Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,766   Posts: 1,484,150   Online: 817
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24

    Kodak tray siphon

    I will be making a switch to fiber base paper when my new enlarger arrives (LPL 4550 XLG VCCE) and I have a question regarding the Kokdak automatic tray siphon. Is this siphon going to work for washing 8x10 or 11x14 fiber prints in an 11x14 tray following an HCA bath? (I use TF-4 fixer)---I'll be using Ilford MG IV glossy. I hope it will be sufficient because I use my kitchen at night and space is limited for print washing; should I expect extra long washing times using this system?. My local photo supply store has a used one for $15 and I am thinking about purchasing it.

    Thanks, and I'm certainly open to suggestions on different and better ways for complete washing.

    Chuck

  2. #2
    Monophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,691
    Images
    44
    Chuck -

    The Kodak siphon was invented for washing fiber paper.

    However, before you rush out to buy it, let me point out that while it can effectively wash prints, it does use a lot of water. I have found that simply soaking prints in successive trays of fresh water works just as well, as uses far less water.

    Water usage wasn't a bit deal when Kodak developed the tray siphon - today, in many areas, it is, and alternate solutions may be preferable.
    Louie

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    Although I do a final wash of my fiber prints in a Versalab, I still use the Kodak tray siphon I bought in 1973 for rinsing toned prints prior to using HCA. If you can buy one, do it. They are very useful.

    They do use a lot of water but you can adjust the flow after the tray fills. I would use a tray larger than 11x14 if your largest prints are in 11x14. A 16x20 size would be preferable. With the siphon you must monitor the wash pretty closely. If the prints wad up in the middle and stick together, they are not getting wash properly. That's the main downside to the siphon for me--you have to keep the prints separated and shuffled during the wash.

  4. #4
    Jersey Vic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Columbia County NY
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    3,919
    Images
    187
    I agree with Louie and Lee and use a combination of soaking and the tray siphon and this works well, even for Forte papers which seem to require the most thorough washing. It's with Forte that the necessity for frequent shuffling becomes really apparent.
    Holga: if it was any more analog, you'd need a chisel.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    360
    Kodak siphon works well on fibre, you may want to shuffle the prints to speed things up...and btw, the water doesn't 'dissapear' forever...it gets recycled...just don't think too much about it when you are drinking it from a tap

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    526
    Hi !
    I use since a long time a French made version of the kodak tray siphon. It's still made by Deville http://www.argentik.com and it is very good at washing fiber based print provided there are a few prints in the tray. Put a bowl in the center of an OVERSIZE tray to keep them separated.
    Last but not least, save water by using the overflow to fill another tray put in a lower position regarding the main tray. Put the prints from the fixer into the lower tray first, and after 5 or 10 minutes transfer them in the upper tray. This way, the prints from the fixer will will be washed in less than perfect water from the "clean" tray. And will have a huge amount of fixer by-products removed, but not all of them. If you wash a couple of prints at a time, one in the lower tray, one in the upper one, you'll wash your prints twice with the same water quantity.
    hope this helps !

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by Monophoto View Post
    Chuck -

    The Kodak siphon was invented for washing fiber paper.

    However, before you rush out to buy it, let me point out that while it can effectively wash prints, it does use a lot of water. I have found that simply soaking prints in successive trays of fresh water works just as well, as uses far less water.

    Water usage wasn't a bit deal when Kodak developed the tray siphon - today, in many areas, it is, and alternate solutions may be preferable.
    Amen! Water is a very valuable resource that all wet photographers need to use as little as necessary to get the job done. Using a dedicated print washer that conserves water such as the Inglis, Zone VI and the Gravity Works (and many others) work very effectlvely. However the best recommendation I could make is to get an inexpensive residual hypo test kit and make some notes to see just how much water via whatever washing technique you employ gets the job done. Makes no sense to not know exactly where this point is and waste water.

    Cheers!

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Yemen Baby!
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    250
    Images
    1

    wasting?

    As was mentioned above, water isn't really wasted unless you allow it to evaporate or run into the sea. If you are using a municipal system, the water treatment plant will recycle it. If you're using a well, the water goes back into the ground, and eventually back into the well. Granted, there may be long term issues with silver in the ground if you do a tremendous amount of processing, but that's pretty unlikely with most people.

    There are places that are having trouble with supplying enough fresh water, then again, there are many places that aren't. Anyone living in the northeast of the US has a virtually unlimited supply of fresh water, especially considering the dwindling population. "Saving" water there doesn't do someone in a drought stricken area any good at all... If you look at the water problems of the southwest (and probably Georgia as well), you'll find some of the lowest water prices in the country. They could do a lot to preserve water by simply raising the price towards the average price in the country. Of course all things being equal, water should be much more expensive there. The politicians won't do it because high water prices would cut into growth... After all it's important to have all of those golf courses and raise all that corn in the southwest desert...
    See my adventures in Yemen here:
    www.isaharr.com

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by isaacc7 View Post
    As was mentioned above, water isn't really wasted unless you allow it to evaporate or run into the sea. If you are using a municipal system, the water treatment plant will recycle it. If you're using a well, the water goes back into the ground, and eventually back into the well. Granted, there may be long term issues with silver in the ground if you do a tremendous amount of processing, but that's pretty unlikely with most people.

    There are places that are having trouble with supplying enough fresh water, then again, there are many places that aren't. Anyone living in the northeast of the US has a virtually unlimited supply of fresh water, especially considering the dwindling population. "Saving" water there doesn't do someone in a drought stricken area any good at all... If you look at the water problems of the southwest (and probably Georgia as well), you'll find some of the lowest water prices in the country. They could do a lot to preserve water by simply raising the price towards the average price in the country. Of course all things being equal, water should be much more expensive there. The politicians won't do it because high water prices would cut into growth... After all it's important to have all of those golf courses and raise all that corn in the southwest desert...
    This post is so full of holes that I am going to just leave it alone. I will simply state this.

    All respectable citizens should use all natural resource as prudently as as responsibly as possible as price and/or availability justifications are head in the sand mentalities. Feel good about being part fo the solution and pass this mentality along across the board.

    Cheers!
    Last edited by Michael Kadillak; 12-03-2007 at 01:10 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    Of course the concept that we were "wasting" water was the reasoning for the US Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamations to dam all those rivers, impounding the water and changing the ecosystem of numerous areas of the country. IIRC, the Bureau of Reclamations wanted to dam the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River and turn the whole thing into a great lake with hydroelectric dams supplying power to the Southwest.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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