Musings on washing fiber-based prints

On 3/3/2005 3:30 AM spake thus:

You poor boy, someone challenges your parameters and you go all wobbly
on us, chattering on about milk and red wine.

Well, as the O.P. mentioned in the posting you refer to, I get to comment on
this. Thanks for standing up for me, I guess, but you have to realize that old
"jjs" is an odd sod, and this was just his way of being funny & ironic. I'm
not offended, so neither need you be.

But seriously, folks: this is a serious matter, depending on where one lives.
Where I am now (San Francisco Bay Area), water is not in short supply.
However, if I still lived in Tucson (which is where I first started taking
pictures and making prints, lo these many decades ago), I would damn well try
to conserver every drop of precious water, and not feel the least bit guilty
about defending the practice. Whaddya think--the stuff comes out of the
ground? (Actually, it does, there, but is increasingly difficult to get
sufficient supplies of.)

Or to put it another way, why *shouldn't* we try to conserve water, especially
if it can be done reasonably easily and economically?

I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings. One thing that
sounds intriguing is using reverse osmosis to filter wash water. How hard is
this to do? What kind of pressure and size of pump are we talking about here?
Seems like this would be the ideal solution: a small pump and RO filter hooked
up to a moderate-size tank oughta do the trick.


--
"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

On 3/3/2005 6:18 AM Gregory Blank spake thus:

In article .com,
wrote:

You poor boy, someone challenges your parameters and you go all wobbly
on us, chattering on about milk and red wine.

& your lack of intelligent discourse regarding photography leads me to
kill file you and be done, bye bye.

My, my, the threshold level on your KillFile-O-Meter sems to be getting set
lower and lower. Pretty soon you won't be able to read *any* postings here.
Poor boy.


--
"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

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Or to put it another way, why *shouldn't* we try to conserve water,
especially if it can be done reasonably easily and economically?

I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings. One thing
that sounds intriguing is using reverse osmosis to filter wash water.
How hard is this to do? What kind of pressure and size of pump are we
talking about here? Seems like this would be the ideal solution: a small
pump and RO filter hooked up to a moderate-size tank oughta do the trick.

Every review of filters I've read indicates that RO requires something
like 15 gallons of water to produce one gallon of pure water.

You'd be better off finding a use for the runoff if conservation is the
primary motivation.

Perhaps you could tray wash to get the initial very high concentration
of fixer off the surface of the print, then hca, and then use the runoff
from a print washer to fill your clothes washing machine. Or collect the
water to flush your toilet, as someone suggested. Or wash your car.

Bob

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Or to put it another way, why *shouldn't* we try to conserve water,
especially if it can be done reasonably easily and economically?

I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings. One
thing that sounds intriguing is using reverse osmosis to filter wash
water. How hard is this to do? What kind of pressure and size of pump
are we talking about here? Seems like this would be the ideal
solution: a small pump and RO filter hooked up to a moderate-size
tank oughta do the trick.


I have done business with Fine Art Photo Supply out of Rochester. The
owner is also a serious photographer. He sells kits to make your own
print washer that you put in an aquarium. He also has a take on washing
fiber prints that is very helpful to people who wish to conserve water
and still have archiavlly washed prints. He puts out an excellent and
chatty monthly e-newletter too. I think most people here would enjoy it.
It is very informative - admittedly he is also marketing his products.
(One of which is a film developer called FA-1027 - that I have been
getting really good results with Fuji Acros.)

Anyway go to http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm
http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm

I think you will find it interesting and useful.

Frank Rome, NY

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Or to put it another way, why *shouldn't* we try to conserve water,
especially if it can be done reasonably easily and economically?

I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings. One
thing that sounds intriguing is using reverse osmosis to filter wash
water. How hard is this to do? What kind of pressure and size of pump
are we talking about here? Seems like this would be the ideal
solution: a small pump and RO filter hooked up to a moderate-size
tank oughta do the trick.


