Is the Kodak Tray-Siphon archival with FB prints?
Jean-David Beyer
Rick Schiller wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if anyone in this group, especially the "old-hands"
> (Richard, Jean-David, Michael, et al) have had any long term experience
> washing Fiber prints with the Kodak tray siphon? Will it wash them
> sufficiently to be archival, if sufficient water preassure is used,
> hypo-clear is used properly; and, they are washed at least 20 minutes?
>
I have one and used to use it for color RC prints (although, with the
Nova slot processor, I do not need it anymore. I suppose I should offer
it for sale on rec.photo.marketplace). I see no reason why it should
not work for fiber based prints. When the thing was invented, that was
all there was. OTOH, I would prefer to wash no more than one print at
a time with the thing. It requires constant attention to ensure that
the paper is under water at all times. I would sure hate to watch the
thing for an hour or more for just one print. You can wash more than
one print at a time, but when all is said and done (more is said than
done?), you might be just as well off to do it in multiple changes of
water in a pair of trays. When the thing cost $9.95 there may have been
a point to it, but it costs much more now.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Arved Grass
Rick Schiller wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if anyone in this group, especially the "old-hands"
> (Richard, Jean-David, Michael, et al)
I'm not among those you cited, but...
have had any long term experience
> washing Fiber prints with the Kodak tray siphon? Will it wash them
> sufficiently to be archival, if sufficient water preassure is used,
> hypo-clear is used properly; and, they are washed at least 20 minutes?
20 minutes? I don't think ANY washer can archivally wash (FB paper) in
20 minutes.
Some will depend on paper weight, and some will depend on how "hard"
your wash water is, I think. Temperature is another factor. Frankly, I
also think the tightness of the weave of the fibers in the paper would
be a major consideration, but I haven't seen it mentioned in such
discussions. Perhaps the weave is fairly close (or not close enough to
matter) between various papers. I dunno.
The best way is to run tests yourself, to verify for yourself how
effective the washer is, under your conditions.
- Arved
--
Electronic mail sent to this account are automatically retreived by a
FAX machine, under the definition of Title 47 USC Sec.227 (a)(2)(B).
Therefore, unsolicited commercial electronic mail sent to this address
is in violation of Title 47 USC Sec. 227.
Arved can be reached at "ar...@Fair.Net" and Anna can be reached at
"Yoda...@Juno.Com"
Rick Schiller
I'm wondering if anyone in this group, especially the "old-hands"
sufficiently to be archival, if sufficient water preassure is used,
hypo-clear is used properly; and, they are washed at least 20 minutes?
Rick Schiller
Paul Bailey
Ansel Adams used to say any residual fixer is a problem. My tray siphon
never totally empties the tray so I have not trusted it for archival. I
use a washer that totally changes the water.
Rick Schiller <RSCHILLER@.worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<5vpb0c$c...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>...
Thor Lancelot Simon
In article <01bcc3b1$2b52b6c0$9f52b5cf@default>,
Paul Bailey <RPBa...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>Ansel Adams used to say any residual fixer is a problem. My tray siphon
Well, he was wrong.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
Thor Lancelot Simon
In article <5vpb0c$c...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
Rick Schiller <RSch...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I'm wondering if anyone in this group, especially the "old-hands"
>(Richard, Jean-David, Michael, et al) have had any long term experience
>washing Fiber prints with the Kodak tray siphon? Will it wash them
>sufficiently to be archival, if sufficient water preassure is used,
>hypo-clear is used properly; and, they are washed at least 20 minutes?
I don't have any personal experience with the long-term storage or display of
prints washed with a KTS, but I've seen test results that seem to indicate
that if one washes only one print per tray, it's *at least* as archival as the
popular multi-slot "archival" washers.
I find that using a deep tray (standard Cesco product, not a whole lot more $$
than a standard tray) and attaching the siphon to the center of one of the
short sides (instead of in the corner, as Kodak shows in the instructions) is
sufficient to ensure that the whole print stays underwater.
I occasionally wash up to four prints at a time in a 11x14 deep tray with a
KTS. When I do this, I agitate frequently to ensure that the prints are not
stuck together, and rotate the prints every 10 minutes so a new one's on top.
I always wash emulsion-up. I've never done any residual hypo test except the
selenium toner one, so I can't feel confident recommending this procedure to
others; when I use it I tend to *seriously* extend the wash time, generally to
at least an hour and a half, often to two hours or so.
