Well not really, because it doesn't explain why the rest of us don't have piles of foam.
Ah! This looks like a possible explanation...
Well not really, because it doesn't explain why the rest of us don't have piles of foam.
I don't follow your logic, but you carry on. Just be careful you don't slur a great brand because of your unusual experience.My question was not: Why do I have foaming issue and not you (assuming that I know what you are doing which is unlikely), but more simply, why do I have ton of foam when developing HP5 and not Foma 100 or Tri-X. To me, this a more logical explanation than the developer or the water I use (which is the same regardless the film I develop). It does not mean it is the truth but to me, it points in the right direction.
Nope. I use exclusively home made D-76 (even if I should have a couple of Microphen packs somewhere in a drawer). Anyway... It does not explain why it ALWAYS happens with HP5 (regardless the film format) and NEVER with Fomapan 100 (and it never happened with any other films I used by the past like Tri-X)...
What makes a HP5 development foam, something I never experience with any other film I used (past and present)?
the foam clearly disturb the developer flow when flipping the tank.
That's really interesting. Did you happen to take a photo of the foamy developer? I ask because maybe we aren't all talking about the same thing. To me, it is completely normal to see bubbles atop the developer when it is poured out, and I suppose they could be 4 or 5 mm deep. However, they are quite large bubbles which quickly disappear, nothing akin to the head on a beer, which I interpret as being a mass of tiny bubbles.
- FP4+ Lots of foaming. Once I tipped the developer into a jug, there was a good 4 or 5 mm of foam on top, covering the whole surface area.
- RPX 100 No foaming. Nothing at all.
- TMAX 100 very little foaming. Maybe just a few suds, but nothing I would complain about
- HP5+ nearly the same amount of foaming as the FP4
That's really interesting. Did you happen to take a photo of the foamy developer? I ask because maybe we aren't all talking about the same thing. To me, it is completely normal to see bubbles atop the developer when it is poured out, and I suppose they could be 4 or 5 mm deep. However, they are quite large bubbles which quickly disappear, nothing akin to the head on a beer, which I interpret as being a mass of tiny bubbles.
I don't think you have mentioned that pox before now? The OP didn't think bubbles had any deleterious effect, and I don't think anyone else in this thread has posted evidence that they do.As for any defects on the film I processed last night - it looks OK, but the pox only really becomes apparent once it is scanned.
I don't think you have mentioned that pox before now? The OP didn't think bubbles had any deleterious effect, and I don't think anyone else in this thread has posted evidence that they do.
But I am beginning to believe in bubbles. I have just processed a spoiled roll of Delta 100 in my usual 2-bath developer, specifically to photograph what happened. This is pretty extreme, because my routine is continuous agitation for 4.5 min in bath 1. Evidently my memory has down-played the amount of foaming I get - my apologies for that. This is the result after 4.5 minutes of inversions, and again after resting for 5 minutes. No medical jokes please!
View attachment 312207View attachment 312208
Clearly these are quite persistent bubbles, so there must be a surfactant present. I experimentally poured the rest of my developer stock repeatedly from one measuring cylinder to another, and showed that I could generate the same amount foam without adding any film. So the puzzle is not how the bubbles are formed (agitation is enough), but whether the surfactant comes from the film or wetting agent residue. This 1-litre batch of developer had already processed 5 rolls, so there could be an accumulation from either source. I don't do more than rinse my tank after using wetting agent.
There are several obvious further experiments I can try, to identify the main source, so I will report back later. Meanwhile it would be interesting to hear from anyone who uses Ilford films, single-use developer and no wetting agent.
However, I'm still not clear what issues folk believe bubbles cause in their negatives? The classic air-bell circles should not arise if agitation is sufficient and the chemical is taller than the spiral. It's worth stating that in this respect too, my use of a 2-bath developer is quite an extreme case, because I do very little agitation in bath 2. The amount of foaming in bath 2 was somewhat less than in bath 1, but still there. And yet I don't see any negative defects.
With XTOL or replenished XTOL there are no suds.
The only time I see suds is when I'm pouring replenished Xtol back into the bottle, and it is so little, it's nothing to get foamy about.
I personally leave the suds for beer, but that is just me being me. YMMV
Thank you, man. And grow up , the rest of you children. Try to be constructive.I use xtol 1:1 and delta 100 in 120 format and get super suds like the OP. I always thought it was normal and never noticed a problem with development. But I'm curious what could be the cause... I never use photo Flo.
Clearly these are quite persistent bubbles, so there must be a surfactant present.
And grow up , the rest of you children. Try to be constructive.
Surfactants are way out of my depth. But surely it is everyday experience that detergents like dish-washing liquid both reduce surface tension and promote bubbles. Surfactants can even be used to create persistent foams deliberately. See for instance this web-page:A good surfactant, in the appropriate concentration, in the appropriate liquid should not create bubbles, it should help prevent them - on the surface of film! On the air to liquid interface in a tank, the bubbles are unlikely to be of any consequence unless they start overflowing the tank. That is assuming of course that the film isn't suspended there in the bubbles.
I can't help but notice that Ilford's films, at least Delta 3200 and Delta 400 make a LOT of foam, starting with the developer and carrying forward all the way into my fixer solution. I am not a heavy agitator when doing my inversions, but when developing these two films, by the end of the developing period, there is an INTENSE amount of foam in the solution. Upon popping open my Paterson tank, foam overflows out the top and down the side, like a good beer. Huge amounts of foam. I dump the developer and add stop bath and once that's done, it comes out again with heavy foam. Finally, after processing several rolls, my fixer now is tremendously foamy. Ilford films use a totally different set of surfactants compared to Fujifilm and Kodak.
I can't help but think that foam in developers and fixers is a bad thing, yet I can't see any sign of problems. The amount of foam is just amazing. I have the lid off my tank after the final set of inversions and for the last minute can watch my developer very slowly drain down the funnel, taking the whole minute as the foam breaks so slowly. I get heavy foam regardless of whether or not I use DD-X or HC-110.
Is this foam well known to everyone here? I don't think I've seen much talk about it. I can't believe that I'm the only one with this issue. As I said, most would think that I invert much too softly but that is still enough to generate heavy heavy foam.
Thanks,
Surfactants are way out of my depth. But surely it is everyday experience that detergents like dish-washing liquid both reduce surface tension and promote bubbles. Surfactants can even be used to create persistent foams deliberately. See for instance this web-page:
"The first reason surfactants help create foams is that the surface becomes elastic. This means that the bubbles can withstand being bumped, squeezed and deformed. A pure water surface has no such elasticity and the bubbles break quickly."
But Matt, that still leaves the question of what allows these persistent bubbles to form during processing, for some people?That is a fascinating link but, in relation to what we are discussing here I think the major take-away for me is how it makes clear that there are a variety of different surfactants, and that some of them promote much more foaming than others. This may be one of the reasons household detergents - which are designed to promote foam - are poor choices for film.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?