Homebrew wetting agent?

[Monday317]

Are there "grades" or "qualities" of distilled water like there is drinking water, or is all distilled water the same? If the latter, I think I'll just get one of those 5-gallon cubes of distilled water with the spigot on the bottom, mix in 34oz of isopropyl alcohol and give it a shake before I pour. Then I'll setup two tanks, put film in one for a time, pull and shake it off, then put it in the other.

Distilled (AKA "DI"--or DeIonized, though not truly the same) water is of course simply boiled water, cooled through a pipe. From a purely technical standpoint, the relative purity of water is determined by its electrical resistance per unit volume, typically 1cc (or mL). The value of 100% absolutely pure, nothing but hydrogen and oxygen water is 21MΩ/mL. Any conductance value greater than that indicates some level of impurity. However, for comparison:

21MΩ/mL= 100% pure water; virtually impossible to achieve outside of an MIT research lab. No worries.

18.3MΩ/mL= Ultra-pure water used in medical clinics, hospitals, etc. Usually not distilled, but highly filtered, deionized water. So pure in fact you can cause yourself problems if you were to drink a lot of it (it's completely tasteless, FWIW). If you know someone who works at, or live near a dialysis center like DaVita, Fresenius, or The Dialysis Center, you can get gallons of their water for free; they make use about >800 liters a day, and waste more than half flushing lines, or testing. They'd never miss a few gallons at a time.

10.0MΩ/mL= Minimum standard for medical-grade, AKA "Type 1" water purity.

6-10MΩ/mL=Typical steam distilled water at the store. Water will leech out minor crap from the plastic bottles they use, which are themselves somewhat permeable to atmospheric contaminants. That said, this water is completely acceptable to use for all photographic purposes.

0-.5MΩ/mL=Tap/well/bottled drinking water. Very unlikely you have a lower (purer) conductance value from these sources. One may encounter no problems whatsoever, or have to jump through hoops to get good darkroom work done.

Point being, unless you are a healthcare worker with access to the really good stuff, the distilled water at the store is just fine to use.

Assuming that there's slightly more than the normal amount of contaminants in my tap/wash water, how long should the film sit in bath one before the quality of the water in the bath and that which saturates the emulsion equalizes?

Depends on who you ask; I've read anything from 30 seconds to 3 minutes! I personally use two 60-second rinses with constant agitation, and am likely overdoing it at that.

Also -- I'm thinking that any archival regime must include selenium toning, and any rinse after the KRST should follow the precautions above, right?
-KwM-

So it has been said. Gold toner has also been recommended as the pentultimate archival treatment. Problem with most selenium toners is that they contain ammonium thiosulfate--a fixing agent! Since that compound is alkaline, you can skip the usual 30-minute rinse before toning by using an alkaline fixer like Photographer's Formulary TF-4 with your film. You just give the film a minute or so water rinse to remove the bulk of the fixer, then soak your film in 1+29 dilution of KRST (Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner) for the recommended 4 minutes @ 68°F/20°C, then rinse as normal.

Hope that info is helpful!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem with using toners to achieve archival permanence is that toning must go to completion resulting in a color shift that most photographers do not want. A better choice would be something like Sistan. These products contain potassium thiocyanate which remains in the print to protect it. They are used as a final bath after washing is completed. However using fresh fixer and just washing a print correctly will do the job. I have prints that are decades old that are still fine. They are just drugstore prints but water was cheap when they were made.

 

[JW PHOTO]

If I remember right, which isn't often, Drew Wiley had a serious problem with Sistan. I think it was with prints, but can't remember for sure. Something about yellow blotches or something. Maybe he'll chime in?

 

[MattKing]

If I remember right, which isn't often, Drew Wiley had a serious problem with Sistan. I think it was with prints, but can't remember for sure. Something about yellow blotches or something. Maybe he'll chime in?

It wasn't Drew - was it ic-racer?

EDIT: it was polyglot: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[JW PHOTO]

It wasn't Drew - was it ic-racer?

EDIT: it was polyglot: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Well, I said I didn't always remember right so you had fair warning. Thanks Matt and yes it was polygot.

 

[Monday317]

The problem with using toners to achieve archival permanence is that toning must go to completion resulting in a color shift that most photographers do not want. A better choice would be something like Sistan. These products contain potassium thiocyanate which remains in the print to protect it. They are used as a final bath after washing is completed. However using fresh fixer and just washing a print correctly will do the job. I have prints that are decades old that are still fine. They are just drugstore prints but water was cheap when they were made.

We were discussing toner for the enhanced stability of film negatives here, not print color. That said, your points are well taken, and I can report similar results.

