I've used only RC paper in my home-darkroom. I've avoided FB only because I didn't have a print washer and FB paper requires such a long and efficient wash that I didn't want to attempt the wash in a tray, even with the Kodak siphon washing aid.

In reading some Ilford literature (Ilford Product Data Guide) I see that Ilford claims that with the use of their Universal Wash Aid (UWA) one can reduce wash time of FB (from an hour) to two washes of five minutes each, separated by a 10 minute soak in UWA.

Does anyone have any experience with using the UWA so as to be able to recommend for or against its use in the short-wash cycle? Also, I'm wondering if with the shorter -- much shorter -- wash time I couldn't use the tray/siphon combination without investing in a print washer. Would that work?

-- Paul Arnold (osprey@bmt.net), July 21, 1999

Answers

Wash aid works, so does Kodak Hypo Celaring Agent and (what I use) Heico Perma Wash.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), July 22, 1999.

or Hustler print washing aid works nice too and is dirt cheap!

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), July 22, 1999.

Paul;

I've been using the Ilford archival system for several months. I got the technical paper that was the basis for the recommendations and reviewed it myself (I'm a Chemical Engineer with 35 years of expereince). It seemed to make sense and I started using it.

I use a tray wash of 5 minutes, then the wash aid for 10 minutes and then a second 5 minutes wash. I only wash one print at a time to maximize the water contact both front and back of the FB print. I have a hose in the tray to create vigorous flow patterns. Since the only reason for a tray syphon is to remove heavily laden fixer concentrations that drop to the bottom of the tray and with the very low concentrations being generated by the rapid washing of a single low concentration print, it isn't necessary. With this system, the rate of diffusion of the fix out of the paper is the controlling step.

I've selenium toned a number of these prints and have no signs of staining, which would indicate incomplete removal of the fixer. The trick with the system is to fix for only 60 seconds, exactly. This minimizes the infilteration of the fix into the paper.

Thus, it is easy to get the concentration of the fix in the paper down to archival levels, since it is not very high to start with.

-- gene crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), July 23, 1999.

tray siphons are fine but only for a few prints at a time. and watch out for air bubbles caused by to much turbulence, it retards the wash effectivness. 60 seconds is way too short for a fix and you shouldn't relie on the staining or non staining of a print to determine if it has been washed correctly. there are several liquid testing solutions you can use on a print and wash effectivness is determined by the reaction you get from the chemical coming into contact with the paper.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 25, 1999.

Mark:

I seriously doubt that the leading B&W paper manufacturer in the world would stake their reputation on a processing system that has not been completely tested. I had doubts about the fix time myself, but the Ilford scientists tested for residual unfixed silver and found none at the detection limits of the analysis.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), July 25, 1999.

Gene, never trust someone who is trying to sell you something.

They may not have found any fix at the level of their standards for archival success, and those standards are usually well below most of the demanding printers/photographers I know.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 26, 1999.

me again

Perhaps this method may rid the print of all fix, but 60 seconds is not sufficient for fixing a print.

ok, I am done.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 26, 1999.

"...but 60 seconds is not sufficient for fixing a print."

I don't understand the statement. The fixing time depends on the fixing agent used, the total fixer formulation, and the freshness of the fixing bath.

Could you explain with more than just blanket statements?

-- steve (swines@egginc.com), July 26, 1999.

Well I haven't seen a fixer yet that could sufficiently penetrate a print in 60 seconds (the paper also being another variation in the equation), so you tell me what one does (according to someone other than those who are selling it) It also depends upon whose standards of archivability you base this on.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 26, 1999.

Could you more clearly state your standards of archival stability? Would you also state the type of paper and fixer you wish to discuss? Does the fixer have hardner in it or not? Are you going to treat the print with a stabilizer like Sistan after washing and prior to toning?

-- steve (swines@egginc.com), July 26, 1999.

Steve, you really are trying too hard to impress, too bad you have failed. If all you are attempting is to try to show me up then don't waste my time. My definition of archival b/w prints? Try a couple of thousand rather than a couple of hundred years.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 26, 1999.

Having read several articles in Photo Technique magazine on archival permanance and processing I feel confident in using two 60 second fixing baths of Ilford Multigrade fixer on FB paper. The fixer does not have to penetrate the paper base, that is the whole idea behind the short times, fix the emulsion and keep the fixer out of the base to make it easy to wash out. It is easy to test to see if the print is properly fixed but much harder to test to find out how much fixer is not washed out. Soaking a print in several water baths is better than using a very strong flow of water. Also the old wives tail about the fixer being heavier than water and sinking to the bottom has been used to sell more poor print washers than I would care to count. Fixer mixes very well with water and if you don't believe it use a clear bottle and fill it with a mixture of half water and half fixer and wait for several months to see if it seperate. It won't.

-- Garry Teeple (gteeple@mail.coin.missouri.edu), July 26, 1999.

Garry when I say penetrate the paper I of course do not refer to over fixation which does make it harder to remove the fix.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 26, 1999.

Mark -

I'm not trying to impress anyone. You apparently can't answer simple questions to enlightent the rest of us. The short fixing time process is described in Materials and Processes of Photography (Stroebel, Todd, Zakia). These gentlemen aren't trying to hawk a product and are three of the best photoscience people in the last 50 years.

You're long on unsubstansiated opinions and short on actual facts. I have tried the short fixing process and tested the resulting prints with Kodak Residual Silver Test Solution ST-1. The results show NO residual silver in the print.

I just get tired of self-styled experts who render unsubstansiated and/or untested opinions as if they were facts. Now, I've told you where I got my information, how I tested the process for myself, and what the results were. How about YOU?

