It won’t be me the one who stops this enriching discussion of course, even if my posts are not read, I’ll give it another chance …
The Ilford recommendations are awkwardly written in their Factsheets relating to film, and clearly written in their Factsheets relating to film developers...
Exactly MattKing!, but Why is that “awkwardly for film” and “clearly for developer”? Because there are other factors involved with them, both for film and developers, there are different reasons for different films (structure) and for different developers (formulation & dilution)
…They recommend against using a pre-rinse when you are using rotary agitation. They are silent with respect to inversion agitation.
Because the “movements” are another factor, and some of them are (more or less) predictable (Like the “time” adjustment Ilford also mention in that recommendation)
But, “they recommend against” in those fact sheets, but it would be good to remember (I have no doubt that you also know this) that if you take a look at the Ilford Manual (1958) you’ll find
“Pre-soaking is desirable when certain fine-grain developers…” and the same thing happens in previous and subsequent editions to that Ilford’s Manual. Those were other times, with many other different things/factors involved … however, a great example to understand different behaviours with different factors.
Anyway, where I wanted to say is that, is not only a question of Ilford says this or that, and not even their suggestions for or against.
Unless someone can cite a scientific study that proves that a presoak improves the uniformity of development as some on APUG claim then I will continue to do what I have done for 70 years. That is no pre-soak. Why bother when I have never seen any effect from not presoaking.
It’s not merely a question of giving you a scientific study to force compliance with one way or another only, there are scientific studies which lead you to act one way or another depending on many the factors mentioned above: film used – and its structure -, developer used - formulation and dilution -, …), even time and movement are aspects to be considered for that previous use ... (of course temperature is not out of the question either, but somehow I assume that we’re talking about the same for both baths pre&dev, though some temperature-shift might occur without damage)
No offence, If the way you do is good for you, perfect! You do not need further explanation or any justification (scientific or mystical), but being that your procedure (and of course you can achieve perfect results without a single problem) that does not mean that you’re doing it correctly (or correctly by omission) or that there are no risks, for a very simple reason, and I am pretty sure you already know this: Not all the films and developers are the same.
In any case if you want to go deeply in that scientific explanation, I am not the man for you, but you should take a look to the “Heterogeneous balance” within the physical law of action/reaction.
I may by totally wrong here, but surely a pre-soak means that any ingress of developer has to displace water in the emulsion. This is surely uneven as opposed to developer ingress into dry emulsion.
Perhaps not totally wrong, but What makes you think that the displace you’ve mention has to be unequal? Perhaps is the same (unequal) all over the sensitive material, and being that so, wouldn’t it be equal in the end? (of course, for that equal/unequal to happen, it depends on the efficiency of that previous washing) In your post, “surely”, and “any” are not exact, let me ask you another question: What developer and what dilution? Those two factors could affect the answer in your example as well as that previous wash efficiency.
... The emulsion is pre-conditioned to receive the developer evenly, uniformly.
IF ONLY the pre-wash has been done correctly, evenly and uniformly as well.
Something to think about. We don't use prewettin for prints. Yet we don't see any mottling and paper developers are more active than film ones.
Film and paper are different, just like tanks and trays are … different sensitive material, different bath treatment (I am sure you already knew this) ... unless, you use a tank for daylight (multiple) papers development, let me know if you do so and do not pre-wet then, but even in this case, you can be lucky with no problems in your results at all! (but risks exist)
Sorry to everyone to bother with all this literature. With all that said, giving a YES/NO … or any other answer, should be based on “reading the f*****g manual” of films & developers involved, and taking into account all the factors that become part of the process, to take a final decision, without trying to taking the rest of us for granted that "this is the only way it must be done"
If I have to give only an A (yes) or B (no) advice (because we have no other option, or to give the most complete): I have already given my opinion on post numer 10, but that compelling opinion I've given was knowing beforehand that there are lots of factors involved as a result of all this said, and a well known/read/learned matter. I have NO doubt that the YES option, embraces a great deal far more than the negative one, for those reasons/factors/states above mentioned, though neither of them (A/B) ensure anything 100%.
I stop here with all this.
Best regards to all of you
p.s. Edited for Spellcheck
In my own language all this explanation would have been easier (to write), sometimes is hard for me to put the right words the way the most of you make it naturally and incredibly easy (this is normal). Not to mention the time needed for me to write everything down (the harder, the longer). For instance, it's quite curious for me these four words “pre-wash, pre-soak, pre-rinse, pre-wet”, IMO the important word is the “cropped one” Pre = Previous, though they seem to be different actions for the same purpose, which is to wet the sensitive material at the beginning of the process, at least that is how I see it. Should I made a mistake, please let me know.
