Foaming in film development

[snusmumriken]

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.

 

[Dali]

Well not really, because it doesn't explain why the rest of us don't have piles of foam.

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.

 

[hoffy]

I'm going to chime in as well.

I get foaming on Ilford films,but only Ilford films.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

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.

 

[Dali]

My logic is easy to understand: What makes a HP5 development foam, something I never experience with any other film I used (past and present)? It has nothing to do with my brand consideration. Would it be Fuji or Kodak film in cause, my question would be the same.

 

[foc]

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)...

Sorry to harp back to your homemade D76 but could it be a reaction that only HP5 has with the homemade D76?
Would it be worth a try in commercial D76 or ID11 (for direct comparison), or whatever you have on hand, just to rule out that theory?

 

[koraks]

What makes a HP5 development foam, something I never experience with any other film I used (past and present)?

To test the hypothesis put forth earlier that it's an additive in the film, you might try thoroughly washing the film prior to development, see if that does away with the foam. If it doesn't, it's highly unlikely to be something in the film itself as a thorough pre-wash would take just about anything that's water soluble.

the foam clearly disturb the developer flow when flipping the tank.

That's very odd, really. Manual agitation in a daylight tank with sufficient chemistry volume should not result into development problems. What's the exact problem you experience as a result of the presence of foam?

The most likely cause I'd think of is remnants of a surfactant (i.e. Photoflo & co) in your tank. Even a tiny bit of flo will make the next bath foam significantly, and thorough rinsing is required to prevent this if flo is used in the development tank.

On a side note, speaking of foam: Fuji RA4 developer foams like crazy! It has a surfactant added to it to promote even wetting of the paper.

 

[hoffy]

@Dali , do you shoot large format?

As per above, I have seen similar issues with 120 Ilford films (for me, FP4+ seems worse than HP5+). But, I have not seen the same issues with 4x5 film. And for me, I process sheet film with continuous agitation, so if that is the problem, then it would definitely show.

I haven't processed or developed anything in over 5 months, so I have a bit of a back log. I have just cleaned a set of roll film reels and about to mix some developer. I think I might do some back to back testing if I can over the next few weeks.

 

[hoffy]

OK, since I said I would.....

Today/last night was the first lot of processing I have done since (gulp) late January. I had 4 rolls of film to process, all 120. These were (& processed in this order):

• Ilford FP4+
• Rollei RPX 100
• Kodak TMAX 100
• Ilford HP5+

The Ilford films were probably purchased 3 or 4 years ago. Have been stored in the fridge until shot and then left in a dark cupboard.

The Kodak and Rollei were purchased earlier this year

Prior to processing these film (a few weeks ago), I cleaned the tank I am using (Multi-Reel Paterson tank) and 2 reels. This was done in a Bicarb solution, rinse, bleach and final long rinse.

The developer used was D76, mixed in locally sourced spring water, mixed 2 weeks ago and filtered before use. Agitation was 4 rotations every minute (takes about 12 to 15 seconds to do the 4 rotations). I did not pre-wash, except for the Rollei RPX (first time using this film - it got a 1 minute pre-wash)

So, how did the foaming go? So in processing order:

• 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

My next test (once I run through the current lot of developer) would be to mix using distilled water. But, at my current rate of shooting, this could be MONTHS away!

 

[snusmumriken]

• 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.

In either case, like koraks above, I am also curious as to what problem the foam causes? Were there any related defects on your FP4+ and HP5+ films?

 

[hoffy]

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 know I should have.... but I didn't.

Think bubbles like a sink full of dishwater - maybe not that full on, but enough to completely cover the full surface area of the developer in the 1 litre jug. The suds probably hung around for a good 15 or so minutes after.

I am wondering if its water quality - the bottled water I use I have been using for ages, but it is a locally bottled water (there are known issues with our local tap water - it will kill XTOL without warning - one day it will process fine, the next day you will get a faint or even blank roll).

At this point, I can't trust FP4+. I am going to probably buy a singular roll the next time I do some shopping and use it as a tester.

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

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!

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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 312207 View 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.

Air bells are more of an issue when intermittent agitation is employed, and a generous volume of developer is not used to cover the film. When I use constant agitation with the patterson tank (rarely), I don't invert. I use a figure-eight pattern. Some people agitate too vigorously... some of my students look like they're preparing cocktails!
The only time I use a surfactant, is when I use divided Pyrocat-HD, in bath A, or just before I hang my film up to dry.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With XTOL or replenished XTOL there are no suds.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I personally leave the suds for beer, but that is just me being me. YMMV

I like lots of suds in my A&W rootbeer...frosted glass!

 

[Paul Ozzello]

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

Thank you, man. And grow up , the rest of you children. Try to be constructive.

 

[MattKing]

Clearly these are quite persistent bubbles, so there must be a surfactant present.

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.

And grow up , the rest of you children. Try to be constructive.

In a thread about bubbles, you are probably going to get quips - while they don't help much (if any), they probably assist in maintaining general interest in the question.

 

[mshchem]

Photo flo, Ilfotol, LFN have a few bubbles but these (few) bubbles slide right off the film. Dramatically reduces the surface tension of water, drops drain right off. I usually run the film between my wetted fingers when I hang it, not necessary but it's a old habit.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

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."

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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,

I've noticed foam with Delta 400 and 3200, but not a huge amount. I use a Jobo with rotary agitation, but I imagine with inversion with a lot more opportunities for bubbles, foam would be more of a problem. I just chalk it up to Ilford doing something with their coating. I don't really get foam that I recall with any other emulsions, and I run many hundreds of rolls a month. I use Ilford Ilfotech DD with replenishment if that helps.

 

[MattKing]

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."

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

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