Alternatives to Photo-Flo?

Chazzy

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
2,942
Location
South Bend,
Format
Multi Format
I figure it's just a matter of time until Kodak eliminates the rest of their traditional photographic products, and in any case I would rather support a company which is more sympathetic toward our needs. What alternatives to Photo-Flo have you tried? It seems to me that one wetting agent ought to be pretty much the same as another, although the dilution may be different--is that correct?
 

Dave Parker

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
4,031
Format
Multi Format
When I worked in the photo store, we actually never used photo flo, we used either clear Ivory liquid or Palmolive dish soap.

Dave
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
I like Sistan. Is A&O going to manufacture it? In any case, I've got a nearly full 1 litre bottle, which should last me until A&O goes out of business and someone else buys them out who eventually goes out of business until they get bought out by a group of investors.
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,952
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
A couple of drops of washing up liquid works if you run out.
 
OP
OP

Chazzy

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
2,942
Location
South Bend,
Format
Multi Format

I didn't realize that it contains a wetting agent--I thought that it was more of a toner for archival purposes. If it is also a wetting agent, that's one more useful thing about the product--if we can get it.
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
Yes, Sistan has a mild wetting agent and a preservative. I use it in place of Photo-Flo for films and also for RC prints.
 

Konical

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
1,824
Good Morning, Chazzy,

I don't know, of course, what plans Kodak may have for Photo-Flo, but anyone who is concerned can easily deal with the issue. As far as I know, the life of Photo-Flo is somewhere between indefinite and infinite, so just get a few bottles now and store them for a lifetime of use. The amounts required are extremely small, so even a small bottle lasts almost forever.

I've used Photo-Flo on all my film since I started doing darkroom work back in the 1970's and have processed thousands of rolls and 4 x 5 sheets; I have just begun to use my third 4-ounce bottle. The Photo-Flo dilution recommended by Kodak is, in my experience, far, far too concentrated. For me, a couple of drops per 8-ounce tank or a tiny fraction of a capful in a quart is very adequate. Unless I drastically increase the amount of film I process, another bottle or two should cover me until I reach complete senility.

Konical
 

df cardwell

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,357
Location
Dearborn,Mic
Format
Multi Format
Go buy a few bottles and solve the problem.

.
 

Donald Miller

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
6,230
Format
Large Format
Jet Dry for dishwashers is probably the most concentrated pure wetting agent on the market today. It does not contain any of the detergent ingredients that the more common hand dishwashing products contain.

I should know I sold the stuff for years.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
The formula for Photo Flo 200 is in the MSDS. Triton X 100 is a non-ionic surfactant that is readily available. You can probably order it through the Formulary. The one other ingredient is a poly alcohol, also readily available. Both ingredients are very inexpensive.

The disadvantage to using soaps is that they contain dyes and fragrances which can color or leave oily droplets on film and paper. They can also increase tackiness. Then your film or paper can stick together in humid weather.

There are many substitutes for photo flo out there.

I was not aware that Sistan had any surfactant in it, and I also thought that it was recommended that the print be rinsed after use of Sistan. Since Sistan contains a thiocyanate salt, I would personally want to rinse it before drying to prevent crystals from forming if nothing else. I'm not sure of the dilution however. If dilute enough, there would be no problem at all.

I have not looked at Sistan data or MSDS for a year or so. I guess I'll have to look it up again.

PE
 

Oren Grad

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,619
Format
Large Format

David - I emailed A&O and they said that yes, they will continue to produce Sistan.

Good to see that there's another user out there...
 

Oren Grad

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,619
Format
Large Format


PE - The Sistan instructions say specifically not to rinse after using, and that the way to prevent a visible residue on prints is to be scrupulous about proper dilution and to wipe excess solution off the surfaces of the film/print before setting aside to dry. And yes, Sistan does behave as though it has a surfactant in it.
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
The original instructions for Sistan called for 50ml/l, but many found that it left a residue and used half that, which was Ctein's recommendation, and they eventually revised the instructions to reflect that practice. I've been using it at 25ml/l for a few years, and it seems to be an effective product.
 

Papa Tango

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
632
Location
Corning, NY
Format
Hybrid

I am in complete agreement with Konical on this. The bottles are small and cheap, and I am pretty well assured that when Kodak lets us know that they will discontinue it we will have ample time to stock up.

Second, the recommeded dilution is too much in some waters. Processing out in many field locations I have seen great variability in how much it takes to make it foam. Photoflo bubbling has caused me a number of spotting problems which is why I only add a drop or two to a tank and forget about mixing up a batch to pour in. Others experience is likely different...
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
I just checked over in the chemical closet, and I've got two bottles of Sistan. One lists "wetting agent" among the ingredients, and the other reveals that wetting agent to be a-[4(1,1,3,3-Tetra methyl butyl) phenyl]-w-hydroxy-poly(oxy-1,2-ethane diyl). I'll take artspeak over organic-chemistry-speak anyday.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format

Gee David, I thought some organic nomenclature was quite poetic and that some poetry was trash. Tom Lehrers "Periodic Table" was quite poetic as was his "Eternal Triangle" (I've forgotten the correct name of that latter song sung to a Liszt Rhapsody).

