Pre soak/pre wash why or why not?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Because it's an hard-to-die practice of no usefulness. Please trust Ilford on that.

It is useful, especially when tray processing multiple sheets of film, to eliminate the chance of them sticking together.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Alessandro - why would I blindly trust Ilford on that point when, over and over again, I proven just the opposite to myself. I presoak - no problems; I don't, lots of problems. And I'm certain I'm not alone in that respect.

Yep!

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Yes, but it seems to me that people more often solve a problem by pre-soaking than introduce a problem by doing it.

What problem is that?

 

[brbo]

Uneven development (streaking) with C-41 LF film for me.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Alessandro - why would I blindly trust Ilford on that point when, over and over again, I proven just the opposite to myself. I presoak - no problems; I don't, lots of problems. And I'm certain I'm not alone in that respect.

Because I know vastly less than Ilford does, and so we all I presume. I'm no photo engineer, no chemist to affirm that Ilford is suggesting some no-no practice. If Ilford (or Kodak or Foma or whoever else) suggests to not using a presoak phase it will suffice to me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Engineers design cars too; but that doesn't mean they themselves race them. I've met brilliant photo chemists who were lousy photographers. And printmakers have always bent the "rules" to their own advantage, and always will. Factories can't possibly test for everything. Cumulative real world experience has to be factored in too.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Because I know vastly less than Ilford does, and so we all I presume. I'm no photo engineer, no chemist to affirm that Ilford is suggesting some no-no practice. If Ilford (or Kodak or Foma or whoever else) suggests to not using a presoak phase it will suffice to me.

They don't know what they are talking about in this instance! The fact that they don't list any reasons is suspicious.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

They don't know what they are talking about in this instance! The fact that they don't list any reasons is suspicious.

This is your personal thought. Ilford has a clue and doesn't recommend a presoak because the wetting agent embedded in the emulsion will wash off.
Infact what Ilford states on ilford.com is as below, consistent to the fact that the wetting agent is there for a reason, to aid evenness of development.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You're welcome to your own opinion, Alessandro... But keep in mind that quite a few of us have many years of experience with multiple kinds of films and development methods. For many of us, NOT presoaking was a factor in uneven development, not the other way around.

The point is to soak it long enough to be actually beneficial, like a couple minutes or so with agitation. Film-incorporated wetting agents might help in a rushed or automated workflow. That has been debated for decades. But when you're developing the film by typical home darkroom methods, a couple more minutes overall is no hardship at all.

Have you ever developed sheet film in trays via the shuffle method? In that case, not presoaking can lead to a disaster, with the sheets sticking to each other once they hit the developer, with the emulsion suddenly swelling.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Not all manufacturers embeds a wetting agent into the emulsion, or at least not the way Ilford does.

You're welcome to your own opinion, Alessandro... But keep in mind that quite a few of us have many years of experience with multiple kinds of films and development methods. For many of us, NOT presoaking was a factor in uneven development, not the other way around.

The point is to soak it long enough to be actually beneficial, like a couple minutes or so with agitation. Film-incorporated wetting agents might help in a rushed or automated workflow. That has been debated for decades. But when you're developing the film by typical home darkroom methods, a couple more minutes overall is no hardship at all.

Have you ever developed sheet film in trays via the shuffle method? In that case, not presoaking can lead to a disaster, with the sheets sticking to each other once they hit the developer, with the emulsion suddenly swelling.

Also Kodak in their z131 manual advides not to presoak. I think presoaking in C41 line alters the swelling characteristic and diffusion of the first developer to a certain degree which is noticeable in the final image.
No commercial d&d machine has a presoak stage, in both c41 and e6 lines. And for a reason.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Automated dip n' dunk machines handle the film quite differently. So do roller transport mechanisms. I'm well aware of all that. But the predominant flavor of this thread seems to be about personal practices in darkrooms lacking that kind of machinery. I don't do my own E6 or C41 processing, and consign that to labs; but I do my own black and white processing as well as color print processing, and in each of those cases find a presoak mandatory. In the case of color print drums, the presoak not only allows the developer to spread more quickly and evenly, but preconditions the temperature of both the inside of the drum and the surface of the paper itself. Don't think that this hasn't been thoroughly tested.

