Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,690   Posts: 1,548,874   Online: 949
      
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 62 of 62
  1. #61
    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
    ...There is a Kodak method...
    Just to refocus this on the original posted question I don't think there IS a published Kodak rinse+dump method, they seem to recommend rinse, HCA, running water rinse (possibly because they want to publish one method to deal with fixers with & without hardener). There definitely isn't one that is "like the Ilford method + 5 minutes stands" that I have found (if anyone can point to it as something current, published by the company for their customers to use please do so).

    The idea of adding 5 minute stands comes from the "Cookbook" (apparently, I haven't read it but am quoting the OP).

    Conceptually the 5 minute stands make no sense as a way to improve a film washing process - but that book wouldn't be the first written by a human to contain an error, that is not my point. The approach of adding volume and agitation cycles (in the German report one poster provided a link to) does. If anyone is not convinced the Ilford method as published is quite enough and wants to add some safety margin that is a route to go that is reasonable from a chemical point of view.

    IMHO it really has nothing to do with Ilford vs Kodak and supposed water shortages 30 years ago etc etc. It's just chemistry, and at least at a conceptual level fairly straightforward.
    Last edited by DaveOttawa; 01-07-2008 at 08:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #62
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,067
    Images
    65
    Bill Troop researched this and found two Kodak methods. One was the generic running water wash used from day 1 in photography. The second was described by G. I. P. Levenson of the Kodak Harrow labs, published in the 70s and using the 3 standing washes with times and agitation specified. Later, this work was also published (as we see it today) by Ilford, but with some modification from the Kodak method. Afterwards, Haist (of Kodak) and Mason (of Ilford) both published books which show why the "Ilford" or "Kodak" method of 3 or more rinses will not work and that the running water method will in order to achieve archival results from all possible conditions.

    Further work has illuminated this to the extent that it seems the Ilford/Kodak method will work but has not been tested with a wide variety of films, waters and fixers, nor for a long period of time, but the one using continuously running water has had more extensive testing just by its age. It has been around a looooong time.

    The German report has a disclaimer at the very top and I quoted it earlier. In the disclaimer, he effectively says that this method may not be suitable under all conditions to meet the criteria established for archival washing.

    I cannot separate the wheat from the chaff here anymore except to say that it is clear that the older method works. It has been around long enough to prove itself. It is also clear that the Kodak and Ilford methods differ in critical aspects such as timing and agitation.

    My position has been to use what works, but test! Believe but verify! And, this goes for all films, fixers, papers and methodologies.

    PE

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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