Pre-Wash

[Luis-F-S]

I develop 8x-10 sheets in Unicolor drums and give two 1 minute prewashes all at 68 deg F

 

[pbromaghin]

I had many private conversations with PE about prewash. I prewash all film except Tri-X 400 when developed with XTOL in a Jobo processor. Both Kodak and Jobo agree with that. Especially when using replenished developer, prewash get rid of the blue dye.

And he laid it all out here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...development-importance-of-plain-water.138963/

 

[Robert Canis]

Thank you all so much for your input and advice, it's enormously appreciated. I'll let you know how I get on.

 

[AgX]

I've read a lot about pre-wash.

I never read about prewash, before joining Apug.

 

[BrianShaw]

I never read about prewash, before joining Apug.

I think the first time I heard it was in the 1980’s when reading Adam’s “The Negative”. At least I think it was that book.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never read about prewash, before joining Apug.

I think the first time I heard it was in the 1980’s when reading Adam’s “The Negative”. At least I think it was that book.

I was into taking slides when I read Adam’s The Negative the first time so it went over my head or under my attention. So basically I learned about it on APUG.

Right out of graduate school, I could finally afford to buy additional lenses and I was using slide film. The guys at work scheduled a week of private classes with Ansel Adams in Yosemite. I knew that the Zone System would not work with 35mm film. Never thought about renting a view camera. I was so smart that I passed on the opportunity.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I pre-rinse film and color papers 100% of the time, including all Ilford black and white films.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I've read a lot about pre-wash and would like to give it a go but can't find anything regarding the actual process.
1. Tap water or de-ionised.
2. Length of time.
3. Agitation.
Greatly appreciate many of you may think it's unnecessary but equally there are those that do. I'd just like to try it for myself. Experimenting's always the best way, after all.

Isn't necessary at all.
Sometimes it is deleterious!

 

[138S]

I've read a lot about pre-wash and would like to give it a go but can't find anything regarding the actual process.
1. Tap water or de-ionised.
2. Length of time.
3. Agitation.
Greatly appreciate many of you may think it's unnecessary but equally there are those that do. I'd just like to try it for myself. Experimenting's always the best way, after all.

Ansel Adams master recommended pro-wash many decades ago, by then it was a good idea, but things have changed.

Since many decades ago pre-wash is unnecessary and it can even lead to uneven development if pre-wash is too short.

Ilford, Kodak and Fuji films are designed to not require pre-wash at all, big lab and mini lab used no pre-wash, and they always made a top notch development, developing (2003) some 800 million rolls with no pre-wash.

The reason why pre-wash is not required is that modern emulsions include surfactants to promote a fast and even wetting, if you pre-wash ilford film then you remove those benefical surfactants from the emulsion and this may lead to an uneven development is pre-wash is too short.

in fact ilford datasheets are clear.

Still, Ilford technicians have stated here that ilford film don't require pre-wash, but no problem if you pre-wash a long enough time, because a too short pre-wash may lead to a disaster.

In my PERSONAL opinion, pre-wash is a loss of time, at least with quality film from the main manufacturers.

If you make side by side tests you probably will find no difference, provide you slightly adjust development time for equal development and providing you make a long enough pre-wash to not damage the film.

Let me insist, the single wrong way is doing a pre-wash and doing it too short, this would end in a pitfall, for the rest both ways will work perfectly.

 

[Vaughn]

...
The reason why pre-wash is not required is that modern emulsions include surfactants to promote a fast and even wetting, if you pre-wash ilford film then you remove those benefical surfactants from the emulsion and this may lead to an uneven development is pre-wash is too short.....

If your prewash removed those, then your film is totally wet and you don't need them anymore...

 

[AgX]

The reason why pre-wash is not required is that modern emulsions include surfactants to promote a fast and even wetting, if you pre-wash ilford film then you remove those benefical surfactants from the emulsion and this may lead to an uneven development is pre-wash is too short.

Once wetted there will be access for all baths during processing. Following your idea one would need a surfactant added before each step.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Once wetted there will be access for all baths during processing. Following your idea one would need a surfactant added before each step.

