Foaming in film development

[MattKing]

But Matt, that still leaves the question of what allows these persistent bubbles to form during processing, for some people?

The combination of the small amounts of surfactant in the emulsion that some films have, the water and developer used by those people, the tanks, reels and setup used by those people, including how much air and liquid is in the tank, the temperature, and the agitation schemes used by those people.
And of course that doesn't deal with the more important question about whether or not the foam matters.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Household detergents has other chemicals that can be damaging for the film. Search the website for PE's discussions about household detergents.

 

[mshchem]

The combination of the small amounts of surfactant in the emulsion that some films have, the water and developer used by those people, the tanks, reels and setup used by those people, including how much air and liquid is in the tank, the temperature, and the agitation schemes used by those people.
And of course that doesn't deal with the more important question about whether or not the foam matters.

Important point of whether foaming matters? I've never had any real problems. I agree that you wouldn't want to pollute your system with a crazy amount of liquid dish soap is a bad idea..
Most of the surfactants used in chemical processes are anti-frothing agents. I use RO water for my final rinses, I still use Photo-flo, let's the water run off and speeds drying.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

My Jobo tank gets filled with tons of foam during development - so much that it prevents the developer from flowing quickly during inversion (I don't shake - just invert 6 times for 10 seconds - every 60 seconds). I haven't noticed any problems with my films during the last 30 years so it's probably not an issue - but I'd prefer the developer to flow more smoothly during inversion and it would be interesting to know why some people have no foam. I use distilled water with xtol and delta 100 in 120 format. Maybe there is a difference between film formats? Or distilled water types?

 

[Rayt]

I have been home processing film for 30 years and never encountered this much foam and I have shot all formats from 135 to 8x10 many brands of film and chemicals. And I always just use tap water.

 

[hoffy]

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.

Sorry - Missed your replies.

I am not sure whether it causes any issues, but I have had Pox on FP4+ quite regularly.

Now, could the foaming be causing this? Well, I really don't know. Obviously, since it happens, I want to at least eliminate it as a cause.

Yes, there could be other issues. It could be poor storage and age - I typically stored all my film in the freezer and then the fridge and then let them acclimatise before using. It do wonder, though, whether I get moisture from the temp changes, which also seems legit. I know there have been threads and admissions from Ilford that there have been issues.

I think my next actual step, if I want to continue using the film, is buy some fresh stock, store at room temp and see how it goes.

BTW, the foaming I see in your images is pretty much what I see. Based on what you are saying and others, maybe its simply some poor stock that I own and the foaming has no bearing on the issue.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I routinely get a lot of foam when developing TMY400 roll film in Jobo hand inversion tanks using PMK pyro. I haven't sleuthed the specific reason for this, and it's the only combination of things which produces it in my case. But I haven't had any adverse effect from it, like streaking or bubble marks on the negatives.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I fully agree with your answer. Kodak's Photo Flo builds up on reels whether plastic or stainless steel and acts as a catalyst among other problems. Rinsing in hot water does not remove it. Only a hard scrubbing with a brush will do so. When I began teaching at the local college it was a big problem until we hand scrubbed each reel and switched to a different surfactant. The foaming and catalytic action went away immediately.

Time to time, I put my SS film developing reels in the dishwasher to have them thoroughly clean...

But if this problem might persist and annoys you so much, try to find a bottle of this:

 

[snusmumriken]

I said in post #112 that I would report back after trying a couple of things. So today I tried two things.

First, I took the tank and spiral with which I had previously generated the foam. There was a possibility that they carried wetting agent residue, because I merely rinse the tank and spiral after the final wash with wetting agent. So I poured 400ml of plain tap water into the tank and inverted it continuously for 5 minutes. No foam whatsoever. I didn't really think there would be.

