Ilford Rapid Fix considerations

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's been my main fixer forever. I never wash fibre-based papers in running water for 60 min. Instead, they get HCA bath, then Ilford's fill, and dump method.

[John Layton]

Maybe I should reread this discussion more carefully...but for those like myself who "fill, agitate, and dump," I cannot find much information regarding recommended wash water volumes per total surface area of the print(s) being washed. This would seem to be important, as a lower volume of wash water would reach equilibrium with leached chems more quickly than would a larger volume of wash water.

While my tendency with respect to wash water volume has always aimed to be "generous," it would still be nice to know with a bit more specificity (based on actual testing), and also in consideration of material/procedural specifics before the wash (paper type/time in developer/stop/fixation method), just what constitutes a "thorough" fill, agitate, and dump print washing scenario - in terms of water volume per total print area, how total numbers of prints might affect agitation protocols, and recommended number of water changes, both with and without the incorporation of a wash aid.

...and while I continue to hold Ilford and their products in the highest regard - I must say that their "running water" recommendation completely falls short for me, as it contains no further details about concurrent agitation cycles (if any), recommended flow rates, temperatures, and what constitutes an adequate physical setup to best promote a thorough wash - vis a vis washing dynamics. (I am also a bit surprised that Ilford did not carry their "fill, agitate, and dump recommendation for film washing over to that for prints). I say this mostly out of respect for those just beginning darkroom work, as they are at a time in their experience when good habits must be incorporated if they are to be carried forward. More than once have I witnessed a wash tray full of prints...wash hose placed haphazardly on one side introducing a weak flow of icy cold water, with the (stack of) prints themselves remaining entirely unagitated for the “complete” wash cycle!

Having said the above, I am thoroughly in the camp of "fill, agitate, and dump" (as opposed to that of running water) as a much more efficacious approach to print (and film) washing.

[bob carnie]

Hi John

I use Ilford sequence with hypo clear and vertical wash.

The fill dump method is viable for those who want to do this, basically when washing the fibres of the paper are releasing the unwanted fix and I am more concerned about the back of the print which does not have a clay coat and gelatin layer. The process
leeches out the unwanted material rather than washing it off .

I cannot tell how much volume is needed, I think that someone mentioned 10 complete changes of water was enough but that is only here say on my part.

[Michael R]

Indeed, it is a diffusion process. And washing efficiency depends importantly on how used your fixer is, as well as fixing time. You want to minimize fixing time, and change the fixer more often. This is all part of the Ilford maximum permanence sequence and how they came up with the recommendation to use “film-strength” rapid fix for 60s, and reduced throughput/capacity guidelines (in fact, Ilford determined 30s was sufficient but decided to go with 60s).

If you want to get into the weeds on this in an effort to get archival washing with the minimum amount of water, read the Mysteries of the Vortex articles. They were initially published in Photo Techniques magazine (in the 1990s IIRC) but that particular set of articles is online if you google.

You can use surprisingly little water. The tradeoff is manual effort.

[LabRat]

The reference I adopted is contained in the book "Life of a Photograph" by Keefer and Inch (published by Light Impressions Press) covered in detail fixing/washing processes for different materials, as well as a reference for most photo processes from a conservator's perspective...

Well worth locating a copy for an informed foundation for archival printers...

Steve K

[Andrew O'Neill]

I used to own two vertical print washers (one could do up to 20x24 prints) but they were a tremendous waste of time and water... The fill and dump method is well suited for those of us who have tiny darkrooms, and make at most, a couple of prints per session. It was proven to be a very effective way to wash.

[nmp]

Very useful insight into the issue of archival washing (continuous vs fill and dump) here:

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.or...#content_start

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.or...#content_start

Edit: Oops...should have read earlier responses thoroughly before posting as others had already cited these papers.

[John Layton]

While I find Martin Reed’s "Mysteries of the Vortex" article informative, it still falls short for me as a “two traditional fixing baths, fill and dump wash” guy.

