Musings on washing fiber-based prints

Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on
"real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ...

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And one of
the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water
normally needed for adequate washing.

So ... how about if a guy were to build some kind of recirculator, complete
with filtration? Maybe a big (5-10 gal.) tank with some kind of filter, like
activated charcoal? Would such a filter be capable of removing enough residual
hypo to be worthwhile? That way you could wash with a reasonable amount of
water, using a small pump to circulate the water through the print washer and
filter.

The filter's the main thing I need help with, being relatively
filter-illiterate. What do the chemist types here say?

(I'm already assuming a thorough hypo-clearing bath before washing.)

Or has someone already thunk this up and they're available for $29.95 at B&H?


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on
"real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ...

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And
one of
the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water
normally needed for adequate washing.


It doesn't need to take enormous water. If you wash them in trays with
several changes of water it's just as effective with much less water usage.

Particularly if you use Permawash or the like.

Bob

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on
"real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ...

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And
one of
the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water
normally needed for adequate washing.

I am not so sure of that. I wash my prints 90 minutes, which according to
my testing is at most 15 minutes more than they need. I run about 2
litres/minute through the washer.

Now the overflow from the washer is the water I use to temper all my
processing baths, so I get either the tempering or the washing for free,
except the last bit.

So ... how about if a guy were to build some kind of recirculator, complete
with filtration? Maybe a big (5-10 gal.) tank with some kind of filter,
like
activated charcoal? Would such a filter be capable of removing enough
residual
hypo to be worthwhile?

I do not know how well that would work. First of all, the big problem is
washing out the argentothiosulphate complexes; washing out the "hypo" is
relatively easy by comparison. But once washed out, what you might wish to
do is remove these complexes from the water. It is done, commercially,
from the fixer, which can then be re-used to a certain extent. After a
while, the iodide and bromide concentration goes up too high, and that,
too, must be removed. This stuff can be removed and sold.

Unfortunately, the concentrations in wash water are too low for this to be
practical. If you have properly fixed your paper, rinsed it in water,
hypo-cleared it, and rinsed it again, the water coming out of the washer
can be used for other purposes, such as flushing toilets, etc.

That way you could wash with a reasonable amount of
water, using a small pump to circulate the water through the print
washer and
filter.

The filter's the main thing I need help with, being relatively
filter-illiterate. What do the chemist types here say?

(I'm already assuming a thorough hypo-clearing bath before washing.)

Or has someone already thunk this up and they're available for $29.95 at
B&H?




--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 14:05:00 up 39 days, 22:21, 3 users, load average: 2.44, 2.25, 2.12

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on
"real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ...

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And
one of
the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water
normally needed for adequate washing.

I am not so sure of that. I wash my prints 90 minutes, which according to
my testing is at most 15 minutes more than they need. I run about 2
litres/minute through the washer.

Now the overflow from the washer is the water I use to temper all my
processing baths, so I get either the tempering or the washing for free,
except the last bit.

So ... how about if a guy were to build some kind of recirculator, complete
with filtration? Maybe a big (5-10 gal.) tank with some kind of filter,
like
activated charcoal? Would such a filter be capable of removing enough
residual
hypo to be worthwhile?

I do not know how well that would work. First of all, the big problem is
washing out the argentothiosulphate complexes; washing out the "hypo" is
relatively easy by comparison. But once washed out, what you might wish to
do is remove these complexes from the water. It is done, commercially,
from the fixer, which can then be re-used to a certain extent. After a
while, the iodide and bromide concentration goes up too high, and that,
too, must be removed. This stuff can be removed and sold.

Unfortunately, the concentrations in wash water are too low for this to be
practical. If you have properly fixed your paper, rinsed it in water,
hypo-cleared it, and rinsed it again, the water coming out of the washer
can be used for other purposes, such as flushing toilets, etc.

That way you could wash with a reasonable amount of
water, using a small pump to circulate the water through the print
washer and
filter.

The filter's the main thing I need help with, being relatively
filter-illiterate. What do the chemist types here say?

(I'm already assuming a thorough hypo-clearing bath before washing.)

Or has someone already thunk this up and they're available for $29.95 at
B&H?




--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 14:05:00 up 39 days, 22:21, 3 users, load average: 2.44, 2.25, 2.12

In article , David Nebenzahl
wrote:

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And one of
the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water
normally needed for adequate washing.

I'm an old-timer, so the vast bulk of paper I've processed was FB.
Washing is basically a process of dilution, so any trace of hypo at all
in the washwater will greatly slow the washing process. This is why the
tray washing someone else proposed is a less-than-ideal solution. While
I don't doubt "filtration" could be done, It's almost surely
impractical.

You'd probably have to manufacture, pay for (and then dispose of!) an
exchange resin of some kind. I used to extract silver from the fixer,
but silver is a lot more valuable than what you're trying to extract!
Good old water, on the other hand, is relatively cheap and a renewable
resource.

Just wash the darned stuff, using lots of fresh water.

David Nebenzahl wrote in
:

Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make
prints on "real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ...

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing.
And one of the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous
quantity of water normally needed for adequate washing.

Filters are effective in removing particulate matter, but fixer is a
solution and could not be "filtered" out.

