I am moving to a new house where there is well water and a sceptic tank. I
wish to continue to process my black and white materials archivally. I
remember reading somewhere in one of Ansel Adams books about using a limited
amount of water when it was scarce. I think you fill the tank or tray, let
it sit for a length of time with agitation, then discard and repeat.
Is anyone doing this?
How do you know that you have processed adequately?
Am I just dreaming that this is possible to do?
thanks all in advance,
Michael McCarthy
The Wogster - 20 Oct 2004 18:44 GMT
> I am moving to a new house where there is well water and a sceptic tank. I
> wish to continue to process my black and white materials archivally. I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> How do you know that you have processed adequately?
> Am I just dreaming that this is possible to do?
Go to the Ilford website, look at the technical specifications sheet for
FP-4 under rinsing, it gives a method, for doing this as well.
W
jjs - 20 Oct 2004 19:26 GMT
> Go to the Ilford website, look at the technical specifications sheet for
> FP-4 under rinsing, it gives a method, for doing this as well.
Which reminds me - you can wash film in bitters (that swill the British call
tap beer). It's cheaper than clean water.
Stu - 27 Oct 2004 11:05 GMT
> > Go to the Ilford website, look at the technical specifications sheet for
> > FP-4 under rinsing, it gives a method, for doing this as well.
>
> Which reminds me - you can wash film in bitters (that swill the British call
> tap beer). It's cheaper than clean water.
(lighthearted, please no angry responses!)
Swill!? SWILL!? And that's Bitter, in the singular.
Tap beer? I assume you are referring to 'Cask Conditioned Real Ale',
the envy of the World. I'm sad to say it is not as cheap as tap water,
about five bucks a pint in central London at the last count. Still,
I'd much rather drink it than that 'That beer' (no names but you know
which I mean) some thoughtful marketing person in US has polluted the
world with. You could use it as an indicator stop bath. If it looks
and tastes like p**s when it goes in, and P**s when it comes out, it's
definately 'That beer'.
jjs - 27 Oct 2004 12:22 GMT
> [...] Still,
> I'd much rather drink it than that 'That beer' (no names but you know
> which I mean) some thoughtful marketing person in US has polluted the
> world with. You could use it as an indicator stop bath. If it looks
> and tastes like p**s when it goes in, and P**s when it comes out, it's
> definately 'That beer'.
The presidents of Coors, Budweiser and Guinness meet for lunch and when
asked what they would have to drink, Mister Coors said, "A Coors of course."
and the president of Budweiser ordered a Bud. When asked, the president of
Guinness said, "I will have a Pepsi, please." The American beer mavens
looked shocked and asked why he was having a soft drink. The Guinness man
answered, "Well gentlemen, if you aren't drinking beer then neither will I."
Pieter Litchfield - 27 Oct 2004 23:22 GMT
Too bad they didn't try an Alaska Amber. It's just a bit of a walk to get
one from here though.....
>> [...] Still,
>> I'd much rather drink it than that 'That beer' (no names but you know
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Guinness man answered, "Well gentlemen, if you aren't drinking beer then
> neither will I."
jjs - 28 Oct 2004 01:06 GMT
> Too bad they didn't try an Alaska Amber. It's just a bit of a walk to get
> one from here though.....
Ah, Pieter, how you tease us. Are you volunteering to be our midwest
American source? I'll take 10 cases of 25. Thank you! :}
jjs - 20 Oct 2004 19:26 GMT
>I am moving to a new house where there is well water and a sceptic tank. I
> wish to continue to process my black and white materials archivally.
Set up a rain barrel. No kidding.
A renounded photographer today once washed his prints on the cement ledge of
his home in France when it rained. He still has those prints. Most
excellent.
Mark in Maine - 20 Oct 2004 19:56 GMT
Michael
You may want to check with the local people familiar with your septic
system. I am also on a septic, although I have city water. Rinse
water is not a big problem for the system. I do take some of my
exhausted chemicals down for disposal rather than dump them into the
septic (I dump developers and stop, I save fix and toner).
Although getting back to your original question, I believe that David
Vestal, in a book on B&W that he wrote, probably in the 60s, claimed
that you could rinse your prints in still water, for a long time (I
think that it was hrs) and that it would give you an archival wash.
Mark
>I am moving to a new house where there is well water and a sceptic tank. I
>wish to continue to process my black and white materials archivally. I
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>thanks all in advance,
>Michael McCarthy
Tom Phillips - 21 Oct 2004 00:02 GMT
> I am moving to a new house where there is well water and a sceptic tank. I
> wish to continue to process my black and white materials archivally. I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> How do you know that you have processed adequately?
> Am I just dreaming that this is possible to do?
Dan Quinn here is the "minimalist."
But essentially you can wash prints by successive changes
of water in tray as efficaciously as in a 20 gallon print
washer running a 1 gal/minute. Simply gently cycle the prints.
I don't do this but on occasion I will just soak a print
clean if it's just one print and it works well.
Also to save water some use an alkaline fix, which requires
less wash time (i.e., no thiosulfate ions to wash out.) I
use the archival fix method: Rapid fix at 1+3 for 1 minute max.,
which shortens the fix and wash time (most papers fix in about
30 seconds) since it limits the amount of fixer residue in
fiber based papers. Hypo clear, and then wash in an archival
washer for 20 minutes.
The best way to tell if you are washing properly is conduct an
HT-2 fixer residue test. Do a search in rec.photo.darkroom for
washing, HT-2, etc. and there are lots of thread and formulas
on this.
Course RC papers always require much shorter wash times...
Richard Knoppow - 24 Oct 2004 23:57 GMT
>I am moving to a new house where there is well water and a
>sceptic tank. I
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> thanks all in advance,
> Michael McCarthy
Using a wash aid such as Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent will
very substantially reduce wash time and the amount of water
used. Wash aid used on film reduces wash time by a factor of
about 1/6th, with fiber paper about 1/3rd. RC paper washes
out very fast and doesn't need wash aid.
Some running water washers used considerably less water
than others to do an effective job. The water at the surface
of the film or paper is where the washing is done so a
rapidly changing thin film of water is sufficient. High
volume, so called archival, washers are water wasters.
You can wash in successive changes of water. The number
of changes depends on the overall wash time needed. Wash
time remains constant for both running water and successive
change washing.
Kodak and Ilford have insructions for washing in
successive changes of water. The Kodak method uses constant
interval, the Ilford method uses increasing intervals. They
are equally effective but the Ilford method probably uses
less water. The reason for using increasing intervals as
washing progresses is that washing is a diffusion process
which varies in speed with the ratio of the concentration of
hypo in the emulsion to that in the wash water. The hypo
comes out very quickly at the beginning of washing and much
more slowly as washing progresses. It is essentially an
inverse square law function.
Since film will wash out in about five minutes when
treated with KHCA two changes of water of 2-1/2 minutes
each, with constant agitation, is probably enough.
BTW, your well water may be either hard of soft. Hard
water is more effective than soft water for washing. The
most effective of all is sea water. Kodak wash aid is the
result of research into why sea water is so effective. It is
actually more effective than sea water.

Signature
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com