-- steve (swines@egginc.com), July 27, 1999.

OK Mark & Steve, cut out this pissing contest right now! I really hate to exercise my power to delete but if you boys can't hold a civil conversation here I won't have a choice.

Please refer to http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/bwforum.html under "Rules of the House", particularly the second item. Please respect the rules of this forum, and each other.

Thank you.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), July 27, 1999.

Steve, I have tested all of my procedures also, much of which I get from Adams "the negative".

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 27, 1999.

Well, looks I started something. I hope you picked up my comment that I am a chemical engineer with 35 years experience in my profession. Chemical Engineers are trained to understand diffusion processes, chemical reactions and analytical techniques. My background includes running a wet chemistry quality control analytical lab and development of chemical testing methods.

Unfortunately, I seen to have misplaced the copy of the technical paper that I was referring to during my recent move. As I recall it was published in a peer reviewed journal where the work is subject to review and replication of the experimental method by other scientists. Thus my interest in reviewing the basic technical work leading to Ilfords conclusions, before adopting the method for my own work.

I've co-authored three text books and written 70 + technical papers including a number in peer reviewed journals. Most scientist and engineers would not stake their professional reputations by publishing bogus work. Any thing that I have published was based on the best work being done in the field. If I had doubts, I wouldn't publish it!

Apparently other publications have accepted the Ilford process sequence. For example, it is explained in detail in the 1987 edition of the Morgan and Morgan Lab Index. From the introduction to the index, I quote..."It is unusual today for a manufacturer to exaggerate the performance of a product. (Which was by no means true in earlier years of the Photo Lab Index). We therefore take manufacturers at their word, and have encountered no serious trouble because of it"...

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.com), July 27, 1999.

Gene, I have to go along with your 35 years experience and assessment as well as Stroebel, Todd, Zakia. I also find nothing in Ansel Adam's book "The Negative" that contradicts pure chemistry and photoscience. Having know Leslie Stroebel, Hollis Todd, and Richard Zakia, and knowing that these gentlemen were consultants to Kodak for at least 30 years on a variety of photoscience issues - and also knowing the liabilities that manufacturers face today for publishing false information - like you, I have to side with Ilford on this issue.

-- steve (swines@egginc.com), July 28, 1999.

I wonder if they discuss the possibility of the silver halide contamination left from too short of a fixer time which causes discoloration?

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 28, 1999.

I'm the guy who posed the original question in this discussion. I've learned a lot from the answers of you folks who, obviousl, are better informed than I.

I respect your knowledge and spirit of helpfulness, and I can now proceed to use the Ilford short-fix, short-wash process in confidence. Without your comments I might never have used it at all.

Thanks to all of you who were kind enough to express your opinions.

This web site, including its readers/contributors, serves us all well.

-- Paul Arnold (osprey@bmt.net), July 28, 1999.

Paul, I'm glad you've found this discussion useful.

Unfortunately I had to edit some comments and delete others that were posted after my warning message yesterday because they were in voilation of the "Rules of the House". It's not something I feel comfortable doing, nor do I really have the time for it, but I do want to preserve these forums as a place where people can go and ask questions and give advice without the fear of having their heads bitten off.

To all, thanks for your cooperation.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), July 28, 1999.

Paul,

Don't use Ilfords data as the gospel. Some papers, Kodak Elite for one, do not respond well to the short fixing times using rapid fixer. There is only one way to be sure and that is to test yourself or use someone data that you can trust.

-- Garry Teeple (gteeple@mail.coin.missouri.edu), July 29, 1999.

"Don't use Ilfords data as the gospel. "

thank God someone understands!

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 29, 1999.

Gene,

Earlier in this thread you mentioned fixer being heavier and settling to the bottom. Doesnt it just go into solution and therefore would be uniformly disbursed throughout. This would lead to the conclusion that washing paper is basically a leaching process whereby one provides an environment where the fixer is more and more dilute until it is effectively eliminated for practical purposes?

-- Jim Steele (jdsteele@hotmail.com), July 31, 1999.

Jim;

The idea that hypo is heavier than water is the rationale behind the use of a syphon in a tray. I don't buy it. Anyway with the Ilford short fix process and only washing one print at a time in a shallow tray, there is no need for it. I print for exhibition 95% of the time and therefore I handle only one 11x14 or 16x20 print at a time (often the only print in a 3 hour darkroom session). I considered getting an archival washer to hold at least 6-16x20's but looked at the way I was working and decided against getting one at least at this point in time. Once I retire and have the time to do more darkroom work, I may reconsider.

I'm pretty careful about timing, especially the fix time. Since it is so short, it is easy to do. I don't let work prints or test strips pile up in the fix or the archival washing train. Only the final print gets to the archival wash. Every thing else goes directly to a separate holding tray and then to the trash can at the end of the session. Work prints that I want to hold for further evaluation are subjected to a short wash and then drying on separate screens from the final prints.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), August 02, 1999.

Just how long does it take to get the fix out of the thiiiiiiiinnnnnn emulsion? Shouldn't take that long unless you have soaked the print in hypo for way too long. My prints hang on a wall that gets a lot of sun light and they are still pristine after a few years with nop discoloration anbd no silvering out at all. But you should still test your methods. That's the only way to be sure. Somew papers are harder to wash than others. Test it. james

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), August 07, 1999.

1) Sell your home or break the lease! 2) Buy/lease home on or near enought to ocean to have saline water out back. 3) Hook up pumps to circulate sea water. (separate sink for sea water washing??)

After a washing in sea water, prints/negs wash very fast in the fresh water.

Anyone have more specs/info on th

-- Larry Welker (lwelker@turbont.net), November 07, 1999.