 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2005Musings on washing fiber-based prints
Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on "real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ... So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And one of the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water normally needed for adequate washing. So ... how about if a guy were to build some kind of recirculator, complete with filtration? Maybe a big (5-10 gal.) tank with some kind of filter, like activated charcoal? Would such a filter be capable of removing enough residual hypo to be worthwhile? That way you could wash with a reasonable amount of water, using a small pump to circulate the water through the print washer and filter. The filter's the main thing I need help with, being relatively filter-illiterate. What do the chemist types here say? (I'm already assuming a thorough hypo-clearing bath before washing.) Or has someone already thunk this up and they're available for $29.95 at B&H?  SignatureEverybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky > Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on > "real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water > normally needed for adequate washing. It doesn't need to take enormous water. If you wash them in trays with several changes of water it's just as effective with much less water usage. Particularly if you use Permawash or the like. Bob > Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make prints on > "real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water > normally needed for adequate washing. I am not so sure of that. I wash my prints 90 minutes, which according to my testing is at most 15 minutes more than they need. I run about 2 litres/minute through the washer. Now the overflow from the washer is the water I use to temper all my processing baths, so I get either the tempering or the washing for free, except the last bit. > So ... how about if a guy were to build some kind of recirculator, complete > with filtration? Maybe a big (5-10 gal.) tank with some kind of filter, > like > activated charcoal? Would such a filter be capable of removing enough > residual > hypo to be worthwhile? I do not know how well that would work. First of all, the big problem is washing out the argentothiosulphate complexes; washing out the "hypo" is relatively easy by comparison. But once washed out, what you might wish to do is remove these complexes from the water. It is done, commercially, from the fixer, which can then be re-used to a certain extent. After a while, the iodide and bromide concentration goes up too high, and that, too, must be removed. This stuff can be removed and sold. Unfortunately, the concentrations in wash water are too low for this to be practical. If you have properly fixed your paper, rinsed it in water, hypo-cleared it, and rinsed it again, the water coming out of the washer can be used for other purposes, such as flushing toilets, etc. > That way you could wash with a reasonable amount of > water, using a small pump to circulate the water through the print [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Or has someone already thunk this up and they're available for $29.95 at > B&H? Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 14:05:00 up 39 days, 22:21, 3 users, load average: 2.44, 2.25, 2.12 > So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And one of > the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water > normally needed for adequate washing. I'm an old-timer, so the vast bulk of paper I've processed was FB. Washing is basically a process of dilution, so any trace of hypo at all in the washwater will greatly slow the washing process. This is why the tray washing someone else proposed is a less-than-ideal solution. While I don't doubt "filtration" could be done, It's almost surely impractical. You'd probably have to manufacture, pay for (and then dispose of!) an exchange resin of some kind. I used to extract silver from the fixer, but silver is a lot more valuable than what you're trying to extract! Good old water, on the other hand, is relatively cheap and a renewable resource. Just wash the darned stuff, using lots of fresh water. Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? If not, save the water. Mark > Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain > wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue > here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put > more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? > If not, save the water. Eugene Atget would never thought his work was worth processing to archival standards. He thought his work was just record shots from which painters could copy details for their own work. Yet modern scholarship and museum creators highly value his work. You just never know how the future will treat your work. Of course, if yours is as poorly organized as mine, it will all be trashed when I die. But so will the Edward Weston and the Ansel Adams prints I have, because my estate will not know their value. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:50:00 up 41 days, 16:07, 4 users, load average: 4.24, 4.53, 4.84 > Eugene Atget would never thought his work was worth processing to archival > standards. He thought his work was just record shots from which painters [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But so will the Edward Weston and the Ansel Adams prints I have, because > my estate will not know their value. If you have published work you will be remembered regardless of short comings. Look at Joseph Sudeck he had a complete horrible mess of stacked disorganized prints,...He is a very well known photographer in the Czech Republic and here. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain > wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue > here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put > more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? If > not, save the water. I have had the same thought so many times, but look at it another way: the longer you wash a print, the cleaner the water becomes so that in the end you are simply putting clean water back into the ecosystem. Regardless, please do wash your negatives thoroughly - for posterity. > Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain > wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue > here is, are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? Put > more simply, will anyone be interested in your prints after you die? If > not, save the water. Excuse me, but what a crock. You make it sound as though he's destroying a rare natural resource, instead of adding almost immeasurable amounts of impurities to the most common substance on the planet. All but the first minutes worth of washwater would still qualify as potable. I'm all for not UNECESSARILY wasting resources, but to suggest he needs to evaluate the societal worth of each print before washing it is extreme. > Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain > wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mark Complete and total Bull sh.t. Water can be easily recycled. Using solar power. The thing thats lacking is creative thought. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Water conservation might be "bullshit" where you live, although I doubt it, but in most of the world it is certainly not bullshit. I agree, water can be recycled, but is it being recycled? Mark To the OP - wash your prints in milk. Your karmic debt will soar sky high. You know how much waste goes into the making of a gallon of milk? Yep, kinda ruins your day, doesn't it. Say, any hints for better toning in red wine? You poor boy, someone challenges your parameters and you go all wobbly on us, chattering on about milk and red wine. Mark > You poor boy, someone challenges your parameters and you go all wobbly > on us, chattering on about milk and red wine. > > Mark & your lack of intelligent discourse regarding photography leads me to kill file you and be done, bye bye. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 On 3/3/2005 6:18 AM Gregory Blank spake thus: >> You poor boy, someone challenges your parameters and you go all wobbly >> on us, chattering on about milk and red wine. > > & your lack of intelligent discourse regarding photography leads me to > kill file you and be done, bye bye. My, my, the threshold level on your KillFile-O-Meter sems to be getting set lower and lower. Pretty soon you won't be able to read *any* postings here. Poor boy. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > My, my, the threshold level on your KillFile-O-Meter sems to be getting > set lower and lower. Pretty soon you won't be able to read *any* postings > here. Poor boy. Ah David, I have a program that detects who killfiles me. It puts their names on the big spam feeds. :) Joy, joy. > You poor boy, someone challenges your parameters and you go all wobbly > on us, chattering on about milk and red wine. I was responding to the thread about "wasting water" All better now are we? On 3/3/2005 3:30 AM markbau@iprimus.com.au spake thus: > You poor boy, someone challenges your parameters and you go all wobbly > on us, chattering on about milk and red wine. Well, as the O.P. mentioned in the posting you refer to, I get to comment on this. Thanks for standing up for me, I guess, but you have to realize that old "jjs" is an odd sod, and this was just his way of being funny & ironic. I'm not offended, so neither need you be. But seriously, folks: this is a serious matter, depending on where one lives. Where I am now (San Francisco Bay Area), water is not in short supply. However, if I still lived in Tucson (which is where I first started taking pictures and making prints, lo these many decades ago), I would damn well try to conserver every drop of precious water, and not feel the least bit guilty about defending the practice. Whaddya think--the stuff comes out of the ground? (Actually, it does, there, but is increasingly difficult to get sufficient supplies of.) Or to put it another way, why *shouldn't* we try to conserve water, especially if it can be done reasonably easily and economically? I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings. One thing that sounds intriguing is using reverse osmosis to filter wash water. How hard is this to do? What kind of pressure and size of pump are we talking about here? Seems like this would be the ideal solution: a small pump and RO filter hooked up to a moderate-size tank oughta do the trick. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > Or to put it another way, why *shouldn't* we try to conserve water, > especially if it can be done reasonably easily and economically? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > talking about here? Seems like this would be the ideal solution: a small > pump and RO filter hooked up to a moderate-size tank oughta do the trick. Every review of filters I've read indicates that RO requires something like 15 gallons of water to produce one gallon of pure water. You'd be better off finding a use for the runoff if conservation is the primary motivation. Perhaps you could tray wash to get the initial very high concentration of fixer off the surface of the print, then hca, and then use the runoff from a print washer to fill your clothes washing machine. Or collect the water to flush your toilet, as someone suggested. Or wash your car. Bob >> Or to put it another way, why *shouldn't* we try to conserve water, >> especially if it can be done reasonably easily and economically? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> solution: a small pump and RO filter hooked up to a moderate-size >> tank oughta do the trick. I have done business with Fine Art Photo Supply out of Rochester. The owner is also a serious photographer. He sells kits to make your own print washer that you put in an aquarium. He also has a take on washing fiber prints that is very helpful to people who wish to conserve water and still have archiavlly washed prints. He puts out an excellent and chatty monthly e-newletter too. I think most people here would enjoy it. It is very informative - admittedly he is also marketing his products. (One of which is a film developer called FA-1027 - that I have been getting really good results with Fuji Acros.) Anyway go to http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm <http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm> I think you will find it interesting and useful. Frank Rome, NY One more thing to, perhaps, nail me as the olde pharte here. When I lived in Chambley France in the early sixties, there was a photographer who washed his best prints on the window sill when it rained. It was a stone ledge about 14" wide. Rainwater poured over the print and he would turn it from time to time. (He is a big-time art photographer in the USA now). So, for the paranoid tree-huggers - THERE'S YOUR SOLUTION. No pun intended. Let it rain. On 3/3/2005 6:14 PM jjs spake thus: > One more thing to, perhaps, nail me as the olde pharte here. When I lived in > Chambley France in the early sixties, there was a photographer who washed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Let it rain. I thought you were going to tell us that he only washed his prints in Vichy water. Now there's a solution! Viva la France! Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > >> I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings. > I have done business with Fine Art Photo Supply ... > He also has a take on washing > fiber prints that is very helpful to people who wish to conserve water > and still have archiavlly washed prints. He puts out an excellent and > chatty monthly e-newletter too. > http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/printwashers.htm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Frank Rome, NY I think Mr. Nebenzahl prefers his water running. I took a look at those washers. His method is the same as mine, still water diffusion. I use one tray for processing but two trays when washing FB. Hydrophobic separators are placed bottom and top of stack and one twixt each print. Two advantages of still water diffusion is the little water used and a lack of any uneven washing. FWIW, I've read that Bruce Barnbaum would'nt have one of those 'ARCHIVAL' washers. He uses still water tray washes, with, I'd suppose, a now and then agitation. Dan On 3/4/2005 3:26 AM dan.c.quinn@att.net spake thus: >>>> I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tray for processing but two trays when washing FB. Hydrophobic separators > are placed bottom and top of stack and one twixt each print. Actually, not true: while I had assumed up until now that running water was necessary for washing, seeing that Water Saver Print Washer makes me think that my assumption may be incorrect. So I'm not necessarily stuck on using running water. The idea of getting maximal washing effect for minimal water usage is definitely intriguing. I wonder if something in between might work well? Say something like the Water Saver, but with a low to moderate flow of water through it? Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson Still water washing with several changes of water and shuffling over several hours works just fine for FB prints; been doing it for years. I once forgot and left them in for three days and that soaked off the emulsion, but I when I'm finishing a print session just before bedtime, I frequently leave them in overnight with no ill effects at all. > On 3/4/2005 3:26 AM dan.c.quinn@att.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I wonder if something in between might work well? Say something like > the Water Saver, but with a low to moderate flow of water through it? > Still water washing with several changes of water and shuffling over > several hours works just fine for FB prints; been doing it for years. I > once forgot and left them in for three days and that soaked off the > emulsion, but I when I'm finishing a print session just before bedtime, > I frequently leave them in overnight with no ill effects at all. Other than washing out the brighteners, I assume you meant. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 19:10:00 up 46 days, 3:27, 3 users, load average: 4.10, 4.39, 5.98 It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin to wash out. In prints left in water overnight from, say, 11 pm until 8 am, the brighteners aren't affected--- at least I've not been able to tell any difference visually. >> Still water washing with several changes of water and shuffling over >> several hours works just fine for FB prints; been doing it for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Other than washing out the brighteners, I assume you meant. > It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin to wash > out. In prints left in water overnight from, say, 11 pm until 8 am, the > brighteners aren't affected--- at least I've not been able to tell any > difference visually. What about leaving them soaking in ice-water? Can that put off the loss of brighteners? Say Yes so I can find _some_ virtue for living in the winterland. >>It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin to wash >>out. In prints left in water overnight from, say, 11 pm until 8 am, the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > brighteners? Say Yes so I can find _some_ virtue for living in the > winterland. It might retard the effect if the water were frozen. But the colder the water, the slower the washing. (The converse is not true much above the normal processing temperatures as the increased diffusion rate is counterbalanced by the increased swelling of the emulsion.) Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 22:15:00 up 46 days, 6:32, 3 users, load average: 4.27, 4.22, 4.16 > It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin to > wash out. In prints left in water overnight from, say, 11 pm until 8 > am, the brighteners aren't affected--- at least I've not been able to > tell any difference visually. If you measure the Dmax, I can almost bet it will drop by at least .15 by soaking that long,....maybe not an issue as Tom Phillips previously stated regarding Glossy papers but Semi matte papers start out farther down the scale so a .15 drop is apparent to my eye with regard to them. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >>It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin to >>wash out. In prints left in water overnight from, say, 11 pm until 8 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you measure the Dmax, I can almost bet it will drop > by at least .15 by soaking that long, Why would that be? I cannot believe water would dissolve out the silver. >....maybe not an issue as > Tom Phillips previously stated regarding Glossy papers but > Semi matte papers start out farther down the scale so a .15 drop is > apparent to my eye with regard to them. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 22:20:00 up 46 days, 6:37, 3 users, load average: 4.06, 4.14, 4.15 > > If you measure the Dmax, I can almost bet it will drop > > by at least .15 by soaking that long, > > Why would that be? I cannot believe water would dissolve out the silver. The only thing I can tell you is that I was testing paper for a long time along a specific set of criteria. I had data that indicated what the final Dmax should be for the paper emulsions I was testing, because the Dmax was low on multiple emulsions in several batches I was testing I had to try and figure out why they were low. The problem only corrected itself after I stopped leaving the paper soak for more than a few hours. All other test criteria were the same. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 The next time I get in the darkroom to print, I'll reprint several negs that I've already printed and washed in an overnight soak. This time, I'll do them with multiple changes of water and shorter soaking times, so that the total doesn't exceed about 1 1/2 to 2 hours. Then I'll compare. If I see a difference in the brighteness of the highlights or a change in D-Max, I'll eat an appropriate amount of crow and will be thankful for having learned something. If I can't see a difference, (and I may ask others if they can see the difference also) then I'll figure that whatever the actual case may be, if you can't see it, it doesn't matter. Larry > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > The next time I get in the darkroom to print, I'll reprint several negs > that I've already printed and washed in an overnight soak. This time, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Larry You may only see a difference by using a densitometer. Especially if your testing is of glossy paper. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Again, my question, if you can't see it, why worry about it? I only care whether my prints look the way I want them to. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > [Washing out paper brighteners] >You may only see a difference by using a densitometer. Especially if your >testing is of glossy paper. Paper brightener is 'Day-Glo': It glows in the visible spectrum when hit with UV. The UV we can't see is converted into a whitish-purple light we can. It shows best (outside of a room lit with blacklights) on cloudless days in the shade as blue sky is heavy in the UV relative to visible light. It is apparent with most fluorescent lights. With dim incandescent light it may make the paper look darker. If you read a book outside in the shade you may notice that the gutter between the pages has a purple glow, that is the brightener fluorescing. You need a book with bright white paper, natch. The old Borland software manuals really lit up. Some fabric softeners (?) include brightener. With brightener it is possible to make sheets etc. whiter than white when hung outside: big selling point when laundry was hung out to dry in view of the neighbors. The proper instrument for measuring brightener is a flourometer: UV excitation, visible measurement. A regular densitometer doesn't illuminate the sample with UV and will not (should not, if it is good densitometer) show the effect of brightener. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >>>[Washing out paper brighteners] >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hit with UV. The UV we can't see is converted into a whitish-purple > light we can. That would make it quite easy to determine then. Take a fresh sheet of paper out of the pack, and hit it with UV. If it glows, then there are brightners. Develop, fix, and wash the paper, and take it out of the water on some schedule and hit it with the UV. Reduced Dmax would be harder to test, but I'm with LR. If you can't see the difference, what difference does it make? Bob > Again, my question, if you can't see it, why worry about it? I only > care whether my prints look the way I want them to. > > >You may only see a difference by using a densitometer. Especially if your > >testing is of glossy paper. You would see the difference if using Semi Matte. Semi Matte Papers top out with a Dmax of around 2.00 at best, if you lose .15 from that the paper will appear a lot more dull. A strong Dmax is required to show adequate brilliance in most FB Semi Matte papers. Coupled with dry down you need all the tonal scale you can get IMOP to keep the prints from looking abysmal and rather greyish. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin to > wash out. In prints left in water overnight from, say, 11 pm until 8 > am, the brighteners aren't affected--- at least I've not been able to > tell any difference visually. Well, you have not read the rearch of Dr. Richard Joseph Henry who tested various papers for brighteners being washed out. In his book, "Controls in Black and White Photography", second edition, pages 105-112, he shows graphs of brightener remaining vs. washing time for Brovira grade 3 and Ilfobrom grade 2, paper that had been fixed in either F24 (no hardener), or Kodafix (hardener). Whether the fixer contained a hardener did not make much difference. Brighteners begin to wash out right away, 30% or so in the first 1/2 hour. For Ilfobrom, 50% of the brightener was washed out in less than two hours, where it took about 12 hours to wash half the brightener from Brovira. He later tested Ilford Galerie using Ilford's recommended processing, Galerie's fluorescence was about 23% less than that of Ilfobrom. So the problem is quite real. >>> Still water washing with several changes of water and shuffling over >>> several hours works just fine for FB prints; been doing it for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >> Other than washing out the brighteners, I assume you meant. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 22:05:00 up 46 days, 6:22, 3 users, load average: 4.34, 4.23, 4.15 > > It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin to > > wash out. In prints left in water overnight from, say, 11 pm until 8 > > am, the brighteners aren't affected--- at least I've not been able to > > tell any difference visually. > > > Brighteners begin to wash out right away, ... Just as well. The sooner they wash out the better. I recall reading that the brightener titanium dioxide contributes to peroxide production with attendent image degradation. I think whiteners are more used with RC papers. To easy to measure loss of whiteners for there to be any question. Dan >>> It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > RC papers. To easy to measure loss of whiteners for there to be any > question. Dan As far as I know, the only B&W paper without brighteners is Kodabromide, and I do not know if it is made anymore. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:30:00 up 46 days, 15:47, 3 users, load average: 4.32, 4.28, 4.15 > As far as I know, the only B&W paper without brighteners is Kodabromide, > and I do not know if it is made anymore. Its not. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> > It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin >to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >think whiteners are more used with RC papers. To easy to >measure loss of whiteners for there to be any question. Dan mar905 from Lloyd Erlick, How long do the brighteners last? Given an ideally processed print, whatever that might be, do the brighteners have a lifespan? Will they last as long as the print, or 'wear out' some time before the print dies? Will the print become less acceptable at some time during its life because the brighteners have stopped working? If the print is otherwise in good condition, but the brighteners are worn out, is the print less acceptable? Must darkroom workers make prints expected to be 'good' only as long as the brighteners are present, presuming the brighteners stop working at some time. Since the brighteners work only under some amount of ultraviolet light, what about those of us who display prints mostly under incandescent light? Is there an ideal level of UV, and an ideal type of UV, for print display? Do the paper manufacturers specify that level? Just curious. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ To your eleventh question; yes to the first part but for "type of UV" I've no preference. I suppose it would depend on one's mood and what for that after dinner drink. Why be so concerned, you use a warm silver Ilford MG. Warm silver against a steely blue paper or at the very least a most brilliant fluoresent WHITE! I'll check into it. I may be right, an RC additive. BTW, I'm working with that Ansco/Beers A. Last night I mixed up another 1/10th batch and my first Beers B; a little of the A plus all the B and I've Beers # 7. Dan > I'll check into it. I may > be right, an RC additive. I've checked into it. A lengthy article by Ctein in Photo Techniques does include paper coatings. Apparently I'm correct. The "photoactive" compound titanium dioxide, "whitener", is used with RC papers. Barium sulfate, baryta, is used with FB. The sulfate does not work with polyethylene. All as of 1997. Does one or the two of those wash out? Or as some other suggested, is something else going on? Or, as I now suggest, nothing is going on that need concern us. Dr. Henry's tests with ultraviolet light may have been no more than curiosity getting the better of him. Did he compare baryta with the dioxide? That would be testing RC vs FB. And that's it; barium sulfate - FB, titanium dioxide - RC. Dan > I've checked into it. A lengthy article by Ctein in > Photo Techniques does include paper coatings. <snip> > And that's it; barium sulfate - FB, titanium dioxide - RC. > Dan Just to be clear, those aren't the "brighteners" that we've been talking about in this thread. They are the coatings that make the paper whiter, yes, but they don't convert UV to visible light. FB papers use barium sulfate, whether they include brighteners or not. I've never heard of the barium sulfate or titanium dioxide washing out of paper. I expect that the paper would have to disintegrate for that to happen. Titanium dioxide, though, has caused problems with RC papers. Supposedly this has been fixed. -Peter De Smidt www.desmidt.net >>I'll check into it. I may >>be right, an RC additive. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sulfate, baryta, is used with FB. The sulfate does not work > with polyethylene. All as of 1997. Those compounds are not "photoactive" as brighteners. They are merely highly reflective sizing used in the paper to make it a bit more opaque and to increase the reflectance. They play little or no part in the effect under discussion here: the brightening of the paper by shifting invisible (i.e., long wave ultraviolat) light into the visible spectrum. > Does one or the two of those wash out? TiO2 is insoluble in water, so it does not wash out. BaSO4 is nearly insoluble and does not wash out to any appreciable extent. > Or as some > other suggested, is something else going on? Or, as I now > suggest, nothing is going on that need concern us. > Dr. Henry's tests with ultraviolet light may have been > no more than curiosity getting the better of him. Did > he compare baryta with the dioxide? Rather than second guessing Dr. Henry's tests, why not just read them? He writes very clearly. He did not compare Barium Sulphate vs Titanium Dioxide. There was no need to. He was testing brighteners, now paper sizing agents. > That would be > testing RC vs FB. > And that's it; barium sulfate - FB, titanium dioxide - RC. > Dan Which sizing is used in the paper (BaSO4 vs. TiO2) has nothing to do with this discussion of brighteners. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 21:30:00 up 50 days, 5:47, 3 users, load average: 4.33, 4.31, 4.20 > Which sizing is used in the paper (BaSO4 vs. TiO2) has > nothing to do with this discussion of brighteners. I don't recall Ctein using the word brighterers. The two whiteners he does mention. He does not say that the dioxide does fluoresce only that it will on exposure to light contibute to peroxide production. Do you know for a fact that the dioxide does not fluoresce? I suppose Dr. Henry mentions both as they are, in your mind two distinct entities. He does mention whiteners.? Dan >>Which sizing is used in the paper (BaSO4 vs. TiO2) has >>nothing to do with this discussion of brighteners. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I suppose Dr. Henry mentions both as they are, in your mind > two distinct entities. He does mention whiteners.? Dan IIRC, he does not mention whiteners. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 06:30:00 up 50 days, 14:47, 3 users, load average: 4.26, 4.21, 4.12 No, I haven't read Henry's paper. I'll look for it. I suspect that different manufacturers' papers act differently. I use Agfa MCC 111 and Ilford Warmtone glossy (occasional forays into Bergger) almost exclusively, and haven't had a problem. The temperature of standing water left in my darkroom after I'm finished remains at about 70 degrees when the outdoor temp is above 70 and at about 63 degrees when the outdoor temp is below 70. Hot water pipes running through the ceiling to other parts of the house keep the temp within a fairly limited range. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me, but when I take the prints out of the wash (even after an overnight soaking) and dry them on screens, they look the way I remember them looking after printing, except for the dry-down effect which I allow for. If brighteners begin to wash out at the rate of 30% in the first half hour as you suggest, then any washing method that's adequate is going to lose some brighteners. Makes me wonder just how important they are or whether the manufacturers build in a margin of superfluity. >> It takes at least 24 hours of soaking before the brighteners begin to >> wash out. In prints left in water overnight from, say, 11 pm until 8 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>> >>> Other than washing out the brighteners, I assume you meant. > No, I haven't read Henry's paper. I'll look for it. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me, Eyes are remarkably good at playing tricks like that. That is why Dr. Henry used a reflectance photometer composed of a long wave ultraviolet lamp, and a Corning 3-73 filter over the detector to minimize overlap between the activation and fluorescent energies. > but when I take the prints out > of the wash (even after an overnight soaking) and dry them on screens, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>>>> >>>> Other than washing out the brighteners, I assume you meant. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:30:00 up 46 days, 15:47, 3 users, load average: 4.32, 4.28, 4.15 > Makes me wonder just how important they are or whether > the manufacturers build in a margin of superfluity. A correction; titanium oxide not the dioxide. Otherwise my previous comment on whiteners stands. As with Developer Incorporated emulsions, knowledge of this subject is little up-to-date, IMO. Testing will prove nothing unless it is certain the emulsions tested have whiteners. As with DI emulsions, I think whiteing is less used. If that be a fact it may be due to the image degradation I mentioned. For that matter how much was it ever used; RC only? Up-to-date; as of a few years ago Kodak ceased production of all Fiber Based papers save for one and that now discontinued. They produce RC, graded and VC, the tonage of which goes into machine processing. Those papers may have whiteing. Do you know where to look to confirm their presence? Dan On 3/7/2005 3:15 PM dan.c.quinn@att.net spake thus: >> Makes me wonder just how important they are or whether >> the manufacturers build in a margin of superfluity. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > less used. If that be a fact it may be due to the image degradation > I mentioned. For that matter how much was it ever used; RC only? Dunno about photo papers, but I can tell you that practically ALL papers made for printing (as in "real" printing, like offset printing) incorporate brighteners (of which I'm pretty sure titanium dioxide is one, out of several). Go to the paper store sometime and look at the labels on reams of paper proclaiming them to be "84 brightness" or "92 brightness": how do you think they get those qualities? Hint: it don't grow on trees. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > On 3/7/2005 3:15 PM dan.c.quinn@att.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > brightness": how do you think they get those qualities? Hint: it don't > grow on trees. Back in the 1950s when I was doing photo-offset printing, I never knew about brighteners in the paper (does not mean they were not there). I know I liked 60# White Sunray Vellum to print on because I could not see through it to the other side. The see-through made photographs look lousy. I do not think titanium dioxide is a brightener in the sense of absorbing ultra-violet and re-radiating it in the visible part of the spectrum; it is more like a whitener and sizing agent, like barium sulphate. I would think something like quinine (but not that, as it would dissolve out too quickly) is what is used. When Dr. Henry was doing his research, he could not find out what brighteners were used. About a decade or more ago, I found only Kodabromide lacked brighteners. Even laundry detergent has brighteners. If you drink Gin and Tonic, or Vodka and Tonic at a disco where ultraviolet light is used, you will see it glow in the dark. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:45:00 up 47 days, 16:02, 3 users, load average: 4.37, 4.26, 4.20 > Back in the 1950s when I was doing photo-offset printing,[...] Gee, you are old! > If you drink Gin and Tonic, or Vodka and Tonic at a disco [...] And strange! > If you drink Gin and Tonic, or Vodka and Tonic at a disco where > ultraviolet light is used, you will see it glow in the dark. Hmm. Are you sure you want to be this autobiographical? I'll be the first to confess I have not studied this subject much, except to know that it is titanium oxide that is used as a brightener. And I don't know where to look, other than that I suspect my prints would have a "flatter" or "duller" look without the brighteners. This is what I haven't noticed. Except for the dry-down effect, which I've allowed for, the prints look the same to me the morning after as they did the night before. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > I'll be the first to confess I have not studied this subject much, > except to know that it is titanium oxide that is used as a brightener. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > allowed for, the prints look the same to me the morning after as they > did the night before. How did you find that out? When Dr. Henry was trying to find it out, the manufacturers would not tell him, considering it a trade secret. I am unaware that TiO2 is fluorescent when excited with long wave ultraviolet; I thought it was just a very good broadband reflector of visible light. Dr. Henry's tests showed, though, that the brighteners used were excited by light in the 397-399nm wavelength range, and fluoresced in the 427-430nm region. So you would have to find compounds that did that, and were not too soluble in water, and did not fog or overly desensitize emulsions. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:50:00 up 47 days, 16:07, 3 users, load average: 4.44, 4.34, 4.23 Can't remember where I learned that except it was in some article(s) back in the day when baryta papers were first being introduced. Might have been Photo Techniques (or its antecedent) or one of the other photo mags. >> I'll be the first to confess I have not studied this subject much, >> except to know that it is titanium oxide that is used as a brightener. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that, and were not too soluble in water, and did not fog or overly > desensitize emulsions. > Can't remember where I learned that except it was in some article(s) > back in the day when baryta papers were first being introduced. Are you that old? That must have been in the late 19th century. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 16:40:00 up 48 days, 57 min, 3 users, load average: 4.28, 4.29, 4.27 Well, maybe not quite that old. >> Can't remember where I learned that except it was in some article(s) >> back in the day when baryta papers were first being introduced. > > Are you that old? That must have been in the late 19th century. RE: Jean-David Beyer I think the UV consideration a bit trivia. So, whatever it is, it will fluoresce in the very deep blue. I don't think it has anything to with whitening/brightening. Personally, I don't think I can see light at those wavelengths; 427-430nm. Everybody in this business knows the 'much ado about nothing' the industry puts forth. My guess; many years ago some modest change in coating of papers was made and, of course, the much ado followed. If Dr. Henry can't tell us of those coatings' composition we'll have to ask those who coat there own for some information. There are likely a few with the information. As for going to the very sources them self of the paper and it's pre-gelatin treatments we may be out of luck; propriatory information. Dan > RE: Jean-David Beyer > > I think the UV consideration a bit trivia. So, whatever it is, > it will fluoresce in the very deep blue. I don't think it has > anything to with whitening/brightening. Personally, I don't > think I can see light at those wavelengths; 427-430nm. Are you getting a clue yet as to why people matt prints for shows? > RE: Jean-David Beyer > > I think the UV consideration a bit trivia. So, whatever it is, > it will fluoresce in the very deep blue. I don't think it has > anything to with whitening/brightening. Personally, I don't > think I can see light at those wavelengths; 427-430nm. My guess is that if you can see through a #47B filter, you can see 430 nm, because that is where its peak response is. The peak response Dr. Henry got was in the 427-430nm range. He did not say there was no other response. For a brightener to appear white, it would need some response at longer