Is everyone using Photoflow wrong, or is it just me and my professor?

[loccdor]

I substituted a good rinse with distilled water after normal washing, and was much happier.

That works for you? A final distilled water rinse does not prevent water spots for me. I need to use some surfactant.

 

[mshchem]

Photoflo problems usually are from using too much.

LFN works nicely. Just a drop or two.

 

[250swb]

The water on the surface is what causes streaking on negatives, not the water that has soaked in to the emulsion being released later through drying. The emulsion dries from the outside surface so it would be unlikely to contribute to spots and streaking.

It's difficult to know if everybody in this discussion is talking about the same product because 'Photoflo' has become a generic word and is quicker to type than 'wetting agent'. But not all wetting agents are the same and some are better than others, or should that be some work better in different types of water? For example I used Fotospeed wetting agent for many years with no problems at all in a soft water area, but I moved to a hard water area and got drying stains. I changed to Ilford Ilfotol and have not had a streak or drying mark since. In fact I went to college in the same soft water area and we never used a wetting agent, nor were we taught we needed one, and nobody got drying streaks or stains.

But thinking about how many hours I've been out getting the photographs my conclusion comes down to 'is it worth skipping a simple step that works (whether or not it's needed)'? A lot of photography today seems to be about how many things can be ignored or avoided rather than how many things you can add to make it super-reliable. But then I'm also the sort of person who tapes his Holga up to stop any light leaks.

 

[koraks]

The water on the surface is what causes streaking on negatives, not the water that has soaked in to the emulsion being released later through drying.

One more thing - this is sort of correct, but not entirely. What's correct is that the water that evaporates from the film surface can leave calcium scale there, resulting in spots/marks. We're all familiar with these. However, a gelatin emulsion drying unevenly (e.g. due to a droplet hanging on to the emulsion, causing this site to dry out much slower than its surroundings) can also result in drying marks. The notable difference between the former and the latter marks, from a practical perspective, is that the calcium spots can be removed. The marks from uneven drying are generally permanent.

A wetting agent or surfactant will protect especially against differential drying marks. It also helps to an extent against calcium spots, but in my experience this isn't complete/certain protection regardless if the product is used according to the manufacturer's guidelines. The main determinant of drying marks that consist of deposited material is (wait for it...) the presence of such materials in the water on the film (brilliant eh!) For this reason, many people find that a final bath using demineralized water, perhaps in combination with wiping the film (although opinions are very divided on this) is needed to get perfectly clean negatives. This is one of those areas in darkroom work where you have to figure out what works best for you in your specific situation, with your materials and preferences.

 

[ezphotolessons]

When I was in college 55 years ago, I took a few photography classes for fun. My professor harped on NOT putting Photoflow solution in the roll film developing tank with reels of film. He claimed that it damaged the reels and cans because it leaves a residue that is hard to remove. This is also a problem with the film itself, that this solution will remain in the emulsion and cause future problems. He taught that this should only be a surface treatment. So he taught removing the film from the developing reels and swishing it through the photoflow soution a single time with the photoflow in a bowl in the see-sawing motion that once was using from developing film at home. I've continued this treatment method, which makes me favor bulk loading 35mm rolls 30 exposures long since my arms aren't long enough to handle 36 exposure length rolls.

In recent years, I see on Youtube nobody is doing it this way and nobody talks about this. They just dump some photoflow in their developing tanks with water and film in them, and swish it around for a while. I think my professor was right. The water on the surface is what causes streaking on negatives, not the water that has soaked in to the emulsion being released later through drying. The emulsion dries from the outside surface so it would be unlikely to contribute to spots and streaking. Photoflow solution can't be very good for the long term storage of negatives. I've never had any spots or streaks on my negatives when done our way, so it works for me. I may be OCD, but this bothers me enough to talk about.

Comments and discussions are very welcome on this topic.

IDK. think a lot of people use the concentrations on the bottles' instructions which I was told was problematic; 0nly 1 or 2 drops in a tray or tank is all-that's-needed and tanks, reels, trays and things that came in-contact are typically washed well in hot water. Sometimes too-much-or-not-enough is the-problem; gotta-find your-own-sweet-spot, and like CliveH said KIS.

 

[Ardpatrick]

One more thing - this is sort of correct, but not entirely. What's correct is that the water that evaporates from the film surface can leave calcium scale there, resulting in spots/marks. We're all familiar with these. However, a gelatin emulsion drying unevenly (e.g. due to a droplet hanging on to the emulsion, causing this site to dry out much slower than its surroundings) can also result in drying marks. The notable difference between the former and the latter marks, from a practical perspective, is that the calcium spots can be removed. The marks from uneven drying are generally permanent.

A wetting agent or surfactant will protect especially against differential drying marks. It also helps to an extent against calcium spots, but in my experience this isn't complete/certain protection regardless if the product is used according to the manufacturer's guidelines. The main determinant of drying marks that consist of deposited material is (wait for it...) the presence of such materials in the water on the film (brilliant eh!) For this reason, many people find that a final bath using demineralized water, perhaps in combination with wiping the film (although opinions are very divided on this) is needed to get perfectly clean negatives. This is one of those areas in darkroom work where you have to figure out what works best for you in your specific situation, with your materials and preferences.

Re: the final rinse in demineralized water. It makes sense, although I use my regular filtered darkroom supply. Would water gathered in a dehumidifier tank be useful? I have lots of that!

 

[Ardpatrick]

Try cleaning/coating plastic reels with a carpenters pencil by running the pencil around the grooves .
It's the best invention since draught/tap Guinness.

I appreciate the clarification re the relative historical importance of carpenters pencils. Insignificant beside the towering innovation of draught Guinness. Even if the “Extra Stout” is better again.

 

[ezphotolessons]

Re: the final rinse in demineralized water. It makes sense, although I use my regular filtered darkroom supply. Would water gathered in a dehumidifier tank be useful? I have lots of that!

it mightbe but most-likely-mightnotbe

Dehumidifier Water

There more than a couple thread regarding water used in the darkroom and there is a passing mention of the subject, but I would like a definite answer: - Can I use the water I get from a dehumidifier unit to replace distilled water for developing of film? - Is there a way to test if its...

www.photrio.com

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Because wetting agents run the risk of causing one or more problems, the easiest way to avoid them is to simply put the wetting agent in a separate container. I use a bowl and I see-saw the film through it before I hang to dry.

The problem I have had is that if the wetting agent is used in the tank, with the reels, there is high risk that any remnant that is not washed out will cause foaming the next time the reels and tanks are used, which to me has caused one side of the film to have development artifacts that correspond to the foam. It gets "stuck" at the top of the reel, and prevents the developer from properly touching the emulsion. It looks like in this thread: https://www.flickr.com/groups/84061069@N00/discuss/72157631654162733/

 

[Don_ih]

dehumidifier

At least some dehumidifiers will deposit dust into the water, if the air filter isn't very good (and most are nothing special). Pour some in a glass and look through it to see how it is.

 

[ags2mikon]

I thought that Photoflo was propylene glycol and triton x 100 and water. If used too strong the PG could be left behind causing issues.

 

[jim appleyard]

PE (Photo Engineer) once said that letting Photo-Flo soak into the emulsion has positive results for many years of neg storage.

I've been doing the 1+200 dilution for nearly 50 years, soaking both plastic and stainless reels for 1 minute. Thorough wash after. Never a problem.

 

[loccdor]

The bottle says it's dangerous for aquatic life so I wouldn't be surprised if it harms things that live on film.

 

[BHuij]

I've heard of photoflo buildup causing plastic reels to seize up, or contaminating developer.

I dunno, I use steel reels and always rinse them thoroughly after PhotoFlo and before setting out to dry. Never had a problem. I try to get pretty close to 1:200, but can't be bothered to measure precisely, so I add 20-30 drops (somewhere in the neighborhood of 1ml) to a half-full Nikor 2-reel tank (~250ml of water). Err on the side of not enough over too much. Works great.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Okay - no dehumidifier water for me! Filtered tap water works so I won’t mess with it.

 

[chuckroast]

I've heard of photoflo buildup causing plastic reels to seize up, or contaminating developer.

I dunno, I use steel reels and always rinse them thoroughly after PhotoFlo and before setting out to dry. Never had a problem. I try to get pretty close to 1:200, but can't be bothered to measure precisely, so I add 20-30 drops (somewhere in the neighborhood of 1ml) to a half-full Nikor 2-reel tank (~250ml of water). Err on the side of not enough over too much. Works great.

I kept an older smaller (50ml ?) brown glass PhotoFlo bottle. The cap on that bottle is almost exactly 2.5ml, which when added to a 500ml tank, yields 1:200. I always mix it with distilled water.

For (stainless) reels, I just use a clean stainless 500ml tank, rest the reel in there for 30 seconds or, hang the film, dip my index and middle finger in the PF, and gently run it down the length of the film in a scissors configuration. The tank and reels are then rinsed thoroughly in cold running water.

For sheet film, I cut the bottom of a plastic distilled water jug and marked the 500ml fill line. The sheets go in emulsion side up for 30 seconds and then are hung at a 45 degree angle to let the water run down to the lowest corner. After all the sheets are hung, I go back to each of them with a piece of paper towel to wick away the water droplet that forms on that lowest corner.

No issues for decades doing this.

 

[MCB18]

Reading through this, there appears to be tons of ways to use wetting agent/photo-flo. When I use it, I just leave the film on the spiral, in the same tank I use to develop, fill it with water, then add between 3 to 6 drops of photo flow depending on if it’s a one or two spiral tank. I have never had any issues with residue on my spirals or the tank. Very occasionally, I’ll get a film with water spots, but usually just putting it back on the spiral and soaking it in a solution with a little more photo flow than usual fixes that.

 

[koraks]

Would water gathered in a dehumidifier tank be useful?

