I'm Going Back To Pre-Wet Before Developer

[cliveh]

I'm sure that pre-wetting works for some. However, just going by the physical/chemical nature of the process, I would imagine that a pre-wet film prohibits or slows the ingress of developer, as the emulsion is already swollen by water. And for that reason I never pre-soak.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

But for most people there are just too many variables involved, to know precisely if and how much such a relatively subtle thing as pre-wetting affected the final outcome.
It's going to come down to confirmation bias and survivor bias.

You'd have to conduct a very stringent test under absolutely controlled, repeatable conditions, with the hundred or more samples of possible combinations of variables, and then doublets and triplets of those for redundancy, to be able to say anything approaching conclusive about whether to pre-wet or not.
And that is just for one film stock.

The manufacturer has already done the job in the lab for you!
Follow that lead.

Now if you've been printing with one film stock for twenty years and know it inside out, and have made all the possible mistakes and experiments, then you might have something to say in this discussion.
But of course most people haven't.

As for me, It's just for my art and hobby. I don't need stringent standards. An example was last winter, I shot 2 sheets of 8x10 film. Just in case I screwed one up processing it. The first negative came out streaky, but the density was OK and a bit on the thin side. I used the same time but prewet my film and added 20% more time. My neg turned out better with no streaks, but has not hit my goal of being able to contact print the neg on grade 2. I for the print to look good, I had to print on grade 3 1/2. I took good notes in the field and when I processed my film So next time, I'm going to bump up my process my film with 15% more time and do a contact print. It's a process or trial and error that works. I shoot with an end goal in mind.

For me note taking, I use Evernote. I have created a template for note taking during exposure and when I process my film. When I need precision, I write down the placement of Zones in the photo then the resulting densities with my negative. With sheet film, it's easier to track my exposure and processing methods. Of course, there's always that imprecise gut feeling from 40 years of shooting and processing film. It's not perfect, but it works for me.

 

[Vaughn]

Exactly, Helge -- no way to measure something which is only a possibility and is not a known issue.

 

[Helge]

As for me, It's just for my art and hobby. I don't need stringent standards. An example was last winter, I shot 2 sheets of 8x10 film. Just in case I screwed one up processing it. The first negative came out streaky, but the density was OK and a bit on the thin side. I used the same time but prewet my film and added 20% more time. My neg turned out better with no streaks, but has not hit my goal of being able to contact print the neg on grade 2. I for the print to look good, I had to print on grade 3 1/2. I took good notes in the field and when I processed my film So next time, I'm going to bump up my process my film with 15% more time and do a contact print. It's a process or trial and error that works. I shoot with an end goal in mind.

For me note taking, I use Evernote. I have created a template for note taking during exposure and when I process my film. When I need precision, I write down the placement of Zones in the photo then the resulting densities with my negative. With sheet film, it's easier to track my exposure and processing methods. Of course, there's always that imprecise gut feeling from 40 years of shooting and processing film. It's not perfect, but it works for me.

Of course not.
I was talking about if anyone was going to say something conclusively about whether it’s beneficial to pre-wet or not.

 

[Andrew Keedle]

I have no idea whether it helps or hinders development, but for me it tells me the JOBO 2850 is sealed properly before I stick in the developer. Twice I've had what feels and looks likes a properly seated lid leak fluid out. If that had been developer then that's 4 7x17" sheets that would have been ruined...

 

[Vaughn]

After many decades of people using a waterbath before development and people not using one, it is safe to say it makes no significant difference to the quality of the photographic print.

My proof -- someone would have been able to prove it by now beyond a doubt, one way or another.

 

[Helge]

After many decades of people using a waterbath before development and people not using one, it is safe to say it makes no significant difference to the quality of the photographic print.

My proof -- someone would have been able to prove it by now beyond a doubt, one way or another.

No doubt the difference is subtle.

But history is riddled with meaningless rites, that everybody once agreed on the common sense of. Then science came along...

Ilford for one has a clear stance against pre-wet. That can’t just be an arse pull.

 

[MattKing]

Ilford for one has a clear stance against pre-wet.

Except when they don't -in most cases they use "not recommended" to mean not required, rather than not a good practice.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Of course not.
I was talking about if anyone was going to say something conclusively about whether it’s beneficial to pre-wet or not.

Usually I follow the manufacturer instructions to the letter. Never had a single problerm that way.
Which means: no prewet for Ilford, Foma, eFKe, Agfa Leverkusen, Agfa Belgium and Fuji materials.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Except when they don't -in most cases they use "not recommended" to mean not required, rather than not a good practice.

I think it's from the same point of view that Ron had essentially explained with regards to a pre-wash - if it's done well, there's nothing wrong with it, but if done badly, it can be worse than not pre-washing. If there's one thing I've learnt, it's that the manufacturers have to start from the position that no matter how well you explain a procedure, if you can't make it resistant to the space cadets who fancy themselves cleverer than all the photo engineers put together, don't recommend it.

 

[pbromaghin]

I learned from PE that prewetting the film avoids many problems. He was our resident expert and knew more about film and film development that all of use combined. The self appointed experts without scientific experience will claim that the problems are all in film drying, but what do they know? Absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, ayn v'effis.