PE discussed this many times. He recommended prewash for most films with a few cases that he pointed out not to Feel free to look through his posts. Prewash is used to bring the film to temperature and provide even absorption of chemicals. He specifically stated not to use surfactants for that purpose.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

PE discussed this many times. He recommended prewash for most films with a few cases that he pointed out not to Feel free to look through his posts. Prewash is used to bring the film to temperature and provide even absorption of chemicals. He specifically stated not to use surfactants for that purpose.

Surfactant are built in in some films, Ilford uses them. If Ilford uses them I'm confident they use for a reason.
I am assuming that manufacturers do not use what is not needed, it would be an avoidable cost.
It's also written black on white in the HP5+ tecnhical sheet, as reported above.

 

[Sirius Glass]

PE discussed this many times. He recommended prewash for most films with a few cases that he pointed out not to Feel free to look through his posts. Prewash is used to bring the film to temperature and provide even absorption of chemicals. He specifically stated not to use surfactants for that purpose.

Surfactant are built in in some films, Ilford uses them. If Ilford uses them I'm confident they use for a reason.
I am assuming that manufacturers do not use what is not needed, it would be an avoidable cost.
It's also written black on white in the HP5+ tecnhical sheet, as reported above.

The discussion was adding surfactants, not the ones in the products. Look at PE's posts and other than the final rinse for film, he rarely recommends adding surfactants.

 

[NB23]

Once wetted there will be access for all baths during processing. Following your idea one would need a surfactant added before each step.

No! The STOP BATH is the KEY.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

The discussion was adding surfactants, not the ones in the products. Look at PE's posts and other than the final rinse for film, he rarely recommends adding surfactants.

Of course it's not advisabe to add any surfactant to the developer, since the film emulsion has some already built in, as said before, although, to remain in this thread, the original topic was on the use of the prewash, which is imho not advisabe at all.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Of course it's not advisabe to add any surfactant to the developer, since the film emulsion has some already built in, as said before, although, to remain in this thread, the original topic was on the use of the prewash, which is imho not advisabe at all.

Take the time to read PE's posts. He disagree with you and he had the background to evaluate the subject. Again read PE's posts. For myself, I found an improvement on the films that I prewash. There is one film that I do not prewash as I stated. You are free to disagree, but I choose to follow PE's advice and experience.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Take the time to read PE's posts. He disagree with you and he had the background to evaluate the subject. Again read PE's posts. For myself, I found an improvement on the films that I prewash. There is one film that I do not prewash as I stated. You are free to disagree, but I choose to follow PE's advice and experience.

You're free to follow what suits you the most.
I follow Ilford suggestion to not use a pre-wash.
Never had a problem whatsoever this way.-

 

[AgX]

No! The STOP BATH is the KEY.

You misunderstand what meant. I had it not about stopping, but about the need for good wetting at each stage, especially for a second develepment step.
However if the idea of a fellow member was right, then it would not sufficient to present the next bath a wetted surface, but a surface each time newly prepared by surfactant. I rejected that idea. And I do not know any other photo-engineer over here advising to prepare wetting by a prewash, but instead just let the sufactants in the emulsion anmd the bath do their job.

 

[138S]

If your prewash removed those, then your film is totally wet and you don't need them anymore...

Vaughn, yes...it is true that after washing out the surfactants the emulsion is totally wet, but emulsion swelling may not have happened yet in a uniform way...

Next is what I "understand" it happens:

Surfactants added to emulsion provide a nearly instant wetting, with fresh developer reaching all crystals at the same time, then starts induction period in what no significative development happens, by when powerful metallic silver conversion starts then the swelling of the modern emulsion has been completed enough to the point an even development is guaranteed.

If we (short) pre-wash and so we wash out the surfactants, our situation we may have an incomplete/irregular swelling, with potential irregular penetration on the developer in different areas of the frame, thus the induction starting at different moments and thus leading to the uneven development.

In absence of the surfactats, an incompletely/irregular swelling of the emulsion is what may cause the problem, this is I understood several ways ago when wanting to learn about this, I got that information in the ilford forums from in house technicians answering questions, also I learned there that the difference (compared to AA era ancient films) was surfactants, changes in the emulsion and in the coating tecnology.

Once wetted there will be access for all baths during processing. Following your idea one would need a surfactant added before each step.

Not in my opinion, surfactants are useful when the emulsion swelling has not happened or when it is still irregular. As development is complete the emulsion swelling is also complete and regular, so stop bath will work uniformly anyway on all the frame surface, so the single step where the in emulsion surfactants are useful in the developent, working only to guarentee the development induction starts synchronously in all the frame at the same time.

