View Single Post
  #8  
Old 14th August 2020, 11:50 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default

Given the relatively low price of water and the quantities were are talking about there would seem to be a logic in the question that the late Roger Hicks used to pose when the question of the Ilford method arose as it often did on forums which is: Why would llford take the gamble of advocating a washing regime in writing if it knew it carried risks and it had any evidence that extra dumps are likely to improve matters? My own additional comment now: "Would this not be the equivalent of Ilford shooting itself in the foot"

I would have thought that the Ilford method has been around long enough by now for the signs of its flaws, if there are any, to be now beginning to show in damage to negatives

I cannot swear on a stack of bibles that I definitely never exceeded the number of dumps in the Ilford method in my early days when whatever was written by the maker was my bible but I strongly suspect that a number of my early home processed films were washed with the 5, 10 and 20 inversions then dump routine.

I can see no deterioration in those negatives as yet but only 15 years maximum have passed and in terms of negatives this may only constitute "early days"

I do wonder if my extra dumps are not the result of believing that a few more dumps cannot hurt placing me in the ultra conservative group of the human race where the brain as a result of nature or nurture does not let me rest easy unless I do something extra to enable my brain to remain untroubled. I belong to the " one extra dump for luck or just in case" category of temperament.

Mike
Reply With Quote