George L Smyth
Rick Schiller wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if anyone in this group, especially the "old-hands"
> (Richard, Jean-David, Michael, et al) have had any long term experience
> washing Fiber prints with the Kodak tray siphon? Will it wash them
> sufficiently to be archival, if sufficient water preassure is used,
> hypo-clear is used properly; and, they are washed at least 20 minutes?
>
> Rick Schiller
The answer is "Yes." The tray siphon will archivally wash your prints just fine.
george
--
Handmade Photographic Images
http://www2.ari.net/glsmyth/
BENSONGREER
anyone used one of these?
tag
Richard Davis
I see no reason why it should
> not work for fiber based prints. When the thing was invented, that was
> all there was. OTOH, I would prefer to wash no more than one print at
> a time with the thing. It requires constant attention to ensure that
> the paper is under water at all times. I would sure hate to watch the
> thing for an hour or more for just one print.
> Shrewsbury, New Jersey
So please remind us why it is essential to keep the print submerged at
all times?. I know this is the lore of the land, but what is the real
reason?
Thor Lancelot Simon
In article <342171...@boeing.com.antispam>,
Fixer is somewhat more soluble in water than it is in air.
Bruce Perathaner
JB>Rick Schiller wrote:
JB>>
JB>> I'm wondering if anyone in this group, especially the "old-hands"
JB>> (Richard, Jean-David, Michael, et al) have had any long term experience
JB>> washing Fiber prints with the Kodak tray siphon? Will it wash them
JB>> sufficiently to be archival, if sufficient water preassure is used,
JB>> hypo-clear is used properly; and, they are washed at least 20 minutes?
Rick, The best way to use a Kodak Tray Siphon is to put it in a
restaurant "bus" tray, normally 8-10"s deep. Also, Drill 3-4 1/8" holes
at the bottom front edge of the tray. This allows the water to drain
from both the top and the bottom of the tray, Oh yes, you do need to put
this system in a sink.
I washed prints this way 30 years ago and they are still in fine shape.
-- ========================================================================
Keep Shooting!
Bruce
InterNet: Bruce.Pe...@comp-online.com RIME : ->495
AOL: Bru...@aol.com FidoNet : 1:273/408
===========================================================================
cc: Rick Schiller
---
ş OLXWin 1.11 ş Talk is cheap...because supply exceeds demand!
Jean-David Beyer
Bruce Perathaner wrote:
>
> JB>Rick Schiller wrote:
> JB>>
> JB>> I'm wondering if anyone in this group, especially the "old-hands"
> JB>> (Richard, Jean-David, Michael, et al) have had any long term experience
> JB>> washing Fiber prints with the Kodak tray siphon? Will it wash them
> JB>> sufficiently to be archival, if sufficient water preassure is used,
> JB>> hypo-clear is used properly; and, they are washed at least 20 minutes?
>
> Rick, The best way to use a Kodak Tray Siphon is to put it in a
> restaurant "bus" tray, normally 8-10"s deep. Also, Drill 3-4 1/8" holes
> at the bottom front edge of the tray. This allows the water to drain
> from both the top and the bottom of the tray, Oh yes, you do need to put
> this system in a sink.
>
> I washed prints this way 30 years ago and they are still in fine shape.
>
them to leak. I see no advantage to the holes anyway, since the siphon clear
the wash solution from the tray adequately. There is a rumor that the
dissolved fixer and argentothiosulfate complexes are heavier than water and
while their specific gravity may be higher, in solution they will never settle
out.
--
bill callahan
For years I used no other washing system for all of my prints (b&w
only) using standard trays from 8x10 to 16x20 (all plastic) and simply
hanging the siphon on one end over a kitchen sink or bathtub. Standard
washing time was 30 minutes (after a brief pre-soak in water and
treatment with a hypo clearing agent--Kodak at the time).
I have several 11x14 and 16x20 double weight fiber prints done in this
manner and then dry mounted still hanging on my walls 37 years later.
No stains or fading.
So it's at least that good.
Adolph B. Amster
It isn't water pressure that matters; even flow rate hardly matters.What
is important is to have some water flowing over both print surfaces for
an appropriate time (probably 20 minutes or more. But others can comment
on that.
You see, the thing that controls chemical removal is diffusion of the
chemicals through the paper and emulsion to the surface. there it is
easily removed by almost any flow rate.
