Presoak or not?

dpurdy said:

Waaaay back before the digital takeover in commercial photography.. the 1980s, I worked in a commercial studio and a Kodak rep was always near by if not lurking around. They gave out info and recommendations and did research on questions all the time. It was one of those guys who told me that Kodak recommends 2 minutes presoak on Tmax films. It was also a rep who told me then that D76 was actually the best developer for Tmax films but they had introduced "Tmax Developer" as a response to photographers who wished for a special new developer. He said it still wasn't better than D76. Of course that is just one Kodak Rep standing around talking and it might be a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

You are actually closer to the truth than what anyone else has posted on all of these topics.

I'm glad I didn't say it.

PE

are you all agitating the tank with the pre-soak or just letting the tank sit?

Agitation is used to break the bubbles that form on the surface of film as it wets.

It is also used for the sake of uniformity.

PE

Ok so you are able to find some instructions from 1940. Lots of film technology has changed in 70 years.

Ilford specifly recommends against it for their products saying it washes out chemicals that promoted even and fast developer absorbtion.

Ronald Moravec said:

Ok so you are able to find some instructions from 1940. Lots of film technology has changed in 70 years.

Ilford specifly recommends against it for their products saying it washes out chemicals that promoted even and fast developer absorbtion.

Click to expand...

Ronald;

You think that I am unaware of the changes? I took part in making them happen for 32 years. I pointed out in my post that the use of a water wash after development was changed to use of a stop bath. When a change is made, I take note of it.

The Kodak example is done with 120 film as an example, but they imply its use for their daylight loading tank.

I'm aware of what Ilford says as well. I said I do both and I do. I get good results from my Ilford film with their process recommendations, but I use a prewet. I have clearly stated my reasons in all of my posts.

The statement was made that "no manufacturer recommends a prewet" and my answer was the original Kodak B&W instruction booklet. I can cite the Jobo manuals as well. My point throughout my posts was that there is little difference except for better uniformity. I've pointed out my reasoning and actually done it under controlled lab conditions.

Have you?

PE

Hrm. So I dug out my 1943 "How to make good pictures" by Kodak (complete with the note at the beginning that Kodak is very busy with the special production of urgently needed war material and suggests that you make every shot count) and found that they do, in fact, recommend no stop and a pre-wet.

But I see that Ron's beat me to it.

For those that advocate a pre-soak, it sounds like it will have some benefit for non-dilute developers, allowing for more even development. It is, however, not much benefit for dilute developers, right?

Snapshot said:

For those that advocate a pre-soak, it sounds like it will have some benefit for non-dilute developers, allowing for more even development. It is, however, not much benefit for dilute developers, right?

Click to expand...

You are exactly correct!

I will repeat though "use what works for you". That is the final criterion in all photographic work as there are too many variables for just one answer.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

You are exactly correct!

I will repeat though "use what works for you". That is the final criterion in all photographic work as there are too many variables for just one answer.

PE

Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming what I read in this thread. I'll give pre-soak a try for my D-76 and FX-37 developers.

My mother always recommended a presoak, in fact she did it to me regularly when I was a baby, she said I would grow up more evenly.........mmmmm

If you use Rollei R3 you have to presoak for about 2-3 min.....
And I always do it with Foma-film's