Wasting water

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Here in Indiana it rains all the time and my city has 3 rivers and probably 20 small streams running through it. I don't worry too much about using water, I want my film washed correctly. It still uses less water than taking a shower, and we all do that every day, right? So if I develop film once a week or so I am not using much water.

 

[Fotohuis]

Just wanted to mention this thing.. Jobo cascade, was about 10 Euros. Genius, I think I'm saving water but haven't measured it yet. I'm not really sure how long it takes to get the negs clean

It reduces the water usage a little bit but it takes 10 minutes to wash the negatives.
Jobo Cascade doesn't take any advantage of the diffusion.

 

[palec]

It reduces the water usage a little bit but it takes 10 minutes to wash the negatives.
Jobo Cascade doesn't take any advantage of the diffusion.

Instructions say the washing needed is 3 minutes.
I combine the cascade with water stand - 2-3 minutes with cascade and then 30 minutes stand in water dumping the tank every 10 minutes.

 

[martin s]

I wash for about 5 minutes and their perfectly clean. 10 minutes is overkill imo, I'll try 3 minutes next.

martin

 

[Fotohuis]

Why should a Cascade wash quicker then any regular tube?

The diffusion process can not speed up by this accessoiry. The Cascade fits nice on the tank and is injecting water and air to the bottom of the tank. If you put a tube to the bottom of the tank you have the same effect.

BTW I am selling this item in my web shop so I know from 41 years experience that 3 minutes is not enough to flush out any B&W film at room temperature (20 degrees C.).

The Cascade is very easy to flush any E6 or C41 film in 3-4 minutes on 37,8 degrees C.
Doing that with a B&W film ended by fix on approx. 20 degrees C you will have reticulation due to the sudden temperature difference.

 

[Keith]

Isn't the problem with shortening the washing cycle more to do with leaving chemical residues in the emulsion that though they can't actually be seen, will shorten the life of the negative?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Isn't the problem with shortening the washing cycle more to do with leaving chemical residues in the emulsion that though they can't actually be seen, will shorten the life of the negative?

Yes. And reducing wash times to save water is foolish. Water is cheap in western countries, and is a lot less costly than losing your images.

 

[Beemermark]

I put my 35mm & 120mm reels into a device made to wash film and let the water run for 30~45 minutes. Is that too long? Do I care? Do you ever see what happens to film that isn't thoroughly washed?

 

[Trius]

I was just about to say 🙂

For Fiber-based papers: One hour of continuous water flow (30 min. if you use Hypo-clearing stuff).

I think there's a minimal wash method for fibre prints, too. I seem to recall (but can't reference and am too lazy to Google right now) some tests that showed fixer leaching from prints is just as effective as a significant flow.

I have a Zone VI washer, which used a siphon method to expel water, based on the theory that fixer in solution is heavier and can be most efficiently removed by siphoning from the bottom of the tank. However, I believe someone disproved that ... when I reconstitute my darkroom I plan to do some tests with HTA to ascertain how many changes of water over what period are the required for archival washing. I'm betting it's much lower than most of us have thought.

 

[Trius]

[soapbox]Oh, and BTW, just because water is cheap and/or plentiful in your area is NOT a reason for failing to conserve. [/soapbox]

 

[Trius]

I put my 35mm & 120mm reels into a device made to wash film and let the water run for 30~45 minutes. Is that too long? Do I care? Do you ever see what happens to film that isn't thoroughly washed?

Yes, I care.

 

[Beemermark]

[soapbox]Oh, and BTW, just because water is cheap and/or plentiful in your area is NOT a reason for failing to conserve. [/soapbox]

Water is neither cheap or plentiful in my area, I just consider my negatives more expensive and scarce.

Do you ever wonder where water goes? When it goes down the drain does it decompose into hydrogen and oxygen which then pollutes the atmosphere?
[heavy sarcasm if you miss it]. Water, in any use, is simply recycled.

 

[hans voralberg]

Water is neither cheap or plentiful in my area, I just consider my negatives more expensive and scarce.

Do you ever wonder where water goes? When it goes down the drain does it decompose into hydrogen and oxygen which then pollutes the atmosphere?
[heavy sarcasm if you miss it]. Water, in any use, is simply recycled.

Ever been to a water treatment plant yet?

 

[Freakscene]

>based on the theory that fixer in solution is heavier

This is simply not true. it's one of those beautifully compelling pieces of garbage that get repeated ad nauseum.

There's a good explanation of why here: http://photo.net/columns/mjohnston/photography-assumptions/

Marty