--
Delete "REMOVE" from address to reply
Adolph B. Amster
do...@REMOVEridgecrest.ca.us
09/23/97 16:27
Using OUI PRO 1.5.0.2
John Villinski
Adolph B. Amster wrote:
>
> It isn't water pressure that matters; even flow rate hardly matters.What
> is important is to have some water flowing over both print surfaces for
> an appropriate time (probably 20 minutes or more. But others can comment
> on that.
>
> You see, the thing that controls chemical removal is diffusion of the
> chemicals through the paper and emulsion to the surface. there it is
> easily removed by almost any flow rate.
>
You are only partially right. Diffusion does control the removal of
chemicals out of the paper base, however, it is the chemical
concentration gradient that controls the rate of diffusion. Therefore,
to maximize the diffusion rate, the concentration of the hypo in your
wash water should be nearly zero, if you do not turn over your water in
your bath, the concentration will approach that of the concentration in
the paper, and hence your diffusion rate decreases and you lose
effectiveness. This is the same principle that governs heat flow, if
two objects are close in temperature to each other, it will be hard to
heat the cooler one up, but if you have one hot and one cold, teh cold
one will warm much more qwuickly (and vice versa).
One thing that I have not seen mentioned yet in this thread, and I do
not know myself, is does anyone know what sort of affinity does the
paper have for hypo and hypo-products? in other words, coming from a
chemists point of view, has there been any studies done on the
sorption/desorption of the various hypo species? does anyone know
where I might look to find this info out?
TIA
John Villinski
--
The sooner you get behind, the more time you have to catch up.
Marc F. Hult
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:32:20 -0700, John Villinski <~~jo...@hwr.arizona.edu>
wrote in message <342994...@hwr.arizona.edu>:
>Adolph B. Amster wrote:
>>
>> It isn't water pressure that matters; even flow rate hardly matters.What
>> is important is to have some water flowing over both print surfaces for
>> an appropriate time (probably 20 minutes or more. But others can comment
>> on that.
>>
>> You see, the thing that controls chemical removal is diffusion of the
>> chemicals through the paper and emulsion to the surface. there it is
>> easily removed by almost any flow rate.
>>
>Adolph,
>
>You are only partially right. Diffusion does control the removal of
>chemicals out of the paper base, however, it is the chemical
>concentration gradient that controls the rate of diffusion. Therefore,
Methinks Adolf really is "right". Otherwise John too is "only partially right"
because the rate of diffusion also depends the diffusion coefficient (and I,
in turn, would be "only partially right" with _this_ statement because the
diffusion coefficient is compound-, medium- and temperature-dependent and ...
so on. To get at the bottom of it, we'd need to quiz individual hypo ions as
to their druthers:
"Madame Molecule: Not to stifle your inalienable stochastic right
to move in any way you might choose, and without wanting to
influence your decision in any way (Fat chance! The question has
been asked so the outcome _has_ changed.) but which way are
you inclined to move ? You have the right to .... " ;-}
>to maximize the diffusion rate, the concentration of the hypo in your
>wash water should be nearly zero, if you do not turn over your water in
>your bath, the concentration will approach that of the concentration in
>the paper, and hence your diffusion rate decreases and you lose
>effectiveness. This is the same principle that governs heat flow, if
>two objects are close in temperature to each other, it will be hard to
>heat the cooler one up, but if you have one hot and one cold, teh cold
>one will warm much more qwuickly (and vice versa).
>
>One thing that I have not seen mentioned yet in this thread, and I do
>not know myself, is does anyone know what sort of affinity does the
>paper have for hypo and hypo-products? in other words, coming from a
>chemists point of view, has there been any studies done on the
>sorption/desorption of the various hypo species? does anyone know
>where I might look to find this info out?
>
Hmmm ... do I sense a numerical model in the formulation ? Might be fun :-}
Some thoughts still rattling around in my head since last I puzzled over this:
1) The diffusion is not necessarily homogeneous, so Fick's First Law (which is
what you invoke) doesn't necessarily apply completely.
2) The actual problem is a multi-component one which can get hairy.
3) Might be useful to single out a/the limiting species rather than dealing
with all species at once (but see #2 ). This leads obliquely to other issues
involving what the limiting species is/are and whether non-zero
concentrations of some hypo species might actually be preferable.
4) Shouldn't be _all_ that difficult to determine some Kd's/sorption isotherms
if it hasn't been done already (but see #2 again ;-} (I don't know of any but
am only now starting into the literature. This might be in Haist which I have
not yet seen. (Modern Photographic Processing, 1979, Grant M. Haist,
Wiley-Interscience Publication New York, two volumes ISBN: 0471042862)
Perhaps Mike Gudzinowicz or Richard Knoppow or someone else does know.
As a practical matter, and as Adolph and John have already pointed out in a
general way, concentrations at the emulsion/water (front side) and paper/water
(back side) boundaries are what are important for "thorough" washing of paper
purposely avoiding the A-word here). More specifically it is the _average_
concentration in the water moving past the paper which counts (most). Among
other things, this is why one can (within limits) add a less well washed print
to a batch of cleaner prints and not have the whole batch become instantly and
irrevocably contaminated despite oft-expressed fears along these lines.
Just keep it moving ... ;-}
HTH ... Marc
--
Marc F. Hult
hu...@cinternet.net
John Villinski
Marc F. Hult wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:32:20 -0700, John Villinski <~~jo...@hwr.arizona.edu>
> wrote in message <342994...@hwr.arizona.edu>:
>
> >Adolph B. Amster wrote:
> >>
> >> It isn't water pressure that matters; even flow rate hardly matters.What
> >> is important is to have some water flowing over both print surfaces for
> >> an appropriate time (probably 20 minutes or more. But others can comment
> >> on that.
> >>
> >> You see, the thing that controls chemical removal is diffusion of the
> >> chemicals through the paper and emulsion to the surface. there it is
> >> easily removed by almost any flow rate.
> >>
> >Adolph,
> >
> >You are only partially right. Diffusion does control the removal of
> >chemicals out of the paper base, however, it is the chemical
> >concentration gradient that controls the rate of diffusion. Therefore,
>
> Methinks Adolf really is "right". Otherwise John too is "only partially right"
> because the rate of diffusion also depends the diffusion coefficient (and I,
> in turn, would be "only partially right" with _this_ statement because the
> diffusion coefficient is compound-, medium- and temperature-dependent and ...
> so on.
Once again, I have been corrected by the great Marc Hult ;-}. What I
should have said was the only thing we can control with regards to the
diffusion rate (actually the most important thing, as we would not want
to increase our temp too much to get a noticeable difference) is the
concentration of hypo in the wash water. Since we have been talking
about how we have achieved "stable" prints, and many people use various
methods ranging from archival to soak and change the water type methods,
the most important thing is to make sure that the hypo concentration in
the wash water is reduced to _zero_ a number of times in order to allow
for diffusion to work. A very slow flow rate (compared to the wash
tray/bucket/tub volume) will not allow the concentration to return to
zero as well as a higher flow rate, thus a longer wash time is needed.
I'm sure Adolph, and most of the readers out there realize this, so this
is more geared toward beginners (which I often feel like in this group,
which is great cuz i have learned lots, and appreciate all the wisdom
imparted by the posters of this group!!!!)
> >to maximize the diffusion rate, the concentration of the hypo in your
> >wash water should be nearly zero, if you do not turn over your water in
> >your bath, the concentration will approach that of the concentration in
> >the paper, and hence your diffusion rate decreases and you lose
> >effectiveness. This is the same principle that governs heat flow, if
> >two objects are close in temperature to each other, it will be hard to
> >heat the cooler one up, but if you have one hot and one cold, teh cold
> >one will warm much more qwuickly (and vice versa).
> >
> >One thing that I have not seen mentioned yet in this thread, and I do
> >not know myself, is does anyone know what sort of affinity does the
> >paper have for hypo and hypo-products? in other words, coming from a
> >chemists point of view, has there been any studies done on the
> >sorption/desorption of the various hypo species? does anyone know
> >where I might look to find this info out?
> >
>
> Hmmm ... do I sense a numerical model in the formulation ? Might be fun :-}
>
> Some thoughts still rattling around in my head since last I puzzled over this:
>
> 1) The diffusion is not necessarily homogeneous, so Fick's First Law (which is
> what you invoke) doesn't necessarily apply completely.
Are you talking about the tortuous nature that the hypo molecule must
follow in order to get out of the paper, or the fact that the emulsion
sides and the papers sides are not homogeneous, and in fact that the
emulsion side is not homogeneous due to differences in silver content (I
would think the latter)?
>
> 2) The actual problem is a multi-component one which can get hairy.
Are you saying that the various different species might effect how
another species diffuses out of the paper? I would think that that
would not be the case unless the various hypo species interact with each
other. But based on other threads (i.e., using two fixer baths, the
second to remove products from the first one), this may indeed be the
case. I think it would be educational for me to learn more about the
species that are created during fixing. Any good sources to be pointed
towards?
