Pre washing film

LAG · Nov 10, 2016

Excuse me

Photo Engineer said:
I have been saying "use what works for you for many many years".

To each his own of course, that's the most repeated statement, but perhaps not the one the OP expected to be (see posts #1 & #6)

Photo Engineer said:
When I do give advice, do some of you somehow think I don't know what I'm talking about?

If I can speak and answer for those some, I would say that every opinion deserves a respect. There is no need to have neither X years nor Y messages to override the beliefes of others. Anyone's advice has the same value than any other one.

Anyway, it would be very kind of you to explain things better if you think there are some (why didn’t you quote?) who don’t know what you are talking about.

In my humble opinion to add exchanges of view or ideas have also certain value, if they can be expressed here without censorship and without conflicts between the participants, which is the same as people discussing openly and without any intention of offending anyone but about the important matter (prewashing film in this case) and not people arguing with people.

I stop here with you, with this. I like reading your opinions even when I'm dissatisfied with some remarks. Let’s go back to the important then.

... and talking about people who discuss people and not ideas …

klownshed said:
…I find this forum one of the most frustrating I've ever visited. I've said this before, but the reason I'm still here is because you and many others have much to offer and do so willingly and courteously, and your advice and experience is much appreciated.

But there are lots of "Little Miss Contraries" in almost every post contradicting good advice and swinging their "enlargers" around in a "who has the biggest equipment" competition. If I wanted an argument I'd post an Android versus iPhone post on a tech forum... This forum doesn't feel like the right place for this attitude to me but ironically is exactly where I find it most!

I do hope I haven't come across as a little Miss Contrary myself! ;-)

This comment comes from the very same person that has received an advise this way (see post #82), contradicting? very funny! Perhaps it’s a clear example that the problem is neither the forum itself, nor the attitude on it (for some).

I stop here with you and with this as well, I like reading your opinions even when I do not go along with them, specially the particular ones.

Let's go back to the thread

M Carter · Nov 10, 2016

Man, again awakes this mac-vs-PC level subject...

I'll add this though - REALLY pre-washing your film... before you expose it? I've just started testing the current IR and retro films this way. Results are very promising. Looks like you can achieve a more old-school IR film look this way. About to do more empirical testing and dial in the pre-workflow.

But I'll have to learn to re-roll 120 film I suppose...

Gerald C Koch · Nov 10, 2016

The beating of tom-toms has been shown time and time again to bring back the sun during a solar eclipse.

Craig75 · Nov 10, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
If you can do this, I suggest you try. Take a piece of undeveloped film, 120 or 4x5 is preferred, and dip it into plain water. Watch. A pattern of streaks and mottling begins to appear. Do the same with dry film and developer and you will find the same. Now, take the film wet with water and dip it into developer and compare it to the film that went directly into the developer. You will see that the film that was prewet is absorbing developer and beginning to darken more evenly.

Of course, this changes with agitation and becomes better, but with rotation it becomes worse. You get streaks induced by the "pour of emulsion" across the film as the drum rotates.

I've done the above and more.

PE

thanks for this. I developed a film for 4mins no pre soak and ended up with very uneven development and horizontal tramlines very visible in skies. It was only later I read that a pre soak is very much in order for times under 5 mins - but I couldnt see why it would make a difference. Now I know!

Gerald C Koch · Nov 10, 2016

Craig75 said:
thanks for this. I developed a film for 4mins no pre soak and ended up with very uneven development and horizontal tramlines very visible in skies. It was only later I read that a pre soak is very much in order for times under 5 mins - but I couldnt see why it would make a difference. Now I know!

Did you also read that development times under 5 minutes are not recommended simply because they cause uneven development.

Craig · Nov 10, 2016

Just thinking out loud here, would the addition of a surfactant to the developer break the surface tension and allow more even development without the need for a pre wet?

Craig75 · Nov 10, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
Did you also read that development times under 5 minutes are not recommended simply because they cause uneven development.

I did but never hurts to try oneself. Also I read if you go under 5mins a presoak helps with this problem... so... there's that too. why do you ask?

Photo Engineer · Nov 10, 2016

It could do unknown and strange things to development.

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 10, 2016

And a prewet is advised for C41 because of the short development and high temperature.

PE

Gerald C Koch · Nov 10, 2016

Craig said:
Just thinking out loud here, would the addition of a surfactant to the developer break the surface tension and allow more even development without the need for a pre wet?

I believe that most films already have a surfactant necessary for proper coating of the emulsion. Of course pre-soaking removes this.

RPC · Nov 10, 2016

Craig75 said:
I did but never hurts to try oneself. Also I read if you go under 5mins a presoak helps with this problem... so... there's that too

Most would never use such a short development time, however. Try your experiment with a typical development time of say 10 minutes and see if there is any difference in uniformity between prewet vs. no prewet.

The bottom line is sometimes a prewet is needed, sometimes it is not, depending on how and what you are processing.

Craig75 · Nov 10, 2016

RPC said:
Most would never use such a short development time, however. Try your experiment with a typical development time of say 10 minutes and see if there is any difference in uniformity between prewet vs. no prewet.

The bottom line is sometimes a prewet is needed, sometimes it is not, depending on how and what you are processing.

Under 5 mins it would seem one benefits from a pre wash. That's literally the only point i was making.

LAG · Nov 10, 2016

Craig75 said:
... It was only later I read that a pre soak is very much in order for times under 5 mins...

Yes indeed

Gerald C Koch said:
Did you also read that development times under 5 minutes are not recommended simply because they cause uneven development.

It depends on the temperature/agitation (...)

Craig said:
Just thinking out loud here, would the addition of a surfactant to the developer break the surface tension and allow more even development without the need for a pre wet?

