Home replacement for photoflo

[markbarendt]

I have not used hypo clearing agents yet. I do have some so I'll add that to my process.

I think I'll bump my wash to ten fill and dump cycles over ten minutes.

Thanks Matt

Mark

This fixed the issue completely.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Photo-flo is glorified dish soap. Technically, you could just use soap and distilled water.

No, it is not! If you read this thread you would learn about the subject and find that the dyes and scents in dish soap can harm your film.

But, good luck anyhow.

PE

 

[Dave Pritchard]

Photo-flo is glorified dish soap. Technically, you could just use soap and distilled water.

Nope. The post just above yours said ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. That isn't soap. Look it up. More like antifreeze, or cake mix, or p**** whip.

 

[brofkand]

Photo-flo is not dish soap. Dish soap just happens to contain surfactants. That's like saying diesel is glorified gasoline because they both contain hydrocarbons.

If you want to put purfumes, colorants, etc in your film, be my guest. Nobody will stop you. But there are much more ways to save money in photography that DO NOT have a possible effect on image quality or negative permanence.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Photo-flo is glorified dish soap. Technically, you could just use soap and distilled water.

Here we go again.

Please read the earlier post on a thread.

Steve

 

[Fanshaw]

I think it is what we call in the UK 'washing-up liquid'. I have been using a couple of drops of this in my final washes for many years and find it just as good as Photoflo. I have negatives that are now about 50 years old and they show no deterioration. I have also been using ordinary vinegar as a stop bath. I am inclined to think that most of the concerns about the purity of processing chemicals are unnecessary.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Unless I can teach you that this is risky at best, I'm afraid that many people will risk having lost their treasured photos at some time or another.

Best of luck to you. I'm tired making this point. Any change in the formulation of the soap you use, that is not intended to make for good film results, will cause you problems.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

PE,

Perhaps Black & White chemistry should be split into two subgroups:

Black & White Chemistry traditional - by the book
Black & White Chemistry experimental - at your own risk
​

Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE,

Perhaps Black & White chemistry should be split into two subgroups:

Black & White Chemistry traditional - by the book
Black & White Chemistry experimental - at your own risk
​

Steve

Steve;

I quite agree, but there will still be those who wish to confuse items that should be in one or another category. It is human nature. People will do things to save a penny when they spent big money for the original photos and they may risk the entire thing to their false economy thinking that it should be main-stream technology.

This is the nature of the hundreds of myths that keep crapping up in analog photography. (yes, that typo was intended )

When you consider that people think that all VC papers are truly VC, this is self delusional. Not all VC papers yield smooth transitions from grade 1 - grade 5. Yet people will buy economy papers thinking that they are giving their negatives the same chance to be perfect as if they used a first rate paper.

This type of mythology, especially those simple ones such as surfactants for final rinses, will be with us for years I'm afraid.

PE

 

[Aurum]

Photo-flo is not dish soap. Dish soap just happens to contain surfactants. That's like saying diesel is glorified gasoline because they both contain hydrocarbons.

If you want to put purfumes, colorants, etc in your film, be my guest. Nobody will stop you. But there are much more ways to save money in photography that DO NOT have a possible effect on image quality or negative permanence.

The risk of using household (Dishwashing liquid) or personal care products (Handwash) is that perfume aside, they contain shedloads of salt to thicken them, and the surfactants commonly used will often dry down to a sticky / greasy residue. The only household product that would possibly work is shower spray. This is the stuff that you spray on the inside of a shower door to prevent water marks and staining. That works like photoflo, and is probably very similar.
I don't use photoflow, however. I use Ilfotol instead. Same sort of thing, easier to get locally, works in the same way.

 

[Aurum]

Guys;

Alcohol was used as a DRYING AGENT not a WETTING AGENT. These two are unrelated functions.

You treat with a wetting agent or surfactant to prevent water spots from minerals and contaminants in water. You use alcohol to promote rapid drying.

There is some overlap in function, but they are not identical.

PE

As long as you know the difference when you're getting the beers in.........