> 3) Might be useful to single out a/the limiting species rather than dealing
> with all species at once (but see #2 ). This leads obliquely to other issues
> involving what the limiting species is/are and whether non-zero
> concentrations of some hypo species might actually be preferable.
>
> 4) Shouldn't be _all_ that difficult to determine some Kd's/sorption isotherms
> if it hasn't been done already (but see #2 again ;-} (I don't know of any but
> am only now starting into the literature. This might be in Haist which I have
> not yet seen. (Modern Photographic Processing, 1979, Grant M. Haist,
> Wiley-Interscience Publication New York, two volumes ISBN: 0471042862)
> Perhaps Mike Gudzinowicz or Richard Knoppow or someone else does know.
>
I'll have to check and see if the Center for Creative Photography's
library has the above book!
> As a practical matter, and as Adolph and John have already pointed out in a
> general way, concentrations at the emulsion/water (front side) and paper/water
> (back side) boundaries are what are important for "thorough" washing of paper
> purposely avoiding the A-word here). More specifically it is the _average_
> concentration in the water moving past the paper which counts (most). Among
> other things, this is why one can (within limits) add a less well washed print
> to a batch of cleaner prints and not have the whole batch become instantly and
> irrevocably contaminated despite oft-expressed fears along these lines.
>
> Just keep it moving ... ;-}
>
Thanks Marc!
Jean-David Beyer
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D90C89D65096A26E4741C4F1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Marc F. Hult wrote:
> 4) Shouldn't be _all_ that difficult to determine some Kd's/sorption isotherms
> if it hasn't been done already (but see #2 again ;-} (I don't know of any but
> am only now starting into the literature. This might be in Haist which I have
> not yet seen. (Modern Photographic Processing, 1979, Grant M. Haist,
> Wiley-Interscience Publication New York, two volumes ISBN: 0471042862)
> Perhaps Mike Gudzinowicz or Richard Knoppow or someone else does know.
>
Some citations for washing will be given below. I have read none of them
except the two by C.I.Pope (on hypo clearing and hypo elimination in film (13)).
13 C.I.Pope _J.Res.Natl.Bur.Std._,.64C, 65 (1960);
ibid. 67C, 15 (1953)
30b K.C.D.Hickman and D.A.Spencer, _Phot. J., 64(N.S.48) 539 (1924)
32 J.I.Crabtree, G.T.Eaton, and L.E.Muehler, _J.Soc.Mot.Pict.Engrs._ 41,9
(1943)
33 J.I.Crabtree, G.T.Eaton, and L.E.Muehler, _J.Phot.Soc.Am._, 6, 6
(No.4, 1940)
37 A.V.Elsden, _Phot.J._, 57(N.S.41), 90 (1917)
38 A.W.Warwick _Am. Phot._, 11,317 (1917)
39 K.C.D.Hickman and D.A.Spencer, _Phot.J._,62 (N.S.46), 225 (1922
ibid. 63(N.S.47) 208 (1923)
ibid. 54 (N.S.48) 549 (1924)
ibid. 64 (N.S.48), 553 (1924)
40 J.I.Crabtree and J.F.Ross, _J.Soc.Mot.Pict.Engrs._, 14, 419 (1930)
J.I.Crabtree, G.T.Eaton, and L.E.Muehler, _J.Franklin Inst._, 235,251 (1943)
R.W.Henn and J.I.Crabtree, _Phot.Sci.Tech._, (2) 1, 83, (1954)
E.P.Przybylowicz, C.W.Zuehlke, and A.E.Ballard, _Phot.Sci.Eng._, 2, 148
(1958)
C.I.Pope, _J.Res.Natl.Bur.Std._, 67C, 237 (1963)
42 J.I.Crabtree, G.T.Eaton, and L.E.Muehler, _J.Phot.Soc.Am._, 9,115,162 (1943)
43 G.T.Eaton and J.I.Crabtree, _J.Soc.Mot.Pict.Engrs._, 40, 380 (1943)
44 R.W.Henn, N.H.King, and J.I.Crabtree, _Phot.Eng._, 7,153 (1956)
I hope these are enough on which to get started. ;-)
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
--------------D90C89D65096A26E4741C4F1
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jean-David Beyer
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Jean-David Beyer
n: Beyer;Jean-David
adr: ;;;Shrewsbury;New Jersey;;United States of America
email;internet: jdb...@exit109.com
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------D90C89D65096A26E4741C4F1--
Jean-David Beyer
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John Villinski wrote (in part):
> [...] What I
> should have said was the only thing we can control with regards to the
> diffusion rate (actually the most important thing, as we would not want
> to increase our temp too much to get a noticeable difference) is the
> concentration of hypo in the wash water. Since we have been talking
> about how we have achieved "stable" prints, and many people use various
> methods ranging from archival to soak and change the water type methods,
> the most important thing is to make sure that the hypo concentration in
> the wash water is reduced to _zero_ a number of times in order to allow
> for diffusion to work. A very slow flow rate (compared to the wash
> tray/bucket/tub volume) will not allow the concentration to return to
> zero as well as a higher flow rate, thus a longer wash time is needed.
