Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,935   Posts: 1,557,053   Online: 1268
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 70
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,889
    Images
    62
    On another tack though, Haist reminds us that Metol washes out in an acid fix but HQ does not and in subsequent washes, Metol + acid fix is faster washing out in water but HQ + alkaline fix is faster washing in water. This is an interesting quandary.

    The Dimezone/Phenidone family are more or less neutral wrt fix.
    Considering many developers use more than one developing agent, how is a judgement made to decide which washing category is a best fit?

    Tom.

  2. #32
    trexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    299
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnRichard View Post
    I may be wrong here, and thinking of the wrong thing, but when i'm finished developing, stopping and fixing, I just set the tank under running water dumping every time its full for about 2 min. I'm "done", when I don't get that faint purple tent to the water anymore.
    The point of the Ilford wash is to minimize the water used. I use 2L ( 2qt ) for a 500ml tank and no tint. My main goal was to cut down the crowd around the tap. When you get 8 people with two rolls each all wanting to wash at the same time, it gets a little hectic. What I hope to institute is closer to the Ilford method. Fill, agitate, go to the end of the line, repeat at least three times.
    D-76 is a standard developer, although not one I use.
    Ansel Adams - The Negative

  3. #33
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,191
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw View Post
    Considering many developers use more than one developing agent, how is a judgement made to decide which washing category is a best fit?

    Tom.
    The point was that Grant showed an alternative and Bill Troop gave us TF-4. There was another way found after Grant published.

    PE

  4. #34
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,191
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by trexx View Post
    The point of the Ilford wash is to minimize the water used. I use 2L ( 2qt ) for a 500ml tank and no tint. My main goal was to cut down the crowd around the tap. When you get 8 people with two rolls each all wanting to wash at the same time, it gets a little hectic. What I hope to institute is closer to the Ilford method. Fill, agitate, go to the end of the line, repeat at least three times.
    No crowd, minimum wash... GREAT!!!

    However, if you have no proof that this is a GOOD wash, all of those bennies are nothing. Your film and prints will be toast in about 20 years or so.

    PE

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    For what this is worth, I took the very reasonable suggestion that someone made in the other thread on this subject and tested some of my negatives for residual hypo. None turned up on any of the negatives I tested, some of which were commercial-lab products that probably had a "normal" running-water wash, some Ilford-method both with and without standing time, a few "mistaken Ilford method" where I was skipping the initial 5-inversion wash, and some sheets that were vaguely sloshed around in a few changes of water.

    However, the test kit does say that it's not sensitive enough for archival testing. I'm not sure how one tests hypo levels to that level of sensitivity, or whether there are other potential concerns besides residual hypo per se.

    These results do leave me fairly convinced that I can quit worrying about it for a while, and concentrate on trying to take some pictures that *deserve* an archival lifetime.

    -NT

  6. #36
    Martin Aislabie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stratford-upon-Avon, England
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I'll have more to say on that in a few weeks perhaps, because there are other ways to swell emulsions and speed washes.

    PE
    Does this "something to say in a few weeks" come with a drum roll and TADA!

    Looking forward to the announcement

    Martin

  7. #37
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,191
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Aislabie View Post
    Does this "something to say in a few weeks" come with a drum roll and TADA!

    Looking forward to the announcement

    Martin

    IDK. That sounds nice. I like the thought.

    It is due to the fact though, that swell can be achieved chemically as well as by pH, and these two can be combined also for even greater effect. The final result is extremely short wash times due to rapid diffusion. It does not hurt that the chemical means also accelerates fix rate itself.

    PE

  8. #38
    Martin Aislabie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stratford-upon-Avon, England
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post

    It is due to the fact though, that swell can be achieved chemically as well as by pH, and these two can be combined also for even greater effect. The final result is extremely short wash times due to rapid diffusion. It does not hurt that the chemical means also accelerates fix rate itself.

    PE
    I gathered that is what you were alluding to in an earlier post.

    It all sounds so simple when you write it down like that.

    I am sure the practicalities of actually doing it were far from simple & straight forward.

    Looking forward to the anouncement - with or without the drum rolls

    Martin

  9. #39
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,191
    Images
    65
    When I post here on washing of film and paper products, I am not just quoting Mason or Haist. I am basing my comments on years of tests that were done personally and which literally span about 1/2 of the world. It includes both color and B&W.

    I find that wash rate is not simple. It depnds on water quality, temperature, flow rate and product.

    At the present time, I have samples done about 3 - 4 years ago that are already turning brown, but then they failed the tests for retained silver and hypo. So.... I've been doing homework. And, at Kodak I ran such tests on a variety of products for over 5 years, just about daily, and also ran the extensive stability tests required for testing them to destruction.

    The final answer though is impossible to give. You must run your own tests, under your own conditions, and determine what will work for you! One wash type does not fit all. Also, the process helps determine the wash cycle needed. As noted a phenidone HQ developer responds better to an alkaline fix than a Metol HQ developer unless you use an acid stop in the latter case to assist in removing Metol. You see how process can be critical. At least I hope you see.

    I suggest that this thread and others be merged where possible and that they be made sticky as this subject keeps coming up over and over and over.

    PE

  10. #40
    skyrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Arlington, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    305
    Images
    1
    Sorry for reviving this old thread, but I couldn't find an answer in my searches...so:

    Do you use the Ilford Method with 400TX? I did tonight and the emulsion side is still really sticky/tacky. I used D-76 @ 1:1 for 9 minutes (70F), water for a stop bath for 45 seconds, Ilford Rapid Fixer for 3 min, then Ilford Method wash (5, 10, 15, 20), then 30 sec Photo-Flo.

Page 4 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