Careful not to read too much into what I wrote (although perhaps I
should be more careful not to write such bombastic prose). You do need
to give the residual fix in the emulsion time to diffuse into the
general solution. John Rudiak was right to point out that fill and dump
is more effective than constantly running water. For large floppy sheet
film, I would prepare two trays, side by side. Transfer the film to
one, rock the tray for perhaps 30 seconds and then to the next. Dump
and refill the first tray. By the time you are finished refilling it,
transfer the film back. That should provide plenty of washing for the
film in the way you are using it (see below).
One thing about the floppy lith film. I've always found that Kodak's
Kodalith film on the estar (mylar) base much easier to handle than
any other brand. Of course that convenience comes at a price ($).
>
> Now I'm curious though, Carson -- were those tests on "regular" sheet
> film, roll film, or just graphic arts films? When I think of all the time
> I myself have spent washing roll film, plus all the expensive salthill and
> kostiner high pressure rising and falling elaborate, complex, dedicated film
> washers, well, the mind boggles.
The good news is that this testing was done on "regular" film of all
formats (35mm, 120, & 4x5). All these films have much thicker emulsions
than lith film, which has one of the thinnest emulsions of any film
I've used. Washing, therefore, should be even more rapid.
(Regarding magical darkroom devices and the claims surrounding them,
did I ever tell you about the time that Leo Kostiner claimed to me he
had invented a 35mm developing tank that could develop each frame for a
different time? But, that's another story :-)
>
> > So, perhaps the answer is to not put so much effort into washing the
> > film. It is likely that the negative is at greater risk from
> > contamination during the printing process than from any potential
> > residual fix.
>
> There was a piece in the NY Times today debunking carbohydrates. Back to
> protein (like steak!) for weight loss is the latest. So back to a dunk in
> the river (or nearly) for film? But as to contaminating the negative
> during printing, oh yes.
That was partly my point in my first post. For "out of the camera"
film, I've always taught the equivalent of 10 fills and dumps (not
running water) with a 30 second soak time inbetween the fill and the
dump. No doubt that's overkill, but it is still quick and economical in
terms of water use and provides a useful safety margin.
With enlarged negatives (especially the very large ones) I think you
have to factor in the inevitable physical abuse from handling the
oversized material and the potential for contamination from contact
with the variety of emulsions we use in our prints, and realize that the
greatest danger to the negative is not from inadequate washing. If the
enlarged negative degrades before you tire of printing it (that has
never happened to me) you can always make another one from the source
negative. Of course that is merely an opinion.
Best,
Carson Graves
Carson@ileaf.com