Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,456   Posts: 1,643,760   Online: 736
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62
  1. #11
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,609
    I've used the Ilford method for at least 20 years with my own modification, instead of 3 changes of water I use 5 changes and 5-10-20-10-5 inversions. The water is at 68f and the negatives I made all those years ago remain in pristine condition. I've also discussed this method with Ilford technical staff and the afforementioned Bill Troop and they all agreed that it was a perfectly sound method of washing negatives.
    "Digital circuits are made from analogue parts"
    Fourtune Cookie-Brooklyn May 2006

    Website: www.lesmcleanphotography.com

  2. #12
    Brian Jeffery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Altrincham, Cheshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Les McLean View Post
    ... instead of 3 changes of water I use 5 changes and 5-10-20-10-5 inversions. ...
    Hi Les, is there are reason why you've added 10-5 inversions onto the Ilford method?

    I ask because I, like many people, also use a modified Ilford wash sequence. I use 5-5-10-10-20-20. The reason I chose this was two fold:

    1: The water will only be able to absorb so much fixer etc and there will be more chemicals earlier in the wash sequence, so it makes sense to change the water more frequently at the beginning of the wash.

    2: If I miss a set of inversions out for any reason (I'm easily distracted), then it doesn't matter as I've got it covered by doing two of each.


    Brian

  3. #13
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Jeffery View Post
    Hi Les, is there are reason why you've added 10-5 inversions onto the Ilford method?

    I ask because I, like many people, also use a modified Ilford wash sequence. I use 5-5-10-10-20-20. The reason I chose this was two fold:

    1: The water will only be able to absorb so much fixer etc and there will be more chemicals earlier in the wash sequence, so it makes sense to change the water more frequently at the beginning of the wash.

    2: If I miss a set of inversions out for any reason (I'm easily distracted), then it doesn't matter as I've got it covered by doing two of each.


    Brian

    Hi Brian, just a belt and braces job. As I said in my post I spoke to people in the industry that I know and trust but being a former accountant I guess I added the extra inversions to be absolutely certain.
    "Digital circuits are made from analogue parts"
    Fourtune Cookie-Brooklyn May 2006

    Website: www.lesmcleanphotography.com

  4. #14
    DaveOttawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    284
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by rmolson View Post
    Ilford washing technique


    Recently I had the pleasure of getting the Film Developer Cookbook... One thing I found was on washing film ,the author makes a note on the Ilford techniques of 5,10,15 ,20 refills and dumps. He states that an error was made when the technique was published. There should be a five minute soak between cycles. I can easily believe this ....Any comments on the Ilford technique?
    No error, no need for extra soaking, don't why he imagines there was one (or why he knows better than Ilford about it...) but there is published testing showing the Ilford method works (i.e. takes thiosulphate down to suitably low levels).
    One point: the method is designed for use after fixing with a non-hardening fix such as Ilford Rapid Fixer, if you use a hardening fixer it will not be suficient.
    As someone else has pointed out the Ilford method is not as you posted, check their data sheets for details.

  5. #15
    DaveOttawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    284
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    ...What is worse is that there are several interpretations of the method going around that vary in detail, and this confuses the issue even more.

    PE
    They may be going around but Ilford only seem to have one "interpretation" so by simply referring to their info there should be no confusion. You may be thinking of other methods entirely they indicate can be used (there are two other wash sequences I know of that they publish) but they are obviously different processes.

  6. #16
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,336
    Images
    65
    Dave;

    The data I report is from Mason of Ilford in his text! Next, I refer you to the talk by Beveridge of Ilford in Canada in 1985 or thereabouts on washing and image stability. These two, taken together, represent a complete repudiation of the method. In particular, note that the article referenced above refers only to film, not to FB paper which is MUCH harder to wash free of hypo. In fact, the front and back of FB paper should probably be tested to be sure.

    PE

  7. #17
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,336
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveOttawa View Post
    They may be going around but Ilford only seem to have one "interpretation" so by simply referring to their info there should be no confusion. You may be thinking of other methods entirely they indicate can be used (there are two other wash sequences I know of that they publish) but they are obviously different processes.
    Well, see my last post. Mason and Beveridge give different interpretations as did our work at Kodak. Sorry.

    PE

  8. #18
    DaveOttawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    284
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Dave;

    The data I report is from Mason of Ilford in his text! Next, I refer you to the talk by Beveridge of Ilford in Canada in 1985 or thereabouts on washing and image stability. These two, taken together, represent a complete repudiation of the method. In particular, note that the article referenced above refers only to film, not to FB paper which is MUCH harder to wash free of hypo. In fact, the front and back of FB paper should probably be tested to be sure.

    PE
    The OP was asking about film not FB paper. Not sure who mason & Beveridge are or what they have to say on the subject but obviously Ilford themselves have some confidence in the method (they seem to have been using it for over 20 years!) and there are independent tests showing it works - with non-hardening fixer only. EDIT: And this is probably where the confusion comes in. If you use a hardening fixer more washing is required, e.g. you mention Kodak, they recommend EDIT: rinse, wash aid treatment then 5 min continuous washing or 10 fill and dump cycles (in their data sheet "Processing KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black-And-White Films • ED-BWF", i.e. more washing than Ilford) but this is using a hardening fix. Any discussion of washing has to include what you are washing out! Kodak film data sheets seem to list a number of different fixers which all seem to be hardening types so I would expect them to recommend more washing.
    Last edited by DaveOttawa; 01-05-2008 at 09:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,336
    Images
    65
    Dave;

    See the other lengthy thread on this subject some months back. I give the differential equations developed by Mason, one of Ilford's research photo engineers on the subject of washing phot materials. It covers both film and paper.

    As you point out, Kodak suggests longer washing times, but actually these are for all fixes, as Kodak Rapid Liquid fix can be mixed with and without hardener. In any event, having spent years working on fixing and washing, I can say that the Ilford method asymptotically approaches the sweet spot described by Ctein but whether it reaches it is a fuzzy thing disagreed on by many. The Mason and Beveridge reports seem to think that the Ilford method falls just a bit short.

    Mason is L. F. A. Mason, Director of processing chemistry research at Ilford. He is author of the book "Photographic Processing Chemistry". Beveridge is one of his successors. I think their work is rather definitive and has been backed up by Haist and Mees and James. All of the photographic engineering textbooks tend to disagree to some extent with the Ilford method as published. It is at the low end of being satisfactory. That is my opinion as well.

    PE

  10. #20
    DaveOttawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    284
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Dave;

    Mason is L. F. A. Mason, Director of processing chemistry research at Ilford. He is author of the book "Photographic Processing Chemistry". Beveridge is one of his successors.

    PE
    Thanks for that - and for the info on the Kodak materials, I am not a regular user of anything except D76 from them so don't know all their products. Well I guess if people want to add a few minutes to their wash times in the hope of adding a few years to the life of their negs they can - kind of like going to church to be on the safe side even if you're not really convinced - may not do any good but won't do any harm either

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin