Ilford Wash Procedue

by searching the net, i've got know that the Ilford introduced a
invised wahs procedure which use three tanks of fresh water with
agitation rather than using all the time running water.

i think i like the method because it save water and don't ask for any
washing gear. but it seems the method is designed for non-hardening
fixer. so i want to ask:

1, does the method still valid if what i used is a fixer such as
Kodak F-6a. should i modify the procedure?

2, if i switch to use non-harding fixer, such as Ilford's rapid
fixer, will it bring any harm on those legendary films such as kodak
Tri-X ?

another question is, if i also want to use washaid in the overall
process, how do i modify the Ilford's procedure?

thanks in advance.

-
woody

Steven Woody wrote:
by searching the net, i've got know that the Ilford introduced a
invised wahs procedure which use three tanks of fresh water with
agitation rather than using all the time running water.

i think i like the method because it save water and don't ask for any
washing gear. but it seems the method is designed for non-hardening
fixer. so i want to ask:

Wash aids, as you called them were invented after someone found that
washing film in salt (ocean) water worked a lot better than washing
them in regular water. Probably someone on a ship. :-)

I've used various ones since the 1960's with all sorts of film and
fixers.

I think the bottle I currently have was made by Tetnal. Kodak makes (made?)
one called "Hypo Clearing Agent". There are lots of them around and they
all basicly work the same way.

Rinse the film for 1 minute, soak in chemical for a minute, was for 5
minutes. I think that was for "archival" processing, for "regular",
it was 30sec rinse, 30sec soak, 1 minute wash.

The new low water methods are not much different. Instead of constant flowing
water, they are fill and drain, fill and drain. This makes it more reliable
than guessuing the flow rate of the running water.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

Geoffrey S. Mendelson spake thus:

Steven Woody wrote:

by searching the net, i've got know that the Ilford introduced a
invised wahs procedure which use three tanks of fresh water with
agitation rather than using all the time running water.

i think i like the method because it save water and don't ask for any
washing gear. but it seems the method is designed for non-hardening
fixer. so i want to ask:

Wash aids, as you called them were invented after someone found that
washing film in salt (ocean) water worked a lot better than washing
them in regular water. Probably someone on a ship. :-)

Yes; U.S. Navy, WWII. (Right, Richard?)

I think the bottle I currently have was made by Tetnal. Kodak makes (made?)
one called "Hypo Clearing Agent". There are lots of them around and they
all basicly work the same way.

The simplest, if you can get it, is plain old sodium sulfite. Cheap &
easy to use. That's what most HCA is, anyhow.


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

"Steven Woody" wrote in message
oups.com...
by searching the net, i've got know that the Ilford
introduced a
invised wahs procedure which use three tanks of fresh
water with
agitation rather than using all the time running water.

i think i like the method because it save water and don't
ask for any
washing gear. but it seems the method is designed for
non-hardening
fixer. so i want to ask:

1, does the method still valid if what i used is a fixer
such as
Kodak F-6a. should i modify the procedure?

2, if i switch to use non-harding fixer, such as Ilford's
rapid
fixer, will it bring any harm on those legendary films
such as kodak
Tri-X ?

another question is, if i also want to use washaid in the
overall
process, how do i modify the Ilford's procedure?

thanks in advance.

-
woody


Both Kodak and Ilford have instructions for washing
using successive baths of water. This is quite useful when
there is no running water and is conservative of the water.
Kodak uses about 6 baths of constant time, Ilford uses fewer
baths with the time in each bath starting out short and
becomming longer. The total time for either is about the
same but the Ilford method probably uses less water while
the Kodak system is easier to keep track of. The overall
time is about the same as it would be for a running water
wash.
The use of a sulfite wash aid like Kodak Hypo Clearing
Agent reduces the wash time for film by about 6 times. The
normal wash time for untreated film in running water is
about 30 minutes. After a two minute treatment in KHCA the
required time is only 5 minutes.
Kodak HCA and the current Ilford product are probably
identical or nearly so. Kodak has published a technical
paper on KHCA and there is some additional information in
the patent. While the solution is mostly Sodium Sulfite
Kodak has added Sodium Bisulfite as a buffer and two
sequestering agents: EDTA Tetra-sodium salt, and Sodium
Citrate. The solution is buffered to neutral pH. At this
value the hardening produced by white alum hardening fixing
baths is not destroyed but the mordanting effect of the alum
for thiosulfate is. Also, at neutral pH the electric charges
in the gelatin are such as to repel the thiosulfate ions
rather than to attract them as it does when acid. The
Sulfite acts as an ion exchange agent displacing the
thiosulfate ions and fixer reaction products which may not
wash out without it. This compensates to some degree for
partially exhausted fixing baths. The purpose of the
sequestering agents is to prevent the deposition of Calcium
and Magnesium salts from hard water on the film and to
prevent sludging from carried over alum.
The research leading to KHCA was an extension of work
done to discover why sea water was more efficient than fresh
for washing photographic material. While this fact was known
before 1900 the reasons remained something of a mystery
until the middle 1950's. Sea water washing was extensively
used, especially by the Navy aboard ship, during WW-2. A
fresh water rinse is necessary after the use of sea water
because the halides remaining in the emulsion will quickly
destroy the image. However, little water is needed for this
rinse so the method is very conservative of fresh water. The
use of a sulfite wash aid like KHCA is even more effective
than sea water and much more effective than the old trick of
treating film or paper with a mild alkaline bath.
Check the Kodak and Ilford sites for specific
instructions about the sequential bath washing but for the
Kodak method the time is about 5 minutes in each bath with
constant agitation in each. If KHCA is used I suggest at
least two shorter baths to a total time of about 5 minutes.
This same system will work for paper. RC paper washes out
very quickly without a wash aid so probably two or three
short baths with a total time of around 5 minutes will do.
Fiber should be treated in KHCA and washed for the total
times recommended using about 5 minute baths.
The sucessive bath method is fully as effective as
running water washing.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

On Jun 16, 3:36 am, Steven Woody wrote:

i think i like the method because it save water and don't ask for any
washing gear. but it seems the method is designed for non-hardening
fixer. so i want to ask:

another question is, if i also want to use washaid in the overall
process, how do i modify the Ilford's procedure?

thanks in advance. woody


I use the Ilford sequence in a relaxed manner. The 5-10-20 inversion
sequence is done a few inversions at each fill up and at least those
number of inversions are completed prior to the next fill-up. Some
still time is allowed while I clean-up around the darkroom. Photo
Flo rinses of film and eight blade film squeegee are last.

Films have been pre-hardened for many years. IMO, do without
hardener. A fresh fix of sodium thiosulfate alone will do the job.
Try a good half ounce, 16 grams, of the anhydrous in 500ml
of water. Allow 10 minutes with more of less continuous
agitation. Easy fresh fix each film or films. Dan

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 16, 3:36 am, Steven Woody
wrote:

i think i like the method because it save water and don't
ask for any
washing gear. but it seems the method is designed for
non-hardening
fixer. so i want to ask:

another question is, if i also want to use washaid in the
overall
process, how do i modify the Ilford's procedure?

thanks in advance. woody


I use the Ilford sequence in a relaxed manner. The 5-10-20
inversion
sequence is done a few inversions at each fill up and at
least those
number of inversions are completed prior to the next
fill-up. Some
still time is allowed while I clean-up around the
darkroom. Photo
Flo rinses of film and eight blade film squeegee are last.

Films have been pre-hardened for many years. IMO, do
without
hardener. A fresh fix of sodium thiosulfate alone will do
the job.
Try a good half ounce, 16 grams, of the anhydrous in 500ml
of water. Allow 10 minutes with more of less continuous
agitation. Easy fresh fix each film or films. Dan

Hardener is not necessary for many films. Also, the
shorter fixing times required by "rapid" fixers probably
don't give the hardener enough time to work anyway.
If a sulfite wash aid is used there is no difference
between wash time for hardening or non-hardening fixing
baths. Its not the "hardness" of the emulsion but the
mordanting effect of the common White Alum hardener which
causes the increase in washing time plus the acid condition
needed for the hardener to work. The pH adjustment made by a
Sulfite wash aid affects both of these factors as I
mentioned in my last post. Ideally, the pH of the emulsion
should be about neutral. At neutral pH the hardening is
preserved (sometimes it _is_ desirable) and the emulsion is
raised above its isoelectric point where the thiosulfate is
no longer attracted to the emulsion by charge.
A non-hardening or "plain" fixing bath should have some
Sodium sulfite in it to act as a preservative for the
thiosulfate and also to counteract staining from any carried
over developer. In an acid fixing bath the developer is
immediately inactivated but it will remain active for a time
even in a neutral fixer and especially in an alkaline fixing
bath. Film or paper to be fixed in a non-acid bath should be
very well rinsed after developing. Again, there is an
advantage to the use of an acid fixing bath because it
allows the use of an acid stop bath instead of a plain water
rinse. The acid stop bath immediately stops development
without any chance of staining from diluted developing
agents as is possible in a plain water stop bath.
For a plain fixing bath about 5 grams/liter of Sodium
Sulfite is enough. The much larger amount, typically 15
grams/liter, found in acid fixers is because the Sulfite
must also preserve the thiosulfate from being decomposed by
the acid. It is the reaction between the sulfite and acid
which results in the odor of Sulfur dioxide which is common
for fixers and which many people find very irritating.
Non-acid, non-hardening fixing baths are perfectly
satisfactory provided that an adequate rinse is given
between developer and fixer, an actual short wash rather
than just a few seconds in a tray of water.
Even though a neutral fixing bath will result in
significantly shorter wash times than an acid hardening
fixing bath the use of a wash aid will further shorten the
wash because of the specific ion exchange property of
Sulfite for thiosulfate and some fixer reaction products.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

On Jun 17, 8:59 am, "Richard Knoppow" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jun 16, 3:36 am, Steven Woody
wrote:

i think i like the method because it save water and don't
ask for any
washing gear. but it seems the method is designed for
non-hardening
fixer. so i want to ask:

another question is, if i also want to use washaid in the
overall
process, how do i modify the Ilford's procedure?

thanks in advance. woody

I use the Ilford sequence in a relaxed manner. The 5-10-20
inversion
sequence is done a few inversions at each fill up and at
least those
number of inversions are completed prior to the next
fill-up. Some
still time is allowed while I clean-up around the
darkroom. Photo
Flo rinses of film and eight blade film squeegee are last.

Films have been pre-hardened for many years. IMO, do
without
hardener. A fresh fix of sodium thiosulfate alone will do
the job.
Try a good half ounce, 16 grams, of the anhydrous in 500ml
of water. Allow 10 minutes with more of less continuous
agitation. Easy fresh fix each film or films. Dan