Many developers already include in their formulation pre-wetting agents, but not always with the same strength than that previous bath. So, not always one can replace the other.

In addition to that some pre-soaks can also be done with few humectant drops, in this case it is safer to do that pre-wash in a different place where the development itself.

Keep thinking out loud please!

Photo Engineer · Nov 10, 2016

A humectant or surfactant in a prewet is not recommended. See the comments above.

A humectant is vastly different from a surfactant, but they often have similar effects.

PE

DREW WILEY · Nov 10, 2016

Ha! Surfactants are fun. Since I'm a backpacker, I see all kinds of cute gear ideas. Right now there's a trend on cheap ultralight tents made from things like Tyvek housewrap or truck wrap material. They bead off water, breathe to avoid condensation, and can handle cold powder snow. But they
have an Achilles heel or two. Camp in the woods, particularly below a cedar or redwood tree, though quite a few other trees will do. The rainwater picks up tannic acid from the tree, and tannic acid is a very effective surfactant. Water soon goes right through! And some of that tannic residue will
remain on the fabric for next trip, even if you're not below a tree! That's why, even used as a housewrap, the fabric has to be spaced off by something inert and not actually contact wood itself, or it fails as a barrier.

LAG · Nov 10, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
A humectant or surfactant in a prewet is not recommended. See the comments above

Yes, true. But, like any other recommendation, well known (or tested) the risks (behaviour) or the adverse effects, with the appropriate measures, can be sort it out and be beneficially used without a single problem as well. See the word "safer" above

Hexavalent · Nov 10, 2016

LAG said:
Yes indeed

Many developers already include in their formulation pre-wetting agents, but not always with the same strength than that previous bath. So, not always one can replace the other.

Such as?

LAG · Nov 10, 2016

Hexavalent said:
Such as?

Don't you know any? Curious ...

Ilford ID11, Kodak T-Max Dev ... are two easy and quick examples, but to give you an extra help, you can find the answer by going through the complete formulas or their S.D.S. if possible.

"Generally speaking" all the Water Soluble ones "should" carry a wetting agent (... ...) but let me remind you as well that you can make your own developer without or with it. You yourself can add a wetting agent to your developer (both homemade or store-bought) but you must pay special attention when doing that ... you must know well all the chemicals involved as well as the mixtures, you do not want to ruin your developer nor your film, do you?

Talking about questions, some of mine remain "unanswered" some posts above "Why's? #81", it's a pitty ... however I do my best when answering the ones I receive

I hope this one can help
Best

Photo Engineer · Nov 10, 2016

LAG, none of those contain a wetting agent, nor do they contain a humectant.

I'm not sure where you came up with this!

PE

LAG · Nov 10, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
LAG, none of those contain a wetting agent, nor do they contain a humectant.

I'm not sure where you came up with this!

PE

I am sure. Please, could you develop your answer? Thank you

Hexavalent · Nov 10, 2016

LAG said:
Don't you know any? Curious ...

Ilford ID11, Kodak T-Max Dev ... are two easy and quick examples, but to give you an extra help, you can find the answer by going through the complete formulas or their S.D.S. if possible.

Best

Sorry, there are no surfactants in those formulas, nor any in the msds of many others that I have on hand. Many do contain chelating agents - perhaps you are confusing the two.

LAG · Nov 11, 2016

This thread is getting funnier, isn´t it? I like this sense of humor. Thank you

Excuse me Hexavalent,

so your “such us” question hid a trap behind, oh, naughty boy! Can I play this game too? I mean, I am going to ask you a question that I already know the answer and at the same time explains your last comments (though I will go head-on with the warning beforehand, like my signature recites):

Can you (or both of you) tell us what the additive Diethanolamine on T-max Developer do?

I have some other questions like: don’t you know any developer with a wetting agent on it?, in your years of experience, have you never used (or noticed) a wetting agent on your developer? or have you never used a wetting agent on your (water) pre-wash bath? … but as I have already mentioned above, there’re some other outstanding issues without any answer (and without hope for my part) on post #81 and now on #118 and #120, and this very one.

I am looking forward to hearing all the (your) answers

Thank you in advance (you’re welcome in advance)

p.s. I especially wouldn't want to disturb the other passangers in this thread with this (it sure runs only against me), if it is getting boring, please let me know and I will shut my mouth or we can follow this issue the PM way. But I think this is very enriching for everyone

chromacomaphoto · Nov 11, 2016

I always pre-wash, always been happy with the results.

removed account4 · Nov 11, 2016

jeremy rundle said:
Should I pre was/soak ilford film before processing

Thanks

hi jeremy

as you can see from the 5 pages of responses to your question
the answer is "maybe, maybe not"
if you do/don't pre-wet your film and talk about it here on apug
you might get the oposing teams angry with you.

as you can see some folks do, and the world doesn't end, the negatives develop and there are no problems
and as you can see some folks do not and the world doesn't end and the negatives develop and there are no problems.

unfortunately, like many subjects people feel close to, you will find all sorts of answers.
be careful not to ask about using water instead of stop bath you might kheel khauled

LAG · Nov 11, 2016

jnanian said:
hi jeremy

as you can see from the 5 pages of responses to your question
the answer is "maybe, maybe not"
if you do/don't pre-wet your film and talk about it here on apug
you might get the oposing teams angry with you.

as you can see some folks do, and the world doesn't end, the negatives develop and there are no problems
and as you can see some folks do not and the world doesn't end and the negatives develop and there are no problems.

unfortunately, like many subjects people feel close to, you will find all sorts of answers.
be careful not to ask about using water instead of stop bath you might kheel khauled

As far as I am concerned, I love this post
Thank you jnanian!

Pre washing film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency