If you can find one single instance where a manufacturer of photographic film recommends pre-soaking, I'd be very interested to see it.
What's the problem? It's just the anti-halation coating.
The benefit of presoaking in a water bath is more even development, as the "pores" of the gelatin emulsion are "opened up" before going into the developer.
almost all developers bleach out the dye. so they pour out clear. only a few one-shot mixes come out purpleWhat would be the effect, if any, of having the anti-halation dye go back into the developer for those who used replenished developer?
almost all developers bleach out the dye. so they pour out clear. only a few one-shot mixes come out purple
Wow. I stand corrected about Adox and Rollei R3. You always learn something new.
So what's the benefit? I mean visible benefit. How do you see a difference in the print? I stopped doing presoak a few months ago, and at the same time I stopped doing that I switched to stainless steel tanks, and those two changes changed all my film developing problems with uneven development and air bubbles.
I'm not convinced that presoaking the film adds any benefit at all. Can you show the benefit? Can you prove it?
And, for the record: I'm not provoking anybody. I'd just like to see proof or some sort of scientific evidence proving the benefit.
One benefit is that pre-soaking is a quick way of bringing film and the tank up to the required temperature, particularly if the air temperature is significantly different from the developing temperature. By pre-wetting the emulsion and hence helping absorbtion of the developer it should help to prevent the possibility of defects caused by air bubbles.
The benefit of presoaking in a water bath is more even development, as the "pores" of the gelatin emulsion are "opened up" before going into the developer.
I found the passage in the book by AA : it is page 206.
Not that I am an unconditional adept of AA, but the man has done some very good things for photography, made very fine pictures and deserves a lot of respect.
To be complete, here are the data : Ansel Adams, The Negative; Litte,Brown and Company/Boston, second printing, 1982, ISBN 0-8212-1131-5.
To be clear and avoid typo's, I scanned that part of the text, see the attachment, I hope that the publisher will not shoot me for this:confused:.
I think he wrote something about pre-soaking in the 'zone system' part too, I will check this later.
Philippe
Temperature - how is that beneficial? What is the actual effect you see?
- Thomas
That is exactly why I started presoaking.
However, that was written years ago, and I imagine that films have changed a lot. They have become thinner and harder to my knowledge. Perhaps presoaking only helped with thick emulsion films, where it took more time for developer to penetrate the thickness of the emulsion.
I specifically read, on some Kodak data sheet, I believe, that films should not be presoaked.
Like Thomas sez, we can all say that we have had various results with various methods, but is there anybody who has done any actual scientific testing?
I would think that Kodak has done so...and Maco too. So what gives? Why the different recommendations? I do notice that ADOX is an old-school emulsion. But not the Maco, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?