Hardener is not necessary for many films. Also, the
shorter fixing times required by "rapid" fixers probably
don't give the hardener enough time to work anyway.
If a sulfite wash aid is used there is no difference
between wash time for hardening or non-hardening fixing
baths. Its not the "hardness" of the emulsion but the
mordanting effect of the common White Alum hardener which
causes the increase in washing time plus the acid condition
needed for the hardener to work. The pH adjustment made by a
Sulfite wash aid affects both of these factors as I
mentioned in my last post. Ideally, the pH of the emulsion
should be about neutral. At neutral pH the hardening is
preserved (sometimes it _is_ desirable) and the emulsion is
raised above its isoelectric point where the thiosulfate is
no longer attracted to the emulsion by charge.
A non-hardening or "plain" fixing bath should have some
Sodium sulfite in it to act as a preservative for the
thiosulfate and also to counteract staining from any carried
over developer. In an acid fixing bath the developer is
immediately inactivated but it will remain active for a time
even in a neutral fixer and especially in an alkaline fixing
bath. Film or paper to be fixed in a non-acid bath should be
very well rinsed after developing. Again, there is an
advantage to the use of an acid fixing bath because it
allows the use of an acid stop bath instead of a plain water
rinse. The acid stop bath immediately stops development
without any chance of staining from diluted developing
agents as is possible in a plain water stop bath.
For a plain fixing bath about 5 grams/liter of Sodium
Sulfite is enough. The much larger amount, typically 15
grams/liter, found in acid fixers is because the Sulfite
must also preserve the thiosulfate from being decomposed by
the acid. It is the reaction between the sulfite and acid
which results in the odor of Sulfur dioxide which is common
for fixers and which many people find very irritating.
Non-acid, non-hardening fixing baths are perfectly
satisfactory provided that an adequate rinse is given
between developer and fixer, an actual short wash rather
than just a few seconds in a tray of water.
Even though a neutral fixing bath will result in
significantly shorter wash times than an acid hardening
fixing bath the use of a wash aid will further shorten the
wash because of the specific ion exchange property of
Sulfite for thiosulfate and some fixer reaction products.

--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA


thanks for replies from all you folks! but i still get below
questions not so clear:

1, you folks tend to think hardening fixer is not neccessary for
films because most of modern films are already pre-hardened. is it
true for traditional Kodak 400TX roll films? and, is it true for RC
and FB papers?

2, i still got bottles of Kodak F-5 which is a kind of hardening
fixer, and i still want to use it. below are a fill-and-drain style
of prededure i designed after study your replies and Ilford's method,
would you give opinions about if it is okay?

step 1, fix using Kodak F-5
step 2, rinse using clear water, 30 secs.
step 3, washaid ( Ilford washaid or Kodak's Hypo-Clearing Agent ), 1
to 2 minutes
step 4, drain and fill tank with clean water, invert it 5 times
step 5, drain and fill tank with clearn water, invert it 10 times
step 6, drain and fill tank with clean water, invert it 20 times.
step 7, Kodak phot-flo, 30 secs.

some notes about above precedue,

a, step 4 to step 6 are directly copied from ILford's method which
assumes that fixer is non-hardening and no washaid was used.
b, the time for step 3 is directly copied from Kodak's publish for
some films including 400TX.
c, if i use non-hardening fixer, step 1 and step 3 can be skipped, am
i right?

3, Richard, after searched Kodak's site, i've not yet found publishes
about what you menthioned the wash method Kodak introduced which, you
said, is similar to Ilford's method. would you please give me an URL?
thanks.

5, about the one-shot plain fixer, would anyone please give me an
exact formular? i like to try it some times later.

thanks in advance.

-
woody

1, you folks tend to think hardening fixer is not neccessary for
films because most of modern films are already pre-hardened. is it
true for traditional Kodak 400TX roll films? and, is it true for RC
and FB papers?

Unless a material or process specifically recommends use of a
hardener, you should avoid using one. Kodak Tri-X 400 does not require
a hardener.

On Jun 18, 12:39 am, Digitaltruth wrote:
1, you folks tend to think hardening fixer is not neccessary for
films because most of modern films are already pre-hardened. is it
true for traditional Kodak 400TX roll films? and, is it true for RC
and FB papers?

Unless a material or process specifically recommends use of a
hardener, you should avoid using one. Kodak Tri-X 400 does not require
a hardener.

thanks a lot. i still looking for replies on the others questions.

Digitaltruth writes:

Unless a material or process specifically recommends use of a
hardener, you should avoid using one. Kodak Tri-X 400 does not require
a hardener.

What would be the negative effects of using a hardener for a film that
does not recommend the use of hardener? I'm asking because I mixed a
fixer with hardener for EFKE KB25 and I'd like to use the same fixer
for Tri-X 400 (135mm) that I'm going to develop next, but of course if
it's going to cause problems I'll have to make another fixer for
Tri-X.