 

[Sirius Glass]

PE,

Perhaps Black & White chemistry should be split into two subgroups:

Black & White Chemistry traditional - by the book
Black & White Chemistry experimental - at your own risk
​

Steve

Probably should have stated
"Black & White Chemistry experimental - at your own risk"
as
"Black & White Chemistry experimental and on the cheap - at your own risk"

Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

The risk of using household (Dishwashing liquid) or personal care products (Handwash) is that perfume aside, they contain shedloads of salt to thicken them, and the surfactants commonly used will often dry down to a sticky / greasy residue. The only household product that would possibly work is shower spray. This is the stuff that you spray on the inside of a shower door to prevent water marks and staining. That works like photoflo, and is probably very similar.
I don't use photoflow, however. I use Ilfotol instead. Same sort of thing, easier to get locally, works in the same way.

The shower spray that contains Sodium Hypochlorite will dissolve the emulsion completely and leave a mess behind! Don't ever use that.

PE

 

[richard ide]

Would that be one of the chemicals you can measure with a teaspoon??

 

[Mike Wilde]

I hate to add fuel to this ongoing fire, but what if I mention Tween 20? I understand it is a wetting agent; I bought it intending for aid in hand costing for alt process work, but have yet to use it.

 

[removed account4]

Here we go again.

Please read the earlier post on a thread.

Steve

LOL

 

[Photo Engineer]

I hate to add fuel to this ongoing fire, but what if I mention Tween 20? I understand it is a wetting agent; I bought it intending for aid in hand costing for alt process work, but have yet to use it.

The Tween series is used by some companies as their wetting agent and is perfectly satisfactory in pure form as used by these companies.

I've noted that the Photographers Formulary has a proprietary product that is called Formaflo. I've tried that with good results as well.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Would that be one of the chemicals you can measure with a teaspoon??

Richard;

At one time, the cap of the Photo Flo bottle was its "measuring spoon" and the instructions called for one capful in a quart (or gallon, I forget) of water. This was so long ago. My goodness, I used to use it with the TriChemPak and with Versatol. So there!



PE

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I'm sure the Photoflow cap is more precise than using measuring spoon!

 

[richard ide]

Ron,
You are reminding me of how old (chronologically anyway) I am.

 

[Fanshaw]

I am reminded of the story that 'in theory' bumblebees can't fly. A practical test of dish-washing liquids over many years shows that they don't leave 'sticky/greasy' residues. It would be odd if they did when you consider their stated purpose.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Fanshaw;

You rinse your hands and dishes after the use of dish washing or hand washing soaps, right? But, after a Photo Flo treatment you do not rinse. This is a significant difference. The "soap" is left in the film but is rinsed off your hands after use.

Also, any change in Photo Flo formulation over time takes film into its primary consideration. Dish and hand washing fluid redesign does not!

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am reminded of the story that 'in theory' bumblebees can't fly. A practical test of dish-washing liquids over many years shows that they don't leave 'sticky/greasy' residues. It would be odd if they did when you consider their stated purpose.

Many dish washing liquids have skin softeners and perfumes which are not good for negative. Have you ever used a liquid soap and later found that your hands still smell of the soap no matter how many times you rewash your hands.

Feel free to use all the dish washing liquids on you negatives, just don't bother to come back here and complain about it later.

Steve

 

[davidst]

Wipe Negs too??...after Photo Flo

At the hesitation of many saying I'll scratch my negs...Does anyone else very gently, carefully squeegee their negs to get rid of excess water (and any inherent salts pollutants, in that water)??

I use a very soft small wiper blade, carefully inspected, and kept clean. It cuts drying time therefore reducing dust contamination, and the negs are nice and spot free. By the way my last rinse before squeegeeing is photo flo.

Sirius and Photoengineer, do you have a take on this matter??

 

[Dave Pritchard]

If it works for you, it works. I think squeegees are great if the film does not scratch. You are obviously being careful with dirt and grit. A good squeegee does reduce the amount of water-born stuff which could stay on your negatives. I sometimes use soft emulsions, so am more concerned about scratches. Also, I live in a region with great water. It is pure and soft, so a drop or two of Photoflo does a great job of sliding the water off gracefully. If I had hard water here, I'd have a different perspective on rinsing.