• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodak Photo Flo

Latest Gallery

Admiral-Rink

A
Admiral-Rink

  • 3
  • 0
  • 21
1972 Chicago Auto Show-23

A
1972 Chicago Auto Show-23

  • 1
  • 1
  • 63

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,816
Messages
2,845,855
Members
101,544
Latest member
johnsaigon0
Recent bookmarks
0
cliveh said:
Well people who sell Photoflo would say that. But whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...

Why would they? A single bottle is practically a lifetime supply. I don't know what the markup is on it, but I feel pretty sure that they carry it more as a convenience to customers. They certainly aren't making any significant profit on sales of Photo Flo.
 
Well, it's a bit too late to tell that to a number of people who have used either one or the other to murder their spouses, albeit perhaps more quickly via one particular option. Are you willing to bet you life on a Wikipedia article?

Otherwise, my last bottle of Photoflo, and likewise Ilfosol, lasted about 20 years each. So no, that's not the kind of get rich quick stock I'd advise investing in.
 
Last edited:
Roger Cole said:
Why would they? A single bottle is practically a lifetime supply. I don't know what the markup is on it, but I feel pretty sure that they carry it more as a convenience to customers. They certainly aren't making any significant profit on sales of Photo Flo.
Click to expand...

Yes and we all know that PhotoFlo is just so damned expensive!
 
DREW WILEY said:
Well, it's a bit too late to tell that to a number of people who have used either one or the other to murder their spouses, albeit perhaps more quickly via one particular option. Are you willing to bet you life on a Wikipedia article?

Otherwise, my last bottle of Photoflo, and likewise Ilfosol, lasted about 20 years each. So no, that's not the kind of get rich quick stock I'd advise investing in.
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet my life that propylene glycol is not very toxic at all, yes. It doesn't have to come from Wikipedia to be true or not.

I'm not going to drink it straight up. No one said it's safe in those amounts. But you aren't going to absorb a toxic amount by wiping your fingers through a very dilute solution in the darkroom.
 
DREW WILEY said:
You should always use distilled water for the brief final rinse of film, no matter what your tap water quality is like. All it takes is a couple of drops - a tiny amount - of Photoflo or Ilfosol in a pint or even a quart or liter of water to do the job.

Wilt - Not all glycols are the same. You are aware of fatal amounts of PEG in toothpaste made in the PRC, and sold in Latin America, aren't you? That was as infamous as melamine being added to baby formula, around the same general timeframe. But if you know better, it's been nice chatting with you while we still had the chance ... The only animal it doesn't seem to poison are marmots, which have the remarkable ability to capture and store both antifreeze and rattlesnake venom in their fat, rodenticides too. Early season, just out from the snow, they'd chew through radiator hoses up to get at it, up at the Mineral King trailhead.
Click to expand...

PEG - polyethylene glycol - is neither ethylene glycol nor propylene. The particular glycol matters. As you say, they aren't all the same.
 
Yep. That's part of the problem, Roger.... they sound similar. Regardless, wiping a little of something on the skin is quite a different ballgame than someone deliberately putting a lot of any of these into someone's lemonade hoping to collect a life insurance payout.
 
Propylene glycol is allowed to be used in food. It's about as safe as anything we handle in photography https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/PHS/PHS.aspx?phsid=1120&toxid=240

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified propylene glycol as "generally recognized as safe," which means that it is acceptable for use in flavorings, drugs, and cosmetics, and as a direct food additive. According to the World Health Organization, the acceptable dietary intake of propylene glycol is 25 mg of propylene glycol for every kilogram (kg) of body weight.
Click to expand...

A 70kg person can eat 1.75 grams of it a day and remain under that specified safety level.
 
That's good to know. Maybe I should keep a list of stuff I can eat tacked up in the darkroom so if I get hungry during a printing session I won't have to slip out to the kitchen for a sandwich.

Seriously, is anyone drinking their photo chemicals? What would happen if I got so tired during a printing session I fainted face first into a tray of fixer? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Or the converse… a list of things we eat that can be used to prevent water spots on photographic film.

My point wasn’t so much about the type or toxicity of the antifreeze but was about the surfactant active agent not being a detergent. But my knowledge of “detergent “ might not be complete.
 
Been using formaflo, Photographer Formulary version of photoflo, for a while.

Water if very very hard on my city (tap water is not very suitable for drinking) and bottle water by the carboy is very common. Distilled water is not very common and cheap, so I wash with purified water and a wetting agent. If I use purified without Formaflo, I get marks so for it is a must for me. Always end up with drying marks whenever I don't use wetting agent OR wetting agent and tap water. Need both of them.

Marcelo
 
I am wondering how some of you have had such great success with Photo-Flo. I have tried Kodak Photo-Flo and Edwal LFN for the final rinse multiple times over the years, always following the instructions to the letter, and yet I got nothing but ugly smudges, esp. on 35 mm negatives. Now, reading these comments I am thinking I must have been doing something wrong, after all. Is there a secret to using Photo-Flo?
 
aparat said:
I am wondering how some of you have had such great success with Photo-Flo. I have tried Kodak Photo-Flo and Edwal LFN for the final rinse multiple times over the years, always following the instructions to the letter, and yet I got nothing but ugly smudges, esp. on 35 mm negatives. Now, reading these comments I am thinking I must have been doing something wrong, after all. Is there a secret to using Photo-Flo?
Click to expand...

You have to use it with an open and generous heart. :smile:
What the heck, I may as well link to my Resource which sets out how I use Photo-flo (spoiler alert: it involves alcohol!):
https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/making-and-using-a-kodak-photo-flo-stock-solution.396/
 
The more chemicals and process steps you make will not enhance the processing of a chemical image, but just muddy the waters. Simplicity of process will help you create an image of your original vision.
 
Photo Flo should be used highly dilute. And since such a tiny amount is required, do not store and re-use it. Water mold can grow in it. After a final brief dip in distilled water with added Photflo/ Ilfosol/ Edwal whatever - I hang the sheets or roll film strip from a monofilament "clothesline" above the sink until the film air dries. I never get any residual stuff.
 
aparat said:
I am wondering how some of you have had such great success with Photo-Flo. I have tried Kodak Photo-Flo and Edwal LFN for the final rinse multiple times over the years, always following the instructions to the letter, and yet I got nothing but ugly smudges, esp. on 35 mm negatives. Now, reading these comments I am thinking I must have been doing something wrong, after all. Is there a secret to using Photo-Flo?
Click to expand...

My steps are to put pure water in a 5x7 tray and carefully add the Photo-Flo (at 1:500) and slosh to mix until no more rivulets. Then I use a see-saw method to run the film through a few times after pulling it off the reel. I hang it up to dry without touching it and leave it until it dries.
 
Thirty years on and I'm still working my way through my first bottle of Photo-Flo 600. I have good quality tap water and the Photo-Flo dilution that works best is the minimum to produce a fine and semi-stable foam in the final soak. The dilution I use is 1+6000 or three drops per litre of water. The Kodak suggestion of 1+600, I reckon, is way over the top and may be responsible for all the problems with blobs, streaks, and drying marks reported in threads like this.
 
Mine’s Photo-Flo 200 for comparison, 1:500
 
i used it for the first time. it seems to do a good job.. i used perhaps 1/2 ounce 90% ISO, half ml of photo flo and distilled water to fill my tank.

Only a few drops of water left after rinse and drain and shake. but i have a feeling i need some fancy fixer with hardener as i seem to have scratched the emulsion with my bare fingers.
 
Bill Burk said:
Don’t touch the film.
Click to expand...

i know but... when the film strip has been in place hanging from the shower rod for half an hour.. and their still be bubbles of water stuck to it. How does one get rid of them...
 
redbandit said:
i know but... when the film strip has been in place hanging from the shower rod for half an hour.. and their still be bubbles of water stuck to it. How does one get rid of them...
Click to expand...

If you see bubbles, there was too much Photo-flo.
The water with the proper tiny amount of Photo-flo in it sheets off the film.
 
MattKing said:
If you see bubbles, there was too much Photo-flo.
The water with the proper tiny amount of Photo-flo in it sheets off the film.
Click to expand...

bubbles, beads... same thing..

I used very little. i dipped the medicine syringe in the photo flo and dipped it in the alcohol when i put it in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom