FP4 and Delta

[q_x]

Matt, I've checked Delta film manual, few pages long only, and it clearly warns about uneven development with pre-rinse. Which I guess means inconsistent times from one tap to another when compared with box dev. times. And, to my understanding, they recommend against. If a guy from Harman knows it better, please make him phone his pal at Ilford and update the official specs.

 

[Simon R Galley]

I am HARMAN I am ILFORD Photo, so speaking to myself :

I have already stated : We do not recommend pre-soaking our films, we do not believe it is necessary. BUT nor, done correctly, should it harm them, the risk is uneven development, but if you use a JOBO fine, if pre-soaking is part of workflow and you prefer it...fine.

I will always take the advice of our technical service staff in relation to our products, they are deeply knowledgeable with decades of service and very hands on.

From a personal perspective I have never pre-soaked.... ever, and never had a problem.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[JW PHOTO]

What is the reason for uneven development with a presoak? It seems the reverse would be true. Like uneven development with no presoak? Just curious! I presoak with Rodinal 1:100 stand and with WD2H+ Pyro, but that's all. John W

 

[David Lyga]

I think that Simon's word should be deemed to be an enlightenment.

These films have an incorporated wetting agent which helps to provide even development and, given a pre-development water bath, that mitigating factor becomes nullified. There really ARE reasons for respecting the manufacturer's caveats. - David Lyga

 

[JW PHOTO]

I think that Simon's word should be deemed to be an enlightenment.

These films have an incorporated wetting agent which helps to provide even development and, given a pre-development water bath, that mitigating factor becomes nullified. There really ARE reasons for respecting the manufacturer's caveats. - David Lyga

David, I don't doubt Simon and Ilford's knowledge when it comes to what's best for their films. My presoak always contains Edwals LFN too. I just can't seem to get a grip on why my presoak with a few drops of LFN would end up causing uneven development. I've just never seen it with the two developers I use with presoak. I did see some uneven development before I started using a presoak with Rodinal 1:100 stand. I was just curious, but will continue using my presoak regime. John W

 

[MattKing]

I am HARMAN I am ILFORD Photo, so speaking to myself :

I have already stated : We do not recommend pre-soaking our films, we do not believe it is necessary. BUT nor, done correctly, should it harm them, the risk is uneven development, but if you use a JOBO fine, if pre-soaking is part of workflow and you prefer it...fine.

I will always take the advice of our technical service staff in relation to our products, they are deeply knowledgeable with decades of service and very hands on.

From a personal perspective I have never pre-soaked.... ever, and never had a problem.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon:

Could you review with the technical service staff their reasons for including the following in the data sheet section for rotary processing:

"Follow any guidance given by the processor manufacturer when adjusting process times for these types of processors. However, generally we do not recommend using a pre-rinse as it can lead to uneven development.Without using a pre-rinse the given development times will need to be reduced by around 15% to compensate for the continuous agitation."

This is from the "powder developer" data sheet, but there are similar (although not quite as clear) sections in the film data sheets.

Is this advice particular to rotary processors? Should the advice be made more general? Should it be updated to be in accordance with your posts here?

Thanks

 

[NB23]

Water fills the film like a sponge. Like David Lyga said, pretty evenly.

Once the water is dumped, the developer takes its place but there is a diffusion process: the film is saturated with water and it takes some time for the developer to fully fill the film. This is where the unevenness happens: during the infusion and diffusion process of developer filling the water saturated film.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Simon:

Could you review with the technical service staff their reasons for including the following in the data sheet section for rotary processing:

"Follow any guidance given by the processor manufacturer when adjusting process times for these types of processors. However, generally we do not recommend using a pre-rinse as it can lead to uneven development.Without using a pre-rinse the given development times will need to be reduced by around 15% to compensate for the continuous agitation."

This is from the "powder developer" data sheet, but there are similar (although not quite as clear) sections in the film data sheets.

Is this advice particular to rotary processors? Should the advice be made more general? Should it be updated to be in accordance with your posts here?

Thanks

Good questions Matt..................

 

[DREW WILEY]

Delta has more contrast in the upper midtones and highlights because of its slightly upswept curve. FP4 has more contrast in the shadows than Delta because of its longer straight line toward the toe. OVERALL contrast is simply a function of degree of development, as usual.
I mostly shoot sheet film and totally disagree with Ilford's recommendation not to presoak. In this case, failing to do so increases the risk of
sheets sticking together and NOT getting evenly developed. But I presoak their roll films too. Always have. Always will. I never get uneven
development.

 

[pentaxuser]

This is where the unevenness happens: during the infusion and diffusion process of developer filling the water saturated film.