Anyhow.....

It is good that there is a wetting agent in Sistan. Lower dilution will help. The presence of thiocyanate in the Sistan would make it very useful to use at the lowest possible dilution.

Looking again at using soaps, I must add that soaps are ionic surfactants and can react in water with high calcium content to form scum. This is another strike against using soaps or detergents as wetting agents and the reason why Kodak went to a nonionic surfactant in the current Photo Flo. Some other wetting agents sold for photography are ionic. Please watch out for them for the reason I gave above.

There are low foam wetting agents available if you wish. I can give a short list here if anyone is interested, but I don't recommend them, as the photoflo will do the job (or any equivalent nonionic surfactant will do) even with the bubbles. They will burst, spread and vanish.

As for keeping. Photo Flo can go bad when diluted. Bacteria and mold can grow in photo flo. This is true of any surfactant and should be watched for. You can see the growth as either thin threads of matter or slug like 'floaters' in the photo flo solution. I believe that this can only happen in diluted solution though due to carry in of 'bugs' from tap water, or from handling. I also believe that the concentrate has enough anti-bug character that the bugs don't grow there, but I have no proof. I just know that they can grow in the diluted working solution of any wetting agent.

"Bugs" can even grow in C41 and E6 formalin stabilzers if the stabilzer is kept long enough to allow evaporation of formalin to cause the level to fall below the critical level to kill or retard bug growth. If these stabilzers are heavily used and the formalin level drops through use, bugs can also grow.

PE
 

Jordan

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
581
Location
Toronto, Can
Format
Multi Format

David, that's the systematic name for the common surfactant Triton-X 100. This is one of the most common surfactants out there and is the one that is used in Photo Flo, IIRC.

I've used a lot of Triton-X 100 in an academic research setting. Its effects are dramatic even at very low concentrations (around 0.1%). I agree with the other posters that only a tiny quantity of this stuff is needed.

I use the Photographer's Formulary "Forma-Flo" -- they recommend two drops per roll of film. The single bottle I bought from them a few years ago will last a lifetime at this rate.

Interestingly, there are a lot of structural similarities between Triton X-100 and Nonoxynol, a common topical spermicide. I think Nonoxynol's mode of action is also as a surfactant. Now let the jokes begin.
 

lenny

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
305
Location
Petaluma, CA
Format
4x5 Format
LFN is great, also

LFN is great. There is another product called Forma-Flo that Photographer's Formulary makes. Both work very well.

Main thing is to use more and leave it in longer than all the manufacturer's recommend. Then it actually works....
 

eumenius

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
768
Location
Moscow, Russ
Format
Medium Format
Oh yeah, almost every buffer solution for cell disruption (DNA and protein extraction, etc.) contains some kind of non-ionic mild detergents, usually Triton X-100 or Tween 20/80. The spermicidal action of Nonoxynol should be attributed to its ability to lyse the spermatosoids, making the dangerous DNA to come out The problem is the ratio of surfactant and sperm cells - you put too much Nonoxynol and it foams like a rabid dog, you put it too few and there's too much sperm to cope with Fortunately it doesn't apply to photography directly

Jordan said:
Interestingly, there are a lot of structural similarities between Triton X-100 and Nonoxynol, a common topical spermicide. I think Nonoxynol's mode of action is also as a surfactant. Now let the jokes begin.
Click to expand...
 

Seele

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
194
Location
Sydney Austr
My two cents:

I used to use Ilfotol but found that its effect was not as great; Photo-Flo was a bit better, but Agfa's Agepon was the one I prefer, and will do my best to accumulate some stock for later. Tetenal's Mirasol is about as good too.
 

Jordan

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
581
Location
Toronto, Can
Format
Multi Format
eumenius said:
Oh yeah, almost every buffer solution for cell disruption (DNA and protein extraction, etc.) contains some kind of non-ionic mild detergents, usually Triton X-100 or Tween 20/80.
Click to expand...

A few years ago, a friend of mine (a grad student in chemistry) was in a band called "Tween 20". Triton worked better for my materials, though -- an excellent way to de-aggregate hydrophobic materials in water.
 

Oren Grad

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,619
Format
Large Format

David, when it became clear that AgfaPhoto was going under I bought a few more bottles of Sistan to keep me going for a while. This latest batch of product is labeled "Sistan New", and they've gone back to the 50ml/l dilution. I presume this means the concentrate is twice as dilute as it used to be, but the Agfa literature doesn't say that anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…