How does Ilford do it?

[AgX]

Squeegeeing film has more to do with an obsessive compulsive disorder than anything even remotely necessary.

I find an explicite advice to use a squeegee as best technique even over using one hands in a major textbook on commercial film processing.
In all textbooks I got the risk of scratching whilst wiping water off the film is handled, thus the reader knows about the involved risks and can contemplate/test with whatever technique/device he plans to use.


The advice not to use a squeegee to me seems to have the same origin as the advice to use a prebath.

 

[NB23]

I find an explicite advice to use a squeegee as best technique even over using one hands in a major textbook on commercial film processing.
In all textbooks I got the risk of scratching whilst wiping water off the film is handled, thus the reader knows about the involved risks and can contemplate/test with whatever technique/device he plans to use.


The advice not to use a squeegee to me seems to have the same origin as the advice to use a prebath.

Pre-bath is another obsessive-compulsive thing, which actually hurts a proper development.

Not squeegeeing is the way to go. There’s no reason good enough to warrant touching a swelled and super sensitive, wet, emulsion. Ballerina fingers, or not.

 

[MattKing]

Mechanized processors often include squeegees, but that is a different situation than we are talking about here.
I have absolutely no doubt that it is possible, with a high level of care and a high quality squeegee that has been carefully and appropriately stored and cleaned and prepared for use, to reliably and safely use a squeegee on soft film emulsion.
But why take the risk?

 

[Mr Bill]

There is absolutely no need to squeegee a film.

Squeegeeing film has more to do with an obsessive compulsive disorder than anything even remotely necessary.

Not squeegeeing is the way to go. There’s no reason good enough to warrant touching a swelled and super sensitive, wet, emulsion. Ballerina fingers, or not.

Actually, in machine processing there are multiple good reasons to use squeegees. I've spent years with a QC department overseeing what is known as "process control," chemical regeneration, and effluent control in processing labs running miles of C-41 film every day via continuous cine processors. Now, if one ignores the chemical costs, energy usage, and effluent regulations, then I guess that yes, squeegees wouldn't be necessary.

In the sort of machines I was most familiar with, cine processors running around 50 ft/min, continuously, for C-41 we ran squeegees after developer, after bleach, after the wash prior to fixer, then between every fixer tank, and finally, as film leaves the final bath. About seven sets of squeegees.

Now, we put a lot of work into machine (including squeegee) maintenance, all the solutions were recirculated and filtered, and a 20-foot "scratch test" was run (and carefully evaluated) every morning before startup. It was pretty rare to get a significant machine scratch. How often? I can't say for sure, or even with any certainty. But offhand, I'd say not more than once a month or two; probably less. So maybe a processor scratch every hundred miles of film? To repeat, that's about seven squeegees in the machine, and, as a very wild guess, a hundred miles between scratches on production film. We ran all long-roll film, but for an equivalent of 135-36 film (about 5 feet/ea.) this would be roughly a hundred thousand rolls.

I should point out that this had been on Kodak professional portrait films from VPS films up into Porta 160 - the Portra films, especially, were known for resistance to processor scratching. And certainly there were periodic camera scratches, etc. But scratches due to a squeegee? Very rare.

I was gonna give a rundown on why each squeegee was needed, but decided it's probably "too much information." But I'll be happy to fill in if anyone is interested.

Ps, nearly all minilab processors also use "squeegees," albeit in the form of rollers (film is squeezed between rollers). So these machines get a lot of the benefit without squeezing between rubber blades.

 

[NB23]

Still, totally unnecessary for manual darkroom work. Squeegee in a machine has a totally different purpose than what we are talking about here.

We could also squeegee right after the developing stage, and after the stop stage, and after the fixing stage, and after the photo-flo. This would absolutely, totally, entirely satisfy the most obsessive compulsive person out there.

Think about the perfection. Four good squeegee sweeps per film. Mama mia.

 

[Smaug01]

"t-max to contrasty" - i use it exclusively and have to process to get the higher contrast i want!

FWIW, I used HC-110 at a high concentration.

i'm convinced that modern day films are all good and can be processed to get what you want and searching for that holy grail is a fools errand! the difference is in quality control and ilford and kodak lead the pack.