I do tone prints that are for display and not going to be stored in archival materials however, since atmospheric pollutants and humidity can combine to degrade the print, something I have also observed. KRST has always worked fine, especially with Oriental fiber-based paper.

Photographer's Formulary GP-1 works as it is described and makes for an amazing display print if you ferrotype the sucker! Of course, at about $5.00/8 x 10 print it ain't cheap, but if you wanted to save a few special images for the local gallery show or your home, it's worthwhile. Nelson Gold toner is even pricier, but for those warm tone portraits you developed in Amidol or Ansco130, there's none better.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The idea of toning to completion comes from an IPI report.

The Image Permanence Institute (IPI) at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in Rochester, New York extensively researched redox blemishes in microfilms5. IPI’s research showed that selenium toning did not effectively stop the spread of redox [blemishes] IPI then looked at a polysulfide solution and IMAGELINK Brown Toner solution in place of selenium. IPI’s testing showed both solutions stopped the migration of redox blemishes into the roll of microfilm. As a result of brown toning, toned microfilm has a higher resistance to the formation of redox blemishes.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

My crystal ball tells me that I'll eventually be using chems mixed from bulk ingredients exclusively. I'd like to wean myself off Photoflo. The whole "pouring formaldihyde down the drain" thing, not to mention covering my negs with something after they're all "clean" from the wash is something to which I'd like to explore alternatives.

Is there a homebrew wetting agent out there? I think I remember there's some folks who just give their film a distilled water rinse, then hang it to dry. What are the procedural and chemical alternatives to photoflo?

-KwM-

[added later]
Should have done a search first. Found (there was a url link here which no longer exists), where non photoflo folks seem to use a combo of distilled/filtered water, isopropal alchohol and something called LFN. What's LFN?

There are some photoflood alternatives for home-brew but they are just similar or the same chemicals; so you won't like it;on the other hand , I can recommend just a last bath in distilled water.I switched to that after having some stains from photoflood.distilled water works well.alcohol on the other hand, dries negs too fast and makes them curl and the emulsion potentially brittle. stick to distilled water.

 

[brian steinberger]

I agree with Ralph, no need for photo-flo. I struggled for years with random stains, until I finally decided to try a distilled water bath after the wash and simply hang the negs up. No wiping! And preferably in a dust free area, I use a home made film drying cabinet.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Fuji-Hunt has this great stuff called Banstatic. It is used in color processing for a final rinse. I put a few drops in at the end of the wash. It not only prevents any watermarks it also makes the film attact less dust. It makes a really big difference in the darkroom.

good to know; never heard of it

 

[Monday317]

I don't disagree about plain ol' distilled water, either. I have had some issues with it not drying fast enough and having crud in the air stick to the film (no squeegees, thank you!), so prefer the use of a wetting agent. As KP-F can get soapy if used carelessly (guilty at times), found LFN never fails @ 1 drop per tank, or 50µL into 500mL of distilled water. Even a $10.00 USD ¾ oz. bottle yields 435 drops*--or rolls of film--in a 500mL tank, so 4¢ a pop seems a reasonable expense.

I once read of a homebrew made of 2.5mL windshield wiper fluid + a scant 1mL of antifreeze in a gallon of water, with a 1/4 cup isopropyl alcohol as an option for more humid areas. Tried it many moons ago, and it worked OK if I added the alcohol, but then the archival demons got into my nightmares, so abandoned the stuff.

*1 Standard Drop is 50µL; ¾ ounce is 21.75mL ∴ .02175L/.00005L=435 drops

 

[John Bragg]

Tetenal Mirasol is a good alternative. Made by those nice German folks that now make HC-110 under Licence for Kodak.

 

[removed account4]

SNIP SNIP SNIP

The idea of toning to completion comes from an IPI report.

The Image Permanence Institute (IPI) at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in Rochester, New York extensively researched redox blemishes in microfilms5.

while i love the name and the work they do, i am not a big fan of the IPI.
they have consulted to the federal ( and state ) government archives
and suggested to them that ink jet prints and digital files are as archival as
film negatives and fiber based prints. this was even 15 years ago
when pigment ink and paper were said to last a long long long time
all while reports from users of pigment chimed in saying all their prints
had shifted to some weird green tone.

maybe their work with redox blemishes and microfilm has more years worth of hard evidence / research?
i hope so, because i think it was wrong to push archives into archiving non archival materials. but that is just me
i don't have to be a repository and store hundreds of thousands of negatives and prints,
i just deliver them to my client who delivers them to the state and federal archives.

sorry for the off topic comment

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I have the PhotoFlo MSDS and it is not formaldehyde at all. instead it is.......


2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
Weight % - Component - (CAS Registry No.)
60-70 Water (007732-18-5)
25-30 Propylene glycol (000057-55-6)
5-10 p-tert-octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol (009002-93-1)

I am sure the stuff is just as toxic.

The ingredients of Photo-Flo are also used in making skin lotions so they (and also PF) are not particularly toxic with dermal contact. I would not suggest drinking it but any danger is very low.

As far as formaldehyde is concerned it can be very difficult to determine the danger of some chemicals. Formaldehyde has been listed as a carcinogen on the basis of statistical information. It appears that people who a subjected routinely to high concentrations of the gas experience a greater incidence of nasal polyps which may become cancerous. These data were obtained from workers in the mortuary business and dissection labs in medical schools. Then again before milk pasteurization became widely available formaldehyde was added in small amounts to milk to slow its spoiling. As Paracelsus observed it is the dose that makes the poison. Except for a few exceptions the chemicals used in photography are safe when used for their intended purpose.

 

[Tis Himself]

As a funeral director for many years, I can attest to the fact that more formaldehyde/formalin goes down the drain in the embalming of one body than would likely be contained in several gallons of Photo-Flo. I know of no embalmers locally that has ever suffered any significant health issues due to same. This is not to say that it has not occurred, but I know of none. I believe that formaldehyde is a naturally occurring compound.

 

[Agulliver]

The best of all possible worlds:

DISTILLED Water...................750 mL
Isopropyl rubbing alcohol (70%)...30 mL
Photo Flo .................................2.5 mL
Distilled Water to make.............1000 mL

I'd just like to say that I've been using this recipe for a year with the very hard tap water we have in East Anglia....and I find it works really well. I have easy access to IPA as I keep a litre or more of it at work typically.....30ml every 12-18 months is something nobody will notice

Formaldehyde does indeed occur naturally but that doesn't make it safe....arsenic is natural but I really don't suggest you guzzle it. it's safety is not simple. Accidentally ingesting or inhaling the fumes occasionally won't do you any harm but long term exposure by inhalation is considered dangerous. That said, like all hazardous chemicals, it can be handled safely. I have animals preserved in formaldehyde which have been safely stored and viewed for 40+ years. Basic precautions such as not whiffing the fumes come to mind for formaldehyde, having ventilation so the vapour doesn't stick around.

 

[Monday317]

Once I found Edwal LFN, I never looked back. If they quit making the stuff, I’d consider a home-brew, but since 1977, I’ve been a happy camper.

Come to think of it, I’ve switched film, developer, fixer, toner, paper, enlargers, lenses, and even cameras more than my stinkin’ wetting agent!

It’s economical to use as well; I don’t think I’ve used more than six bottles since I came upon it, though I’m not in the darkroom daily. Not much better to be had, IMHO.

 

[James Bleifus]

it's safety is not simple. Accidentally ingesting or inhaling the fumes occasionally won't do you any harm but long term exposure by inhalation is considered dangerous. That said, like all hazardous chemicals, it can be handled safely. I have animals preserved in formaldehyde which have been safely stored and viewed for 40+ years. Basic precautions such as not whiffing the fumes come to mind for formaldehyde, having ventilation so the vapour doesn't stick around.

When I was in the Philippine Islands a few decades ago we used to drink a beer called Red Horse which was beer, gin, and 2ccs of formaldehyde. I pretty much avoid formaldehyde now (and beer, too).

 

[Photo Engineer]

Do not use Calgon! Do not use Formladehyde. It was only used for color and has been replaced.

The ingredients in Photo Flo are non-toxic at the common dilutions used in processing. In fact, the Propylene Glycol is used in the dairy industry as a cooling agent due to its low toxicity. Of course, no raw organic chemical is good for you, but it is as safe as is practical at use dilution.

Fomaflo from the Formulary is good stuff.

PE

 

[nmp]

Wouldn't Tween 20 work too in lieu of Photoflo?

(or may be not - residue?)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tween 20 would probably work at about 1 drop / liter.

PE

 

[John51]

Maybe Brita filtered water is good enough for a final rinse?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

14 years after the original post and wetting agents are still around... Who'da thought?

 

[Monday317]

Wouldn't Tween 20 work too in lieu of Photoflo?

(or may be not - residue?)

I have heard a recipe consisting of a gallon of distilled water, a cup of windshield washer fluid, a cup of regular rubbing alcohol, and a couple drop of Tween 20.

Until LFN is discontinued, I’ll stick with it!

 

[jim appleyard]

Windshield washer fluid??? Not me! But whatever works for you!