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

[gealto2]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

It's nearly a religious debate. I've used PhotoFlo at recommended dilution and at half-dilution with no bad effects and about equal effectiveness. Guessing dilution and being wrong, specifically above the recommended dilution, could be the historical reason for the aversion to its use. Or it could be the soaking. I don't soak but quickly flush the tank and film with photo-flo. Then wash tank and reels carefully in hot water.

Most importantly, use the process that works for you.

 

[MattKing]

Your professor is mostly correct, and his/her advice is the same I have been sharing for decades, including ~20 years here on APUG/Photrio.
Although I wouldn't exactly say the reels are "damaged" - more just a pain to clean.
And I'm not sure your professor is totally correct about the residue remaining in the emulsion. What does happen with the residue is that it causes issues with foaming in developer, potentially resulting in problems with uneven development.
And by the way, it is "PhotoFlo", not "Photoflow."

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[npl]

Rinsing the reel vigorously right after with running water is enough to avoid any issue.

I do a scrubbing motion with my thumbs and can feel that the reel feels less and less "slippery" as the wetting agent is washed off.

Every other parts of the developing tank should be rinced as well

 

[loccdor]

I was using too little PhotoFlo for a long time (a splash as tiny as I could make it, something like 0.5-2 mL per liter). Now I use a half cap full which gets me closer to the 1+200 recommended ratio of 5mL.

The lower amount did work most of the time, when distilled water was used, but I encountered occasional drying spots.

I like to shake it vigorously until a lot of bubbles form. I use the normal developing tank and reels, but I can see a case for having its own container due to residue left behind. I prefer to do 5-7 agitated prewashes before a film development so I don't worry about that. That also keeps other stuff on the film out of your reused developer.

Degrading the film with PhotoFlo? Seems like you would have to use an awful lot. It's pretty similar to soap, isn't it?

 

[koraks]

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.

The latter about 'surface treatment' is bogus. The water with Photoflo dissolved in it will permeate the emulsion. There's no such thing as a 'surface treatment' with a watery solution of a gelatin matrix.

 

[Pieter12]

Jobo specifically recommends not immersing their plastic reels in photoflo:

"Caution: Stabilizer (or Kodak final rinse, or any Photo-Flo type surfactant) should always be used in the following way: Use a dedicated container for the solution. This solution should be stored and used off the processor (at room temperature). Remove the film from the reels before immersing the film in the solution. If reels or tanks are immersed in these solutions, they will eventually cause processing contamination effects. The reels will become difficult to load. Rinsing or cleaning the reels or tanks after processing will not eliminate this problem."

 

[logan2z]

Jobo specifically recommends not immersing their plastic reels in photoflo:

"Caution: Stabilizer (or Kodak final rinse, or any Photo-Flo type surfactant) should always be used in the following way: Use a dedicated container for the solution. This solution should be stored and used off the processor (at room temperature). Remove the film from the reels before immersing the film in the solution. If reels or tanks are immersed in these solutions, they will eventually cause processing contamination effects. The reels will become difficult to load. Rinsing or cleaning the reels or tanks after processing will not eliminate this problem."

I follow Jobo's advice and remove the film strip from the reels before immersing it in the wetting agent/water solution (I use LFN rather than Photoflo). I agitate for 1 minute and then remove the film and hang it from film clips. A gentle 'squeegee' with a PEC pad on both sides of the film removes the bulk of the water, and then I leave the film to dry for approx. 24 hours. This results in no water spots or streaks on the film and no build-up of gunk on the reels.

 

[Chuck1]

I dunk the film on the reels in a container that is only for photo flo. Then wash the reels.
never thought about why( figured it was avoiding bubly soapy developing irregularities)

 

[cliveh]

Your professor was correct. Many photographic chemicals for sale are not needed. Photography can be a very simple process. Keep it simple.

 

[chuckroast]

The problem here isn't Photflo, which I've used without issue for decades at 1:200 as recommended.

The problem is the plastic reels that most people use for processing the film. The high walls that hold the film in place trap fluid and require a lot of post use rising to get complete cleaned out.

I never use these. I only use the Nikor style stainless steel reels. The hight of the wind is small and inter-winde spacing large enough that rinsing these is a snap.

You really find this out if your try to do long semistand with highly dilute developers and almost no agitation. Those plastic reels will trap developer and give you bromide drag like crazy. The Nikor type reels present no problem in this regard.

tk;dr Don't use plastic reels.

 

[Vaughn]

The university darkroom I worked in from 1977 to 2013 had a gallon SS tank with the photo-flo in it. Students see-saw their film in it. The film dev space was small and we had up to 125 students a quarter. Too chaotic for self-serve photo-flo into tanks. Both SS and plastic reels used and had to kept clean.

The Photo-flo was changed daily or more often if a busy day...made from Photo-Flo 2100. I checked into Photo-Flo 600, but it uses a more toxic formula, while the 2100 uses the same as the 200.

Now I rarely use it now at home and just hang the roll and sheet film (no heat, no fan).