Is there evidence for this? Does that mean that those who use a pre-soak and do not experience unevenness are simply lucky. I had thought that Simon Galley had cleared up the "Ilford " controversy about pre-soak in that he modified/expanded on Ilford's thinking which is now that a pre-soak does effectively nothing but doesn't actually cause problems.

Maybe someone knows and can quote exactly what Simon said.

I wonder what is different about those films where a pre-soak is actually advised?

pentaxuser

 

[RobC]

Is there evidence for this? Does that mean that those who use a pre-soak and do not experience unevenness are simply lucky. I had thought that Simon Galley had cleared up the "Ilford " controversy about pre-soak in that he modified/expanded on Ilford's thinking which is now that a pre-soak does effectively nothing but doesn't actually cause problems.

Maybe someone knows and can quote exactly what Simon said.

I wonder what is different about those films where a pre-soak is actually advised?

pentaxuser

Its not about the films, its about how the film is covered/coated with developer and the speed its done at. For best results film should be completely covered with developer as quick as possible. That means less than 5 seconds. If you take longer you risk development streaks and/or marks. A jobo processor never completely immerses film and fill time is unknown/debateable and some people won't switch on rotation until after developer is poured in so its safer to say in instructions to use pre-soak. If you can fill your jobo in less than 5 seconds whilst its rotating I doubt you need a pre-soak. If it takes you longer then you probably do.

 

[pentaxuser]

Its not about the films, its about how the film is covered/coated with developer and the speed its done at. For best results film should be completely covered with developer as quick as possible. That means less than 5 seconds. If you take longer you risk development streaks and/or marks.

Based on the above I can understand why I have seen the recommendation that the tank is filled first, left open and then the loaded reel is placed in it. You can't get more instant than that

However here's the devil's advocate now: If it takes 8 seconds to fill the tank the bottom part of the film gets maybe 6 seconds more than the very top with all stages in between getting proportionally less development time than the bottom of the film. However the whole film is covered completely from the eighth second onward. If the dev time is 12 mins 30 secs then bottom of the film has received 12mins 30 secs and the top 12 mins 22 secs.

I wouldn't expect to see a difference in film from a development difference of 6 secs over that kind of time period so what is it about the 6 secs that causes development streaks or marks

There may be something else about the development process at work here that might cause unevenness and streaks but I cannot think what it might be

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use little Jobo hand-inversion drums for 35mm and 120 film and they work fine. But the rotary drums have an unusually small opening relative to their volume which makes them slow to fill and drain; so these are less than ideal for short development cycles. Oxidation is also a problem during drum development, so this must be factored in with developer choice. But there is plenty of information out there for people who do want to go this route.

 

[cliveh]

I am HARMAN I am ILFORD Photo, so speaking to myself :

I have already stated : We do not recommend pre-soaking our films, we do not believe it is necessary. BUT nor, done correctly, should it harm them, the risk is uneven development, but if you use a JOBO fine, if pre-soaking is part of workflow and you prefer it...fine.

I will always take the advice of our technical service staff in relation to our products, they are deeply knowledgeable with decades of service and very hands on.

From a personal perspective I have never pre-soaked.... ever, and never had a problem.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Amen.

 

[RobC]

Based on the above I can understand why I have seen the recommendation that the tank is filled first, left open and then the loaded reel is placed in it. You can't get more instant than that

However here's the devil's advocate now: If it takes 8 seconds to fill the tank the bottom part of the film gets maybe 6 seconds more than the very top with all stages in between getting proportionally less development time than the bottom of the film. However the whole film is covered completely from the eighth second onward. If the dev time is 12 mins 30 secs then bottom of the film has received 12mins 30 secs and the top 12 mins 22 secs.

I wouldn't expect to see a difference in film from a development difference of 6 secs over that kind of time period so what is it about the 6 secs that causes development streaks or marks

There may be something else about the development process at work here that might cause unevenness and streaks but I cannot think what it might be

Thanks

pentaxuser

Sometimes development times are much shorter than that and more so in constant agitation machines which use around 15% less dev time again.

And 5 seconds is my approx guesstimation and not a defacto cut off point. Just think about the consequences of dribbling developer down the film during slow tank filling and whether that's a smart idea. I think it's just a common sense approach to fill as quick as possible to remove yet another potential pitfall.

I think spiral tanks with inversion processing and rotary system and stand development and small tankes are all pretty new ways of developing film. Going back not that long ago it was all deep tank with with dip and dunk and/or nitrogen burst agitation. There's progress for you, its introduced all these uneven devlopment problems.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for that response RobC. I am sure you are right about short development times. Mine have always been longish ie. 10 mins minimum where 6-8 secs are a very small percentage. I recall that Roger Hicks said that if you want to increase development time to make a difference to a film then at over 10 mins, 15 secs makes no appreciable difference

This brings us back to NB23's response about why a pre-soak leads to problems. Currently my reading of Simon Galley's response is that except in your scenario of short development times a pre-soak is not harmful. I note that in John Tinsley's book on Rotary Processing he recommends a pre- soak as a means of keeping times the same as as in inversion processing. He used to process film for a living and at no point did he warn of pre-soak dangers. If he had experienced problems then why would he recommend using pre-soak for Jobo processors?