_____________________________________

Here we have a similar situation than in the recent "water bath" discussion, this is an irrelevant matter, we only may make the pitfall of doing a too short pre-wash while both a "long enough pre-wash" or a "no pre-wash" will both work perfectly.

_____________________________________

Situations where a pre-wash is required... not sure what happens with certain films around not made by the main manufacturers, but sure Harman/Kodak/Fuji manufacture film to not require pre-wash, as all massive industrial Lab (and minilab) processing was made with no pre-wash.

Shuffle tray development method for LF sheets, in that case pre-wetting is necessary, if not the stacked sheets, one placed over the others, will adhere one to the other, provocating a total disaster, (I had a pitfall with that )

 

[AgX]

... surfactants are useful when the emulsion swelling has not happened or when it is still irregular. As development is complete the emulsion swelling is also complete and regular, so stop bath will work uniformly anyway on all the frame surface, so the single step where the in emulsion surfactants are useful in the developent, working only to guarentee the development induction starts synchronously in all the frame at the same time.

My saying all the time.

 

[138S]

Also, perhaps some films may be less sensitive to a bad (too short) pre-wash...

Kodak datasheet only says this for TMX:

It is the single mention to pre-wash in the kodak datasheet, but it has to be noted that it speaks of the shuffle method, this is placing several sheets stacked in the tray as sheets are mentioned interleaved, so to prevent stacked sheets get glued one to the other. IMO this is not applied to developing one sheet at a time in the tray.

Personally I develop the sheets one at a time in the tray in a pipelined workflow, when I move a developed sheet (from a paper safe "tray-tank") to the stop bath I place the next in the developer, I don't use prewetting as I understand Kodak's recommendation is for the shuffle method only.

 

[Robert Canis]

Hi there,

You didn’t mention what size of film that you are using. In general, I have observed with my students that tiny white pin-pricks tend to occur more often on roll film especially when the film has been wound on and then the camera was not used for some time (possibly dust settling over time when the camera is not being used). Back in the 1960s a German photographer (sorry it was too long ago for me to remember his name) wrote a book on achieving the highest quality with Leica cameras. His advice was to only wind the film on when you are ready to take the photograph. His argument was that the film was ‘protected’ in the cassette and moving it ‘fresh’ immediately prior to taking the picture reduced the risk of dust settling on the film. Whether this is true I do not know but I have always followed this advice (not winding on film until ready to make the photograph) and have never had any significant issues with tiny white pin-pricks irrespective of the format that I was using at the time.

On the more general theme of using a pre-wash/pre-soak, if you do a search on Photrio you will find thousands of comments for and against using a pre-wash/pre-soak. In fact, some of the exchanges have got really heated in the past!

I personally have always used a pre-soak irrespective of developer or film. I have also always taught my student to use a pre-soak and I have never had any issue with it causing any problem whatsoever. I know plenty of photographers who happily do not use a pre-soak. However, whenever someone comes to me with a problem with uneven processing (mostly with 35mm films) the introduction of a pre-soak has eliminated the problem every single time.

Another reason that I use a pre-soak is that, for my photography, I have been exclusively using a two-bath developer for more than 15 years. The reason being is that the two-bath developer is reused for 15 films and the pre-soak stops the Bath A from becoming very discoloured by the dyes that are now present in all modern films.

Finally, to your original questions:

• Tap water is fine for a pre-soak but, depending upon your local water supply, you may have to filter it to remove any impurities in the water
• You should pre-soak a film for at least two minutes
• The agitation that you use should reflect the agitation that you use for development. So, in my case, that is 4 inversions in the first 30 seconds (followed by a sharp tap to the bottom of the tank to remove any air bells) and thereafter one inversion every 30 seconds (also followed by a sharp tap to the bottom of the tank).

Best of luck with you experimenting,

David.

Note: my current temporary website address is : http://dsallen.carpentier-galerie.de

Thank you so much, David. That's all really interesting.

 

[Vaughn]

Just plain no. Once the film is wet, it is wet. All chemicals will react evenly when introduced to an evenly wet emulsion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just plain no. Once the film is wet, it is wet. All chemicals will react evenly when introduced to an evenly wet emulsion.

Which is what PE said and what I was told when I worked at Kodak.