Temperature Importance of Film Wash Water

[LAG]

Excuse me Rick Jones

In my experience (with different – slower - speed films) that shift is huge. Look at this developing brief note as one example.

Kodak T-max 100 . Developer 104ºF (half time) resting after agitation in a hot bowl
1st Stop bath (water) 64ºF (continuos agitation for 1 +1/2 min)
2nd Stop bath (water) 104ºF (continuos agitation for 1 +1/2 min)
Fixer 64ºF (doubling time) resting after agitation in a cold bowl
...

Here is the result

"Down the light"

Nothing dramatic happened with such a difference in temperature. Hope you can see the detail, a few black (white) random spots spread all over

Detail

 

[Ian Grant]

My question is, how high of a temperature shift can the stock of HP5 and/or TRI-X before affecting the image? Quite some time ago I had the same question so pulled my copy of Richard J. Henry's "Controls in Black and White Photography" (Second Edition). Seems he had the same question after reading numerous cautions to maintain all solutions at +/- 1 degree. He detailed his testing on p. 234/5. He developed TriX at 68 degrees with subsequent solutions swinging fron 62 to 80 degrees. He found no issues whatsoever. Now your 110 water supply is another issue altogether, however, if you could devise a way to control your solution temps between 68 and 80 I believe you would be fine based on Henry's findings. For those not familiar with RJH his whole purpose for the book was to debunk many of the unsubstantiated claims/statements he was reading about the B&W analog process. He is my go to guy for questions like yours.

If you look at things from a different perspective, you can look at a lot of images made with the same film and developer but by different photographers all with well exposed and developed negatives. However there's quite a variance in quality and particularly graininess, when you look at why some get consistently excellent results is down to their total control of the processing and in particular tight temperature control.

The example that surprised me the most (and I've said this before) was when another photographer shot images of me fro a magazine article, he used Tmax400 in an RB67, I also shot Tmax400 in a Leica. Both films were processed in the same replenished Xtol, same stop bath and fixer, same water supply, I was shocked to see no tempertaure control after development. the results were the 120 Tmax400 had excessive graininess while the 35mm Tmax400 I processed immediately after were fine grained as expected.

Often people making comments that tight temperature control isn't important have never been getting the high quality that most would expect anyway.

Ian

 

[TareqPhoto]

If you look at things from a different perspective, you can look at a lot of images made with the same film and developer but by different photographers all with well exposed and developed negatives. However there's quite a variance in quality and particularly graininess, when you look at why some get consistently excellent results is down to their total control of the processing and in particular tight temperature control.

The example that surprised me the most (and I've said this before) was when another photographer shot images of me fro a magazine article, he used Tmax400 in an RB67, I also shot Tmax400 in a Leica. Both films were processed in the same replenished Xtol, same stop bath and fixer, same water supply, I was shocked to see no tempertaure control after development. the results were the 120 Tmax400 had excessive graininess while the 35mm Tmax400 I processed immediately after were fine grained as expected.

Often people making comments that tight temperature control isn't important have never been getting the high quality that most would expect anyway.

Ian

Or maybe that his 120 TMAX400 showing grain because it is higher quality so more details even grain itself, but i the sharpness and details rather than grain should be with that 120 TMAX, but i know for smaller prints it is hard to tell maybe, i won't look at 35mm at all even if it has finer grain, i do shoot with TMAX and TRIX 2 days ago or say 3, i didn't develop them yet, i will try if i can process them or at least TMAX400 tonight then show you if my temp control and overall process is good enough, but i can't show as long this site isn't for scan or digitalizing things.

 

[LAG]

... The example ...

Excuse me Ian

No offense, but speaking of grain quality, i think it is no fair to compare "rocks" with "sand"

 

[Ian Grant]

Or maybe that his 120 TMAX400 showing grain because it is higher quality so more details even grain itself, but i the sharpness and details rather than grain should be with that 120 TMAX, but i know for smaller prints it is hard to tell maybe, i won't look at 35mm at all even if it has finer grain, i do shoot with TMAX and TRIX 2 days ago or say 3, i didn't develop them yet, i will try if i can process them or at least TMAX400 tonight then show you if my temp control and overall process is good enough, but i can't show as long this site isn't for scan or digitalizing things.

No the 120 Tmax400 images were so excessively grainy when printed that they were in fact completely useless and couldn't be used, it had affected sharpness and fine detail.

In fact with negative like this scans are worse than darkroom prints.

Excuse me Ian

No offense, but speaking of grain quality, i think it is no fair to compare "rocks" with "sand"

It is when you'd expect the 120 6x7 Tmax400 to be much finer grain than the 35mm for the same size print, and identical for the same degree of enlargement. So your analogy would be 35mm rocks, 120 sand but the results were the other way around entirely due to poor temperature control.