 

[chuckroast]

The Photo-flo was changed daily or more often if a busy day...made from Photo-Flo 2100. I checked into Photo-Flo 600, but it uses a more toxic formula, while the 2100 uses the same as the 200.

When I last look at PF 600 compared to PF 200, they were similar in content with the 600 just being far more concentrated. I got a gallon of PF 600 years ago and plan to further dilute it to make PF 200 out of it as I need to.

I'd be interested in your findings for the 600 being "more toxic".

 

[Agulliver]

I started using Photoflo about a decade ago and haven't removed the film from the reels. Other than *possibly* needing to clean the reels a bit more, I notice no issues.

 

[Vaughn]

Photo-flo 200 uses Propylene glycol
Photo-flo 600 uses Ethylene glycol which is considered much more toxic...possible kidney damage, etc.

Since I ran a darkroom with up to 75 new students every quarter (most with no previous darkroom or lab experience) in relatively tight quarters, using a less toxic alternative is just common sense.

From the Kodak data sheet:
file:///Users/vaughnhutchins/Desktop/photoFlo200-600-2100solution_techInfo_ti0688.pdf

Warning: Observe precautionary information on containers and in Material Safety Data Sheets!
Slightly different components are used to achieve the 3 different concentrations of KODAK PHOTO-FLO Solution
(200, 600, and 2100). Precautionary information on containers and in MSDS's differ for each PHOTO-FLO product.
PHOTO-FLO Solutions are eye irritants. Wear adequate eye protection when mixing and using this product. Avoid
contact with clothing or prolonged contact with skin.
PHOTO-FLO 600 Solution is harmful or fatal if swallowed.
PHOTO-FLO 2100 Solution causes eye burns.

 

[djdister]

I've us.ed Kodak Photo-Flo with stainless steel reels and stainless steel tanks for over 45 years, wash my reels and tanks with very hot water after each use and never had a problem with Photo-Flo carryover.
.

 

[Ron789]

Wetting agents (PhotoFlo or Agepon) may cause trouble when using film spirals that slide the film in from the outside, like Paterson or Jobo. A residu may stick to the spiral that will block the film from sliding in. Thorough washing afterwards helps to avoid this. I always use HP Combina tanks where the film is guided from the center to the outside using a guide, without sliding the film through the spiral. No chance of blocking the film so not sensitive to any residu of wetting agent.

 

[Paul Howell]

I live in a hard water city, very hard water, I've used photoflow for the past 60 years without issues, in both SS and various plastic tanks and reels. I do clean my plastic reels with an old tooth brush under running hard water. Although stained no issues with film advance.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Your professor is mostly correct, and his/her advice is the same I have been sharing for decades, including ~20 years here on APUG/Photrio.
Although I wouldn't exactly say the reels are "damaged" - more just a pain to clean.
And I'm not sure your professor is totally correct about the residue remaining in the emulsion. What does happen with the residue is that it causes issues with foaming in developer, potentially resulting in problems with uneven development.
And by the way, it is "PhotoFlo", not "Photoflow."

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

I have used nothing but steel reels/tanks for 13 years, and I mix up the PhotoFlo in the same developing tank at the end, and rinse it all out with water and hang stuff up to dry. Not once in 13 years have I had to scrub the reels or tank to clean off residue — it just doesn't happen to me. Is it my water quality? Dunno.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

After ceasing use of Photoflo, I had many fewer problems with "junk" on the negatives. It may be related to the extremely hard water I had. I substituted a good rinse with distilled water after normal washing, and was much happier.

I suspect, with no evidence, that there could be some problem with Photoflo and hard water.

I thought Photoflo was Triton-X 100, a non-ionic surfactant used in laboratories. Triton X-100 can be problematic in terms of precipation and spoilage; but only in dilute solutions. Stock material was forever. Photoflo? - who knows the compostion and dilution. Someone here, probably...

PS. Photoflo can leave a residue - this is true.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

Your professor was right and wrong:
Wrong because Photoflo in the right concentration does absolutely no harm to the film, emulsion, or long-term storage.
Right, because it can indeed cause a sticky buildup on reels and tanks, especially if used at too high a concentration, and needs to be cleaned off for things to move smoothly. The little ball bearings in reels are an example, but they're not hard to wash off with a mild soap and a brush.

 

[Rick A]

I have a bottle of Edwal LFN that I've been working out of for the last 40+ years without reel stickiness issues. I gave up on Kodak that many years ago. I use SS tanks and reels so just a rinse in hot running water leaves them clean. My kids and students used plastic reels, and we never had any issues.

 

[Certain Exposures]

I have to spend an unreasonable amount of time rubbing watermarks off of my film if I don't use Photoflo. Even if I use distilled water. Also, my film clings to the inner wall of the Photoflo container like a child to a warm blanky if I put it in there off of the reel. So, I've been in the habit of putting the reel in the Photoflo.

I do have a mysterious issue going on with Fujifilm 400. Maybe I should change my ways?