Film Washing Test

[Jeff Bannow]

Speaking of which, anyone have a source for the hypo estimator card? It doesn't seem that they are available new any longer, and eBay comes up short this time.

[Photo Engineer]

Unfortunately, mine has been misplaced. That card tells it all though. I hope I find my card.

PE

[Removed Account2]

I think others are answering your post quite well.

If you read the entire packet that comes with the Kodak test card, you will also have a fine explanation.

PE

Nope. You appear to debunk without offering an explanation of your own.
Never rely on others to answer your questions, because most of the time they will answer to another question.

Now WHAT was wrong here?

[Photo Engineer]

The original post by Greg Davis showed the amount of Thiosulfate residue in film regardless of wash condition. The wash is irrelevant as long as you get to the lowest level (archival quality) or next to lowest (commercial quality). For those that brought up this topic before, there are indeed 2 ANSI standards as noted here.

In any event, you invoke arguments shown later in the thread to be theoretical and as stated from posts #33 onward, the actual data from practical experiments always wins. If a given wash is sufficient to achieve a given condition, then it works. Change the temperature, water supply (hardness and etc) and all bets are off. You have to do the tests all over. And, your calculations would have to include this type of variable as well, which it does not.

Bottom line... I trust Greg. But I would verify with my own work flow and wash water as an initial starting point!

PE

[Jeff Bannow]

Bottom line... I trust Greg. But I would verify with my own work flow and wash water as an initial starting point!

PE
PE

Amen.

[Removed Account2]

I just did show by way of calculation (thery? YES!) that the test does NOT offer sufficient resolution to discernate wether this washing regime or that washing regime offers any advantage in this question.

They both do. Without question. And that is what Kodak, Agfa, Ilford, et al have been saying all these years.

The trick is doing it meticolously, repeatably and enough (long or many times, respectively) to reach a sufficielntly LOW LEVEL.

Theory? Yes Theory. That is waht all knowledge are based upon.

The test in this context is like trying to measure millimeters by a yardstick, it says too little to be meaningful.

But it does say that you have archival sttorage levels. Maybe. In 10 years time, when YOUR test is done.

By then it is to late of course.

Erik

[Removed Account2]

Amen.

I'm NOT rebutting Greg. The test is great. And both washing regimes are good.

If we are good.

Make a note I say *good* not God, so I prefer to leave him out of the argument.

[Greg Davis]

Speaking of which, anyone have a source for the hypo estimator card? It doesn't seem that they are available new any longer, and eBay comes up short this time.

It may not be from Kodak, but this one is still available. When I get home from the university tonight, I'll try to remember to scan and post the documentation that came with Kodak's Hypo Estimator card.

[Jeff Bannow]

That would be great, Greg.

[ic-racer]

Jeff, page 27 of the 1970s Kodak Darkroom Dataguide has the HT-2 formula and the color patches. You never got one of those Dataguides in any boxes of equipment??

I think I could scan/print it out to be pretty close.