How does Ilford do it?

AgX said:

With at least one bath, Sistan protective bath, the formig of droplets even can be detrimental to the image over time, as the dry-concentration of substance in those places will by higher by magnitudes.

Click to expand...

foc said:

Matt, I have used a squeegee for B&W films for the last 35 years and never once scratched a film.
Most people using a squeegee try and gouge the film with the amount of pressure applied.
Instead, be gentle, the squeegee should just kiss the film.
It should be a good quality squeegee and should be soaked in tepid water (with a drop of wetting agent) prior to use and washed and cleaned after use.
In the correct hand, a squeegee is your friend.

Click to expand...

lantau said:

but the point of the surfactant is that there won't be droplets. I hang film to dry without any squeege type action after treatment with Photoflo in demin. Water.

Click to expand...

AgX said:

Yes, but as you see there are reports of hanging film even after a common final bath resulted in drying marks.

Seemingly one process works for some and not for others.

Click to expand...

eli griggs said:

Reading into posts about the the shortfalls of companies that have a history of letting their consumers down, that those whom question their commitment to analog photography, as an act of "hate" is about logical as carrying on a vendetta against the tree in the woods that dropped an acorn into your eye, while you walk about, looking up for squirrels.

Hate does no have any place in a discussion about a company's consumer satisfaction and questions about operations, as seen from outside the company.

The fact that the people who do buy the products of the company in question, because of the quality of some of their offerings, while supporting the more activity companies that do well at responding to the needs of their loyal photographers, is just no a mature way to view the world.

IMO.

Click to expand...