Presoaking film and development time

[Sirius Glass]

1. The Ilford recommendation is to those who have established development time based on intermittent agitation when moving to rotary processing with continuous agitation. For its B&W films, Ilford recommends no pre-soak.

2. The idea that a pre-soak will reduce airbells when loading the following developer is based, I suppose, on the assumption that an airbell is more likely to be left between film edge and spiral reel flange if the reel is dry, and less so if the reel and film are wet. I doubt that there is any objective study of that as fact. Moreover, it's practical nonsense, in that an airbell can be dislodged with a simple rap of tank on table, so where is there any logic in using a pre-wash for that? It's a solution looking for a problem.

I have never had an airbell whether I rap the tank or use a Jobo processor and I always presoak. End of discussion.

 

[cliveh]

Perhaps we should introduce a pre-soak before pre-soak. A bit like the fallacy of getting a closer shave with multiple blade razors.

 

[john_s]

.......

2. The idea that a pre-soak will reduce airbells when loading the following developer is based, I suppose, on the assumption that an airbell is more likely to be left between film edge and spiral reel flange if the reel is dry, and less so if the reel and film are wet. I doubt that there is any objective study of that as fact. Moreover, it's practical nonsense, in that an airbell can be dislodged with a simple rap of tank on table, so where is there any logic in using a pre-wash for that? It's a solution looking for a problem.

Rather than basing my presoaking on an assumption, I started doing it as an experiment and it worked for me. I don't know why it worked when I had faint airbells with Neopan400 in 120 size. Prior to using that film, I hadn't experienced an airbell for half a century. Now that Neopan is finished, I've moved to HP5+ in 120 size, I still do a presoak but I don't know if it's necessary. Maybe I'll try a roll without.

 

[BobUK]

"A pre-rinse is not recommended as it can lead to uneven development."

This is the advice from Ilford on their data sheet for PanF+

Take a look at the second paragraph, last line, page three of the Ilford data sheet.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1905/product/700/

I have only skimmed through this topic here on Photrio so forgive me if it has already been pointed out before.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Perhaps we should introduce a pre-soak before pre-soak...

Two sequential pre-soaks was the only way I was ever able to rid original Acros of airbells when developing it using inversion agitation in small tanks. Sheets in Jobo Expert drums on rotary processors didn't exhibit the problem.

 

[Vaughn]

...

I have only skimmed through this topic here on Photrio so forgive me if it has already been pointed out before.

It gets mentioned everytime the subject comes up. Note that Ilford did not say pre-soaking causes uneven development, and that Ilford made a recomondation, not an 'rule'.

 

[BobUK]

It gets mentioned everytime the subject comes up. Note that Ilford did not say pre-soaking causes uneven development, and that Ilford made a recomondation, not an 'rule'.

"It gets mentioned every time the subject comes up." and still no progress? Sounds like Groundhog Day to me.


True, Ilford does not say it will cause uneven development. But they do say "it can lead to uneven development."

Cheers Vaughn.

 

[Vaughn]

Definitely Groundhog Day material!!

All the stages of development can lead to uneven development -- if the moon is out-of-phase, a low is lollygagging through, someone sneezed on the stainless, or puts a surfactant in the developer.

That extra bit of Scotch will not magically turn that fixer I am pouring in the tank into Ilford developer.. Actually -- I acheived very even non-development if I remember rightly.