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

[logan2z]

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.

It mostly becomes apparent to me when I scan my film - lots of dust spots to clone out. I'm seeing far less of it after wiping with the Pec Pads.

 

[Dave Lusby]

I have always used two or three drops of Kodak Photo Flo in my 120 stainless tanks filled with distilled water. In 50 years I have never had a problem. I have tried RO water from Whole Paycheck - no go - and home water that went through a softener - no go. There are always mineral deposits unless I use distilled water. Never had a problem with drainage marks.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

I use photo flo, just a few drops, in the tank with wash water, then hang. After that, I pour the water from the tank on to the top of the hanging film so that it runs down in a sheet. Hardly ever do I have problems, and alcohol or similar solvent will remove any residue.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Using PhotoFlo according to the instructions is safe film and paper. If your water requires varying from the instructions, do not vary far from the instructions.

It is worth taking the time to wash and rinse tanks and reels to avoid chemical deposits.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

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

It did. I had extremely hard water, but the distilled rinse took care of that. With Photoflo, I got what appeared to be, perhaps, bits of "debris" on the negatives sometimes. Dilution was exact as specified, using graduated cylinders or syringes. Who knows why?

 

[Brendan Quirk]

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.

The Photoflo I used was Kodak branded, and not too recent. I think I have seen an MSDS specifying Phototflo as Triton X-100, which I have used int the lab, and had spoilage problems with in dilute solutions.

 

[Maris]

There is a technique in analytic chemistry called Dynamic Foam Analysis. It depends co-relating the concentration of a foam stabilising agent with the quantity and stability of foam produced after a standard shaking routine.

Photo-Flo is a foam stabiliser and I believe its ideal concentration produces a low and semi-stable foam. My tap water here in Noosa happens to have very low Total Dissolved Solids and my experiments suggest one or two drops of Photo-Flo
per litre of water is not enough but three drops is just "goldilocks" right. This is about a 1+6000 dilution which is way way less than Kodak's 1+200 recommendation. But tap water varies and I reckon doing the "low and semi-stable" foam test once and using it in future is worth the bother.

The foam test also works with rinsed tanks and developing reels. I shake them together and change the water until there is absolutely no trace of foam. Any Photo-Flo molecules left are too few to worry about.

And there's the old trick of hanging a film strip edge down and at a 45 degree angle. The Photo-Flo solution only has to get the short distance across the film, not down its entire length, and if a bubble dries on the film it is at the edge and not on the picture area.

 

[randyB]

For over 50 years every roll of 35mm, 120, every sheet of 2x3, 4x5, 5x7 film that I have developed has been treated with PhotoFlo. I have had ZERO problems with my Paterson or Jobo reels. I do rinse the tanks and reels in hot water as the final step. If you are having problems with sticky reels then I suggest you soak them overnight in clean water and then dry completely.

 

[mshchem]

For over 50 years every roll of 35mm, 120, every sheet of 2x3, 4x5, 5x7 film that I have developed has been treated with PhotoFlo. I have had ZERO problems with my Paterson or Jobo reels. I do rinse the tanks and reels in hot water as the final step. If you are having problems with sticky reels then I suggest you soak them overnight in clean water and then dry completely.

+1

Most problems are from too much Photoflo.

 

[qqphot]

What are the problems caused by this improper use of photoflo? I'm just wondering how much better my photographs could be if I did it correctly!

 

[Randy Stewart]

I use stainless steel reels and tanks for my B&W processing. I've never had an issue with Photoflo 200.
Paterson plastic reels are notorious for accumulating sticky scum from Photoflo, which I attribute to either poor design, or more likely, cheap plastic material.
I use Unicolor plastic reels from the 1980s for my color processing, both c-41 and E-6, both using Photoflo200 in the finishing step. I’ve never had a problem with these reels. Part of my success may be that I mix Photoflo 200 at a 1:400 ratio, half the concentration Kodak specifies. Also, my tanks and reels are routinely washed immediately after use, so there is no chance that any Photoflo solution will dry on the equipment.
IMO, much of the Photoflo "problem" I see discussed in social media videos relates to careless, unmeasured mixing of working solutions with much higher concentrations than recommended.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

And also, you don't need to see-saw. Just slowly lower the film into a bowl or container, letting it curl naturally into the solution.
You can agitate by gently picking up one end of the film and lowering it back down a few times.
The concentration is quite important - @BrianShaw is correct about avoiding too much.
This is what I use to make it easier to be sufficiently precise: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/making-and-using-a-kodak-photo-flo-stock-solution.396/
I find a 1 litre measuring graduate to be perfect for the container.

Thanks for that, Matt. I am definitely going to give your Photo-Flo concoction a go, after my trip.

 

[MattKing]

You are welcome Andrew. Our gracious hosts at the Darkroom Group swear by it!
They even have densitometer data confirming its advantage over sloppily mixed, over concentrated stuff!
(produced as part of a calibration routine for a film recorder).