> I'm sure Adolph, and most of the readers out there realize this, so this
> is more geared toward beginners (which I often feel like in this group,
> which is great cuz i have learned lots, and appreciate all the wisdom
> imparted by the posters of this group!!!!)
Actually, since the removal of fixer by-products from paper is not
diffusion-limited in the sense that it is when washing films, a high flow-rate
is much less necessary. For ordinary sized print washers, 1 to 2 litres per
minute should suffice. When washing papers, the process is diffusion-limited
for only the first 5 minutes or so. And since we all rinse our prints for a
few minutes before the 5-minute hypoclear bath, don't we? ;-) , even this
is not involved by the time we get to the washing stage, where the trouble is
getting the byproducts out of the baryta layer and the paper fibres.
>
[...]
> > >
> > >One thing that I have not seen mentioned yet in this thread, and I do
> > >not know myself, is does anyone know what sort of affinity does the
> > >paper have for hypo and hypo-products? in other words, coming from a
> > >chemists point of view, has there been any studies done on the
> > >sorption/desorption of the various hypo species? does anyone know
> > >where I might look to find this info out?
Lots: you might hunt up some of the references in my previous post.
[...]
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
--------------D534B2094E380AFCEBC8365F
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jean-David Beyer
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Jean-David Beyer
n: Beyer;Jean-David
adr: ;;;Shrewsbury;New Jersey;;United States of America
email;internet: jdb...@exit109.com
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------D534B2094E380AFCEBC8365F--
Marc F. Hult
On Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:52:37 -0400, Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com>
wrote in message <342BB015...@exit109.com>:
>
>Actually, since the removal of fixer by-products from paper is not
>diffusion-limited in the sense that it is when washing films, a high
>flow-rate
>is much less necessary. For ordinary sized print washers, 1 to 2 litres per
>minute should suffice. When washing papers, the process is diffusion-limited
>for only the first 5 minutes or so. And since we all rinse our prints for a
>few minutes before the 5-minute hypoclear bath, don't we? ;-) , even this
>is not involved by the time we get to the washing stage, where the trouble
is
>getting the byproducts out of the baryta layer and the paper fibres.
Could you explain what you mean by "the removal of fixer by-products from
paper is not diffusion-limited in the sense that it is when washing films,"
How do "the byproducts [get] out of the baryta layer and the paper fibres" if
not by diffusion?
Thanks ... Marc
Richard Knoppow
hu...@cinternet.net (Marc F. Hult) wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:44:22 -0400, Jean-David Beyer <>
>wrote in message <342BAE26...@exit109.com>:
>
>>Marc F. Hult wrote:
>>
>>> 4) Shouldn't be _all_ that difficult to determine some Kd's/sorption
>isotherms
>>> if it hasn't been done already (but see #2 again ;-} (I don't know of any
>but
>>> am only now starting into the literature. This might be in Haist which I
>have
>>> not yet seen. (Modern Photographic Processing, 1979, Grant M. Haist,
>>> Wiley-Interscience Publication New York, two volumes ISBN: 0471042862)
>>> Perhaps Mike Gudzinowicz or Richard Knoppow or someone else does know.
>>>
>>Some citations for washing will be given below. I have read none of them
>>except the two by C.I.Pope (on hypo clearing and hypo elimination in film
>(13)).
