pinkish negs

Hi,
Strange phenomenon. Developing 120 Kodak 400tx and 135 HP5+400 in HC110 'H' delution; the first is pinkish and the 135 is clear?? both fresh developer/acid/fix/water. :confused:

t-grain films require more washing to remove various residual dyes from them. Using slightly warm water helps. Exposing negs to sunlight(UV) can fade the residual dyes away or just rewash. HP5 is NOT a t-grain film. And some non t-grain films just require more washing than others to remove residual dyes.

If its only slight pinkish then I wouldn't worry about it. You can just print through it without problems.

thanks ! I start rewash but is there any 'harm' in that little pink color?

k.hendrik said:

thanks ! I start rewash but is there any 'harm' in that little pink color?

Click to expand...

none at all. (I edited my above post)

Having said that I have always wondered whether it filters out a bit of green light and therefore makes your prints a tad contrastier but with VC paper you adjust contrast until its where you want it anyway so it wouldn't harm even if it did filter out a little green.

just saved 3 rolls before their #2 baptism.

A pre-soak of Tmax films helps to reduce the pink cast; thorough fixing plus a good wash should result in no pink at all. If pink remains you may want to consider a bit longer in the fixer and/or wash to get rid of it. Tmax film is harder on fixer than HP5+; it needs longer in the fixer and the fixer exhausts sooner.

Mike

I would double the fix time for T-grain emulsions.

Isn't 400 Tx Tri-X? Even though it isn't a "T" grain film, it still exhibits the same nasty pink if it isn't fixed and washed properly(read long enough). Oh yeah, IME it destroys fixer same as T Max.

the color of the used developer is with 400tx reddish and with Hp yellow/orange. "pre-soak" in water 20C ?? for how long?

I presoak three minutes for all films, habit from rotary processing.

I don't get this presoak thing. As if the developer was kind of welding the pink layer and making it impossible to wash off afterwards?

A presoak is exactly as effective as an after soak. Or as effective as the developer bath itself.

If anything, the presoak will contribute to uneven development and to underdeveloping the negative by around 30 seconds to 1 minute.

Pre-soak? Bad advice, IMO.

NB23 said:

I don't get this presoak thing. As if the developer was kind of welding the pink layer and making it impossible to wash off afterwards?

A presoak is exactly as effective as an after soak. Or as effective as the developer bath itself.

If anything, the presoak will contribute to uneven development and to underdeveloping the negative by around 30 seconds to 1 minute.

Pre-soak? Bad advice, IMO.

Click to expand...

+1

Films are very technologically advanced. A lot of effort has been put into how they absorb the developer as soon as its in contact with it: Uniformly.

A film is like a sponge. A presoak will fill the film with water fast and with great uniformity. The problem, however, is that once its filled with water, it will have to diffuse the water and infuse the developer at a SLOWER rate and in an UN-UNIFORM way until it's completely infused. This can cause uneven development and it will make you lose development time.

This is why it's not recomended by manufacturers to presoak their films. All has been taken into account by the chemists.

I pre-soak all my film. I get consistent, even development and don't have to worry about my replenishment regime developer becoming dis-coloured - the anti-halation dyes tend to wash out during that step.

The pre-soak ensures the film and tank is appropriately tempered to the room temperature I work at.

I expect, as well, that the pre-soak helps prevent magenta discolouration of my negatives.

There is, by the way, an exiting 90 post sticky thread on this very subject: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

MattKing said:

I pre-soak all my film. I get consistent, even development and don't have to worry about my replenishment regime developer becoming dis-coloured - the anti-halation dyes tend to wash out during that step.

The pre-soak ensures the film and tank is appropriately tempered to the room temperature I work at.

I expect, as well, that the pre-soak helps prevent magenta discolouration of my negatives.

There is, by the way, an exiting 90 post sticky thread on this very subject: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Click to expand...

The way I understand it, presoaking is a pet-peeve to wash-off the pink.
In that regard, presoaking is as effective as a post-soaking. Exactly the same.

Is it worth to ignore the manufacturer's recommendations for a pet-peeve? In my opinion, no.

But there are so many people involving Magical thinking in their development routine. Like Stand development and "I invert only once, veeeery sloooowly, in order to keep the grain in check". The magical thinking is absurd. And the stand development crowd do it to minimize grain and yet they don't realize that the grain is TWICE the size versus the regular methods.

All in all, there is a reason why manufacturers recomend what they recomed. Chemists have been paid to come up with the best possible recomendations.

MattKing said:

I pre-soak all my film. I get consistent, even development and don't have to worry about my replenishment regime developer becoming dis-coloured - the anti-halation dyes tend to wash out during that step.

The pre-soak ensures the film and tank is appropriately tempered to the room temperature I work at.

I expect, as well, that the pre-soak helps prevent magenta discolouration of my negatives.

There is, by the way, an exiting 90 post sticky thread on this very subject: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Click to expand...

Thanks; after some adivise here on APUG I pre-soak my Colortec C-41 with fine results but never thought to do this too with B/W.

k.hendrik said:

Thanks; after some adivise here on APUG I pre-soak my Colortec C-41 with fine results but never thought to do this too with B/W.

Click to expand...

You see, the manufacturers do recomend presoaking C-41 films. There is a reason for that.

Ilford does not recommend a pre-wash.

Gerald C Koch said:

Ilford does not recommend a pre-wash.

Click to expand...

No they don't. Nor does Kodak.

But for what I know, prewash is only recomended for C-41 films. Tetenal's instruction comes to mind...

Gerald C Koch said:

Ilford does not recommend a pre-wash.

Click to expand...

Yet there is more than one post here on APUG from Simon Galley where in response he states that while they Ilford/Harman don't recommend a pre-soak, a pre-soak is unlikely to cause any harm.

As an Example:

20th Feb 2012 06:36 AM #37
Simon R Galley
Dear All,

ILFORD do not advise the use of pre-soak, on the grounds that it is just not needed for any of our film emulsions. But if you do... I do not think you will see any adverse effects on any of our products, as long as it is not an excessively long pre-soak. For me its a non-issue, if your darkroom processing discipline is to use it, and you feel it helps thats great. I do not pre-soak, never have. Anti-halation dyes will not cause any 'chemical' issue within the dev/stop/fix process but as PE says it may make your dev a bit 'muddy'.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

That is post #37 in this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

NB23 said:

You see, the manufacturers do recomend presoaking C-41 films. There is a reason for that.

Click to expand...

I do see. So there's no reason why I shouldn't after years of developing B/W change my common practice

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

NB23 said:

I don't get this presoak thing. As if the developer was kind of welding the pink layer and making it impossible to wash off afterwards?

A presoak is exactly as effective as an after soak. Or as effective as the developer bath itself.

If anything, the presoak will contribute to uneven development and to underdeveloping the negative by around 30 seconds to 1 minute.

Pre-soak? Bad advice, IMO.

Click to expand...

Here we go again, to pre-soak or not to pre-soak that is the question.

Firstly, everyone here has to accept that there are thousands of photographers who do pre-soak and an equal number who do not.

Then you get statements such as:

the presoak will contribute to uneven development and to underdeveloping the negative by around 30 seconds to 1 minute.

Click to expand...

I would be very interested to know how you have measured this. I know of no testing regime by which one could check this statement. Furthermore, if this was true, it would have no effect on someone's processing sequence if they have undertaken 'practical real world' tests for EI and development time as these would all be accommodated for in the testing sequence.

I first processed a film in 1968 under the tutelage of Mr Wallace at my local Camera Club. He used a pre-soak and I have continued to do so for all my processing since (including C22, C41, E-4 and E-6) and this now amounts to some 38 years always using a pre-soak. I have never had a single film with uneven processing or insufficient development time.

I first started teaching at my father's photographic school in 1975 and have continued conducting private tuition to this day. I have encountered many people with uneven development problems and this has always been solved by the introduction of a pre-soak. Furthermore, if you use a developer that is reused (such as, in my case a two-bath developer or a replenisher developer) not using a pre-soak involves a significant build up of the anti-halation dyes in the developer which, quite probably, do not effect the developer's efficacy but are rather off-putting when you want to process a film and the developer looks like sh*t.

Many here have quoted the major film manufactures who state that pre-soaking is not necessary (but who also state that it will not cause any problems). What anyone here who is considering the pros and cons needs to understand is that, whilst the manufacturers have no interest in providing false information - why would they? - they do not state if they are using a one-shot developer (whereby the contamination of the dyes is not a problem in comparison to those of us who use using reusable developers) and we do not know what kind of tank / drum / deep tank they are using or, indeed, what the water qualities like at Mobberley or Rochester.

Back to the OP's question, each film type has differing dyes incorporated and all require different approaches to remove any colour tint. I use Delta 400 and I find that a two minute fix in freshly made Adox rapid fixer followed by a 4 minute vigorous wash and then another two minute fix in freshly made Adox rapid fixer does the trick. I have found with students that 4 minutes fixing alone is sufficient for Tri-X 135 but Tri-X 120 requires significantly more fixing with an intermediary wash of 10 minutes.

What I have stated here is the result of the experience of processing thousands of films over some 38 years. Even if someone did their Doctorate on the subject and concluded that, in photo-chemical terms, pre-soaking has no benefit I will continue to pre-soak as I have only experienced negative results from not doing so.

If someone has examples of a film been ruined because of pre-soaking I would be most interested. If you just want to repeat what you have learned then I am not interested.

Yours,

David.
www.dsallen.de

I can't speak for colour film, as I have not had enough experience of processing it, but for black & white I have never pre-soaked.

I started pre-soaking many years back, at the recommendation of my Jobo manual. Since then, I pre-soak no matter the method and film. Noted that I no longer have "air bell" issues, nor do I experience uneven development. It is also noted, my post process wash times are still the same, given the fixer i use, T-grain films still take double the time as standard emulsions, and wreak havoc on my fixer, depleeting it at twice the rate (half as many films per liter).
I'll keep doing it my way, YMMV, and that's fine with me and I won't fight anyone or debase anyone over the issue. It is what it is, and as I posted earlier, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.