It's kind of a mixed bag; I think I've posted something along those lines before. I also have a lot of dehumidifier water and all I can say is that it's not perfectly clean. However, it's mineral free and I do in fact sometimes use it as a final rinse, without ill effects. At the same time, I find that if I bottle it up and store it for some time, it tends to have some tiny debris/stuff floating in it. Most of it is probably dust that finds its way through the filters and into the reservoir. But it's not quite as clean as store-bought demineralized water.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've been routinely using Photoflo (and now the Ilford equivalent) on my still-reeled film in my Jobo hand-inversion tank, or analogous applications, for the past half century. After a thorough plain water wash with a hose placed in the hollow center of the reel, overflowing the tank, then I drain the last of that and pour in the Photoflo & distilled water solution a minute or so, then pour that out, and hang the film to dry from a monofilament fishing line suspended above the sink. The whole point of Photoflo is that helps the suspended film drain and dry streak-free.

All it takes is a few drops in the overall standing water volume. I never otherwise measure the exact amount. A single pint of the concentrate will last me 20 yrs. And I never re-use the highly-dilute working solutions. Who wants to bother filtering out water mold if it inevitably starts growing in recycled quantity?

Yeah, there's long-term buildup on the inside of the drum, which can be periodically scrubbed out. It no doubt builds up a little on the spiral too, but seems to act more as a lubricant in my case than cause difficulty spooling. That too can be scrubbed off with a toothbrush or whatever from time to time if necessary. I don't have hard water issues where I live; perhaps that is a complicating factor for some.

I haven't found any practical difference between Photoflo, Ilfotol, or LFN. I suspect some people are simply using way too much of it in solution than is really necessary, or are possibly recycling it.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Everyone's circumstances are unique. I haven't used PhotoFlo since 1973. On the advice of a member of the camera club at work I ditched both the PhotoFlo and the plastic tank.

I develop single rolls of 35mm film in a 250 ml SS tank. I use distilled water for the entire process. I dilute the Rodinal or Ilfosol 3 developer with it. I used it for the plain water stop. I mix the Ilford Rapid Fixer with it. And I use three changes of it for the Ilford method wash.

The total distilled water used is a little less than 1.25 liter for the developer, stop and wash for each roll, plus 0.8 liter every two or three months for a new batch of working strength fixer.

After the 20 inversions of the tank of the third step of the Ilford Method wash I add one drop of LFN to the same wash water and invert the tank five more times.

Then I pour out the wash water, remove the film from the reel, and snap it straight a few times to remove most of the water. (I can do this because I shoot either 12 or 24 exposure rolls.) Then I hang the film with Paterson film clips and gently wipe down both sides with a Kimwipe. The film dries quickly with no water spots and virtually no dust.

 

[logan2z]

...wipe down both sides with a Kimwipe.

Do you find that the Kimwipes leave a lot of lint behind on the film? They did when I used them. I recently switched to a Pec Pad which seems to be quite a bit better in this regard, but they're not as absorbent.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Do you find that the Kimwipes leave a lot of lint behind on the film? They did when I used them. I recently switched to a Pec Pad which seems to be quite a bit better in this regard, but they're not as absorbent.

I do not see lint when I wipe the wet film down with the Kimwipes. But I do use Pec Pads when I use a cleaning solution on dry film.

 

[abruzzi]

I have found that about 10 drops in 500ml of water is sufficient for me. I don't have an exact measurment of a drop size, but a search suggests its variable (obviously) but a good average is .05ml per drop. If that's the case 10 drops in 500ml is about 500/(10*.05)=1000 to one. For stuff I care about the developer and the PhotoFlo are mixed with distilled water, but even when I use tap water for the final rinse I never have spotting issues.

The worst spotting issues I had was using a C41 kit and finishing with the stabilizer and nothing else. Since then, any color dev I do (very little) I use a standard 10 drop/500ml PhotoFlo bath after the stabilizer.

 

[MarkS]

In the late '70s I worked as a tech in a busy custom lab, developing b/w roll film on stainless reels. The procedure there was to "purge" the reels weekly in 100F water, and dumping/cleaning the 2-gallon Photo-Flo tank at the same time.
That practice long pre-dated my time there, and no doubt continued after I left.
I've followed a similar practice ever since.

 

[DREW WILEY]

10 drops for 500ml water? I hardly use 2 drops. It takes very little.

Tap water can very tremendously from place to place. Here on this part of the Coast its high quality snowmelt piped in from clear across the State in the Sierras. But in the foothills of the Sierra, where I also had a house, the well water was very hard in terms of mineral content. Further down the coast, or a little more inland, the water contains all kinds of trace contaminants, and also so much needed chlorine that it almost burns your eyes if you take a shower. In the desert, tap water can sometimes be almost soap-like.
So it all depends. I consistently use distilled water plus a tiny amount of Photoflo for final film rinsing, and then hang it for air drying. Gave up on hot forced air drying quite awhile back.