Shanghai GP3 funkiness...

[Athiril]

When I soaked this is water for a minute (120 roll) before developing... the water came out a bright blue... like high school crystal growing copper sulfate experiments blue...

The film came out fine though...


What gives?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

No sweat. Don't presoak. If you can find one single instance where a manufacturer of photographic film recommends pre-soaking, I'd be very interested to see it.

 

[Athiril]

It was very startling to see :/

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yeah, the colors can be pretty funky

 

[AgX]

If you can find one single instance where a manufacturer of photographic film recommends pre-soaking, I'd be very interested to see it.

Maco advises presoaking for the Rollei R3 in their datasheet.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Ever seen the 'juice' after pre soaking Tri-X 400/120?
BTW, I think I remember reading about pre soaking in 'The Negative' by A.A., I will check it...
I am pre soaking for about 35 years now and every time I did not, I had troubles, regardless the type of emulsion.

Philippe

 

[Fanshaw]

What's the problem? It's just the anti-halation coating.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

What's the problem? It's just the anti-halation coating.

Of course it is.

 

[Shangheye]

Thomas...Adox CHS 50.....presoaking recommended on the web site.....as well as only using water as stop. K

 

[PHOTOTONE]

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.

 

[trexx]

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.

But is this really a benefit? Now the gelatin is filled with water. The developer is introduced and diluted, at least locally to the gelatin. The diluted developer now does not develop evenly and caused uneven development.

I have found best results never presoaking unless the film specificities a presoak. That is to say I have had inconsistent results when using a presoak.

But I will add; if you always presoak, do continue to presoak as it will produce negatives and prints that you are used to and suits your work flow.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

 

[Anscojohn]

What would be the effect, if any, of having the anti-halation dye go back into the developer for those who used replenished developer?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's what I use, John. Edwal 12 as a replenished solution. Regardless of film used, it maintains a brown color. I've run about 60 rolls through the same 2 liter batch now with 100ml fresh developer per roll developed. No change in color. When it's fresh it's slightly brighter.

- Thomas

 

[Shangheye]

As I understood it the only purpose of the presoak was removal of the anti halation dye. I never went further than following the instructions for Adox CHS 50, and have never tried it without the presoak. Next time I shoot 4x5, I will develop a couple of sheets for comparison. K

 

[cmacd123]

What 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

 

[Anscojohn]

almost all developers bleach out the dye. so they pour out clear. only a few one-shot mixes come out purple

**********

OK

 

[Fanshaw]

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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Temperature - how is that beneficial? What is the actual effect you see?

Absorption - Can you show the difference between pre-soaking and not pre-soaking? Do you actually get less air bubbles?

Still not convinced... Proof is needed.

What are the actual benefits of pre-soaking the film? What happens during development that makes the negatives better by pre-soaking? And what difference does it make in the final print?

Not being pesky, I just want to know what the facts are.

- Thomas

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.

 

[2F/2F]

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 thought I had read in some photo data sheet that presoaking can cause uneven development.

This makes sense to me. It seems like if the developer has to displace water to contact the emulsion, it would take longer to start developing, and do so at various speeds at various locations.

Yet someone sez the Maco data sheet calls for it.

I used to presoak, until I read some data sheet that said not to do so.

I still presoak when using a Jobo expert drum. It seems to make the developer cover the entirety of the film evenly. It took one disaster that ruined 10 sheets of C-41 film to convince me to follow Jobo's instructions (after some supposed "expert" and ex-photo lab guy on the Internet said not to presoak C-41 or any other film).

It seems that if initial agitation is constant, it really should only make a difference during the initial pour time (perhaps 15 - 20 sec.). I agitate all films on reels or in trays for one minute initially so that initial development is even.

In other words, in my experience, there is room for much confusion on this topic. If anything, it seems like the type of tank has more to do with it than anything else.

So, what is the score for reelz?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

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

 

[2F/2F]

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

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?

 

[Fanshaw]

Temperature - how is that beneficial? What is the actual effect you see?


- Thomas

I certainly have not done experiments to prove the benefits of pre-soaking so I am not dogmatic about whether it should be done or not. However it must be beneficial to control the temperature during development to obtain consistency. It seems clear to me that if the developing tank and film are brought to the same temperature as the developer before the developer is added then this is beneficial. Otherwise, the temperature of the tank will change unpredictably when the developer is added. Unless you have some means of controlling air temperature it is not easy to adjust the temperature of a dry tank, since it will float in a water bath. Of course this supposed benefit will not matter much if there is little difference between the air temperature and that of the developer.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

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?

In the same book, AA is talking about thin-emulsion films, so, I suppose that his remarks were valid for in the thin-emulsion world too.
See attachment...

Philippe

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'll keep hunting for evidence that presoaking helps. Even then, I will continue not presoaking, because for me that's what works.

Interesting how this discussion evolved from what the color of antihalation dyes are.