The late Photo Engineer started a very good thread on the issue of stabilizers. It may prove useful:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-definitive-word-i-hope-on-color-stabilzers.89149/
I'm just saying that if you add, e.g., 250 ml of working solution photoflo to 250 ml of working solution final rinse, you end up with 500 ml of solution where the "important extras" in final rinse have been diluted to half strength.I read your post, but I dont get the argument about dilution. You typically use photoflo in a dilution of something like 1+200. Not really an issue.
In the linked thread you can see that current conditioners are essentially an antifungal compound (the 'important extra') and a surfactant. There's no reason why photoflo couldn't act in the latter role, as you also suggest. Whether the antifungal/antimicrobal compound is necessary is debatable if you take into account proper storage conditions.
That's a straightforward way to do it. Albeit that the formaldehyde is no longer necessary for dye stability with today's c41 films.When I first did c-41 I prepared a formaldehyde solution as Photo Engineer suggested, adding Photo-Flo to it but no additional water.
I think the issue of using surfactant after stabilization is the stabilizers may be leeched out because the Photo-Flo solution is mostly water. You wash away the stabilizers.
What I gathered from Photo Engineer's thread is that surfactant with stabilizer in it lets the the stabilizer do it's thing as well as preventing drying marks.
Pay attention to MattKing's very important comments about dilution. You want to make sure there is sufficient stabilizer in your last bath. When I first did c-41 I prepared a formaldehyde solution as Photo Engineer suggested, adding Photo-Flo to it but no additional water.
In other words, I added Photo-Flo concentrate to the "stabilizer," NOT working strength Photo-Flo. As a matter of fact I added less surfactant than the bottle states. I also compensated volumes to make sure I had sufficient formaldehyde concentration.
I've also had drying mark problems even with surfactant, so I use a bit less concentrate, but also let the reels sit on a towel (lint-free cloth) for a little bit before removing the film. This lets water flow a much shorter distance to the edge, so it's less likely to dry over an image. Someone here claims to use a salad spinner to get rid of excess water before removing the film.
Indeed, the photoflo bath will largely remove the conditioner from the film, drastically reducing the utility of that step. Commercial final rinse baths already have a surfactant so additional photoflo is superfluous.I guess it could wash some of the rinse solution off the surface of the film.
My approach with the photo flo was always to use it as a separate final dunk after the final rinse, rather than adding the photo flo to the final rinse solution.
I am puzzled.
To my understanding the final rinse always is a rinse containing a surfactant. Thus succeeding it by another surfactant rinse makes no sense.
Furthermore, as already hinted at, such rinse may even hamper the intended effect of the original final rinse in some processes.
PhotoFlo is the final rinse for black & white film, not color film.
In the linked thread you can see that current conditioners are essentially an antifungal compound (the 'important extra') and a surfactant..
Hi, did you end up figuring out what was wrong? I am surprised by how little information there is about this issue online. I extended all wash times, bought new chems and everything and am still having the same issue as what you had here. I inspected the negatives before adding any sort of wash aid and it was there so I know that isnt the issue.
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?