A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Musings on washing fiber-based prints



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 2nd 05, 07:08 AM
Tom Phillips
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Peter De Smidt wrote:

jjs wrote:


Because softened water lacks the minerals that remove hypo/fix. I'm
surprised that people don't know that.



I don't think it's so simple. In fact there's just been a technical
discussion on this on the Pure-Silver mailing list. While it's true
that, for example, sea water will wash photographic materials faster
than demineralized water when a wash aid isn't used, it's not clear that
there's any advantage to using mineralized water after a wash aid.


Both sea water and HCA facilitate washing
through ion exchange. Sodium sulfite is used
because it has always been known that salts
facilitated washing, even before sea water was
used. The ion exchange takes place in the HCA
making it easier to wash out thiosulfate or
silver-thiosulfate complexes, so I wouldn't
think the relative hardness or softeness of
the water would make much difference.

Morever, softened water isn't de-mineralized. The mineral makeup is
changed to something less likely to cause build up and hard water
stains. I forget the exact details. Finally, it's my experience that
very hard water, like I have here, can cause problems when washing
paper. When I switched to softened water for washing paper, these
problems went away.


Most hard water (at least in cities) is probably
softened to some degree anyway.
  #22  
Old March 2nd 05, 10:17 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain
wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue
here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put
more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? If
not, save the water.

Mark

  #24  
Old March 2nd 05, 01:56 PM
Jean-David Beyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Phillips wrote (in part):

Most hard water (at least in cities) is probably
softened to some degree anyway.


I do not know about that. I do know that some cities deliberately harden
the water a little so the lead used to solder copper pipes does not come
out in solution and poison their customers.

Presumably newer solders do not contain lead, but if they contain cadmium,
bismuth, etc., I would not want that in my water either.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:55:00 up 41 days, 16:12, 4 users, load average: 4.18, 4.32, 4.65

  #25  
Old March 2nd 05, 02:27 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
ups.com...
Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain
wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue
here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put
more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? If
not, save the water.


I have had the same thought so many times, but look at it another way: the
longer you wash a print, the cleaner the water becomes so that in the end
you are simply putting clean water back into the ecosystem. Regardless,
please do wash your negatives thoroughly - for posterity.


  #26  
Old March 2nd 05, 03:35 PM
Scott Schuckert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . com,
wrote:

Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain
wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue
here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put
more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? If
not, save the water.


Excuse me, but what a crock. You make it sound as though he's
destroying a rare natural resource, instead of adding almost
immeasurable amounts of impurities to the most common substance on the
planet. All but the first minutes worth of washwater would still
qualify as potable.

I'm all for not UNECESSARILY wasting resources, but to suggest he needs
to evaluate the societal worth of each print before washing it is
extreme.
  #27  
Old March 2nd 05, 03:35 PM
Scott Schuckert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . com,
wrote:

Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain
wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue
here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put
more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? If
not, save the water.


Excuse me, but what a crock. You make it sound as though he's
destroying a rare natural resource, instead of adding almost
immeasurable amounts of impurities to the most common substance on the
planet. All but the first minutes worth of washwater would still
qualify as potable.

I'm all for not UNECESSARILY wasting resources, but to suggest he needs
to evaluate the societal worth of each print before washing it is
extreme.
  #28  
Old March 2nd 05, 03:43 PM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . com,
wrote:

Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain
wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue
here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put
more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? If
not, save the water.

Mark


Complete and total Bull ****. Water can be easily recycled. Using solar
power. The thing thats lacking is creative thought.

--
LF Website @
http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
  #29  
Old March 2nd 05, 03:43 PM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . com,
wrote:

Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain
wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue
here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put
more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? If
not, save the water.

Mark


Complete and total Bull ****. Water can be easily recycled. Using solar
power. The thing thats lacking is creative thought.

--
LF Website @
http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
  #30  
Old March 2nd 05, 03:45 PM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Jean-David Beyer wrote:

Eugene Atget would never thought his work was worth processing to archival
standards. He thought his work was just record shots from which painters
could copy details for their own work. Yet modern scholarship and museum
creators highly value his work.

You just never know how the future will treat your work. Of course, if
yours is as poorly organized as mine, it will all be trashed when I die.
But so will the Edward Weston and the Ansel Adams prints I have, because
my estate will not know their value.


If you have published work you will be remembered regardless of short
comings. Look at Joseph Sudeck he had a complete horrible mess of stacked
disorganized prints,...He is a very well known photographer in the Czech
Republic and here.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ink Jet Prints Problems Marshall Thurman Digital Photography 27 August 16th 04 11:05 PM
Digital darkroom Paul Friday Medium Format Photography Equipment 84 July 9th 04 05:26 AM
below $1000 film vs digital Mike Henley Medium Format Photography Equipment 182 June 25th 04 03:37 AM
Original B&W Fiber Based Prints For Auction! Mark Baylin General Equipment For Sale 4 April 19th 04 11:27 PM
fiber based photo paper Monkey Film & Labs 5 February 2nd 04 02:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.