On the subject of the thread, and for the chemists/water scientists here, I was musing on a question:
Does the presence of minerals or other things found in variable quality tap water affect the surface tension behavior of that water?
Because the use of PhotoFlo and the like is all about surface tension.

 

[GregY]

I just finished a litre size bottle of Calumet photo flo (after 20 yrs!) I have a single plastic Kinderman developing tank i use just for the purpose.....dipping the stainless reels. I just rinse the reels after hanging the film. We'll see if there's any change when i start using my vintage bottle of Kodak photoflo.

 

[MattKing]

I just finished a litre size bottle of Calumet photo flo (after 20 yrs!) I have a single plastic Kinderman developing tank i use just for the purpose.....dipping the stainless reels. I just rinse the reels after hanging the film. We'll see if there's any change when i start using my vintage bottle of Kodak photoflo.

It is these sort of experiences that probably explain why Photo Systems didn't bother licensing the Kodak version of the name when they started producing the same stuff and selling it under the Kodak name .
https://kodak.photosys.com/collecti...dak-photo-flo-200-solution-16-oz-cat-146-4510

 

[gealto2]

And also, you don't need to see-saw. Just slowly lower the film into a bowl or container, letting it curl naturally into the solution.

Matt, I don't see-saw the film in wetting agent. I was trying to describe very old school manual way of developing roll film without using reels. I place a bowl about ten inches in diameter with a very rounded bottom on top of a sigle step, about ten inches above the ground. I'm holding the film with one hand on each end and the drooping in a big U. I take the leader end of film and place it in the wetting agent with my other hand as high as I can reach and then slowly raise that end while lowering the tail end at the same speed, maintaining a loop submerged in the wetting agent. After the film passes through once, I hang the film in that orientation with the leader up. The film only passes once and a given section is submerged for one a second or two. This smooth motion avoids creating any bubbles and makes the solution run down the surface of the film instead of soaking in. Oh, and the emulsion side is toward the inside of that loop to avoid scratches.

My memory is throwing out more bottles of Kodak PhotoFlo than I can remember due to mold growth. This is my concern about it going into the emulsion. Any more I use a drop of Palmolive clear odor free dish detergent in about a liter of RO water left still for an hour. Never seen mold growing in that, I also use only RO water for all film processing steps including dev, wash, fix, and wash. My RO filter gives less than 5 ppm and I check it weekly.

 

[MattKing]

I have never encountered mould growth in PhotoFlo concentrate - and some of the bottles I have seen are decades old.
That being said, if water gets into the bottle, then the mould can certainly grow in the water plus concentrate mixture - just as it will if you try to store "working strength" PhotoFlo.
The old glass with metal top bottles were fine unless the cap rusted.
The modern plastic bottles are just as prone to failure - i.e. sometimes, but not frequently - as any fairly heavy duty plastic bottle holding photo chemicals.
It is failure of the container that leads to water ingress, and resulting mould growth.
And I would never, ever use Palmolive or any other dishwasher detergent, because even the scent free stuff has ingredients that would be bad for gelatin.

 

[Pioneer]

I think my bottle of Kodak Photo-Flo is a collector's item and there is no mold. Goodness only knows where it came from, probably my uncle, but it still works.

 

[MattKing]

I still use the one shown here - but I decant new stuff into it.

Portal of a different Sort

• MattKing
• Dec 29, 2007
• 7

I thought I’d try something different for this assignment.

In my mind, a “Portal” is an...

 

[Pioneer]

Nah. You win. I don't think mine is quite that old.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A very small amount of Thymol based Listerine can be added to stored dilute solutions to inhibit the growth of Saprolegnia water mold. But I neither store nor reuse diluted Photoflo,
and never never gotten mold in the concentrate. I do remember, as a beginner long ago, mixing up a large quantity of Photoflo and getting conspicuous water mold in that. You'd be amazed at what it will grow in, and the spores seem to be everywhere.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

I use 3-4 drops of Photoflo 200 in 500 mL dest. water as final bath.
Just leave the film on the reel (Jobo and Kaiser) and immerse for some minutes.
Then the film dryes vertically without wiping at room temperature.
No problems.
Only once there was mold in a bottle of Tetenal Mirasol...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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!

there is concern that water from a dehumidifier can contain dust and bacteria, but I've used it with no ill effects. Nevertheless, demineralized or distilled water is safer and inexpensive.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I still use the one shown here - but I decant new stuff into it.

Portal of a different Sort

• MattKing
• Dec 29, 2007
• 7

I thought I’d try something different for this assignment.

In my mind, a “Portal” is an...

Matt, by any chance have you used the film apron as well?

 

[Craig]

Matt, by any chance have you used the film apron as well?

Like this one?