Actually, while the traditional solution is to use a continuous flow of
water, that's not the only way to wash prints. You can do an equally
effective job by batch soaking in trays. After the fix, transfer the
prints to a tray of plain water for a couple of minutes, and then to a
tray of hypo clear (Kodak Hypoclear, Permawash, Orbit Wash, or one of the
dozens of similar products). After five minutes, with intermittent
agitation, transfer to another tray of plain water. Agitate occasionally
(more prints in the tray requires more agitation), and let soak for 5-10
minutes. Then transfer to another tray of plain water and repeat the
agitation. Repeat this process four or five times, then squeegee and
dry.

I use 11x14 trays that hold half a gallon of fluid. I typically use less
than 5 gallons of water washing a collection of prints using this
process.

David Nebenzahl wrote in
:

Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make
prints on "real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ...

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing.
And one of the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous
quantity of water normally needed for adequate washing.

Filters are effective in removing particulate matter, but fixer is a
solution and could not be "filtered" out.

Actually, while the traditional solution is to use a continuous flow of
water, that's not the only way to wash prints. You can do an equally
effective job by batch soaking in trays. After the fix, transfer the
prints to a tray of plain water for a couple of minutes, and then to a
tray of hypo clear (Kodak Hypoclear, Permawash, Orbit Wash, or one of the
dozens of similar products). After five minutes, with intermittent
agitation, transfer to another tray of plain water. Agitate occasionally
(more prints in the tray requires more agitation), and let soak for 5-10
minutes. Then transfer to another tray of plain water and repeat the
agitation. Repeat this process four or five times, then squeegee and
dry.

I use 11x14 trays that hold half a gallon of fluid. I typically use less
than 5 gallons of water washing a collection of prints using this
process.

David Nebenzahl a écrit :
Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on
"real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ...

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And
one of
the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water
normally needed for adequate washing.

So ... how about if a guy were to build some kind of recirculator, complete
with filtration? Maybe a big (5-10 gal.) tank with some kind of filter,
like
activated charcoal? Would such a filter be capable of removing enough
residual
hypo to be worthwhile? That way you could wash with a reasonable amount of
water, using a small pump to circulate the water through the print
washer and
filter.

The filter's the main thing I need help with, being relatively
filter-illiterate. What do the chemist types here say?

(I'm already assuming a thorough hypo-clearing bath before washing.)

Or has someone already thunk this up and they're available for $29.95 at
B&H?



Available at B&H for $29.95 certainly not but (advanced) aquariophiles
use reverse osmosis filters for their fragile fish:
http://www.hydrationtech.com/Osmosis...r31703doc3.pdf

Still not sure this will filter out fixer.
Not sure it's a good idea unless you live in the Sahara ...


--
Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch

David Nebenzahl a écrit :
Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on
"real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ...

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And
one of
the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water
normally needed for adequate washing.

So ... how about if a guy were to build some kind of recirculator, complete
with filtration? Maybe a big (5-10 gal.) tank with some kind of filter,
like
activated charcoal? Would such a filter be capable of removing enough
residual
hypo to be worthwhile? That way you could wash with a reasonable amount of
water, using a small pump to circulate the water through the print
washer and
filter.

The filter's the main thing I need help with, being relatively
filter-illiterate. What do the chemist types here say?

(I'm already assuming a thorough hypo-clearing bath before washing.)

Or has someone already thunk this up and they're available for $29.95 at
B&H?



Available at B&H for $29.95 certainly not but (advanced) aquariophiles
use reverse osmosis filters for their fragile fish:
http://www.hydrationtech.com/Osmosis...r31703doc3.pdf

Still not sure this will filter out fixer.
Not sure it's a good idea unless you live in the Sahara ...


--
Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch

On 2/28/2005 12:50 PM Claudio Bonavolta spake thus:

David Nebenzahl a écrit:

Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on
"real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ...

So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And
one of the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water
normally needed for adequate washing.

So ... how about if a guy were to build some kind of recirculator, complete
with filtration? Maybe a big (5-10 gal.) tank with some kind of filter,
like activated charcoal? Would such a filter be capable of removing enough
residual hypo to be worthwhile? That way you could wash with a reasonable amount of
water, using a small pump to circulate the water through the print
washer and filter.

The filter's the main thing I need help with, being relatively
filter-illiterate. What do the chemist types here say?

(I'm already assuming a thorough hypo-clearing bath before washing.)

Or has someone already thunk this up and they're available for $29.95 at
B&H?

Available at B&H for $29.95 certainly not but (advanced) aquariophiles
use reverse osmosis filters for their fragile fish:
http://www.hydrationtech.com/Osmosis...r31703doc3.pdf

Still not sure this will filter out fixer.
Not sure it's a good idea unless you live in the Sahara ...

Unfortunately no: from the white paper:

"Osmotic filters are unlike other filters in that they produce a nutrient
drink rather than simple water. This makes osmotic filters inappropriate
for producing cooking or hygiene water ..."

This system uses a "syrup" and osmosis to produce a safe drink from any kind
of water, including brackish or muddy water.

Looks like pretty good stuff for backpackers, though.


--
"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."

- Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by
the late Hunter S. Thompson