Pre-soaking FB paper?

[AndreasT]

Can't speak for Agfa MCC but I can say that Simon Galley of Ilford has said that there is no incorporated developer in Ilford FB so whatever you were washing out, it wasn't that. You'd think that if anything needed washing out, Ilford would mention it in its very comprehensive instructions and it doesn't as far as I can recall.

pentaxuser

No clue what it is. Could be an accelerater??? All I know it worked. May have been MCC. Although it still wasn't that nice after Lithing.

 

[David Lyga]

Although this will probably affect no one, due to its esoteric nature, I will say this anyway: if you pre-soak Kodak ImageLink Film (Microfilm) you will completely wash away the image and get blank results. - David Lyga

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Both Kodak and Ilford do not recommend that you presoak their films.

I do wish that people would READ posts carefully before they respond. I was very careful to say "do not recommend." Now this may simply mean that they consider pre-soaking unnecessary. BUT there may be a definite, unspecified reason for stating this. I personally assume the latter reason.

In general I wish people would read posts more carefully as many misunderstandings arise from this.

 

[MarkL]

I often do quick print sessions of only one or two sheets and want to use a reasonably minimal amount of developer. So I will presoak the paper, usually for less than a minute, so that it softens and is ready to lie flat in the developer without the corners curling up. This is especially important with 16x20 and 20x24 where you really don't want to be flipping the paper if you don't have to.

 

[Roger Cole]

I do wish that people would READ posts carefully before they respond. I was very careful to say "do not recommend." Now this may simply mean that they consider pre-soaking unnecessary. BUT there may be a definite, unspecified reason for stating this. I personally assume the latter reason.

In general I wish people would read posts more carefully as many misunderstandings arise from this.

"Do not recommend" simple says that there is no recommendation from them to do so. The phrase actually does not mean "they recommend against it." Of course, Ilford does recommend against it, and I've also read that and cheerfully disregarded it in favor of Jobo's alternate recommendation for a presoak with rotary processing, ever since I got my Jobo in 1996 or so. Unless I start seeing problems I can attribute to it I will continue doing so.

"Start with the manufacturer's instructions" may be fine as a starting point (but not absolute laws) but when the film maker says one thing and the processor maker says another, some experimentation is in order.

 

[MattKing]

I wonder whether "Do not recommend" is one of those phrases that has a slightly different meaning in England then it tends to have in North America?

I ask, because I tend to understand it as being equivalent to "recommend against".

 

[Roger Cole]

I wonder whether "Do not recommend" is one of those phrases that has a slightly different meaning in England then it tends to have in North America?

I ask, because I tend to understand it as being equivalent to "recommend against".

It depends. If they actually say "we do not recommend" then, I agree, that's a recommendation against. And that is what Ilford says, but not necessarily the way it was reported here.

But when someone says "Ilford does not recommend..." to me that implies that they are saying nothing. If I wanted to convey that they were recommending against it I would say either "Ilford recommend(s) against.." or "Ilford say(s) that they do not recommend..." or even "Ilford explicitly say(s) that a presoak is not recommended."

The different usage of singular or plural forms for a company that is one entity but made up of many individuals is one difference that never really confuses, but of which I'm sure our version sounds as odd to you as yours does to us!

This, though, is quibbling over semantics. When using a Jobo you must either go against the recommendation of the manufacturer of the rotary processor or against the recommendation of the film maker. I suspect it really doesn't make much difference, as long as your development times are adjusted accordingly.

 

[Jonathan R]

Thanks to all for your responses. One argument not yet mentioned (I think?) in favour of pre-soaking film is to ensure even development across the whole film area when development time is short (i.e. with a fast-acting developer).

For FB paper, MarkL has given a pretty good reason FOR pre-soaking, which I can identify with as my darkroom sessions are limited too. The chief reason for NOT pre-soaking FB paper would seem to be progressive dilution of the developer, leading to inconsistent prints.

I still don't have any feel for how quickly chemicals diffuse through a pre-soaked paper base. Anyone got any insights?

 

[MarkL]

Yes Jonathan....if you do one-shot developing it seems to me a pre-soak is essential. Also if you do large prints from paper in rolls, which is very curly, and process it by "scrolling" in half pipe troughs. Pre-soaking prepares the entire emulsion for even acceptance of developer. What I don't know is what, if anything, is significantly washing out of the paper (like incorporated developer).

 

[Jonathan R]

See post #8.

Apologies, Michael.