I have done business with Fine Art Photo Supply out of Rochester. The
owner is also a serious photographer. He sells kits to make your own
print washer that you put in an aquarium. He also has a take on washing
fiber prints that is very helpful to people who wish to conserve water
and still have archiavlly washed prints. He puts out an excellent and
chatty monthly e-newletter too. I think most people here would enjoy it.
It is very informative - admittedly he is also marketing his products.
(One of which is a film developer called FA-1027 - that I have been
getting really good results with Fuji Acros.)

Anyway go to http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm
http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm

I think you will find it interesting and useful.

Frank Rome, NY

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...

My, my, the threshold level on your KillFile-O-Meter sems to be getting
set lower and lower. Pretty soon you won't be able to read *any* postings
here. Poor boy.

Ah David, I have a program that detects who killfiles me. It puts their
names on the big spam feeds. Joy, joy.

In article , "jjs"
wrote:

It puts their names on the big spam feeds. Joy, joy.

Doesn't work.

Frank Calidonna wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:

I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings.


I have done business with Fine Art Photo Supply ...
He also has a take on washing
fiber prints that is very helpful to people who wish to conserve
water
and still have archiavlly washed prints. He puts out an excellent and

chatty monthly e-newletter too.
http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm
http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm

I think you will find it interesting and useful.

Frank Rome, NY

I think Mr. Nebenzahl prefers his water running. I took a
look at those washers. His method is the same as mine, still
water diffusion. I use one tray for processing but two trays
when washing FB. Hydrophobic separators are placed bottom
and top of stack and one twixt each print.
Two advantages of still water diffusion is the little water
used and a lack of any uneven washing.
FWIW, I've read that Bruce Barnbaum would'nt have one
of those 'ARCHIVAL' washers. He uses still water tray washes,
with, I'd suppose, a now and then agitation. Dan

On 3/4/2005 3:26 AM spake thus:

Frank Calidonna wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings.

I have done business with Fine Art Photo Supply ... He also has a take on
washing fiber prints that is very helpful to people who wish to conserve
water and still have archiavlly washed prints. He puts out an excellent
and chatty monthly e-newletter too.
http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm
http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm

I think you will find it interesting and useful.

I think Mr. Nebenzahl prefers his water running. I took a look at those
washers. His method is the same as mine, still water diffusion. I use one
tray for processing but two trays when washing FB. Hydrophobic separators
are placed bottom and top of stack and one twixt each print.

Actually, not true: while I had assumed up until now that running water was
necessary for washing, seeing that Water Saver Print Washer makes me think
that my assumption may be incorrect. So I'm not necessarily stuck on using
running water. The idea of getting maximal washing effect for minimal water
usage is definitely intriguing.

I wonder if something in between might work well? Say something like the Water
Saver, but with a low to moderate flow of water through it?


--
"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

Still water washing with several changes of water and shuffling over
several hours works just fine for FB prints; been doing it for years. I
once forgot and left them in for three days and that soaked off the
emulsion, but I when I'm finishing a print session just before bedtime,
I frequently leave them in overnight with no ill effects at all.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/4/2005 3:26 AM spake thus:

Frank Calidonna wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings.

I have done business with Fine Art Photo Supply ... He also has a
take on
washing fiber prints that is very helpful to people who wish to
conserve
water and still have archiavlly washed prints. He puts out an
excellent
and chatty monthly e-newletter too.
http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm
http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm

I think you will find it interesting and useful.

I think Mr. Nebenzahl prefers his water running. I took a look at those
washers. His method is the same as mine, still water diffusion. I
use one
tray for processing but two trays when washing FB. Hydrophobic
separators
are placed bottom and top of stack and one twixt each print.

Actually, not true: while I had assumed up until now that running
water was
necessary for washing, seeing that Water Saver Print Washer makes me
think that my assumption may be incorrect. So I'm not necessarily
stuck on using running water. The idea of getting maximal washing
effect for minimal water usage is definitely intriguing.

I wonder if something in between might work well? Say something like
the Water Saver, but with a low to moderate flow of water through it?