soaking in water before processing?

[Matt5791]

I have heard of people soaking film in 20 deg water prior to processing to ensure that the film and tank are at 20 degrees.

I have tried this on a couple of previous processing sessions with no adverse effects, although when I pour the water away it is a dark, mabey purple, colour.

Is it OK to pre soak and does it change anything?

I have read Ansel Adams and he has talked about presoaking (I think) - is this the same thing?

Is what I am doing OK?

What about the colour fo the water - was I pouring the film emulsion down the drain!?

Thanks for any advice,
Matt

 

[Dave Miller]

It's the proceedure I follow; the coloured water is, I think, the antihalation dye coming out of the film, and is not detrimental. The important ting must be the state of your film after you have developed it.

 

[fhovie]

Presoaking does several things. It tempers the tank and film so that your developer temperature will stay correct. It washes off the anti-halation layer on the back of the film which likely doesn't effect the development process at all. It also swells the emulsion a little as the water soaks in. When you replace the water with the developer, the developer graduly replaces the water in the emulsion (St. Ansel says it takes 20 seconds) which allows for a more even development. This way all the surface of the film gets a slightly buffered exposure to the developer as it unevenly enters the tank and sloshes around until full. I always pre-soak. It is likely less important with smaller formats.

 

[Matt5791]

Thanks for the replies - very interesting.

St. Ansel - I like that!

Matt

 

[mono]

Presoaking does several things. It tempers the tank and film so that your developer temperature will stay correct. It washes off the anti-halation layer on the back of the film which likely doesn't effect the development process at all. It also swells the emulsion a little as the water soaks in. When you replace the water with the developer, the developer graduly replaces the water in the emulsion (St. Ansel says it takes 20 seconds) which allows for a more even development. This way all the surface of the film gets a slightly buffered exposure to the developer as it unevenly enters the tank and sloshes around until full. I always pre-soak. It is likely less important with smaller formats.

I always pre-soak, too, for the same reasons mentioned above!

 

[Matt5791]

Just thinking - what is a good pre soak time? 2 minutes or something?

Thanks

Matt

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

My standard pre-soak time is 5 minutes (I use deionized water - I have a Millipore filtration chain in my Lab). I use the 5 minute pre-soak with both rollfilm and sheet film.

 

[Matt5791]

Thanks!

Matt

 

[mono]

all formats, 2 min, 20 degrees, normal water, continuous agitation: up and down and turning around and then I use my tested (densitometer) film development time

 

[pentaxuser]

I have heard of people soaking film in 20 deg water prior to processing to ensure that the film and tank are at 20 degrees.

I have tried this on a couple of previous processing sessions with no adverse effects, although when I pour the water away it is a dark, mabey purple, colour.

Is it OK to pre soak and does it change anything?

I have read Ansel Adams and he has talked about presoaking (I think) - is this the same thing?

Is what I am doing OK?

What about the colour fo the water - was I pouring the film emulsion down the drain!?

Thanks for any advice,
Matt

It's certainly the route followed by John Tinsley in his book "The Rotary Processing Manual" when he covers B&W film processing in a Jobo. Apart for the benefits mentioned in the other replies to this thread, his claim is that it exactly cancels out the reduction in development time recommended for rotary processors. So he made no reduction.

For what it is worth I recently tried rotary processing minus any pre-wash for Delta 400 at ISO 250 with Perceptol and found that my negs were thin. Most prints were at grade 4 and even 5 to get the contrast required.

I have concluded that Ilford's recommended reduction of 15% for rotary processing is too much. I reduced this to 10% for FP4 and have found this to be still too much although it was better.

Ilford do not recommend pre-washing but based on my findings above and others comments on the benefits from actual seasoned practitioners, it seems as if a pre-wash and no alteration to development times may be the route to go for rotary processing at least.

Pentaxuser

 

[severian]

Matt,
Pre soaking the film will affect the development time. Do a dev test pre soaked vs dry film. The water must be displaced with developer in the emulsion. I could be wrong but I think this is going to take longer than 20 seconds.
Jack

 

[mono]

Matt,
Pre soaking the film will affect the development time. Do a dev test pre soaked vs dry film. The water must be displaced with developer in the emulsion. I could be wrong but I think this is going to take longer than 20 seconds.
Jack

I think it is said to take 15-20 sec. to replace the developer!?

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Yes, testing (with densitometry) is way I establish and verify my development times/dilutions after my standard 5 minute presoak at 20C.
My primary developer is Pyrocat-HD used at a 1+1+100 dilution with either minimum agitation or semi-stand.

I am in correspondence with another photographer who also uses a 5 minute presoak, then adds the appropriate amount of Pyrocat-HD concentrates directly to the presoak water and develops for the amount of time he has determined to be appropriate (by testing).

 

[fhovie]

I imagine that it changes from emulsion to emulsion. I used to just dump in the developer - when I started presoaking and using the same times, I did not notice a significant change in development. Most of my times for roll films are about 10 minutes or so. If presoaking lost more than 20 seconds of development time, like 60 seconds, It would be 10% at this developing time. I know that 10% produces an immediatly noticable loss of about 2/3 of a stop. Almost a paper grade. It is very unlikely that it takes significantly more than 20 seconds for the developer to replace the water. Of course - I do not use stop bath. It could be said that the time is made up at the back end of the process. But I always have used a water stop, so, again - it is very unlikely that it takes more than 20 seconds. 20 seconds is about 3% of the processing time (at 10 minutes) and I cannot detect a change for 3% less development time.

Matt,
Pre soaking the film will affect the development time. Do a dev test pre soaked vs dry film. The water must be displaced with developer in the emulsion. I could be wrong but I think this is going to take longer than 20 seconds.
Jack

 

[mikepry]

I haven't presoaked in a long, long time. I use D-76 1:1 in BTZS style films and also my welding rod tubes and haven't had nary a problem.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

The films that I use (J&C Classic, Efke 100, Efke 25 and Kodak TMZ) work best for me with a 5 minute presoak. I develop my sheet film in BZTS type tubes and/or slosher trays. I presoak in deionized 20C water with both and get excellent, repeatable results.

With rollfilm (J&C Classic, Efke 100, Efke 25 and Kodak TMZ) I develop on Hewes reels in SS tanks with a 5 minute presoak and with excellent and repeatable results (verified by densitometry). Since I prefer staining and tanning developers and minimal agitation with the films I use, I do not develop in D76.

 

[gainer]

There was an article in Photo Techniques some years ago, when it was called "Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques", that showed the results of presoaking several different films. Different films responded differently, and that's about all I remember. It was either Howard Bond or Phil Davis that wrote the article.

 

[Charles Webb]

Seems once again I am on the oposite side of the fence. I have never found a need to use a presoak. I use Tanks and hangers and preferably D 76 !:1.
my comment is simply based on my own experience in developing 4x5 up.
I have read many articles saying that it was a great "Silver Bullet" but I have never been able to prove to my self that it was all it is cracked up to be! Each unto his own!

Charlie.........................

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

No Silver Bullet. Just following the film manufacturer's and distributor's recommended developing procedure. - - - That and verifying the manufacturer's exposure and development recommendations with controlled sensitometry and densitometry testing.

 

[Charles Webb]

Tom, once again you prove what I have long known you are full of bulls---

your obediante servant,
Charlie....................

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Tom, once again you prove what I have long known you are full of bulls---

your obediante servant,
Charlie....................

Wow! I must have hit a raw nerve! Sorry, Charlie!

 

[Dave Miller]

What’s this bulls stuff we are supposed to pre-soak in?

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

It's certainly the route followed by John Tinsley in his book "The Rotary Processing Manual" when he covers B&W film processing in a Jobo. Apart for the benefits mentioned in the other replies to this thread, his claim is that it exactly cancels out the reduction in development time recommended for rotary processors. So he made no reduction.

For what it is worth I recently tried rotary processing minus any pre-wash for Delta 400 at ISO 250 with Perceptol and found that my negs were thin. Most prints were at grade 4 and even 5 to get the contrast required.

I have concluded that Ilford's recommended reduction of 15% for rotary processing is too much. I reduced this to 10% for FP4 and have found this to be still too much although it was better.

Ilford do not recommend pre-washing but based on my findings above and others comments on the benefits from actual seasoned practitioners, it seems as if a pre-wash and no alteration to development times may be the route to go for rotary processing at least.

Pentaxuser

I have found with the 4x5 sheets that I process in my Jobo CPA-2, that the standard small tank times work best. That is with D-76 diluted 1:1 and with out a pre-rinse using a 2563 Multitank which allows up to twelve sheets to be processed. I acknowledge that personal preferences play an important role and it depends on how you like your negatives. For 35mm & 120 rolls, I use either a Paterson or Jobo 1500 series tank with intermittent agitation, although on the occasions I have used rotary processing with roll films I found again that I prefered the films developed to the small tank times and again with out a pre-rinse.
I remember reading an article by Roger Hicks ( if my memory is right) that films like T-Max P-3200 TMZ & Delta 3200 Delta have additives in the emulsion which help to optimise the speed yield and a pre-rinse could cause a detrimental loss of emulsion speed yield.
I use the Jobo mostly for the E-6 process.
I also have the same book by John Tinsley.

 

[pentaxuser]

Keith. I know this may not be helping Matt in the sense that the thread is now catering for two schools of thought on pre-soak but for my benefit I believe you are saying that even without a pre-soak, Jobo processing benefits from following normal inversion development times. In summary: FollowTinsley's advice on times which is to use, in my case, Ilford times based on inversion agitation but not follow his advice on pre-soak.

Have I got this right?

My only concern is that I had a third film to develop which was HP5+. Courage failed me and I reverted back to Ilford's inversion agitation times and found that I got good
negs which are printing fine at grade 3 which is about right for a colour head diffusion enlarger(Durst 605M).

However unless continuous rotary agitation has no effect at all then my fear would be that using normal inversion agitation development times with the Jobo would result in
too much contrast.

On the other hand unless the resulting negs were way over the top then if rotary processing resulted in negs that needed grade 2 printing instead of grade 3 then what would be the adverse consequences of this, if any?

I should add that my HP5+ was developed using inversion agitation at 1:3 in Perceptol and this may not be a good basis on which to speculate on the effect of
rotary processing at inversion times because Tinsley does say that this kind of dilution is not ideal for rotary processing.

I presume his statement is based on there being too little Perceptol at 1:3 in a rotary processor. The tank only needs 140ml so at 1:3 this is only 35ml of stock solution.

Finally for others interested in rotary processing Tinsley who lists very few films and developers mentions " The Black and White Handbook" published by Jobo. The book covers processing recommendations and effective film speeds for over a hundred film/developer combinations. It is available as part number 4191.

Does anyone know where this may be obtained?

I don't know if Keith will agree with me but I found the Tinsley book very helpful for anyone wanting to try Jobo processing. He covers colour neg, colour reversal film processing as well as RA4 and Cibachrome printing.

The ISBN is 0-902979-11-6 and the publisher was R Morgan Publishing, PO Box 11,Chislehurst, Kent BR7 5RH.I have no idea whether it is still obtainable as it was published way back in 1992. The way things have gone in the last 13 years in photography this is unfortunately a lifetime ago.

Thanks

Pentaxuser
50