I do three changes, 4-5-6 minutes, rotary
I do three changes, 4-5-6 minutes, rotary
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 minutesSometimes 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?...ng-test.69416/ .
Best,
Doremus
Aren't we being a bit contradictory here? Just an observation.Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder
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.
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!
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!
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
How about Government work standards for HABS 500 year desires?
https://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/PhotoGuidelines.pdf
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
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.
I find five minutes or five changes sufficient, but if I want archival I go for six
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks