Highest safe temperature for B&W film?

[grat]

Foma's technical documents suggest developing at either 20C (68F) or 30C (86F), so at the very least I would suspect the emulsion can stand 90F (or more) without any problems.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm getting tired of this nonsense. Just go to any relevant Kodak Tech Data sheet for a specific film. Lots of used bookstores have past Kodak film guidebooks. I don't know the last year they were published, but the latest version I have, 1987, is still valid; a number of specific films in it have been discontinued, but others remain. The highest temperatures they even list is 75F, and in the general dev section they tell the reason why. Ilford goes up to 27C, but ONLY with respect to automated roller process lines - in other words, where handling risk of the softened emulsions in far less than by conventional methods. 20C is the recommended industry standard regardless. Otherwise, there are many sources of text information far more trustworthy than illogical web rumors. Comparing what Foma claims about their films with Kodak or Ilford is highly questionable. I not implying don't use Foma products. Just be aware that their technical information is less than ideal, and specs like published box films speeds are blatantly over-optimistic and untrustworthy. You get what you pay for.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Can I ask where I might read in Kodak, Ilford and Fuji publications that pertain to present their present range of films, information on what temperature is the beginning of a dangerous level for pre-wash? It would sound as if from your experience that the hardening applied to C41 film which enables it to be subjected to 100F does not apply to b&w films is this correct?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Ilford provides recommendation to process at 20 C, so not sure what you mean. Essentially, everything outside of that is not coming form manufacturer., that' how they test it. As I said earlier, there was a time when few to nobody was seriously discussing anything but 20 C for B&W processing. Obviously when there was a problem maintaining 20, one had to do something with time.

Ilford also "reccommends" Massive Dev Chart for non-Ilford chemistry, except it is in red and they don't really test for it, so one is at his own mercy.

Same here, one wants to boil the emulsion, go ahead. It changes nothing with respect to 20 C being an ages long standard, including today.

 

[MattKing]

24C is certainly found as a recommendation in a lot of Kodak documentation, for a lot of different combinations.
But I don't think I would subject a film from a manufacturer who, in the past, has problems with soft emulsions, and who is currently having problems with anti-halation layers, to a temperature even that high.
Unless I saw specific manufacturer's recommendations.

 

[Bikerider]

I have used a lot of Fomapan both 200 and 400, in 35mm and 120, it is my main film for at least 25 years, and I have never ever pre soaked, don't need to, the green anti halition layer normally comes out in the developer, I use either ID11 stock or Rodinal 1/50,the developer is green when poured out, stop bath is very slightly green, fixer is clear, Ilford wash method water is perfectly clear when poured out, , green in ID11 does not affect the developer at all, I just go on using it as per Ilford instructions, gets greener the more 129 I develop, I simply can't see the need for a pre soak

I have not used it for as long but there is absolutely no need to pre soak. This applies to both roll film and 35mm. If the anti halation does not come away in the developing stage it will have gone by the time you come to the final rinse and soak in a water bath with a drop of wetting agent. I think you are either miss-reading the development instructions or have been listening to some mumbo jumbo passed around on the web.

Raise the temperature significantly and watch the emulsion float off into the sunset!

 

[R.Gould]

24C is certainly found as a recommendation in a lot of Kodak documentation, for a lot of different combinations.
But I don't think I would subject a film from a manufacturer who, in the past, has problems with soft emulsions, and who is currently having problems with anti-halation layers, to a temperature even that high.
Unless I saw specific manufacturer's recommendations.

In the Summer month's I have developed Fomapan, both 200 and 400 at 24 or 25, which can be the temperature of the water coming out of my tap, or with ID11 the temperature of the stock in the bottle, with no ill effects, so I can say with certainty that 200 and 400 can happily take this slightly raised temperature

 

[albireo]

I have not used it for as long but there is absolutely no need to pre soak. This applies to both roll film and 35mm. If the anti halation does not come away in the developing stage it will have gone by the time you come to the final rinse and soak in a water bath with a drop of wetting agent. I think you are either miss-reading the development instructions or have been listening to some mumbo jumbo passed around on the web.

To clarify, _in general_ there is no need to presoak Foma film. OP started the thread because of a specific batch of Foma 100 in 120 which had 'white spots' - explained by a Foma rep as bits of hardened anti halation layer left on the emulsion.

Foma has since corrected the problem in following batches, as I have verified from personal experience and reported in another thread.

However, OP wants to experiment with trying to solve the issue with the rolls they own. In order to help customers who prefer to keep exposing and processing rolls from the faulty batches, instead of returning them for a replacement (I've gone for the latter option myself), Foma suggest a 20 minute presoak at 20C which should ameliorate the issue.

OP opened this thread because they want to experiment with doing this, but faster, and want to attempt increasing the pre-soaking water temperature. They have thus been soliciting opinions on a pre-soak at non standard slightly higher temps.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

OP wants to experiment with trying to solve the issue with the film he/she owns.

If someone has dozens or more Foma 120 rolls from the faulty batch, trying to speedup the dissolution of antihalation dyes with warm water is a pursuit primarily of academic interest as it isn't going to save the user a lot of time. The user should first try Foma's suggested method and verify that the method does give perfect negatives. Without such a verification it makes little sense to try speeding up and take more risk. If Foma's suggested method does give perfect negatives, then it's probably not worth, IMO, trying to speed it up for a handful of exposed rolls. If the user has a bunch of unexposed rolls, it might make sense to talk to the seller and work out a deal to exchange the rolls from the faulty batch with those from more recent batches or get a refund. Or switch to a different film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The only practical advantage of a hot presoak or development is that you would in fact be over-softening the top coating to such an extent that you are partially melting it in order to release any unwanted particles embedded in it; yet due to that, you might very well also create little craters in their place. I've seen it happen. Pick your poison. To me, that's an unacceptable film manufacture issue. Are we trying to create hot ramen noodles here, or pictures?

 

[pentaxuser]

The only practical advantage of a hot presoak or development is that you would in fact be over-softening the top coating to such an extent that you are partially melting it in order to release any unwanted particles embedded in it;

Would the above apply to films that have harder emulsions such as Kodak's Ilford's and Fuji's. I had asked the question: If C41 films's emulsions are hard enough to withstand a developing temperature of 100F then what differentiated them from b&w films from the same makers and the answer seemed to be that those C41 film makers had taken the same steps with their b&w films so they too were able to withstand C41 temperatures

Do you agree with this and if not can you say what your source(s) is are for that disagreement so we may see what the sources are acutally saying?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Вormental_old]

Unless OP has dozens or more Foma 120 rolls from the faulty batch, his question is primarily of academic interest and any solution to his problem isn't going to save him a lot of time.

Pre-soaking for 20 minutes doubles the total dev time. The "faulty batch" is the only available Foma 100 in the US at the moment, as he's been ordering from B&H, Freestyle, Adorama and KeyGlass, sold as Foma or Arista EDU Ultra, with the same results, all year.

He should first try Foma's suggested method and verify that the method does give him perfect negatives. It's not clear to me he has done this verification yet.

Why should I provide any kind of verification? How is this preventing you or anyone else from answering a simple question: "what is the highest safest water temperature for a B&W emulsion?" Should I also report on my teeth flossing habits to "unlock" the answer?

 

[grat]

The manufacturer (Foma) gives a chart for developing times at 30C, in their data sheets for both Foma 100 and Foma 400 (action).

Why would they publish such information, leaving them open to lawsuits and ridicule, if it wasn't valid?

 

[Вormental_old]

The only practical advantage of a hot presoak or development is that you would in fact be over-softening the top coating to such an extent that you are partially melting it in order to release any unwanted particles embedded in it; yet due to that, you might very well also create little craters in their place. I've seen it happen. Pick your poison. To me, that's an unacceptable film manufacture issue. Are we trying to create hot ramen noodles here, or pictures?

And what exactly, does any of this has to do with my question? I love Photrio community, but it's plagued by its members uncontrollable urges to force unneeded/unwanted lectures on each other. Here's how 90% of threads look like:

Q: Does anyone know how to change a light bulb?
A: If you don't floss regularly you're going to get cavities
A: The OP has not clarified if he flosses regularly
A: I saw a light bulb once!
A: Flossing is overrated
A: Here's how you floss properly: you begin by renting an apartment with a bathroom...

... and on, and on it goes...

 

[grat]

You forgot the side discussion of which light bulb is appropriate, and which one has the best color balance, and whether LED is a viable light source.

 

[Вormental_old]

Side discussions are fine, as well as they're discussions. Too often a conversation here reads like a bunch of old records being replayed into the void. Oh, I see a word "presoak" surrounded by some other words. I know presoaking! Must stop reading now and produce a lecture on presoaking!

P.S. Plot twist: most community members here are bots written by the Photrio owner to generate activity and attract film photographers (all 14 of us) to join.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh, Pentaxuser - since you seem to think random web rumors are the beginning and end of all human knowledge, just do a little homework of your own using a basic web search engine. Kodak, Ilford, etc, have plenty of confirming tech information on the web if you bother to seek it out.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Instead of arguing about it, do some experiments and report back on the results. Data always beats speculation

 

[pentaxuser]

Why should I provide any kind of verification? How is this preventing you or anyone else from answering a simple question: "what is the highest safest water temperature for a B&W emulsion?" Should I also report on my teeth flossing habits to "unlock" the answer?

Simple answer is No - you shouldn't have to provide verification. You asked a specific question to which we should either try to answer or just ignore the question if we can't. Part of that answer might be information of a personal experience be it in support of success or failure of higher temperature in which case the respondent should make this clear or it should be a reference to a source that pertains to a properly conducted scientific experiment but at the end of the day it is for you to decide what you accept or reject as advice.

However as a forum our collective personality would appear to be fixed so do not expect a personality change any time soon, if ever.

Warning the stuck record is about to be played for maybe the third time . It plays : Let us know what you decided to do and how this worked out

Thanks

pentaxuser .

 

[BMbikerider]

I have formed an opinion that more effort is put into worrying about technicalities which have no real bearing on the process of taking a photograph and developing it. There is so much space on the forum used up (wasted) by people asking pointless questions or providing equally pointless answers to questions which have no real substance. Is the forum a test laboratory for wannabe chemists or do they go out and take photographs? It seems they have lots of answers looking for questions!

 

[Huss]

Huss - you're example with Delta 3200 isn't a push or plus at all if you in fact rated it at 1000. I routinely use 800 for this film and dev it in PMK pyro, and could easily achieve that kind of result at 20C using dev time alone. Is that the old Fredrickson's Hardware in SF, or some other city? It is a nice shot.

Drew, the point of those shots is that the film was developed at 90 and 95 degrees respectively, with zero ill effects. The title of this thread is 'Highest safe temp for B&W film".

My examples show that for Arista(Foma) 100, and Ilford 3200, these temps are completely fine. And I have done this repeatedly.
The Arista 100 shot was pushed to 400, and developed as such.

NOTE - this is using Cinestill DF96 Monobath, according to their instructions. I have not tried it with other developers.

p.s. thanks for the compliment!

 

[DREW WILEY]

You have proved nothing except maybe a bit of luck. Somebody might change developer or water quality parameters a little bit, or even the stop bath concentration, and who knows what would happen? These kinds of questions involve multiple variables, which is why there simply isn't ever going to be a rote dumbed-down answer like the Bormental expects. But statistically, I don't like the odds of high temps. I'm running a darkroom, not a casino!

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Why should I provide any kind of verification? How is this preventing you or anyone else from answering a simple question: "what is the highest safest water temperature for a B&W emulsion?" Should I also report on my teeth flossing habits to "unlock" the answer?

No, you're not obliged to follow Foma's prescribed method for solving the specific problem of dissolving anti-halation dyes though that's the first thing anybody who's serious about getting the problem solved would do. As far as your "simple" question is concerned, the first few posts in this thread gave you the best possible answers that users of the film can possibly give.

Should I also report on my teeth flossing habits to "unlock" the answer?

Apologies if you felt so because of my post. I see that you are very new to photrio, haven't been around even for a month, and hence new to photrio community's often exasperating ways of responding to technical questions such as yours. This is not quora or stack exchange and it takes a bit of time to get used to the banter and lectures. Sorry again for my lecturing lapses and I hope you'll find the precise technical answer to your question soon. Have a great week ahead.

 

[grat]

Apologies if you felt so because of my post. I see that you are very new to photrio, haven't been around even for a month, and hence new to photrio community's often exasperating ways of responding to technical questions such as yours. This is not quora or stack exchange and it takes a bit of time to get used to the banter and lectures. Sorry again for my lecturing lapses and I hope you'll find the precise technical answer to your question soon. Have a great week ahead.

Speaking for myself, and not the OP (I've been here a bit longer, but not much), I've been on the internet since it was ARPAnet, and before Al Gore knew how to spell TCP/IP. Basically, it hasn't been the same since the AOL crowd was let in, and I've seen usenet flamewars that verged on the apocalyptic-- so I find this a pleasant place for discussion, and slightly less prickly than the Large Format forum which has great information, but vast negativity.

I find this particular discussion frustrating because one person has anecdotally developed at 90-95F, with no ill effects, and the manufacturer has development charts for 86F-- and yet some people in this thread are stating that the manufacturer doesn't know what they're talking about, and the user who's had success at high temps is merely lucky.

The bottom line, which answers the OP's question, is that Foma says 86F is fine, 90F is probably OK, and others have succeeded at as high as 95F. Test away. Note that there's no guarantee that temperature has anything to do with removing the sticky AHL, so this may be a wild goose chase. Also, there's a very good chance that testing will consume all of the bad film.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

the manufacturer has development charts for 86F

Fomapan 400 data sheet prescribes 6 minutes at 30C for Fomadon P. Based on this, one can infer that a pre-soak for 6 minutes at 30C would be mostly safe. Longer presoak might be safe or might not be, only experimentation can tell for sure. Nobody here is going to do those experiments on behalf of OP nor have others had the the need to pre-soak film at 30C. It just might be easier to get precise answer for OP's question from the manufacturer.

 

[Вormental_old]

I have formed an opinion that more effort is put into worrying about technicalities which have no real bearing on the process of taking a photograph and developing it.

You missed the context. I have a bunch of defective film and looking for a faster way to dissolve the faulty AHU. Yes, it makes has a real bearing on the process of making a photograph, namely you'll get white dots all over you image if you don't do what Fomapan support tells you.