I'm Going Back To Pre-Wet Before Developer

[takilmaboxer]

I never pre wet the pot before I smoke it...

 

[Vaughn]

I gave the best advice in Post #16. If anyone wants to discuss it, they are welcomed to come on over for a beer and we can talk about why I am right.

 

[foc]

It's one of those conundrums.

• Pre wet or not.
• Tap the tank or not.
• Squeegee or not.
• Plastic or metal.
• Inversion or swirl.
• Metric or imperial
• Ilford or Kodak
• Add your own here.

 

[Kino]

I switch from Rocky Road to Chocolate Chip Cookie dough and haven’t looked back.

Spumoni!

 

[craigclu]

I pre-wet, mostly from habit at this stage. I was initially shown by a respected photographer (in the 1960's) to add 2 drops of Agepon wetting agent to a liter of water. I partly continued the habit because it added a tempering step to the tank and reels in my cold climate, basement darkroom. I've not been chasing my tail on issues that could be related to this habit so I've just left well-enough alone, I guess.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Like it reads.
I don't recall any streaking, dots, mysterious marks, etc, on my neg.'s back in the days when I pre-wet. What's the harm?
I read that water makes gelatin more permeable to developer, but reguardless, if it takes the "dryness" away, wouldn't that make for better development - better negatives?

Pre-wetting film before developer works well for me when I process film in color print drums or tanks like the Patterson Orbital where I use under 4oz of chemicals. What works to prevent streaks is starting with 4-8oz of water with a drop of Edwal LFN wetting agent to prevent streaks and bubbles.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's one of those conundrums.

• Pre wet or not.
• Tap the tank or not.
• Squeegee or not.
• Plastic or metal.
• Inversion or swirl.
• Metric or imperial
• Ilford or Kodak
• Add your own here.

• Pre wet or not. Yes except for Kodak Tri-X 400 with XTOL in a Jobo Processor [All three only] Prewetting gets rid of the dyes that colors the developer.
  
• Tap the tank or not. Tap
  
• Squeegee or not. No Never! Blot corner of hanging negative with a paper towel, if necessary
  
• Plastic or metal. Both are good
  
• Inversion or swirl. Inversion, Swirl can get streaks
  
• Metric or imperial Both
  
• Ilford or Kodak Both
  
• Add your own here.

 

[PhotoJim]

It's one of those conundrums.

• Metric or imperial

Or U.S. The Americans never did use the Imperial system.

A British US gallon package of D-76 only makes 0.83 gallons.

 

[takilmaboxer]

On a more serious note, I pre-wet when I think it will help. I pre wet Foma 100 to remove the blue dye. I pre wet if I use a very short development time, 5 minutes or less. I used to pre wet Efke 25 just because it was a delicate emulsion. But Ilford and Kodak emulsions are robust and I use an 8 minute time. Whatever produces a good negative.
Vaughn, if I still lived in Arcata I'd bring over some beer, maybe Mad River. I think you could teach me a thing or three.

 

[MattKing]

A British US gallon package of D-76 only makes 0.83 gallons.

???
How about: "If you purchase in Britain a US gallon package of D-76 it only makes 0.83 Imperial gallons."

 

[PhotoJim]

???
How about: "If you purchase in Britain a US gallon package of D-76 it only makes 0.83 Imperial gallons."

Well, to them, it's just a "gallon" - just like a US gallon is just a "gallon" to you.

 

[MattKing]

Well, to them, it's just a "gallon" - just like a US gallon is just a "gallon" to you.

Heh - I've been arguing for the 160 ounce gallon for years.
Along with the 20 ounce pint beer glass of course.

 

[removed account4]

some developer say specifically NOT to prewet ( I think Xtol is one of them ) but as PE would say : if it works for you, do it ..
me ? I love pre-wetting because when I am done and I pour the tray of weird colored fluid into the developer and it mysteriously vanishes. its a great parlor trick, you know, like soaking an M&M in warm water and getting the "M"'s to float off or freezing a goldfish in a block of ice and then putting the ice in a warm tank and watching the fish swim away.