>>
>>13 C.I.Pope _J.Res.Natl.Bur.Std._,.64C, 65 (1960);
>> ibid. 67C, 15 (1953)
>>30b K.C.D.Hickman and D.A.Spencer, _Phot. J., 64(N.S.48) 539 (1924)
>
>snipped for space
>
>>44 R.W.Henn, N.H.King, and J.I.Crabtree, _Phot.Eng._, 7,153 (1956)
>>
>>I hope these are enough on which to get started. ;-)
>
>Thanks! Looks like interesting stuff and I'll see which ones I can get my
>hands on. My guess is that these papers deal in a phenomenological way with
>the general problem of fixer retention but don't have specific measurements
>that isolate the effect of sorption processes (as opposed to diffusion) on
>retention. This didn't become prevalent even the standard chemical literature
>much before about 1970 and these references are before that. The major
>manufacturers may very well have this all quantified, but if it is
>published, it would seem to have to be in more recent publications.
>
>Thanks again ... Marc
>--
>Marc F. Hult
>hu...@cinternet.net
Hi Marc and J-D, I've been researching this same paper trail
starting with some early (1929) papers by Crabtree et al. Some are
hard to find, even here with a couple of good public libraries and
three big university libraries.
Much of the advise about fixing and archival washing seems to be
based on very partial reading of existing literature. I found, for
instance, that hardining per se is not the problem with washing or
toning, it seems to be specifically the use of Potassium aluminum
sulfate as the hardener combined with the pH of the film or paper when
it enters the wash bath. Potassium Chomium hardener does not seem to
retard washing even though it must be used at a lower pH than alum.
The use of a wash aid may completely invalidate this but I haven't
cought up with later literature yet.
Crabtree seems to think the hypo retention is due to the charges in
the emulsion and paper rather than to a mordanting effect by the alum
as is suggested elswhere.
Once the existing literature is surveyed something should be
published.
I find the current published advise to the conflicting and that needs
to be straightned out.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Marc F. Hult
Richard Knoppow
hu...@cinternet.net (Marc F. Hult) wrote:
>Thanks ... Marc
>--
>Marc F. Hult
>hu...@cinternet.net
Some discussion of this point is in one of Crabtree's papers:
_The Removal of Hypo and Silver Salts from Photographic Materials as
Affected by the Composition of the Processing Solutions_ J.I
Crabtree, G.T. Eaton, and L.E. Muehler, Journal of the Society of
Motion Picture Engineers, July, 1943. p.9 ff.
This is one of a group of papers reporting research done at the
Kodak laboratories. While it is aimed mainly at the processing of
motion picture film it also discusses printing paper.
The paper states that while the removal of hypo and silver halide
from emulsion is mainly a diffusion process it seems not to be for
either the Baryta layer or paper base of fiber printing paper. This
is a long paper and even trying to summarize it is difficult.
Crabtree, et al discuss the adsorption and desorption of thiosulfate
and silver thiosulfate ions.
This paper follows the one which introduced Kodak HE-1 hypo
eliminator which also describes their method of measuring residual
hypo and silver complexes.
One strong recommendation made is to use two, or preferably, three
fixing baths in succession. A routine is suggested for determining
the degree of exhaustion and for replacing the baths. It is
recommended that the first bath be used for the clearing time and
about half that time be used for each of the other baths. It is
stated BTW that when fixed in a fresh bath emulsion is completely
fixed when it clears! The longer times usually recommended are to
take account of partially exhausted baths.
They found that with fiber paper that the use of a nearly fresh last
fixing bath had more influence than any other factor in obtaining good
washing.
It was also found that the use of Potassium aluminum sulfate
hardener severely retarded washing. This seems partly due to pH but
chrome hardener does not retard washing regardless of pH. The current
recommendation of using non-hardening fixer for paper is substantiated
by this research. There is lots more.
This paper and its extensive citations and bibliography runs some 60
pages.
I am obtaining copies of other classic papers as I have the time to
do it. Its clear that there is a tremendous amount of information
there much of which has been forgotten.
Marc F. Hult
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 06:21:46 GMT, dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
wrote in message <342f46f7....@nntp.netcruiser>:
What may be meant is that desorption processes -- not diffusion -- are what
_limit_ the removal rate, but this does not preclude diffusion as the
mass-transport mechanism. That is, the ions do move in response to
concentration gradients but the major factor _retarding_ their movement is
their affinity for the material through which they move rather than the
diffusion constants or concentration gradients. This is the crux of the matter
because as John Villinski pointed out previously, once the fix is in the paper,
the primary control we (the folks in the darkroom) have is over the
concentration at the paper/water and film/water interface, i.e., the diffusion
rate, not the desorption reactions.
So in the context of J-D's comments, and as I understand it at this time, the
washing process can be conceptually divided into two periods: an initial period
during which the removal rate is diffusion-limited and a second in which it is
desorption-limited. The diffusion limited-period for film is much shorter (if
it exists at all) for film than it is for paper.
