negative washer

[BetterSense]

I develop negatives in trays, and need a better system for washing them. I am considering making a 4x5 negative washer similar to the print washers people make. What do other people who use tray processing do for washing?

[Ari]

I don't use tray processing, but I bought a couple of Inglis film washers when two came up for sale here.
They work great and are not too expensive.

[vinny]

this:http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!products-for-the-photographer/c2jd

[BetterSense]

I suppose while I'm at it I should make it big enough for at least 5x7, then I can use it for print washing too.

[Ari]

this:http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!products-for-the-photographer/c2jd

Nice-looking film washer, Vinny.

[John Kasaian]

I use a Versa-lab for both negatives and prints.
http://www.versalab.com/server/photo/products/washer1.htm

[jeroldharter]

Unless you are handy and make your own, Inglis is about the only one commercially available. They work well. Does anyone know of a commercially available sheet film washer?

[Ken Lee]

You might find this interesting: Dish Rack Film Washer (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/dishrack.php).

[Michael Kadillak]

I second the recommendation for Inglis sheet film washers. They use minimal amounts of water through their jet nozzle design and isolate the sheets at the edges to prevent scratches. Fabulous design that just works. I have 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 negative washers from Inglis and 11x14 and 8x20 Inglis print washers. Hangers are far less than optimal in the wash process as they inhibit the flow of water near the edges - they were not designed for this task. You do not have to be educated as an engineer to figure that one out. Optimizing our water use is no longer a desirable alternative, it is a cultural necessity.

[Doremus Scudder]

Inglis washers are good, but expensive.

I've made washers out of tubs and dividers that work just fine (I used bamboo skewers for dividers on one I'm still using in Vienna). Mine don't work out-of-sink, but that's not a problem.

Gravity Works film washers come up for sale on eBay, etc. every now and then. I like them and own two. I usually run them intermittently when washing film to reduce water usage.

Making your own out of acrylic wouldn't be all that hard if you have the tools.

For larger film, print washers work just fine. It's usually 4x5 that needs a smaller, dedicated washer.

There are tons of images and plans in the Internet. You should be able to cobble up something that will work after researching the approaches.

Best of luck,

Doremus

[Bruce Barlow]

Ken - the dishrack in a bin is genius! I have the Zone VI negative washer thing that I lower into the Zone VI washing machine, but if I didn't, I'd do the dishrack.

Well done!

[Ben Calwell]

Ken -- I plan to use your dish rack device, but how do you know when enough soaking has taken place? You mention soaking for a half-hour and then refilling the tub. How many times should I do that? Diffusion really works? Thanks

[ROL]

I suppose while I'm at it I should make it big enough for at least 5x7, then I can use it for print washing too.

Conversely: It seems to me this question has been posted before, but I got rid of my dedicated sheet film washer (ZVI) in favor of just using my 20"x24" Calumet cross-jet paper washer. I hang sheets between plexi dividers by plastic clothespin hangers, then swiftly pull them out for a final distilled water rinse and hang to dry. Not the most water efficient for smaller sheets, but certainly space efficient (e.g., double duty), as well as universal up to 20x24 (natch). I do, however, still use a dedicated roll film washer.

[Bill Burk]

I simply continue tray processing routine back and forth between two water trays, fill one with water... move the film to it. Empty and fill with water... repeat. I wash for about 20 minutes this way and then it's a final bath of Photo-Flo in filtered water, and hang up to dry.

All it costs me is time, and I must admit increases chances of scratches. But when I am very careful, the results are fine.

[vinny]

Nice-looking film washer, Vinny.

I'll make a few if michigan ever thaws out.

[Ken Lee]

Ken -- I plan to use your dish rack device, but how do you know when enough soaking has taken place? You mention soaking for a half-hour and then refilling the tub. How many times should I do that? Diffusion really works? Thanks

The same question can be asked of any film or print washer. See Archival Processing of Prints (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Archival/archival.html) on the unblinkingeye web site: it gives formulas and methods. See the section entitled "Testing for Adequate Washing".

If you want continuous water change with a dish-rack film washer, then you can insert a hose which draws water from the bottom, and let some water run in at the top.

Another helfpul step is to avoid classic hypo-based acidic fixers, in favor of alkaline fixers which don't use hypo (Sodium Thiosulfate). Such fixers require less washing. See this brief article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#alkaline).

[ROL]

If you want a continuous water change with a dish-rack film washer, then you can insert a hose which draws water from the bottom, and let some water run in at the top.

FYI, which is why I opted for using my cross-jet print washer and not my passive–exchange style Gravity Works print washer, for sheet film. Though, I'm pretty sure at a half an hour, film will be washed adequately in either.