Fuji has got to be right there with them.

p.s. i use weighted clips when drying 35mm and 120 - never had a cupping issue?

Me too.

I've never scratched film with my squeegee. I've scratched a LOT of film with a bulk loader from ebay. That was a bad purchase.

The squeegee greatly reduced the chance of water spots / mineral deposits. As my final rinse is with distilled water, I'm not sure it is strictly necessary, but I find that when I use PhotoFlo and squeegee, the film's dry in only a few hours.

It's got to be the lack of humidity that makes it cup, as Tri-X wasn't nearly as bad in the summertime.

 

[pentaxuser]

We could also squeegee right after the developing stage, and after the stop stage, and after the fixing stage, and after the photo-flo. This would absolutely, totally, entirely satisfy the most obsessive compulsive person out there.

Think about the perfection. Four good squeegee sweeps per film. Mama mia.

OK any of you obsessive-compulsives out there willing to admit that this is exactly what you do? I wish such ideas were not planted in my head I already have to put my tank down in the exact same marked-out circle on my darkroom worktop and dry the tank after processing with the same patterned towel.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

My squeegees do not scratch my film because they are not used on the film, instead I use them to get excess water off the prints. I place the wet prints on a sheet of window glass and use the squeegee to wipe the prints before I put them in the dryer.

 

[foc]

(now look what I, as an obsessive compulsive person, have started.

 

[eli griggs]

I've been shooting KP5 since '76 and Tri-X a little longer.

Each are excellent films, but for a long period of years, I have used them differently, using HP5(+) for gun and go shooting, at box speed, and Tri-x as a 'fine arts' film, when I go looking for more deliberate, take your time and B&W filter shots, processed in HC110, dil.H or D76 1:1. and ISO 200.

That's changing, as Kodak has shown little respect for users, raising prices as those users are rising in numbers and marketing these 'serious' films as such a cut above, they can charge as they like.

I have, for a while now, been using more and more HP5+, in 35mm and 120, 35mm I bulk roll, and do the same with Pan F, though I still prefer T-Max 100 to Delta, in PMK or Rodinal.


I suppose part of that T-Max preference is because I have developed and printed so much of the stuff, even in a 'commercial' darkroom for critical work by other photographers, with major companies.

T-Max delivers, and this is why that, particular Kodak film is still in my bag.

Ilford, has respect for the photographer, tailors much of their products so to keep us and themselves supplied and working, and does it at costs that we average income folks, can afford more frames per dollar, and a high quality product line.

Kodak should take notes from Ilford, and work harder at getting their products to us, at reasonable costs, that are meant to actually compete with Ilford and other quality film makers.

And, even if Kodak were to match, dollar for dollar, Ilford prices, I still would be buying Ilford B&W films such as HP5+, because they too have earned a permanent place in my bag

Kodak may have my dollars, but it's Ilford that shares those dollars and gets my whole hearted support!

IMO.

 

[eli griggs]

My squeegees do not scratch my film because they are not used on the film, instead I use them to get excess water off the prints. I place the wet prints on a sheet of window glass and use the squeegee to wipe the prints before I put them in the dryer.

I would never use a squeegee on my film, where, after Photoflo, two fingers together are more than good enough to wipe excess 'suds' from 135/120/127/16mm, so long as you do no have rough calluses or hard bits of skin touching the roll film.

Some people like good quality wiper blades in the dark room, I have one in mine, but I mainly use, only on prints, a good quality professional grade, window wiper's tool, only ever used in the darkroom, with rubber material, cut square and 'sharp'.

A good rubber (silkscreen printmaker's) squeegee would be excellent too and I should really buy one for larger paper sizes, because I do no really like to make several passes,on a large sheet, with the smaller tools.

Graphic Chemicals carries good rubber squeegees, sold by the inch, with sharp corners, and a qood, long steel straight edge, for those of us that like to cut our own paper and mats, and backing, but be sure to treat the wood handle with 3lb. cut shellac, with enough curing times between coats, two or three, and hang it in a sunny window after clearing up in the darkroom, only long enough for the afternoon sun to dry it and kill any mold that may grow, despite the shellac prep, say 4 hours, between both sides.