wavelengths, perhaps. But in any case, since the paper is excited also in the visual range, the brightener probably just makes the reflected light slightly brighter and slightly bluer. While I doubt quinine is what they use, you can sure see that quite easily when it is excited with long wave ultraviolet bulbs; it looks white - ever so slightly blue. > Everybody in this business knows the 'much ado about nothing' > the industry puts forth. My guess; many years ago some modest > change in coating of papers was made and, of course, the > much ado followed. They put brighteners in laundry detergent. I do not recall any of it claiming that, but some clothes "glow in the dark" when illuminated with long wave ultraviolet. In the 1960s it was easy to see at disco places. They do not make much ado about it: they just do it. > If Dr. Henry can't tell us of those coatings' composition we'll > have to ask those who coat there own for some information. Dr. Henry is not likely to put out a third edition to his book, so we should not expect new information from him. Those who coated the paper when he wrote the second edition to his book refused to tell him what they used. I doubt they will be anymore forthcoming these days. Now if you know private individuals making their own silver-halide printing paper emulsions, they can perhaps tell you what sizing they use (if any), but no one will tell you what the major manufacturers use. > There > are likely a few with the information. As for going to the very > sources them self of the paper and it's pre-gelatin treatments > we may be out of luck; propriatory information. Dan Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 21:00:00 up 48 days, 5:17, 3 users, load average: 4.28, 4.27, 4.15 OK, I think we'e about run this thread into the ground. Here's my final contribution. Last night I reprinted a neg that I'd done a few weeks ago. Made two identical prints (fairly easy to do with divided developer--gives almost 100% repeatability). One of them I processed through several soaking washes not totaling more than 1 1/2 hours from beginning soak to ending soak. The other, I left in overnight, and then squeegeed it and put it on the drying screens. I cannot tell the difference between the two prints visually. Both were done on Agfa MCC 111 (glossy, air dried). So my "totally scientific" conclusion is one of two possibilities: 1. Even a very rapid soaking wash process leaches out the brighteners (4 changes of water over a 1 1/2 hour period), OR 2. The brighteners don't leach out. The highlights are crisp and creamy, gradations are delicate, the tones aren't muddy, blacks are gutsy, and I'm happy with the look. So until I can see a difference, I'm not going to worry about it. Larry >> RE: Jean-David Beyer >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> sources them self of the paper and it's pre-gelatin treatments >> we may be out of luck; propriatory information. Dan > [...] Except for the dry-down effect, which I've allowed for, the prints > look the same to me the morning after as they did the night before. Gee, most people have serious reality checks when they dry out. Seriously, Agfa Brovira glossy dried-mat from the Sixties (and perhaps today) would look great under exhibition (bluish) light - closer to wet than dry-down, and I think it was due to the brighteners. > I'll be the first to confess I have not studied this subject much, > except to know that it is titanium oxide that is used as a brightener. Titanium oxide has been implicated as a contributing cause of paper 'bronzing', especially prevalent with Agfa Multicontrast RC paper. Agfa claims to have fixed the problem. So maybe washing the brightener out is a 'good thing'. As museums only display great works of art in dim light the brightener would not add anything anyway. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >>I'll be the first to confess I have not studied this subject much, >>except to know that it is titanium oxide that is used as a brightener. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > museums only display great works of art in dim light the brightener > would not add anything anyway. TiO2 is insoluble in cold water and insoluble in hot water. It is soluble in sulphuric acid. So if it is present in photo paper, it will not wash out unless you use a sulphuric acid stop or fixing bath. I imagine no one does. I am sure this is not one of the compounds used as a brightener in photographic papers. It might be used in the sizing instead of barium sulphate. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 14:10:00 up 47 days, 22:27, 2 users, load average: 4.05, 4.04, 4.00 > Well, you have not read the rearch of Dr. Richard Joseph Henry [...] > Brighteners begin to wash out right away, 30% or so in the first 1/2 hour. > For Ilfobrom, 50% of the brightener was washed out in less than two hours, You are _the man_, Jean-David! I was keeping quiet because I had the impression that it was true. Thanks for the research and concern. > Actually, not true: while I had assumed up until now that running water was > necessary for washing, seeing that Water Saver Print Washer makes me think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wonder if something in between might work well? Say something like the Water > Saver, but with a low to moderate flow of water through it? Two items from Martin Reed's Mysteries of the Vortex: Writing of the Ilford sequence, 5 min. wash, 10 min. hca 5 min. wash, he thinks it suggests the use of tray washing. The Ilford High Speed method uses a Quick film strength fix. Take note of the 10 min. hca. BTW, used one OR two bath Ilford's Fast method is very wastefull of fixer. In all fairness they do explain the two bath method at print strength. Martin also mentions the baryta layer as the real slow down when washing. Papers lacking that layer were tested and were sooner to wash clean. At an atomic level that layer is at quite a depth. I don't think any flow rate will help at that depth. A slow migration of ions is involved. After the fix I suggest a good rinse, a hca, another good rinse then into a tray. I,m ahead of the game. I use paper fix at a 1:49 dilution, one-shot. I can pull a full 200 8 x 10s from one liter of concentrate and at the same time have archivaly fixed prints from a one-bath fixer. Dan > I still haven't gotten any definitive answers to my musings. Ship me your mildly rinsed prints and I will wash and dry them for you. HOWZAT? > However, if I still lived in Tucson (which is where I first started taking > pictures and making prints, lo these many decades ago), I would damn well > try to conserver every drop of precious water, [...] FWIW I used to live in the New Mexico high-plains desert where water was very expensive, but we used the same water that flowed from Colorado to L.A. and it was cheaper there. Screwed up situation. Now I live surrounded by more water than Noah could imagine. IT'S RELATIVE. That's what my uncle told me. > Water conservation might be "bullshit" where you live, although I doubt > it, but in most of the world it is certainly not bullshit. I agree, > water can be recycled, but is it being recycled? > > Mark Some places it is. Intelligent Water management is a lot bigger issue than darkroom use. There are more wasteful practices than washing prints where the water is going back under ground or into the sewer system. Like watering lawns and outdoor fountains and pools. Its ridiculous to only look at fresh water as the resource when you have oceans,...which can be filtered,....and after all land is a much more limited resource and no one at least here on the Eastern US seaboard is proposing a large scale limit on new home construction. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : > Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain : > wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > : > Mark : Complete and total Bull sh.t. Water can be easily recycled. Using solar : power. The thing thats lacking is creative thought. All water is recycled in one way or another. It doesn't simply "go away" when it goes down the drain. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Sadly our planet with its attendent population growth, cannot sustain > wasting water like this for much longer. Of course the larger issue [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mark Where I live we drink surface water (they pull it out of a river). The "waste" water goes into the septic tank -- the drain field is under the blackberry patch. Prints that turn brown after a year, otoh, go into a landfill, and must be re-printed, requiring manufacutring of new paper and more chemicals. And yes, I like to think that at least some of my prints might be valued by someone in the future. Especially my family, if I happend to die "before my time" in an automobile accident, for instance. Bob > markbau@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > are your prints worth processing to an archival standard? > I like to think that at least some of my prints might be valued > by someone in the future. It is a good question: "Do the least harm" Vs "Anything worth doing is worth doing well" Vs the promise of a shred of immortality. I believe there is no answer and everyone has to make up his own mind. I often wonder if I am just producing archivally processed landfill. After all: the more archival the less biodegradable. OTOH: Of the photographs that survive it seems the more mundane they are the more valuable they are at providing a true record. There are many websites devoted to 'found photographs' and I find them to be far more interesting than websites full of spectacular desert sunrises and mountain vistas. If they had all faded after 10 years something important would have been lost. For instance: http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/ Google for "found photographs", "found objects", "found art" ... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > OTOH: Of the photographs that survive it seems the more mundane they > are the more valuable they are at providing a true record. There are > many websites devoted to 'found photographs' and I find them to be There's an antique store (read: junk) not too far from my house in the rural south east of the USA that has a basket of old photos. I looked through them and wondered who the people were. There's a photo of "Jack and Charlie" I wonder which is the dog and which is the man. What blew me away though was finding photos of American Officers ouside an RAF Officer's Club. There were also numerous photos that I could identify as US Army housing facilities in Germany. And then I have all my grandfather's negatives from Oklahoma in the 1930s and 1940s. I'm planning on making some prints from his negs some day. Maybe they'll end up in a basket in that shop down the road too. Bob >OTOH: Of the photographs that survive it seems the more mundane they >are the more valuable they are at providing a true record. There are >many websites devoted to 'found photographs' and I find them to be >far more interesting than websites full of spectacular desert sunrises >and mountain vistas. If they had all faded after 10 years something >important would have been lost. Take a look at the back of the most recent National Geographic Magazine for a photo of the Capitol Building? while the roof was being replaced. Compare the scene then to now and that previously unpublished photo becomes something of a treaure. cheers Signatureregards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) > > So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. And one of > > the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous quantity of water [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't doubt "filtration" could be done, It's almost surely > impractical. Tray washing is slower, since one is not removing water continually at the print surface but instead manually changing water periodically. But can be just as efficacious and does save water (an advantage if one is on well water.) Soak time plus several changes of water is a good way of washing prints, albiet more laborious. This is because washing is a process of (1) diffusion, and (2) ion exchange, meaning as thiosulfate and silver-thiosulfate complexes leave the emulsion/paper fibers they saturate the wash water until an equilibrium is reached between the thiosulfate remaining in the print and the thiosulfate in the water (i.e., washing slows down.) So the efficiency depends on how often you change the water in the soak tray but in the end the efficaciousness is the same as using an archival washer. Whether you could filter out the thiosulfate and complexes adequately to recirculate and reuse the same wash water I don't know; might be more expense than the water. But I would look at reverse osmosis/purification systems (i.e. demineralization). A water purification expert might be to answer that, but you's also might want to add some salts back into the water. > You'd probably have to manufacture, pay for (and then dispose of!) an > exchange resin of some kind. I used to extract silver from the fixer, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just wash the darned stuff, using lots of fresh water. > Just wondering, dreaming of the day I might actually try to make > prints on "real" (i.e., fiber-based as opposed to RC) paper ... > > So, as most of us know, one of the big problems with FB is washing. > And one of the things that turns me off of using it is the enormous > quantity of water normally needed for adequate washing. Filters are effective in removing particulate matter, but fixer is a solution and could not be "filtered" |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message