Washing film

RaglanSurf

RaglanSurf

Messages
11,330
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
It's that time of year when washing freshly dev'd film in water running straight from the tap can cause the film to suffer from a bit of a thermal shock. What do folks here do in terms of wash and rinse just using limited water?
 
The Ilford method. Warm a couple of litres of water up, pour in 500ml, 10 fast inversion pour out, fresh water, 20 fast, pour out, 40 fast and pour. I've not noticed any degredation in my negatives.
 
Another vote for the Ilford method. It not only uses less water, but it's faster than the 30min in running water that used to be the recommended method. I follow it with a final rinse in distilled water with wetting agent added.
 
I swapped to a final rise with wetting agent in a separate jug to stop contamination of foto flow in the tank. That stuff is murder to fully remove.
 
I started out in the 1950s with the 6 changes of water for 5 minutes each, and adjusted the temperature downwards (if needed) with each change until I reached tap temperature, which saved adding hot water. I switched to continuous when I get the necessary equipment (Paterson washing tube). The problem I see with the tap temperature water is that the colder it gets, the more the gelatine contracts, and that suggests the more difficult it becomes for the fixer to diffuse out, making the washing less efficient. I've never investigated to see if this reasonable assumption is correct, as there are always other factors in play that can make the counter-intutive the correct answer.
 
Well, I have never even considered the temperature of the water. I just bung the tank under the cold tap for 5 to 10 minutes....
 
Definitely Ilford method, and try to get the water as consistent in temperature as possible - I had some Fuji Neopan show nasty reticulation when I used to develop with less regard for this.
 
At one time it was easy to get in line filters for force film washing. and I used them with deep tank use and for small film tanks.
It is amazing just how much microscopic grit is in the mains supply.
Modern ceramic filters intended for domestic drinking water would be very effective in eliminating this very real problem. Some people have them built into their supply to the Kitchen.

I have never much worried about the temperature of fix, or wash water. Though I drew the line when I had to break the ice to get to it.

Reticulation though cold washes are things of the past, modern fixers contain hardeners and the Gelatine used now is rarely sensitive to even quite wide temperature ranges.
This is not quite so true of colour processing which need to allow a much freer movement of chemical.

Filtered water is the minimum requirement for processing, as changes in pressure or flushing of the mains can cause sudden and devastating sediment problems lasting several days.
 
Last edited:
ilford method, using the "filtered drinking water" tap - I had a water filter for particulates, odours and limescale plumbed into the cold water supply to feed a drinking water tap (and tee-ed off to provide the dedicated water supply that the espresso machine needed...) - we're on borehole water supply this side of Wakefield apparently, and as the boreholes are drawing off areas tha are riddled with "coal measures" the water needs quite a degree of treatment to clean it up - and it shows in the smell...
 
I'm another Ilford method with domestic filtered water. If you filter the water into jugs or bottles, after a short while it will be at room temperature and you will have no problem with thermal shock.
 
steveo_mcg said:
The Ilford method. Warm a couple of litres of water up, pour in 500ml, 10 fast inversion pour out, fresh water, 20 fast, pour out, 40 fast and pour. I've not noticed any degredation in my negatives.
Click to expand...

This was the method I used no problems. :cool:
 
Another vote here for the Ilford method, well Ilford method ish as with most things I do, I don't do it to the book so perhaps 6 or 7 inversions as against 10 etc etc

Never had archived negs go funny on me yet so slap happy attitude can't be far wrong;)
 
I am not sure why they call it the ilford method as it pre dates the founding of the Ilford company.
in the old photographic almanacs. It usually suggested at least 7 changes of water over a period of an hour. Agitaion above a minimum level makes little difference. What is required is time for the chemical to diffuse into the water . After seven changes have each reached equilibrium
you are into the realm of near pure water. And so archival conditions.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
I am not sure why they call it the ilford method as it pre dates the founding of the Ilford company.
in the old photographic almanacs. It usually suggested at least 7 changes of water over a period of an hour. Agitaion above a minimum level makes little difference. What is required is time for the chemical to diffuse into the water . After seven changes have each reached equilibrium
you are into the realm of near pure water. And so archival conditions.
Click to expand...

