a leaching process and didn't require a constant flow of clean water.

I don't remember the source but I saw the same thing, way back when. Started washing print in trays, flipping through the prints every twenty minutes or so, water change every once in a while. Sometimes they sit overnight.

Seemed to work very well. All that running water is a waste since (I believe) the idea is diffusion.

--Darin

[Mark Sawyer]

Sometimes they sit overnight.

You don't want to do that to fiber based prints or film negatives. They'll waterlog and the gelatin will fall apart.

[ROL]

Looking down the road........Water here gets increasingly expensive and will only get worse. They get us to conserve and then hit us with a rate hike because revenues are down. It happens like clockwork.

I vaguely remember some water issue some years ago in England? And if I remember correctly Ilford came out with some water conservation guidelines that included something like intermittent water flow for print washing as "washing" was actually a leaching process and didn't require a constant flow of clean water.

Anyone remember this or have some insight.

Here in the West, "Whiskey's for drinkin', water's for fighten' over", as I'm sure you know.

Or your rate becomes set at some very low personal historical level because you conserve more than anyone else, and then pay exorbitant increases when you user as much as every one else averages.

The washing issues I recall had to do with some of their Kentmere line of papers in which the emulsion was disintegrating, floating in the wash water at 'normal' wash times, so they suggested shortening times by half. I guess that qualified as water conservation. Perhaps your confusing Ilford's film washing method (5 changes) with prints. It's hard to see logically without testing, just how hypo and such could be washed adequately from fiber without constant changes. But then that would be one more reason for ameliorating problem to start with by using s single fast fix, and a hypo eliminator – less to wash out.

[koh303]

But then that would be one more reason for ameliorating problem to start with by using s single fast fix, and a hypo eliminator – less to wash out.

+1

[Taija71A]

... And if I remember correctly Ilford came out with some water conservation guidelines that included something like intermittent water flow for print washing as "washing" was actually a leaching process and didn't require a constant flow of clean water.

Anyone remember this or have some insight?

_____

Is this perhaps... What you were referring to Kirk?
--

from the Ilford Web Site...

WHAT IS THE ILFORD PHOTO ARCHIVAL SEQUENCE?

"The ILFORD PHOTO Archival Sequence is a method of processing fiber base papers for maximum longevity... While reducing the amount of water and time used.

The method, which was fully tested more than a decade ago, requires the use of a non-hardening rapid fixer mixed at film strength.

After the paper has been developed and stopped, it is placed in such a fixer for 60 seconds with intermittent agitation.

Next the paper is placed in a running wash for five minutes, followed by an immersion in ILFORD PHOTO Wash Aid (1+4) for ten minutes with intermittent agitation.

The end of the sequence requires an additional five minute running wash."


http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...esnt-sink.html

--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

[Curt]

http://photo.net/columns/mjohnston/p...y-assumptions/

A quick reference above that mentions an old David Vestal article on rinsing prints with successive water baths. Searched online and can't find the original article by Vestal but I remember it. Soaking in a few baths works well and uses less water than continuously running water.

Using a hypo clearing agent after the initial rinse before soaking helps.

I remember that article too, way back in time, that's probably why I do it. I can find the article but count me as having seen it.

I sent my Intellifaucet 750 back to Hass for refurbishing. This letting the water run through the old Kodak model is wasteful.