Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,649   Online: 879
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 62
  1. #41
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,521
    Images
    65
    Both Haist and Mason were published in the mid 70s.

    PE

  2. #42
    DaveOttawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    284
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Fotohuis View Post
    The publisher of the article would prefer THIS link with some corrections and additional information:

    Current Version: 1.07 from 12 FEB 05, including now advice for print washing as below.

    http://www.geocities.com/researchtri...gra.html#fwash

    Best regards,

    Robert
    Thank you for posting this - observed facts are always good! And thanks to everyone else who has contributed, I teach B&W photo at basic and intermediate level and have always used the IWT, good to have some more info about it, because I do get asked sometimes by students "does it really work?".

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    g'day all

    we could all post links to some unproved web page, but what does Ilford actually recommend?

    Ray

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,101
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath View Post
    g'day all

    we could all post links to some unproved web page, but what does Ilford actually recommend?

    Ray
    You can find Ilford's recommendations on their film fact sheets – e.g. http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/...6115141521.pdf

    See page five under wash

    /C

  5. #45
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,521
    Images
    65
    Please note this:

    • This paper does not prove that the Ilford washing instruction under all conditions leads to films of archival purity.
    The only issue is that there are obviously very early conditions reached, where washing can be stopped, because
    subsequent washing is just a waste of water without any decrease of hypo concentration in the film. (A
    statement about archival purity would only be possible if the hypo content would have been really determined,
    which is beyond my ability).
    • This paper does not say, that the Ilford method can just be used as published by Ilford. In my opinion the
    instruction is too course and does not consider water volume per film available

    These disclaimers are at the top of the PDF file referenced above and located here:

    http://www.geocities.com/researchtri...93/ilfwash.pdf

    Please note that the first disclaimer is almost exactly what I said above! The author doesn't claim that this method gives archival washing. It does wash, but offers a minimum wash condition that will 'just pass', my words for many conditions, and may not for some.

    PE

  6. #46
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,521
    Images
    65
    Another note on this article.

    In part 7, the author assumes that 90% of the chemicals are removed from the fillm in each wash step, but both Haist and Mason use the more widely accpeted figure of 50% and which seems to have some basis considering the diffustion equations they used. Therefore the wash rates are quite different by a considerable margin in the textbooks and in this article.

    In addition, the only thing being tested for is residual hypo, but in fact, you are also trying to remove silver complexes, hydroquinone and metol (if that is what your developer contains). No one here has mentioned this yet, so I thought I might just drop this into the mix for you to consider.

    PE

  7. #47
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,521
    Images
    65
    FYI, Bill Troop is rather busy but he has sent me a private note with his permission to publish it here. It relates directly to this thread.

    This is a direct quote from his e-mail, minus some private chit chat. Since he just got married 2 weeks ago, he is kinda busy.
    --------------------------------------------
    Ron, there is no 'Ilford' multiple soak wash method. There is a Kodak method, researched by and published by G.I.P. Levinson, one of the most eminent of the scientists at Kodak Harrow, in the 1970s, during a period of water shortages in Britain. This was misread by someone at Ilford and incorporated into Ilford instructions by accident -- minus the obligatory five-minute waiting times. Ilford has unfortunately never corrected its error. Ilford's own leading scientist, L.F.A. Mason, did not fall into this error. I would have thought that would all that was needed to be said about the subject -- ever.
    -----------------------------------------------

    So, here is Bill's personal note to everyone and confirms the data in Mason and points to the errors in the Ilford data.

    PE

    You can quote me on this!

  8. #48
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Ohhh I see... this is an Ilford bashing thread by ex-Kodak employees...


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  9. #49
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,521
    Images
    65
    Andy;

    Please tell me when and where Bill worked for Kodak?

    Thanks.

    PE

  10. #50
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    FYI, Bill Troop is rather busy but he has sent me a private note with his permission to publish it here. It relates directly to this thread.

    This is a direct quote from his e-mail, minus some private chit chat. Since he just got married 2 weeks ago, he is kinda busy.
    --------------------------------------------
    Ron, there is no 'Ilford' multiple soak wash method. There is a Kodak method, researched by and published by G.I.P. Levinson, one of the most eminent of the scientists at Kodak Harrow, in the 1970s, during a period of water shortages in Britain. This was misread by someone at Ilford and incorporated into Ilford instructions by accident -- minus the obligatory five-minute waiting times. Ilford has unfortunately never corrected its error. Ilford's own leading scientist, L.F.A. Mason, did not fall into this error. I would have thought that would all that was needed to be said about the subject -- ever.
    -----------------------------------------------

    So, here is Bill's personal note to everyone and confirms the data in Mason and points to the errors in the Ilford data.

    PE

    You can quote me on this!

    Ron, you seem hell bent on proving that you are right and Ilford are wrong for you have "chewed" this topic to death in your search to be seen to be right, and I'm sorry to say that this is not the first time. I have also witnessed this by other Kodak or ex Kodak employees. For what it is worth the last time I saw Bill Troop was in Montana where I was doing a workshop and Bill was trying to create a new type of developer at my request. When I processed the film I started to wash it in my normal "Ilford" method, Bill's response was "that will take too long just rinse it once that will be quite sufficient, film only needs a quick rinse". We then had a chat when I said I always washed film properly and he agreed with the method I was using.

    I had not intended to repeat this because I like Bill very much and did not wish to cast a bad light on a very clever and helpful friend.
    I'm not wishing to start any sort of argument with you for I respect you too much but neither an I prepared to sit quiet when you are clearly out to prove wrong Ilford people I know and trust who have constantly assured me that the Ilford washing method is archival.
    "Digital circuits are made from analogue parts"
    Fourtune Cookie-Brooklyn May 2006

    Website: www.lesmcleanphotography.com

Page 5 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