I guess because what you've described is different from the method that ilford popularised...
 
steveo_mcg said:
I guess because what you've described is different from the method that ilford popularised...
Click to expand...

Ilford probably made a compromise between all the variaions out there and provided a standard method.
However shaking the water about makes little difference to the rate of diffusion as long as the water moves over the surface from time to time. Certainy the temperature of the water has a greater affect. And if very cold the total time should be extended.
Thin emulsions should exhaust quicker than thick ones everthing else being equal.

The original Ilford manual of photography, the focal encyclopedia of phothography, and the Kodak data sheets, all gave variations on the theme.
 
Thanks folks, decided on a compromise of 1,5,10.20 and a stand for 30 followed by a a wetting agent.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Ilford probably made a compromise between all the variaions out there and provided a standard method.
However shaking the water about makes little difference to the rate of diffusion as long as the water moves over the surface from time to time. Certainy the temperature of the water has a greater affect. And if very cold the total time should be extended.
Thin emulsions should exhaust quicker than thick ones everthing else being equal.

The original Ilford manual of photography, the focal encyclopedia of phothography, and the Kodak data sheets, all gave variations on the theme.
Click to expand...


Probably, and in doing so and putting its name behind the process you end up with the ilford method.

I've read some interesting comments on turbulent flow aiding diffusion, you don't get that by simply pouring water in and letting it settle. You might find that the inversions actually speed up the diffusion of the fixer to the water thus reducing the wet time of the film.
 
Ilford Monochrome Darkroom Practice p76 on archival washing of 1000 feet of motion picture film in 1 litre of water (quoting G.I.P. Levenson); p106 on "normal" film washing. N.B. The normal washing stipulates 68 degrees as cold water would take longer.

Of possible interest.
 
I'm going to side up with @Andysnap on this one and say that I just bung it under the cold tap for a while.

I leave it sat under the tap doing it's thing whilst I go and and set up my high tech film drying area (i.e. my bathroom with some string tied between the shower riser rail and the shelf, with some bulldog clips hanging from it). Usually once I've done that and washed up all the developing jugs etc, the films washed enough and comes out to hang and dry.
 
Since I use a Rondinax tank, bunging it under the tap has never seemed a good idea. The manual suggests a couple of methods, one is to remove the spiral and put that under the tap, the other is to fill the tank with water, few turns to get the bubbles out, leave for 5 minutes to soak, repeat 5 times. The water has been sitting in the kitchen in jugs since starting the deve process, so it's had a chance to get up to a better temperature. I tend to do a shorter rinse first, but wind it throughout to get the bulk of the chems off.

Then the last rinse is with de-mineralised water, so far with a drop of washing up liquid, but I've just ordered some Photoflo, so I'm worried about this:
steveo_mcg said:
I swapped to a final rise with wetting agent in a separate jug to stop contamination of foto flow in the tank. That stuff is murder to fully remove.
Click to expand...

Unless I completely change my approach, the water plus Photoflo is going in the tank like the other rinses. What level of "murder" will it take to clean it out? (I sort-of-assumed that something that can be substituted by washing up liquid would not stick around!)
 
I have to say I've never noticed a problem getting Fotoflo out of my tank. Although now I am worried it's in there causing havoc! :D
 
ChrisR said:
Unless I completely change my approach, the water plus Photoflo is going in the tank like the other rinses. What level of "murder" will it take to clean it out? (I sort-of-assumed that something that can be substituted by washing up liquid would not stick around!)
Click to expand...

mothdust said:
I have to say I've never noticed a problem getting Fotoflo out of my tank. Although now I am worried it's in there causing havoc! :D
Click to expand...

I always found the water is still bubbly even after I've rinsed the tank a few times same with the jug I now use for final rinse. Maybe I should have used mechanical or chemical aids to clean it but I've gotten used to using a separate container.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top