Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,712   Online: 803
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    272
    Images
    16
    Hi everybody
    I use this wash-method.
    source
    Optimum permanence for fibre based
    papers
    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
    washing sequence.
    Optimum permanence sequence
    Fixing ILFORD RAPID FIXER (1+4), 1min
    intermittent agitation
    First wash Fresh, running water 5min
    Rinse ILFORD WASHAID (1+4), 10min
    intermittent agitation
    Final wash Fresh, running water 5min
    Processing conditions: 18–24ºC/65–75ºF including
    wash water.

  2. #12
    Contrastique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    176
    Images
    68
    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.

    @Ijsbeer;
    Ilford Washaid is an alternative for HypoClearing I assume.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dedham, Ma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    625
    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.
    Last edited by panastasia; 02-18-2008 at 01:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould

  4. #14
    Monophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,691
    Images
    44
    Panastasia -

    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.
    Louie

  5. #15
    david b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    None of your business
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,034
    Images
    30
    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.

  6. #16
    Contrastique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    176
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by panastasia View Post
    It's my feeling that the Masters did all the testing for us, already.
    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.
    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.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,076
    hmmm

    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 ...

    good luck!

    john
    im empty, good luck

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dedham, Ma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    625
    I made a mistake, it's 60gal/hr (typo), sorry about that!
    "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould

  9. #19
    rwyoung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Lawrence, KS
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    704
    Images
    40
    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.
    Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things! http://rwyoung.wordpress.com

  10. #20
    Contrastique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    176
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by panastasia View Post
    I made a mistake, it's 60gal/hr (typo), sorry about that!
    That sounds better indeed

    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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