He said about all that needed to be said on the issue in his several responses to this thread:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...development-importance-of-plain-water.138963/

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I'm sure that pre-wetting works for some. However, just going by the physical/chemical nature of the process, I would imagine that a pre-wet film prohibits or slows the ingress of developer, as the emulsion is already swollen by water. And for that reason I never pre-soak.

A water-saturated emulsion takes up the developer more slowly (and hence, more evenly if the film is immersed in the developer over a longer period of time, e.g., when it takes a long time to fill a tank). The increase in developing time needed to compensate for this is likely less than 30 seconds, though, so a pre-soak shouldn't make a huge difference in development time.

Of course not.
I was talking about if anyone was going to say something conclusively about whether it’s beneficial to pre-wet or not.

See above for one example of how a pre-soak can be beneficial.

My primary reason to pre-soak is so my sheet film does not stick together in the development tray and so that initial agitation is easier. It takes a few minutes for the emulsion to become saturated with water. After that, shuffling sheets is much easier. A dry sheet of film, immersed too soon after another, can stick to the one below it like they were glued, and soaking them apart takes some minutes. I don't need that to happen in the developer... I let each sheet of film sit for 15-20 seconds in the water bath before adding another; otherwise, they stick. After soaking for a couple minutes and then shuffling through the stack a time or two, they are ready to go to the developer tray.

Some use a pre-soak to get tanks, drums, reels, and film up to processing temperature before starting development. This can be useful for repeatability and process control with higher-temperature processing, e.g., color processing.

One caveat about pre-soaking some films. There may be some films (Ilford, I believe, and maybe others) that have a surfactant incorporated into the emulsion to help with developer absorption. Pre-soaking these films for too-short a time results in an uneven distribution of the surfactant and can result in streaking. The problem goes away if the soak is long enough; somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-5 minutes if I remember correctly.

After many decades of people using a water bath before development and people not using one, it is safe to say it makes no significant difference to the quality of the photographic print.

My proof -- someone would have been able to prove it by now beyond a doubt, one way or another.

Exactly! If you need to pre-soak your film for a good reason (like I do), then you can be assured it won't hurt a thing. If you don't, then immersing it into the developer quickly when dry works just fine.

Doremus

 

[Helge]

A water-saturated emulsion takes up the developer more slowly (and hence, more evenly if the film is immersed in the developer over a longer period of time, e.g., when it takes a long time to fill a tank). The increase in developing time needed to compensate for this is likely less than 30 seconds, though, so a pre-soak shouldn't make a huge difference in development time.



See above for one example of how a pre-soak can be beneficial.

My primary reason to pre-soak is so my sheet film does not stick together in the development tray and so that initial agitation is easier. It takes a few minutes for the emulsion to become saturated with water. After that, shuffling sheets is much easier. A dry sheet of film, immersed too soon after another, can stick to the one below it like they were glued, and soaking them apart takes some minutes. I don't need that to happen in the developer... I let each sheet of film sit for 15-20 seconds in the water bath before adding another; otherwise, they stick. After soaking for a couple minutes and then shuffling through the stack a time or two, they are ready to go to the developer tray.

Some use a pre-soak to get tanks, drums, reels, and film up to processing temperature before starting development. This can be useful for repeatability and process control with higher-temperature processing, e.g., color processing.

One caveat about pre-soaking some films. There may be some films (Ilford, I believe, and maybe others) that have a surfactant incorporated into the emulsion to help with developer absorption. Pre-soaking these films for too-short a time results in an uneven distribution of the surfactant and can result in streaking. The problem goes away if the soak is long enough; somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-5 minutes if I remember correctly.



Exactly! If you need to pre-soak your film for a good reason (like I do), then you can be assured it won't hurt a thing. If you don't, then immersing it into the developer quickly when dry works just fine.

Doremus

Some very good points and links being made and given on this page of the thread.
This gets to the meat of the question instead of just stating that it’s contested and controversial.

People about to write something about using the search function of the board, obviously haven’t used it extensively.
Plus a concept with as many names and spellings as “pre-wetting”, is quite hard to do a casual search for.

 

[Vaughn]

No doubt the difference is subtle.

But history is riddled with meaningless rites, that everybody once agreed on the common sense of. Then science came along...

Ilford for one has a clear stance against pre-wet. That can’t just be an arse pull.

I was using reductio ad absurdum to show that it is rather absurd to think that the difference would not be known by now. As shown here and elsewhere there are many science-minded photographers who have thought about this -- not meaningless rites...that's a red herring...as is the "common sense' counter-argument. This includes the scientists and technicians for Ilford, etc. If there was a reason a waterbath before developing gave damaging or less than optimal performance with their materials (film & chemicals) I think it would be safe to assume they would give those reasons.

Edited to add: Just had a thought -- it would be to Ilford's advantage not to recommend a pre-developer waterbath. Since development times do differ slightly between with or without, going just with 'without' saves a lot of extra ink not having to write instructions that include 'with' times or corrections.