I await with interest NB23's evidence of pre-soak problems

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Thanks for that response RobC. I am sure you are right about short development times. Mine have always been longish ie. 10 mins minimum where 6-8 secs are a very small percentage. I recall that Roger Hicks said that if you want to increase development time to make a difference to a film then at over 10 mins, 15 secs makes no appreciable difference

This brings us back to NB23's response about why a pre-soak leads to problems. Currently my reading of Simon Galley's response is that except in your scenario of short development times a pre-soak is not harmful. I note that in John Tinsley's book on Rotary Processing he recommends a pre- soak as a means of keeping times the same as as in inversion processing. He used to process film for a living and at no point did he warn of pre-soak dangers. If he had experienced problems then why would he recommend using pre-soak for Jobo processors?

I await with interest NB23's evidence of pre-soak problems

pentaxuser

I remember reading on the subject a while ago. A Kodak engineer said it was a soaking/transfer issue. Which I believe and it can be translated to FB paper development (not RC since RC isn't spongy).

When you bleach and sepia tone a FB print, you can see the different splotches of tones appearing depending on the soaking depth and where it soaked first/longest. This is clearly what's happening on film as well.

 

[Xmas]

Gelatine is spongey.

 

[Roger Cole]

I read this here a lot and I know Ilford says this. Generally I do not pre-wash but lately for my 120 development I've switched to using a Jobo with constant agitation because of uneven processing issues using 120 in standard SS tanks. The Jobo process involves an imperative 5 minute pre-soak. Since switching to this method my uneven process issues particularly in open skies is a thing of the past, and that includes doing so with Ilford. No problems at all.

I pre-soak all my films that I develop in my Jobo, which is all the film I develop aside from those in Diafine, and never have a problem related to the pre-soak. This is per Jobo instructions.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I pre-soak all my films that I develop in my Jobo, which is all the film I develop aside from those in Diafine, and never have a problem related to the pre-soak. This is per Jobo instructions.

It's a relatively old debate and you hear'never had a problem' from both sides. I had uneven developmenr problems in the Jobo with short presoaks and dropped them altogether.Since then,everythin is fine.I'll continue with the Ilford-recommended no-presoak procwdure.I agree with lford that it is not needed for even development.Hard to argue with success

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

I have indeed reviewed with Technical Service... they have no intention of changing any technical publication whatsoever in relation to pre-washing regarding any ILFORD film Jobo's or anything else.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Roger Cole]

It's a relatively old debate and you hear'never had a problem' from both sides. I had uneven developmenr problems in the Jobo with short presoaks and dropped them altogether.Since then,everythin is fine.I'll continue with the Ilford-recommended no-presoak procwdure.I agree with lford that it is not needed for even development.Hard to argue with success

How short were those presoaks? I use five minutes.

 

[RobC]

I think there are two arguments going on here:

1) Is Ilfords advice to NOT pre-soak correct?

Well obviously Ilford know their films and their advice should be taken wherever possible.

However, I think it is asssumed in their advice and should be be common sense to all that if you don't cover the film quickly enough and allow part of the film to start development before another part of the film, you will get development streaks/marks regardless of film incorporated wetting agents, pre-soak or no pre-soak but pre-soak will slow down the startup of film development and therefore give more time to cover film reducing the problem.

So the second argument is.

2) Should a presoak be used to slow down the start of development where it is probable that slow film coverage by the developer will cause development streaks/marks?

This is not a film issue or wetting agent issue. It is an operator and/or equipment issue which requires pre-soak to help solve. Not ideal but better than not using a pre-soak in this circumstance.

So the unifying answer is:

3) Do not use pre-soak unless you find a compelling reason why you should.

Jobo clearly think their automated processors require a pre-soak, more than likely because of their slow fill times otherwise causing development streaks/marks on the film. It has noting to do with magic bullet improvements to final results. Its to mitigate a problem inherant in the equipment design and functionality IMO.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Good points!

 

[Roger Cole]

Jobo doesn't "require" a presoak and fill times are not longer. If anything they are shorter, much shorter with multiple reels. What it's does is effectively lengthen the development time required for a given contrast, and it seems to very nearly do so in proportion to the time that would otherwise be lessened by the constant agitation of rotary processing. It's really a matter of convenience to get your starting times closer to those typically given for inversion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.