Pre-rinse or no pre-rinse

[Doc W]

Yes, it's that time of year when the old pre-soak question comes up again. However, I am not seeking a general answer that will apply in all situations. I am developing FP4 in HC-110 (dilutions D and E) in a Jobo ATL-3. Ilford says no soak; Jobo says soak is ok.

Do any of you have experience with this specific situation, i.e., FP4 in a rotary processor?

 

[Bob Carnie]

No soak ... yes just finished 200 rolls fp4 in hc - 110 with no issues.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes, it's that time of year when the old pre-soak question comes up again. However, I am not seeking a general answer that will apply in all situations. I am developing FP4 in HC-110 (dilutions D and E) in a Jobo ATL-3. Ilford says no soak; Jobo says soak is ok.

Do any of you have experience with this specific situation, i.e., FP4 in a rotary processor?

I always test and work without soak;esier,faster,better;pick any two nd you have a winner

 

[Rick A]

I used to own a Jobo system, and it always required a tempering pre-wash before developing. I still do it with all my film, whether I use rotary or standard small tank, just for consistency sake.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Whether you pre-soak or not what is important is consistency. You cannot just do it sometimes. Either you make it part of your personal method or not. Rather than a pre-soak I use a water bath.

 

[John Bragg]

I have always pre-soaked my film. I do it more out of habit and for consistency sake. I always use a stop bath but water would do just as well. Consistency is the key. Do the same every time.

 

[Doc W]

I used to own a Jobo system, and it always required a tempering pre-wash before developing. I still do it with all my film, whether I use rotary or standard small tank, just for consistency sake.

Thanks, Rick. By "tempering pre-wash" do you mean bringing the drum up to proper temperature? If so, the ATL does this before starting the development process.

 

[cliveh]

I have never pre-soaked a film and would imagine that pre-soaking the emulsion with water prior to developer may cause uneven ingress of developer which needs to replace the water.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I have never pre-soaked a film and would imagine that pre-soaking the emulsion with water prior to developer may cause uneven ingress of developer which needs to replace the water.

And that is the exact reason as to why Ilford does not recommend it.

 

[grahamp]

Don't pre-soak if you are using a reclaimable developer, as you cannot be sure of the resulting dilution due to tank carry over. Otherwise, do what works for you.

Benefits: clears out the anti-halation dye early, which might make you happy; evens out the take-up of the developer into the emulsion as it has to displace the water; can offset the tendency to get increased development with rotary processing

Drawbacks: Not suitable for re-usable developer due to dilution; another stock 'solution' to prepare

How much any of this actually matters depends on the individual, materials, and process. Pick a method, and if it works, stick with it. I pre-soaked in a Jobo when I used FG-7, I do not pre-soak using a two-bath developer. I am happy with my results.

 

[removed account4]

i think you should do what the manufacturer recommends. i am sure
they test their developer using a variety of different equipment and come up with their recommendations that way.
while i am told here on apug by some that don't need to pre soak, i do out of habit ....
( have been doing that since i was taught as a 13-14 year old ) and out of sheer bordom.
i also think it is fun to pour a little developer into the AH-stained water and watch it vanish / clear ..

so for me it is both out of habit and entertainment-value.

as they say on the interweb, YMMV

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a Jobo processor and all film should be presoaked except when using XTOL. Both Jobo and Kodak agree on this.

 

[David Allen]

Every photographer you ask about pre-soaking film will give you a conflicting answer. In my personal experience, whenever someone approaches me with uneven development/streaking/overdevelopment near to the sprocket holes on 35mm film/etc I always recommend pre-soaking the film and this always solves the problem (and one should bear in mind that the short development times of HC110 in a rotary processor is a particular area to watch out for). On the other hand, there will be many here that will state that in xx years they have never ever had a problem when not using a pre-soak.

As Gerald wrote:

“Whether you pre-soak or not what is important is consistency.”

consistency and repeatability is the key to good film processing plus this will help you to identify any problems and/or changes that you may wish to make to achieve the results that you prefer.

So the fairest answer would be that you need to choose one method or the other and stick with it until you personally hit a problem. I would suggest using a pre-soak as it will eliminate any potential problems but that is just my opinion.

Before deciding, just let me address a few comments on here:

I have never pre-soaked a film and would imagine that pre-soaking the emulsion with water prior to developer may cause uneven ingress of developer which needs to replace the water.

I have never ever observed this possible 'problem'. Quite the opposite, introducing a pre-soak has always solved processing problems.

And that is the exact reason as to why Ilford does not recommend it.

Unless something has drastically changed, I have never seen Ilford either recommend using a pre-soak or suggesting that it should not be used. The last time I looked their PDF on processing film did not mention it. However, it did suggest using a squeegee (which I personally think is bad advice because I have seen so many people who do this and who have ended up scratching their films.) and that you can use a hair drier to dry your films (also something that I think is bad advice as I have seen so many people struggling with dirty film - i.e. stuck on dust)

Don't pre-soak if you are using a reclaimable developer, as you cannot be sure of the resulting dilution due to tank carry over.

I read this all the time but, just think, how much is actually being carried over 1ml?, 2ml?. I have exclusively used a reusable two-bath developer for the past 15 years. I have never experienced any problems with ‘dilution’ of the first bath BUT, by using a pre-soak, it does keep the first bath looking much clearer as the anti-halation dye is removed during the pre-soak

Anyway, your call but decide based on the facts - and the way to do this is process two test rolls with/without pre-soak and see which you prefer.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have observed problems with the Jobo or other rotary processors used without presoak, and this covers over 50 years of processing film. With a presoak, the problems vanish for the most part (there can be more than one problem). Jobo recommends it and there is good reason.

But, if you plan on re-using developer, the process times must be adjusted if you presoak, as the developer is diluted a bit. Also, never use a presoak with a two part developer.

Not using a presoak may get you by most of the time, but just when you have some real prize winners, and you don't presoak, you get problems. So, take the less problematic way out and presoak all the time.

PE

 

[ic-racer]

Yes, it's that time of year when the old pre-soak question comes up again. However, I am not seeking a general answer that will apply in all situations. I am developing FP4 in HC-110 (dilutions D and E) in a Jobo ATL-3. Ilford says no soak; Jobo says soak is ok.

Do any of you have experience with this specific situation, i.e., FP4 in a rotary processor?

What are you trying to accomplish? If you want to get close to non-roatry development times you already know, then use the pre-soak.

 

[MattKing]

Simon Galley of Ilford has posted here on more than one occasion that when they say they don't recommend a pre-soak, they are saying that a pre-soak is unnecessary, not that it is harmful.

I consistently use a pre-soak when I develop film.

 

[Pioneer]

When I use my Jobo to develop color film I pre-soak to bring the film temp up to the proper temperature.

When I use my Jobo to develop black and white I am developing at room temperature so do not use a pre-soak.

The last Ilford FP4+ I developed was done in D-76 but I did use continuous rotation. I did not pre-soak.

Works for me. YMMV. As others have said, be consistent.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Michael, it works both ways. IMHO a pre wet is better than nothing. Simon is no doubt correct following Ilford guidelines, but this does not necessarily apply across all films and my experience says other than what he says when taking this into account.

PE

 

[Doc W]

Hmmm. Two different camps here! Let me add that I am not developing roll film in the Jobo, but only sheet flim. I use the 50 rpm speed and I am not re-using the developer.

Let me ask some related questions. Why does Jobo recommend a presoak (of five minutes, IIRC)? Does a presoak increase or decrease development times?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Unless something has drastically changed, I have never seen Ilford either recommend using a pre-soak or suggesting that it should not be used. The last time I looked their PDF on processing film did not mention it. However, it did suggest using a squeegee (which I personally think is bad advice because I have seen so many people who do this and who have ended up scratching their films.) and that you can use a hair drier to dry your films (also something that I think is bad advice as I have seen so many people struggling with dirty film - i.e. stuck on dust)

Dear David,
It is on the PDF file for developers and specifically about rotary processors:

Follow any guidance given by the processor manufacturer when adjusting process times for these types of processors. However, generally we do not recommend using a pre-rinse as it can lead to uneven development.

See page 4: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427133131459.pdf

You are right that for manual tanks, they don't even mention it.

I have observed problems with the Jobo or other rotary processors used without presoak, and this covers over 50 years of processing film. With a presoak, the problems vanish for the most part (there can be more than one problem). Jobo recommends it and there is good reason.

But, if you plan on re-using developer, the process times must be adjusted if you presoak, as the developer is diluted a bit. Also, never use a presoak with a two part developer.

Not using a presoak may get you by most of the time, but just when you have some real prize winners, and you don't presoak, you get problems. So, take the less problematic way out and presoak all the time.

PE

Michael, it works both ways. IMHO a pre wet is better than nothing. Simon is no doubt correct following Ilford guidelines, but this does not necessarily apply across all films and my experience says other than what he says when taking this into account.

PE

My dear PE

I think that the good real engineers at Harman/Ilford would know what they are saying. After all, they have 136 years of experience with emulsions/film behind them.

Simon Galley of Ilford has posted here on more than one occasion that when they say they don't recommend a pre-soak, they are saying that a pre-soak is unnecessary, not that it is harmful.

I consistently use a pre-soak when I develop film.

That is correct Matt.

 

[Ian Grant]

My experience is a pre-rinse is more likely to cause uneven development of B&W films, so I never use one. Colour processing is different as it is important fo strict temperature control.

Ian

 

[Simon R Galley]

At last ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited go head to head with the esteemed Photo Engineer....!

So what will the outcome be.....? A good old photographic manufacturer 'divergence' ? or a compromise...

Its as we have always said...... PE is correct... but we are also correct.... so it has to be a compromise...

We do not believe a pre-soak is necessary with any of our film emulsions, but nor do we believe they are harmful unless it is grossly extended, did I read correctly but did someone in this thread say they used stop bath in the pre-soak ? that I would absolutely NOT do.

Much debate about pre-soak with Jobo's, whilst Jobo's are great kit, the proportion of film processed in that manner is very small, probably a bit higher with the APUG community, we use Jobo's here as well, do we pre-soak... no we do not.

I would take the good advice given by others in this thread, if it works for you one way or another... fine, if its part of your workflow and you have no issues one way or the other... again fine... we are not prescriptive to experienced photographers and processors, same as with 'recommended' dev times we see so much debate about, they are just that a recommendation based on our technical services extensive tests across a multitude of exposure and subject tests. If we say its 10 mins and you say its 12 for your liking... so be it... they are your photographs taken on our film, not our photographs taken on your film !. Its one reason why analog is rewarding.. you take the decision.

Finally someone mentioned sheet film, again we do not recommend, nor advise that pre-soaking is necessary, but regarding tray processing... firstly, personally, I would never choose to develop any sheet film in a tray.. ever, it introduces a level of risk, especially multi-sheet.. but being pragmatic, if I 'was' tray processing sheet film I would still not do a pre-soak, I would just make sure I had plenty of dev in the tray submerge, turn and tap ( or flick ) the edge of the sheet.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :






From my personal perspective

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I wholeheartedly believe Ilford got this one right;Apresoak is not neededwith any emulsion I have ever usedKodak or Ilford! nor does it make for a more even development;just not required.But a presoak can hurt if done too brief or too long;just forget about it! and have a glass of wine instead

 

[Saganich]

Its about an even split...AKA random. I suppose soaking or not may have little to nothing to do as a direct causative factor in developing. Perhaps a mediating or moderating factor for agitation or chemistry?

 

[Doc W]

I wholeheartedly believe Ilford got this one right;Apresoak is not neededwith any emulsion I have ever usedKodak or Ilford! nor does it make for a more even development;just not required.But a presoak can hurt if done too brief or too long;just forget about it! and have a glass of wine instead

Ralph, I am still not decided on whether to presoak or not, but I am taking your advice and having a glass of wind while thinking about it. Cheers!