Next, there was the possibility that my re-used 2-bath developer carried a build-up of surfactant from previous films. I developed a Kodak Double-X film, using a brand-new tank and spiral that I've been keeping as a reserve, and re-using the same chemicals as in post #112. Again, I performed constant inversion agitation for 4 min in bath 1, then every 30 sec for 4 min in bath 2. At the end of bath 1 there were about 10 bubbles, not enough to even take a picture. After bath 2 there were 3 bubbles.

So subject to further experience, I am beginning to believe the OP's proposal that heavy foaming is an Ilford thing, even if it doesn't happen to everyone or in every case. But I must also point out that no-one has so far produced evidence that foaming is in any way deleterious. It occurs to me that the same circumstances (e.g. heavy agitation) that create a lot of bubbles probably also continuously dislodge them? So this is all very interesting, but it's probably a storm in a teacup (neat metaphor, huh?). Anyway, I'm sticking with my preference for Ilford films.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Sailors who had to scrub the deck, will tell you that soapy water made with seawater doesn't foam, perhaps is there the solution, a pre-rinse in saltwater followed by a short wash in tapwater to eliminate the Sodium Chloride, who knows?

BTW, I never had that kind of issue with Ilford film, AAMOF, I am transitioning from Kodak to Ilford...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I said in post #112 that I would report back after trying a couple of things. So today I tried two things.

First, I took the tank and spiral with which I had previously generated the foam. There was a possibility that they carried wetting agent residue, because I merely rinse the tank and spiral after the final wash with wetting agent. So I poured 400ml of plain tap water into the tank and inverted it continuously for 5 minutes. No foam whatsoever. I didn't really think there would be.

Next, there was the possibility that my re-used 2-bath developer carried a build-up of surfactant from previous films. I developed a Kodak Double-X film, using a brand-new tank and spiral that I've been keeping as a reserve, and re-using the same chemicals as in post #112. Again, I performed constant inversion agitation for 4 min in bath 1, then every 30 sec for 4 min in bath 2. At the end of bath 1 there were about 10 bubbles, not enough to even take a picture. After bath 2 there were 3 bubbles.

So subject to further experience, I am beginning to believe the OP's proposal that heavy foaming is an Ilford thing, even if it doesn't happen to everyone or in every case. But I must also point out that no-one has so far produced evidence that foaming is in any way deleterious. It occurs to me that the same circumstances (e.g. heavy agitation) that create a lot of bubbles probably also continuously dislodge them? So this is all very interesting, but it's probably a storm in a teacup (neat metaphor, huh?). Anyway, I'm sticking with my preference for Ilford films.

I recommend that you use a toothbrush to scrub the reels before you process any more film.

 

[snusmumriken]

I recommend that you use a toothbrush to scrub the reels before you process any more film.

OK … Total Care or Whitening formula? The advice doesn’t suggest you actually read my post.

 

[Sirius Glass]

OK … Total Care or Whitening formula? The advice doesn’t suggest you actually read my post.

I read it. I am stating for others that rinsing alone did not remove the surfactant from the reels.

 

[snusmumriken]

I read it. I am stating for others that rinsing alone did not remove the surfactant from the reels.

If there is any residue, and it doesn't come off by washing, how is it a problem? How should I know whether there is a surfactant residue on my reels?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If there is any residue, and it doesn't come off by washing, how is it a problem? How should I know whether there is a surfactant residue on my reels?

If any surfactant is left on the reels it can impede the film loading or cause the film to stick and jamb.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

If any surfactant is left on the reels it can impede the film loading or cause the film to stick and jamb.

That's why I use stainless steel reels...
With these reels, the film doesn't have to be pushed to slide into a (sticky plastic-) reel, but you start in the centre of it and gently wind the film outwards.
And stainless steel stands the washing machine treatment too!

I really don't like plastic things, but, unfortunately enough, there isn't always an alternative (and yes, this is a personal point of view)...

 

[snusmumriken]

That's why I use stainless steel reels...
With these reels, the film doesn't have to be pushed to slide into a (sticky plastic-) reel, but you start in the centre of it and gently wind the film outwards.
And stainless steel stands the washing machine treatment too!

I really don't like plastic things, but, unfortunately enough, there isn't always an alternative (and yes, this is a personal point of view)...

Ah, I understand! Have to say, I have never had any difficulty in about 50 years of loading 35mm into Paterson reels. Except when I’ve been in a tearing hurry and processed the film fresh out of the camera: the reverse curl makes life difficult. But I can see why anyone using medium format might prefer stainless reels.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have been doing darkroom work off and on since 1975 or so, though granted I'm just coming off a nearly 10 year pause. But I tried stainless reels - repeatedly. Never could get the hang of loading them reliably. I never have problems with my plastic Jobos. But neither Pho-Flo nor any other wetting agent ever has or ever will touch them.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Although I still have a Jobo 2500 system tank with a lot of reels and other stuff, I was never convinced and switched to stainless steel, which made me a bit happier...
But I understand that a lot of colleagues are perfectly happy with plastic reels, why shouldn't they.

BTW, I developed my first film in 1974, by this we are from the same generation...

 

[Roger Cole]

I kind of wish I COULD load them, but I always, always, had trouble with them, especially with 36 exposure lengths of 35mm. Just gave up - good non sticky plastic reels work for me. Use what works for you!

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I kind of wish I COULD load them, but I always, always, had trouble with them, especially with 36 exposure lengths of 35mm. Just gave up - good non sticky plastic reels work for me. Use what works for you!

For 35mm film, the best thing one can find is the winding device by Kindermann (sadly out of business), see photo's; but the UK based and still active Hewes has a more sophisticated system.
A modified version of this Hewes loader was also sold by Ilford to load the, rare but interesting, HP5 72 exposure 35mm film system on their special large reels, which I used a lot in the early '90s in my motor driven Pentax LX for reportages.
This Ilford loader can also be used with 'normal' reels.

 

[haliderollei]

Hey I just wanted to add to this thread; whatever I've tried, my Ilford films also foam massively, especially fp4 and hp5

 

[Dali]

Kentmere Pan 100 also foams but Rollei IR 400 does not.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Hey I just wanted to add to this thread; whatever I've tried, my Ilford films also foam massively, especially fp4 and hp5

I find this interesting because at first the thought passed my mind that it could have to do with the quality of the tap water (remember my remark about salted water?): outside the EEC there are different standards. But in the Netherlands the same basic EEC norms should be applied.
Living in neighbour Belgium, I never had any foaming issue with any Ilford film, regardless the developing tank (*).

But I do have to admit that I am used to apply a thorough pre wet, which is actually more a prewash as it takes about 10 min. on a motorised roller base. I am doing this, without any problems, since I bought that roller base more than 20 years ago.
No foaming, no air bells (which was a hell before), no development streaks, no more coloured backing emulsion, nothing goes wrong, regardless the brand or format of film...

At the end of the developing process, I always apply a Sistan bath (witch includes Agepon) for 2 min. (on that roller base too).
And ALWAYS thoroughly wash the reels in warm water afterwards, and sometimes put them in the washing machine just to be sure not to have sticky reels.

BTW, I do NOT DEVELOP on that roller base, all the rest I do: pre-wet, stopping, 2x fixing, rinsing, KHCA, washing the Ilford way, Sistan, all without foaming issues. And don't ask me why...


(*) I used to reversal process Ilford film in the Colenta (including a 5 min. pre-wet with an automated continuous agitation), no foaming issues at all!

 

[Dali]

Another hard time yesterday, developing a couple of Kentmere Pan 400 films: Foam everywhere.

So, to recap my past experience, using for each film type the same process, the same developer and the same tools:

Foaming each time: Ilford Hp5+ (35mm), Kentmere Pan 100 & 400 (35mm).
Never foaming: Kodak Tri-X 400 (35mm), Rollei IR 400 (120), Fomapan 100 (35mm & 120).

Draw your own conclusion...