And don't imagine that every recommendation that a particular film and paper manufacturer publishes has actually been tested by themselves. I know for a fact that there are exceptions because the official "expert" who wrote some of them personally told me so. Some of these recommendations are hypothetical. No, I'm not going to mention any specific names, lest this get into a shouting match. The main point is to test these kinds of variables for yourself; otherwise, you're just guessing.

In the case of dip n dunk machines and so forth, they issue their own instructions.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Not all manufacturers embeds a wetting agent into the emulsion, or at least not the way Ilford does.


Also Kodak in their z131 manual advides not to presoak. I think presoaking in C41 line alters the swelling characteristic and diffusion of the first developer to a certain degree which is noticeable in the final image.
No commercial d&d machine has a presoak stage, in both c41 and e6 lines. And for a reason.

This is B&W film we are discussing.

 

[MattKing]

This is B&W film we are discussing.

Mostly.
But the thread has included some references to colour, so it doesn't hurt to reference a Z manual.

 

[mshchem]

This discussion reminds me of watching a (slow motion) car spinning out on ice. It's all over the place.

 

[MattKing]

This discussion reminds me of watching a (slow motion) car spinning out on ice. It's all over the place.

But does it reach any destination?

 

[brbo]

Also Kodak in their z131 manual advides not to presoak. I think presoaking in C41 line alters the swelling characteristic and diffusion of the first developer to a certain degree which is noticeable in the final image.

But, let me guess, you didn’t get that from Kodak and you never did a side-by-side comparison?

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Automated dip n' dunk machines handle the film quite differently. So do roller transport mechanisms. I'm well aware of all that. But the predominant flavor of this thread seems to be about personal practices in darkrooms lacking that kind of machinery. I don't do my own E6 or C41 processing, and consign that to labs; but I do my own black and white processing as well as color print processing, and in each of those cases find a presoak mandatory. In the case of color print drums, the presoak not only allows the developer to spread more quickly and evenly, but preconditions the temperature of both the inside of the drum and the surface of the paper itself. Don't think that this hasn't been thoroughly tested.

And don't imagine that every recommendation that a particular film and paper manufacturer publishes has actually been tested by themselves. I know for a fact that there are exceptions because the official "expert" who wrote some of them personally told me so. Some of these recommendations are hypothetical. No, I'm not going to mention any specific names, lest this get into a shouting match. The main point is to test these kinds of variables for yourself; otherwise, you're just guessing.

In the case of dip n dunk machines and so forth, they issue their own instructions.

Film is film, emulsion is emulsion no matter how they are processed, don't you agree?.
Gelatine swells the same way in both instances.
On the contrary, I believe what Ilford and Kodak (or Foma for instance) put down in black ink on technical papers is the result of careful lab tests and not "recommendations (that) are hypothetical".

 

[DeletedAcct1]

But, let me guess, you didn’t get that from Kodak and you never did a side-by-side comparison?

No, I didn't feel the urge to waste precious and expensive film to do a side-by-side comparison since what Ilford or Kodak suggest me to do proved fine and never cause me any trouble.

 

[BrianShaw]

Without intent to be rude, but this is both a well-discussed and contraversial topic where discussions rarely end well.

Yep…

 

[brbo]

No, I didn't feel the urge to waste precious and expensive film to do a side-by-side comparison since what Ilford or Kodak suggest me to do proved fine and never cause me any trouble.

But your advice to people that get streaking is to keep wasting their precious film even when pre-soaking solves the streaking problem and doesn’t change the development to go outside the control strip tolerance?

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm betting the OP is SO glad he asked this (perennially irritating) question. lol

 

[DREW WILEY]

You know the saying. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. So bye.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

But your advice to people that get streaking is to keep wasting their precious film even when pre-soaking solves the streaking problem and doesn’t change the development to go outside the control strip tolerance?

No, I didn't say that. I merely said that I trust Ilford and I'd advice also other users to do so.
If one has problems it's normal that he/she wants to explore new ways of doing it, including a prewash step if he/she likes it.
For all the others that think they know better than engineer @Ilford and @kodak I just have to say nothing.

 

[brbo]

For all the others that think they know better than engineer @Ilford and @kodak I just have to say nothing.

That's good, since nobody here said they know better than Ilford and Kodak engineers.

 

[BrianShaw]

That's good, since nobody here said they know better than Ilford and Kodak engineers.

Seems like you are calling @DREW WILEY and a Roman Emperor a “nobody”. I wouldn’t go quite that far…