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 > Chemistry > Manufactured brews

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 9th June 2019, 06:23 PM
Bob's Avatar
Bob Bob is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London(ish)
Posts: 2,746
Default

MSDAs only have to list relevant (potentially hazardous) ingredients - the rest will be things like surfactants. More expensive chemicals may have additional contents like better ph buffers and surfactants/softeners etc (or may not!).

Like others I have used assorted fixers over the years (now use Fotospeed FX30) and usually use the ilford method (plus usual extra couple of steps - I can't believe nobody does that ).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 9th June 2019, 07:03 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Hi Bob,

Yes, Ilford most certainly left out a few ingredients of their fixer recipe...the thiosulfate, for example . There is no requirement to list it if it isn't considered a hazardous substance, which I suppose applies here.

I'm curious about this statement though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob View Post
...and usually use the ilford method (plus usual extra couple of steps - I can't believe nobody does that ).
Did you mean no one does the Ilford method in general? Or the "extra steps"? If the latter, what are they? I do a couple of extra steps too; specifically letting the films sit for 10 min. between water changes.
Just interested to know what you do?
__________________
Regards,
Svend
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 9th June 2019, 07:14 PM
Bob's Avatar
Bob Bob is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London(ish)
Posts: 2,746
Default

Yes, I can't believe anyone does it exactly as Ilford recommend - that requires a leap of faith even the most devout will have trouble making . I'm sure they are correct, it just seems reeeeealy short, intuitively.

I just add a couple of extra 20 inversion steps - the last one with deionised water.

I also use the Ilford method for washing fibre paper: fix 1 minute in film-strength fixer, 5 min wash, 10 min wash-aid, 5 min wash (but again, I actually give > 5 mins final wash as I just leave it in the washer until I need the slot for another print). You need to test your fixer before use if you reuse your fixer between sessions (which I do) to make 100% sure it is not starting to die.

Last edited by Bob; 9th June 2019 at 07:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 9th June 2019, 07:47 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob View Post
Yes, I can't believe anyone does it exactly as Ilford recommend - that requires a leap of faith even the most devout will have trouble making . I'm sure they are correct, it just seems reeeeealy short, intuitively.
That's funny. Leap of faith is right. I admit that I can't quite bring myself to do it either -- follow the exact Ilford method as they describe it. I add in the extra soaking time between water changes / agitation cycles, and then usually find myself giving extra agitations on top of that. Makes me sleep better at night

And yes, I'm sure Ilford tested the heck out of this before publishing it. I'm pretty sure I followed their method for about a year or so, and looking back at my rolls I see nothing funky going on that would indicate bad washing.

BTW, after all the Kodak vs. Ilford fixer chat I ended up buying Ilford again. Once I calculated out price per litre of working solution, Ilford ended up slightly less costly. And I didn't have to dump that little bottle of unused Kodak hardener that comes with it. We have enough waste in our society to deal with, without me adding to it for something that I hadn't even used, however small it may be.
__________________
Regards,
Svend
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 9th June 2019, 09:11 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svend View Post
And yes, I'm sure Ilford tested the heck out of this before publishing it. I'm pretty sure I followed their method for about a year or so, and looking back at my rolls I see nothing funky going on that would indicate bad washing..
Exactly Svend. I did the same and so far, only about 16 years of course, the early negs look fine.

So as a rational being armed with all the known facts what do I do now? Well, with slight variations I do what you and Barry do.


Mike
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10th June 2019, 01:53 AM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Well Mike, I can't always be given credit for being rational . I should clarify my previous statement - when I got back into photography about five years ago (all film, BTW, never digital), I started washing films using Ilford's method, and I followed it to the letter for a year. Then after a year or so I started adding the little "extra steps" that Bob and I were referring to. See? Not exactly rational, eh? But those first films are still looking just as good as they were when they were developed.
__________________
Regards,
Svend
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10th June 2019, 01:08 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

I'll keep you all informed of the progress of my Ilford-washed and now 16 year old films - just in case a problem arises.

If there are any friends here who have Ilford-washed film that are older than 16 years and still OK then drop a line to that effect.

When there are others on another site using 30 litres of water per FB print we may need to adopt water saving measures

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10th June 2019, 01:22 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
I'll keep you all informed of the progress of my Ilford-washed and now 16 year old films - just in case a problem arises.

If there are any friends here who have Ilford-washed film that are older than 16 years and still OK then drop a line to that effect.

When there are others on another site using 30 litres of water per FB print we may need to adopt water saving measures

Mike
That's a lot of water! You know, where I live we are blessed with an abundance of good clean water (the Great Lakes; sp. Lake Ontario in my case). But even at that, I can't imagine I would ever feel OK with using all that water just to wash a print. There are many parts of the world where water is in very short supply. Ilford has done us all a service with their research into this. Well done!
__________________
Regards,
Svend
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11th June 2019, 12:04 PM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,796
Default

I have always followed the Ilford washing principle for both my films and FB prints and still do with only slight changes to the following.

So, following instructions from various books of the day, I used to quickly rinse my FB prints after fixing, which was followed by a 10 minute or so soak in a washing soda solution in a tray (= about one tablespoon to a litre of water) and then left to soak for about 20 - 30 minutes, in a couple of inches of water in the bath; agitating and changing this water once or twice before being hung up to dry and then flattened in one of the heated driers with a cloth on it.

My oldest prints, being made in the 70's when I was a teenager, still look absolutely fine, with no stains. The exposures are a bit off though, as I followed the sunny f16 rule and my printing wasn't up to much then.

As for my negatives, I don't know what my Mum did with all of them when I moved out, but I think they've gone to the darkroom in the sky. Shame, as I would loved to have had a go at reprinting some of them and there would have been a good record of the time, as I took a lot of family pictures.

Terry S
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11th June 2019, 01:36 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Washing soda? As in Arm and Hammer stuff? For print washing, instead of hypo clearing agent? Interesting! Never heard of that. Where can I learn more about this? Seems like a great idea.
__________________
Regards,
Svend
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
Film for sale: ILFORD, Kodak B&W. Fuji colour Tom Kershaw Sale or Wanted 1 4th April 2015 06:51 PM
Xtol Rotary Processing - Kodak and Ilford Film Differences Mike O'Pray Monochrome Film 11 9th October 2011 08:45 PM
The Ilford Washing Sequence Mike O'Pray Monochrome Film 28 31st March 2011 10:14 AM
Ilford film washing method - and for RC papers? cmolinari Darkroom 9 16th February 2011 07:30 PM
Ilford Fixers Bill Manufactured brews 10 24th January 2009 08:56 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:29 PM.


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