[Michael Kadillak]

Inglis washers are good, but expensive.

I've made washers out of tubs and dividers that work just fine (I used bamboo skewers for dividers on one I'm still using in Vienna). Mine don't work out-of-sink, but that's not a problem.

Gravity Works film washers come up for sale on eBay, etc. every now and then. I like them and own two. I usually run them intermittently when washing film to reduce water usage.

Making your own out of acrylic wouldn't be all that hard if you have the tools.

For larger film, print washers work just fine. It's usually 4x5 that needs a smaller, dedicated washer.

There are tons of images and plans in the Internet. You should be able to cobble up something that will work after researching the approaches.

Best of luck,

Doremus

The irony of qualifying the positive merits of a product from an enterprising business owner (who by the way is one of us) and then discounting the item on a cost basis is at times a common theme on this forum. I am not in any way conveying a negative context of this concept as it is what it is. I don't think anyone would argue with the general premise that the best sheet film washer would hold the sheets firmly in place only by the non-image area edges while a pressured jet of water was directed to both sides of the film across the entire surface area. The critical component of this process is some semblance of water velocity because it uses this dynamic energy to separate the fixing chemicals from the sheet film's surface tension. In the Negative by Ansel Adams (Page 215) Adams specifically addresses the optimal procedure for washing both roll film and sheet film. For roll film Adams comments: "The most efficient washing requires a gentle but continuous flow of water around and through each reel". Furthermore, Sheet film that has been tray processed should be agitated throughout the wash period by the same procedure used in development; I usually move the films 12 times from one tank to another filled with fresh water." Page 216 Adams comments "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 the water every five minutes." Changing water according to Adams recommendations every five minutes (six times in 30 minutes) with sheet film that is not fixed to anything is a risk with sheets moving in the process and a heck of a lot of work. Ditto for replicating the development procedure in trays for a wash. To much risk and effort IMHO.

A 10 sheet 4x5 Inglis washer costs $200 and in less than 10 minutes I can accomplish the stated objective without lifting a finger. Alistair is a master craftsman with acrylic and stands by his products.

I feel that when one changes the view of looking at this item as a lifetime investment as opposed to the concept of an expense or a corner that needs to be cut ones perspective could change particularly with the ever increasing cost of sheet films.

My objective was to add some perspective and alternatives on this subject for future readers. John Sexton's comments about processing with precision and printing with passion ring true as I consider washing part of the process that mandates precision.

[Ben Calwell]

Michael -- I agree with everything you say. It's just that I cannot afford a dedicated sheet film washer at this time. That's why I'm eager to try Ken's dish rack idea. My usual wash routine is to shuffle negs in a tray of running water, and as Zen an experience as that can be, it does get old. Slack-jawed with boredom, I know I'm not washing them as long as needed. And when I hang them up to dry, I know Ansel is spinning at some mighty high RPMs in his grave.

[Ken Lee]

With the disk rack film washer, you choose the size of the container. With more water, fewer changes of water are required. You can use your Zen time for zazen instead :)

[jeroldharter]

Inglis customer service:

I had an Inglis 8x10 washer. I blew out the side of it with too much water pressure. It was my fault, but at the same time I felt that the washer should have held up. In any case, I sent it back to Inglis, no receipt, no questions, just the cost of shipping, and he repaired it. How often does that happen nowadays?

As to cost, I just sold a Gravity Works 4x5 film washer on eBay...for over $400! My only real victory selling off my gear but I'll take it. So $200 for an Inglis is not bad.

[Ginette]

Inglis customer service:

I had an Inglis 8x10 washer. I blew out the side of it with too much water pressure. It was my fault, but at the same time I felt that the washer should have held up. In any case, I sent it back to Inglis, no receipt, no questions, just the cost of shipping, and he repaired it. How often does that happen nowadays?
As to cost, I just sold a Gravity Works 4x5 film washer on eBay...for over $400! My only real victory selling off my gear but I'll take it. So $200 for an Inglis is not bad.

Nice for your item sold, Jamie but one of the community benefit here is that we know that very good washers are available so we don't need to overpay for an used one on *bay!
I work myself plexiglas and my first option was to make a 5x7 basket from the Gravity I already own (as I remember it will enter in the 4x5 washer) but I saw some posts here and look at the Alistair website to see his models.
I first ordered the 8x10 and lately the 5x7 too. As I work myself this material, I appreciated the craftmanship and decided to encourage also a fellow Canadian.
I had recommend the film washers to a number of members here in the past and will continue to. I don't have the print washers (found 2 Calumet and 1 Kostiner locally) and cannot speak about but the film washers are definitively compacts, well designed, efficient and ... beautiful to look at!