Do no use oil finishes.

I keep a film squeegee in my darkroom, as a reminder and 3-D Oxymoron to NEVER, EVER, use such a tool ever again.

IMO.

 

[Smaug01]

Mechanized processors often include squeegees, but that is a different situation than we are talking about here.
I have absolutely no doubt that it is possible, with a high level of care and a high quality squeegee that has been carefully and appropriately stored and cleaned and prepared for use, to reliably and safely use a squeegee on soft film emulsion.
But why take the risk?

Same reason I use one in the shower stall after a shower: because it helps avoid water spots. (and it also speeds drying)

If you take anything close to reasonable care of the squeegee, it won't scratch your film. By that, I mean:

• Buy a squeegee intended for use on film by a reputable brand, ex. Paterson.
• Check that it hasn't got grit on it before squeegeeing
• Rinse it off, so it doesn't hit the negatives dry
• Don't squeeze it too hard

That's it, it's not much.

I get the feeling a lot of the nay-sayers haven't even tried it. Or they tried it in a ham-fisted manner, scratched their negs and then blamed the tool for user error.

 

[NB23]

Okay, i’m perplexed. I need an answer. But an intelligent answer.

why squeegee? What’s the purpose? Even with nice’n’soft fingers, what’s the purpose?

There is a deep lack of knowledge. I’ll explain it another time.

I need an intelligent answer, first.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use mainly large format film, up to 14x17. Photo-flo or equivalent (I use Fuji Drywell) is the way to go for me. No squeegeeing for me! And I never squeegee roll film. I don't see the point when one uses a surfactant. But to each his own...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Same reason I use one in the shower stall after a shower: because it helps avoid water spots. (and it also speeds drying)

If you take anything close to reasonable care of the squeegee, it won't scratch your film. By that, I mean:

• Buy a squeegee intended for use on film by a reputable brand, ex. Paterson.
• Check that it hasn't got grit on it before squeegeeing
• Rinse it off, so it doesn't hit the negatives dry
• Don't squeeze it too hard

That's it, it's not much.

I get the feeling a lot of the nay-sayers haven't even tried it. Or they tried it in a ham-fisted manner, scratched their negs and then blamed the tool for user error.

Actually the people here that are advising against squeegees are quite intelligent and used film grade squeegees and had problem with them. Keep on using a squeegee but then do not come back crying in a post about negatives or slides ruined with the squeegee.

 

[pentaxuser]

Okay, i’m perplexed. I need an answer. But an intelligent answer.

why squeegee? What’s the purpose? Even with nice’n’soft fingers, what’s the purpose?

There is a deep lack of knowledge. I’ll explain it another time.

I need an intelligent answer, first.

I feel the wording you use may be all you need to prevent any intelligent answers. If it was designed to insult and provoke then that's fine. At least it means you know what reaction you are looking for. If you really have no idea of the negative effect your words have on soliciting intelligent responses then this is a pity on Photrio and possibly creates negative effects on other interactions you have in everyday life which work against you

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

I will let the rest of you decide if I am intelligent or not, have the depth of knowledge or am an obsessive compulsive person ................BUT

WHY SQUEEGEE: I never get drying marks on B&W 35mm films when I use Ilfotol and my squeegee. I tried not using the squeegee but got intermittent drying marks (final rinse was with deionised water). I even tested my own B&W film by running it through the final wash tank & dryer of my C41 processor but still got drying marks.

HOW TO SQUEEGEE: Smaug01 & myself have already explained how to do it. Think soft not hard; gentle not rough; kiss not gouge.
I had thought I might say you should treat your film and squeegee like you would treat your lover but..............................

All I can say is try it and you might like.

 

[jtk]

Squeegee is never necessary after a quick dip in 2 drops per 16oz stainless tank.

 

[eli griggs]

Matt, I always thought that distribution costs had as two of its fairly important costs, distance and the logistics needed. I still scratch my head about what makes distributing on one small island not quite as big as Texas more expensive than crossing 3000+ miles of water then distributing product over a land that is about as large as the water

pentaxuser

What makes little sense is, it is pretty much set in stone that, Packing, together with Distribution cost run highest per Unit, no matter what the Unit Size, however when Buying Kodak roll films, in bulk, though there is some cost adjustment per each 36 frame rolls made by the user, the Cost is still too high, and it seems that Kodak and some other companies are including a penalty factor for Buying in Bulk Rolls.

Thing about it, all the processing and materials used in making an equlivent number of usable frames in 36 frame cassettes compared to the usable frames in bulk roll, demands a higher out of pocket production cost, compared to simply rolling up 33m of film, dropping it into a plastic bag, taping it shut and having it dropped into a box, and sending that one unit to the consumer.

It does no add up, unless you do add a penalty factor to bull films, which are less expensive per unit, even considering the greater weight of the box, compared to a ten roll pack, which means, if I understand the above conjecture to be correct, a higher Profit Margin on those High Use Users, US, who are the buying their films, more often.

Fell free to correct the above, but just looking at the cost of a roll of Tri-X vs. a roll of HP5+, at KEH.com, is much closer in price, per single cassette, than bulk rolls of llford and Kodak.

What, other than higher profits can explain the difference.

IMO.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak's 35mm individual cassette confectioning system is highly automated and can produce high quantities of product in a short time.
Their 35mm bulk film confectioning systems are extremely low volume, low automation (almost by hand manual) processes that relatively speaking are quite expensive.
Switching back and forth between the systems is somewhat expensive and highly disruptive to the more efficient 35mm individual cassette systems.
The cost of the film itself is tiny when compared to the costs of confectioning and distribution, particularly when you are dealing with relatively insignificant volumes.

 

[eli griggs]

So, what you are saying is Kodak has no bothered to adapt it's bulk film apparatus to lower cost, in a one time investments, so it can offer a better value to dedicated users?

If Kodak is able to automate a many processes production, how is it that they can no the bulk film process and automate a much less involved line and save production cost and benefit their loyal users, a life time investment as well, with better value for the dollar?

It feels like Kodak STILL does no care about the people that are keeping their lines open.

Imo

 

[MattKing]

So, what you are saying is Kodak has no bothered to adapt it's bulk film apparatus to lower cost, in a one time investments, so it can offer a better value to dedicated users?

The volumes are so low, that it doesn't make any business sense to do so.
It is much like cut sheet colour photographic paper. When Kodak stopped selling it, their "production" had been reduced to one former Kodak employee who was essentially doing the cutting and packaging in his converted garage. When he decided to retire, there was no viable way to replace his services, because the volumes were too low.
Ilford/Harman have much less efficient systems, but they are much more flexible and, as such, are better suited to small quantities, so for them the cost of producing bulk film is much closer to the cost of producing individual rolls. For that reason, they can be more competitive with respect to a niche, niche, niche product like bulk film.
As an example of the realities at Kodak, my source in Kodak has mentioned that the incredibly high capacity machine that they use to perforate motion picture film is the same, single machine as was used to perforate the film that Spartacus (and so many other classic films) was shot on - that was 60 years ago. Kodak enjoys the reaction they get from new people who are added to that part of the staff when they mention that.
But there is only one of those, it is only capable of extremely high volumes, and it is probably economically irreplaceable.
Everything left at Eastman Kodak at the time of the bankruptcy is large, designed for high volumes, and expensive to re-purpose. The bulk film production capacity is gone, unless they use some sort of a relatively manual method, and Kodak has very few employees available to do that.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

There will never be an end to those who intensely dislike (hate?) Kodak and post about it on PHOTRIO as well as elsewhere. Reasoning with them is a waste of time. They want what they want and if a corporation won't lose money giving it to them, that corporation receives their wrath. The ignore function is a great tool.

 

[eli griggs]

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.

 

[AgX]

WHY SQUEEGEE: I never get drying marks on B&W 35mm films when I use Ilfotol and my squeegee. I tried not using the squeegee but got intermittent drying marks (final rinse was with deionised water).

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.