> This paper and its extensive citations and bibliography runs some 60
>pages.
> I am obtaining copies of other classic papers as I have the time to
>do it. Its clear that there is a tremendous amount of information
>there much of which has been forgotten.
Sometimes what happens in science and technology is that changes in technique
and verbiage serve to paper over previous understanding. And hunches untestable
with the measurement technology of one era may remain untested when the
technology becomes available because the conceptual framework has changed.
Dunno if that's the case here. (Sometime too, old stuff is just old stuff.)
For example in my new improved Daguerreotype methodology, I advocate heating up
a minimum of two kilograms of mercury because with only one kilogram, the plate
can be starved especially at the edges of light backgrounds and ... ;-}
Realist946
I agree with the need to use fresh solution and especially 2 fixer baths. But
always use a Hypo Eliminator as well.
I have some large Eastman display prints 4-1/2 X 6 feet that were made in 1935
and given to EK dealers. There is no evidence of fixer related problems or
damage and were archivally processed.
I also print from negatives (Nitrate as well as glass plates) that were made
around the turn of the century. Since they were properly processed, they are
in perfect condition.
And, please no flames for this comment, but Massichusettes Institute of
Technology has research that in some cases contradicts the EK paper. For
instince, the use of hardeners in fixers. Their research indicates that
hardeners do not have as much of an effect as once thought.
During the war, the Department of the Army used sea water to process materials.
They did this because the negatives were often ruched to HQ to be assessed
still wet, as the salt content reduced fixerreminents in the emulsion.
Process properly, use 2 fixers and use fresh chemicals and follow standard
archival thoughts and you will have images that will be here for the next 100 yesrs.
RM
Richard Knoppow
reali...@aol.com (Realist946) wrote:
>I agree with the need to use fresh solution and especially 2 fixer baths. But
> always use a Hypo Eliminator as well.
See below.
>I have some large Eastman display prints 4-1/2 X 6 feet that were made in 1935
> and given to EK dealers. There is no evidence of fixer related problems or
> damage and were archivally processed.
>
>I also print from negatives (Nitrate as well as glass plates) that were made
> around the turn of the century. Since they were properly processed, they are
> in perfect condition.
Exactly. There is too much concern for "archival" processing and
not enough for just doing conventional processing but doing it right
with fresh chemicals.
>And, please no flames for this comment, but Massichusettes Institute of
> Technology has research that in some cases contradicts the EK paper. For
> instince, the use of hardeners in fixers. Their research indicates that
> hardeners do not have as much of an effect as once thought.
I am not sure which Kodak paper this refers to. They published many
research papers on fixing and washing over at least a fifty year
period. The conclusions of some of the early ones were contridicted
by later ones.
Crabtree's early papers indicate that Potassium Alum hardener
severely retards washing. Later papers seem to indicate that when a
Sodium Sulfite wash aid treatment is given the type of hardener or use
of a hardener makes very little difference.
I would very much like to have a reference to the MIT paper. I am
gathering papers to try to find out what the current thinking is and
to do some historical tracing of the research. It is interesting that
this continues to be a subject of controversey after over one hundred
years!
An area of some conflict and much confusion is the effect of very
small amounts of residual hypo in emulsions. Work done at both Kodak
and Ilford indicate that very small residues act to protect the image
silver against attack by hydrogen sulfide and peroxides in the air.
One paper at least shows that the effects of accelerated aging tests
show greater degradation of the image silver without the hypo residue
even when the imagas are selenium toned.
As a result the use of a true hypo eliminator such as Kodak's HE-1
may not be a good idea.
>During the war, the Department of the Army used sea water to process materials.
> They did this because the negatives were often ruched to HQ to be assessed
> still wet, as the salt content reduced fixerreminents in the emulsion.
Sea water washing was important on board ship where fresh water is
at a premium. Kodak found that sea water would wash out film and
paper more than twice as fast as fresh water and the results were
permanent provided that the sea water was washed out with a brief
fresh water wash. If not washed out the sea water chemicals would
cause _very_ rapid deterioration of the image.
Crabtree states in one of his papers that the effects of sea water
washing had been known from as far back as the turn of the century.
The use of Sodium Sulfite wash aid is a direct result of this
research.
>Process properly, use 2 fixers and use fresh chemicals and follow standard
> archival thoughts and you will have images that will be here for the next 100 yesrs.
You bet!!!
>RM