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.
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.
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
