I use this wash-method.
Optimum permanence for fibre based
There are several ways of achieving prints which will
have optimum permanence under long term storage
conditions. Essentially, prints must have minimum
levels of residual silver (adequately fixed) and
minimum levels of thiosulphate (adequately washed).
Where short fixing times can be given, the
following sequences give extremely low levels of
retained fixer and silver compounds. This is
achieved by the combination of a very short fixing
time and the use of ILFORD WASHAID. These
sequences replace the standard fixing and
Optimum permanence sequence
Fixing ILFORD RAPID FIXER (1+4), 1min
First wash Fresh, running water 5min
Rinse ILFORD WASHAID (1+4), 10min
Final wash Fresh, running water 5min
Processing conditions: 18–24ºC/65–75ºF including
Thanx rwyoung for that article. I think I know how to begin now. Interesting to see that the seleniumtoner-dillution does seem to matter.
I'll start out with 1+9 and see how I like the coloration.
I'll add a rinse after the selenium before dropping in the hypo and see where that gets me. A long way I guess ;-)
Have to see where I can buy the tests in Holland and that book and we're good to go.
Ilford Washaid is an alternative for HypoClearing I assume.
For what it's worth, the folowing advice was given by Masters such as Ansel Adams, Fred Picker, et al:
For FB prints
-Don't use anything that includes the word "rapid" (Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner being the exception)
-Fix for 5-10 minutes using two fixing baths (AA recommended at least 5-6 minutes total fixing time)
-Rinse for 1 minute
-Hypo Clearing Agent solution for minimum 3 minutes
-Wash for a minimum time of 1 hour with a flow-rate of at least 60 gallons/hour (correction) at ambient temperature
-Selenium tone (optional) before final rinse.
These are the important steps - all the claims associated with time saving formulas and methods are just allot of deceptive marketing.
It's my feeling that the Masters did all the testing for us, already.
Something to think about - when the "masters" like Adams and Picker were developing their techniques, water was perceived as an unlimited entitlement.
Since that time, a lot of excellent photographers and chemists have invested a lot of time improving the general state of our understanding of photographic processes and our understanding of the environment around us. One of the things that has been learned is that water is a precious resource that has to be treated with respect.
While I don't doubt that Adams' methods worked for him, I happen to believe that Ilford and others have developed alternative methods that are just as good - and perhaps even better. A one hour wash at 60 gal/min is 3600 gallons of water. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in the 21st century, that's grossly wasteful.
I also seem to recall that Fred Picker is the dude who recommended cutting down trees that interfered with the photographic composition he was trying to create. Today, that is also viewed as unacceptable.
I am with Louie on this one. There is no reason to WASTE 3600 gallons of water. Aside from the ecological waste, imagine what the water bill will be.
I really think you need to look at current methods and listen to the current masters.
They did a lot of the testing yes, but not all. They are not gods although I greatly admire Adams. Due to changes in the substances of a chemical compound it could very well be that their testingresults are no longer correct for todays used material.
Originally Posted by panastasia
5-10 minutes fixing seems overkill to me as it's not supposed to penetrate the paper itself but merely the chemical layer on top of it.
i am not sure if your fixer contains or has an optional hardener.
it is usually something that is added later ("part b" ) ...
it was used because older emulsions were soft and required hardening
to make them less likely to scratch &C ...
your teacher will probably know if your fixer is a hardening fixer ..
in any case ... fill soak dump and you should be OK ... ;)
I made a mistake, it's 60gal/hr (typo), sorry about that!
Yes, 60gpm is a bit high. Washing with a firehose? :)
I haven't gone looking for the links on APUG but there have been some long posts about the Ilford wash method and it comes down to difusion rates for getting the stuff back out of the paper.
That sounds better indeed :)
Originally Posted by panastasia
The water shouldn't run too hard as it's supposed to get rid of the chems in the paper and with water running too hard it just keeps cycling in the tub instead of getting out of the tub.