Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Equipment > Darkroom

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 5th November 2019, 10:02 PM
Nat Polton Nat Polton is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 757
Default

I first heard of the water saving method of washing film over thirty years ago when it was mentioned in a photography magazine. At the time there was a drought on in the UK, hosepipe bans etc. and some smaller districts had to get their water from bowsers in the street.
I must admit in those days saving the planet was not at the top of my list of things to do.

I had it in my head from some place that washing films at very low temperatures did not clear the chemicals out as well as using warmish water.
We didn't have a mixer tap for the hot and cold water in those days so I used to mix up a couple of buckets of water to rinse out the tank. The other reason I did not like running very cold water straight from the tap was the fear of reticulation of the emulsion. A thing I had seen in textbooks but never experience myself. Then I read the water saving method of washing.
So over thirty years ago I was using the "Ilford Method" for my own selfish reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 5th November 2019, 11:36 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nat Polton View Post
So over thirty years ago I was using the "Ilford Method" for my own selfish reasons.
What dire things, if any, have happened to your 30 year old films as a result?

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 6th November 2019, 08:51 AM
Anon01 Anon01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nat Polton View Post
I first heard of the water saving method of washing film over thirty years ago when it was mentioned in a photography magazine. At the time there was a drought on in the UK, hosepipe bans etc. and some smaller districts had to get their water from bowsers in the street.
I must admit in those days saving the planet was not at the top of my list of things to do.

I had it in my head from some place that washing films at very low temperatures did not clear the chemicals out as well as using warmish water.
We didn't have a mixer tap for the hot and cold water in those days so I used to mix up a couple of buckets of water to rinse out the tank. The other reason I did not like running very cold water straight from the tap was the fear of reticulation of the emulsion. A thing I had seen in textbooks but never experience myself. Then I read the water saving method of washing.
So over thirty years ago I was using the "Ilford Method" for my own selfish reasons.
YES

Now I remember you are right there WAS a drought that was it



.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 6th November 2019, 08:56 AM
Brock's Avatar
Brock Brock is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: St Andrews
Posts: 698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyNL View Post
Just out of curiosity, who is responsible for checking the accuracy of articles published on the emulsive website?



I think forum conversations are different than websites that act like "publishers". So who's responsible for fact-checking the content and claims made by the authors?


“Emulsive” can maybe answer that one, Marty. From where I stand, there is no checking at all. People who have been using film for ten minutes can have their say in an article on the website and it’s usually bollocks. Conclusions are drawn from, perhaps, an inexperienced person’s first or second film and passed on to impressionable hipsters. HP5 can, for instance, be written off for whatever fault based on a new users first go with it. We’re certainly not talking Geoffrey Crawley here.

As for me showing respect for the Emulsive website, that’s difficult as I’d actually need to have some.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Online Darkroom
www.onlinedarkroom.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 6th November 2019, 10:32 AM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nat Polton View Post
I first heard of the water saving method of washing film over thirty years ago when it was mentioned in a photography magazine. At the time there was a drought on in the UK, hosepipe bans etc. and some smaller districts had to get their water from bowsers in the street.
I must admit in those days saving the planet was not at the top of my list of things to do.

I had it in my head from some place that washing films at very low temperatures did not clear the chemicals out as well as using warmish water.
We didn't have a mixer tap for the hot and cold water in those days so I used to mix up a couple of buckets of water to rinse out the tank. The other reason I did not like running very cold water straight from the tap was the fear of reticulation of the emulsion. A thing I had seen in textbooks but never experience myself. Then I read the water saving method of washing.
So over thirty years ago I was using the "Ilford Method" for my own selfish reasons.
I have been using the so called Ilford Method of film washing for at least 50 years, I was shown this method by mu Uncle, who had been taking photographs for as long as I can remember, so there is nothing new under the sun, and Mike, I have negatives for 50 years ago, venerable Verichrome pan and Tri x, some 127 from a Brownie Starmite, others 120 and 35mm from a Zenit, and they are fine, the only difference I was taught was to give an extra wash, so 5,10,20,40 very slow inversons
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 6th November 2019, 02:50 PM
Nat Polton Nat Polton is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 757
Default

I cannot match Richard for longevity. I only started keeping records in 1982, before that all my negatives were bagged and jumbled in a box with all the rest. Not even a date on the negative sleeve.

So from 1982 that is at least 37 years they have lasted well. Examined with a 10x loupe, all OK. No stains etc..

I have another box of old family negatives taken by aunts and uncles on their box cameras and folders. Lots of these were developed in the back rooms of local chemist shops and quite a few have not stood the test of time. Chemical crystals formed on some many years ago.

I would definitely recommend keeping good records to all who are starting out in photography.

Cheers all.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 6th November 2019, 04:36 PM
Anon01 Anon01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 665
Default

My negative files go back to 1974, Paterson ones
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 6th November 2019, 04:38 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,962
Default

Yes, I was actually asking my question with "tongue in cheek" as they say. I had every reason to believe the negs would be fine and yet despite Ilford, I feel sure, doing its research, on its method there is still the occasional spirited debate on another forum. I don't mind spirited but those against the Ilford method need to show evidence of why in some of their opinions the Ilford method can have dire consequences compared to the running water method.

For what it is worth I noticed that on the latest instructions for its new film Ortho Plus 80 it had omitted to mention the 5,10,20 and had instead only spoke of a continuous wash for 5-10 mins and so I asked Ilford if this represented a change of policy or even a change of policy in respect of its new film

I got a quick and concise reply that it has now included the 5,10 and 20 method in its instructions but yes it does now also say you can use the 5-10 min continuous wash

As the late Roger Hicks used to say about such things in the form of a rhetorical question: Why would Ilford advise the use of a wash method that it knew was not OK for its films?

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 6th November 2019, 05:02 PM
big paul big paul is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: benfleet essex
Posts: 2,284
Default

I wash my film under running water for 30mins or there about, been doing it since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 6th November 2019, 05:04 PM
Anon01 Anon01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by big paul View Post
I wash my film under running water for 30mins or there about, been doing it since 1970
30 minutes of running water equates to a lot of "drinking water"
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale: "Systematic Tone Control" book and test kit by W. Heiland RH Designs Sale or Wanted 2 12th June 2019 08:18 AM
Suggestions for a good quality camera "repair" toolkit MartyNL Photography in general 8 10th September 2018 05:16 PM
Swap my 20"x 16" RRB two-blade easel for 12"x 16" one Keith Tapscott. Sale or Wanted 1 30th May 2014 04:14 PM
BBC4 Erwin Blumenfeld "The Man Who Shot Beautiful Women" MartyNL Photography in general 7 28th May 2013 10:22 AM
Strange "comet shape" over-developed streak with prescysol... any idea? Vania Monochrome Film 22 11th June 2011 01:22 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.