While Martin does indeed begin by stating the tremendous wash efficiencies possible by filling and dumping in principle (and while some extrapolation from this might be possible to suit my own approach - as Martin’s initial citation references actual tests using very small volumes of water), and while he references “fill and dump” washing throughout part one of his article…it is in terms of quantifiable results that he quickly moves on to providing greater detail and actual data based on commercially available print washers. Plus, he leans very heavily towards Ilford’s “minimal wash procedure” which assumes a single, high strength fixing bath as part of this process.

While Martin does offer a decent amount of comparative data referencing the wash process both with and without the inclusion of a wash aid…I will assume that, as he seems to have circumvented the needs of folks such as myself (traditional two fixing bath, fill and dump wash folks processing a relatively small number of prints per run) he has likely, to the extent that his aim was to provide truly useful information, let a significant number of us fall through the cracks.

And while, about one third into the first part of his article, Martin mentions that practitioners who utilize a relatively short “fill and dump” procedure (prior to using a wash aid) realize a great reduction in residual thiosulphates just from this first step, he quickly dismisses the use of “fill and dump” for the much longer, post-wash-aid washing procedure, based on his assumption that this would be somehow “inconvenient” due to the (once again assumed) relatively large numbers of prints being washed.

In my own case, a “typical” run of prints might consist of between two and five 16x20’s. In this scenario, my wash procedure is as follows:

After the second fix, the prints go into one of two 16x20 wash trays, each filled with appx. 3.5 gallons of fresh water. Prints are agitated in the first tray for about four minutes, then transferred to the second tray…where they are agitated once more for about four minutes. Meanwhile, the first tray is emptied, thoroughly rinsed and refilled, after which the prints are introduced and agitated for a third “pre wash” cycle, while the other wash tray is rinsed and filled with one gallon of Heico Perma-Wash.

Prints are then agitated in the Perma Wash for between five and seven minutes, then transferred to the other tray of fresh water.

Finally, the prints are again cycled through the two wash trays as in the first “pre-wash” step…but this time they are cycled back and forth between the two trays between six and seven times over the next 30 to 45 minutes, prior to being squeegeed and hung up to dry.

Note that I am using two wash trays, each with a thorough rinse prior to re-filling, to help minimize the amount of residual thiosulphate (and other contaminants) carryover.

Another note: that although its been awhile since I’ve done a residual hypo test for prints washed with the above procedure, I’m still confident that my original test would still hold at this time.

I’ve outlined my own print wash procedure here under the assumption that a significant number of folks on this forum might utilize something equal or at least close to this…and I’d be curious to know how this has worked out for others, and/or if there might be some variations which others have found to work best for them.

Not sure if the above is helpful in any way…but I would invite further feedback/discussion/commiseration/critique/flaming, as folks might feel appropriate. Thanks!

[Michael R]

There are too many variables involved for a definitive one-size-fits all method unless the method overshoots (conservatism), which someone trying to minimize water usage presumably wouldn't want to resort to. Therefore it is up to the individual to determine empirically with residual thiosulfate testing etc. As Ron Mowrey would often say - "if it works, it works".

[nmp]

There are too many variables involved for a definitive one-size-fits all method unless the method overshoots (conservatism), which someone trying to minimize water usage presumably wouldn't want to resort to. Therefore it is up to the individual to determine empirically with residual thiosulfate testing etc. As Ron Mowrey would often say - "if it works, it works".

True. With salt prints (made per a particular set of process conditions,) I did my own testing using residual hypo test and found that 4 (or 5 for safety) fill/dumps of 10 minutes each were adequate:



The whole washing sequence involved:

1) initial tap water rinse of 2+5 minutes, continuous agitation

2) Hypo clear of 10 minutes, "semi-stand" - 2 minutes agitation + 7 minutes stand upside down + 1 minute final agitation

3) Tap water fill/dump of 10 minutes each, same "semi-stand" as above

The amount of water used at each stage was at the rate of about 10cc per sq inch of paper that was exposed half with the full dose and the other half covered where the residual hypo test was conducted.

The quantification of the residual test was done by scanning the stains and measuring the RGB values - higher the number, less thiosulfate present.