[Michael Kadillak]

Inglis customer service:

I had an Inglis 8x10 washer. I blew out the side of it with too much water pressure. It was my fault, but at the same time I felt that the washer should have held up. In any case, I sent it back to Inglis, no receipt, no questions, just the cost of shipping, and he repaired it. How often does that happen nowadays?

As to cost, I just sold a Gravity Works 4x5 film washer on eBay...for over $400! My only real victory selling off my gear but I'll take it. So $200 for an Inglis is not bad.

That is the downside of using pressure to "jet" the water across the sheet film. Being careful with turning the water pressure up to high is something to think about with any washer.

I understand what people say about costs. $200 considering that we are participating in a pastime that inherently is expensive is not that big a deal. Where there is a will there is always a way. Sheet film in 8x10 runs $7 a sheet and higher for larger formats. I scratched far to many sheets doing excessive handling in the wash cycle and I concluded that I would never do it again. Being penny wise and pound foolish is just not for me. Each individual photographer needs to come to grips with this issue on their own. If I was dominantly a projection printer on silver enlarging paper using strictly 4x5 or 5x7, there is no way in hell I would take this chance. The risk is just not proportional with the quasi "savings". If I was scanning the negatives and printing them digitally with the ability to fix problems that is a horse of a different color. Onward to the darkroom!

[Ginette]

That is the downside of using pressure to "jet" the water across the sheet film. Being careful with turning the water pressure up to high is something to think about with any washer.


I found some cheap "Water FLOWMETER - ROTAMETER 0-5 gpm" on *bay 19$/each and instead of line installation, I choose to add quick connectors and used them just before entering in the print and films washers.
Just remember that the water need to enter from the bottom of the flowmeter.
Maybe this can be a nice addition to the future design of the Crossjet washers.

[Michael Kadillak]

I found some cheap "Water FLOWMETER - ROTAMETER 0-5 gpm" on *bay 19$/each and instead of line installation, I choose to add quick connectors and used them just before entering in the print and films washers.
Just remember that the water need to enter from the bottom of the flowmeter.
Maybe this can be a nice addition to the future design of the Crossjet washers.

The alternative is to start with a minimum of flow into the Crossjet until the side chambers of the washer are filled and the cross jets kick into gear. At that stage you can modestly adjust the flow as necessary. Only then you can see with your own eyes how little water it takes to create the washing action and how easy it would be to apply excessive pressure with the water turn up valve. You can remove the water hose coming into the washer and see how minimal the water flow really is. One of these days I will measure it and report it.

[Michael Kadillak]

I was in the darkroom this afternoon developing a series of 11x14 negatives and washing 6 of them in the Inglis dedicated washer required a very reasonable range of 1/2 to 3/4th of a gallon per minute for a 10 minute wash. Because of the size of the 11x14 washer this is far up the scale of water flow. I will report on the water flow with the smaller formats in the Inglis Cross Jet washer when I use them.

[ROL]

FWIW, I've never experienced a blowout from my system of water delivery (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/a-darkroom-portrait#muralwasher) through my water temp control panel into gate–valved manifolds. Unless I'm filling a washer quickly, it takes very little flow through the valves to begin a proper exchange of water in any of my washer styles.

[vinny]

What diameter are the holes in crossjet washers?
I think i made mine too big.

[Michael Kadillak]

What diameter are the holes in crossjet washers?
I think i made mine too big.

They are extremely small Vinny and the wall that holds them is rather thick to manage the pressure across it. If I remember correctly from my college engineering days, there are nozzle calculations that one can use to calculate the flow velocity from the size of the orifice in relation to the pressure across it. You can reverse engineer the orifice size opening by assessing the flow you want to obtain over the surface area of the length of the film. Just do a sum of the number of holes on each side of the film washer and determine what pressure you want (or need) to stay within. Obviously, there is sweet spot in this relationship whereby one can maximize the flow, minimize the pressure and use the least amount of water. Knowing the structural limitations (as a function of pressure) of industry standard acrylic solvents would be a place to start because that is clearly the Achilles heal of any washer using clear acrylic as the base material. Thicker acrylic than necessary only adds weight and costs. As I stated earlier, the amount of effort expended to obtain this information / experience along with the inefficient manner with which attempts are made to deemphasize the need for properly washing sheet film with home cooking solutions is a choice that the user needs to come to grips with. I contend that relying upon 30 years of experience with Alistair and his products is far more efficient than flying with sunglass on at night figuratively speaking. Your time needs to be spent making photographs not playing games trying to be McGiver.

[jp]

Such are the dilemmas of tray processing. Using a combiplan tank (or mod54 or jobo) washing requires no different equipment or gimmicks to wash neatly and efficiently.