Use a water bath before development, easy to do, and then see if that corrects the problem. If not, start looking at other factors in your new darkroom situation. Best to approach one variable at a time, anyway.

+1

 

[MattKing]

some developer say specifically NOT to prewet ( I think Xtol is one of them )

For inversion agitation in small tanks the only developers that I know of that address pre-rinse in the instructions are divided developers - they say do not do it.
For continuous rotary agitation, there are some developers that address pre-rinse in the instructions - they say do not do it.
In most cases, the instructions don't mention a pre-rinse. X-Tol is an example of that.

 

[Vaughn]

Who are 'they"? LOL!

 

[MattKing]

Who are 'they"? LOL!

The instructions

 

[foc]

The instructions

RTFI

 

[Sirius Glass]

Who are 'they"? LOL!

"They" are the people my parents were always afraid of. What "they think?"

 

[Helge]

Very few people have the resources and stringency to do real scientific tests on this, so it very quickly boils downs to habit, religion and hearsay.

So the advice from earlier about doing what the manufacturer tells you, is probably the best.

Pre-wetting has AFAIK the problems of washing out various inhibiting and hardening agents that the manufacturer might have put in the overcoat.

And also the pure water will need to be replaced in the gelatine by developer.
This might or might not go slower or faster than if the gelatine was dry to start with.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Just like with any process, to a test. Take good notes. If it works, stick with it. If it doesn't, start troubleshooting. But for me, I only pre-wet my film if I shoot LF film and process in my Paterson Orbital with less than 100mls of developer. I'm also thinking about pre-wetting my Arista EDU film just to remove the anti-halation dye off. I use HC-110 replenished and it makes my developer look green. I don't know what happens if the dye accumulates in my developer. Just like any process or religion, test your assumptions before coming to a conclusion and preprepared to change your conclusion again. Nothing is fixed. I gotta be flexible enough to change when I need to.

 

[Vaughn]

Just like with any process, to a test. Take good notes. If it works, stick with it. If it doesn't, start troubleshooting....

Exactly...and then any effect a water bath has on development time will naturally be factored in. People who just use listed times without further ado probably would not see any difference between the two methods.

If I remember right, most of developer, stop bath, fixer, wash-aids, and wash is water. Water up front is not a drastic chemical change in the routine...enough be be consistent with, of course.

 

[Helge]

Just like with any process, to a test. Take good notes. If it works, stick with it. If it doesn't, start troubleshooting. But for me, I only pre-wet my film if I shoot LF film and process in my Paterson Orbital with less than 100mls of developer. I'm also thinking about pre-wetting my Arista EDU film just to remove the anti-halation dye off. I use HC-110 replenished and it makes my developer look green. I don't know what happens if the dye accumulates in my developer. Just like any process or religion, test your assumptions before coming to a conclusion and preprepared to change your conclusion again. Nothing is fixed. I gotta be flexible enough to change when I need to.

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.

 

[Helge]

Exactly...and then any effect a water bath has on development time will naturally be factored in. People who just use listed times without further ado probably would not see any difference between the two methods.

If I remember right, most of developer, stop bath, fixer, wash-aids, and wash is water. Water up front is not a drastic chemical change in the routine...enough be be consistent with, of course.

But you are washing away "stuff", when you do one or two pre-wets/washes.
What that "stuff" is could be anything from benign or slightly malign elements, to components put in and on the film, to aid development and protection of the film.

In addition to opening up and filling the gelatine before it would have been otherwise (with something else than developer).
The developer now has to "rely" more on diffusion to get to the emulsion as opposed to getting wicked/sucked in by the dry-ish gelatine.
One could imagine that it could affect development time, and even affect edge effects and compensation effects slightly.

 

[Vaughn]

Curves would show it and they don't - so far.

 

[Helge]

Curves would show it and they don't - so far.

Do you have a precise way of measuring?
Again, confirmation bias can surprise even the most ardent and careful experimenter. Hence peer review.