Ian

 

[TareqPhoto]

No the 120 Tmax400 images were so excessively grainy when printed that they were in fact completely useless and couldn't be used, it had affected sharpness and fine detail.

In fact with negative like this scans are worse than darkroom prints.




It is when you'd expect the 120 6x7 Tmax400 to be much finer grain than the 35mm for the same size print, and identical for the same degree of enlargement. So your analogy would be 35mm rocks, 120 sand but the results were the other way around entirely due to poor temperature control.

Ian

The only reason i can think about here is that the film itself is not good maybe expired or exposed badly, or the development process wasn't good for it but it was magically good enough for that 35mm film, i checked all of my TMAX400 films processed in different developers, none of them had bad grain or useless or less details, so that i did choose this TMAX400 as my favorite best film in 400 ASA, and what it happened with that photographer or you doesn't tell the full story or final judgment or fact about this film, and honestly you answered yourself, you said that TMAX400 in your camera gave better results, that means even 120 TMAX400 can give better results if done properly, hard to believe a same film will be better in one format the small than the larger unless mistakes are there.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Oh, sorry, i now just focused on what you wrote about poor temp control, so it means if i control it properly then my 120 films will shine then as well any format [35mm up to LF], thanks and sorry to not focus about poor temp control which may give the whole difference then.

 

[Ian Grant]

The only reason i can think about here is that the film itself is not good maybe expired or exposed badly, or the development process wasn't good for it but it was magically good enough for that 35mm film, i checked all of my TMAX400 films processed in different developers, none of them had bad grain or useless or less details, so that i did choose this TMAX400 as my favorite best film in 400 ASA, and what it happened with that photographer or you doesn't tell the full story or final judgment or fact about this film, and honestly you answered yourself, you said that TMAX400 in your camera gave better results, that means even 120 TMAX400 can give better results if done properly, hard to believe a same film will be better in one format the small than the larger unless mistakes are there.

No all the film was fresh, the 120 Tmax400 was film from a batch I was using at the time all, the ones I used before & afterwere excellent. There were no issues with the development itself it was the same 2.5 litres ofdeveloperor the exposure. The only difference was the other photographer processed the 2 rolls he shot in my darkroom and neglected to control temperatures only checking the developer temperature at the start. It was late Autumn so the tap water temperature would have bben quite low under 10º C so quite significant.

120 films are coated on the rear with a gelatin anti-curl layer as well as the emulsion side so poor temperature control can have a greater effect. If I hadn't seen the results first hand and still have the negative I would perhaps be sceptical. However experience has shown me that the best negatives are from the tightest temperature control.

Ian

 

[TareqPhoto]

Fair enough.

Well, i can't wait to develop my film, it was expired 3 years ago though, but i stored in the fridge, and i hope i can control the temp good enough, the tap water here is warm/hot, but at night it is getting less warmer but still warm, nearly 28-30C i think, and i kept one bottle of water in the fridge to mix if i need to cool down the water temp, will see how it will go, it is 120 film and hope not seeing much for grain as you stated and hope i get something on that roll, hahaha.

 

[LAG]

It is when you'd expect the 120 6x7 Tmax400 to be much finer grain than the 35mm for the same size print, and identical for the same degree of enlargement. So your analogy would be 35mm rocks, 120 sand but the results were the other way around entirely due to poor temperature control.

Ian

Nice talking to you Ian

I didn’t expect that at all, in fact I made clear the importance of “being different” sizes. Precisely let me add that when you say “same size print” I hope you mean “same proportional size print” not to say there must also be different visual distance between those prints, (that’s the “fair” affair I was talking about) the inexact of both film results if you try to compare two different (output) formats, even with the same “identical” (let me doubt about it) process.

Back to temperature control, it’s quite clear this time that we have the same opinion, poor temperature control impacts (somehow) in any result, of course! but I insist on what I said before “there is a huge shift” in this control … and the point is, up to where our eyes can observe the difference with not so huge temperature distances.

The experience is never enough

Regards

 

[Ian Grant]

Nice talking to you Ian

I didn’t expect that at all, in fact I made clear the importance of “being different” sizes. Precisely let me add that when you say “same size print” I hope you mean “same proportional size print” not to say there must also be different visual distance between those prints, (that’s the “fair” affair I was talking about) the inexact of both film results if you try to compare two different (output) formats, even with the same “identical” (let me doubt about it) process.

Back to temperature control, it’s quite clear this time that we have the same opinion, poor temperature control impacts (somehow) in any result, of course! but I insist on what I said before “there is a huge shift” in this control … and the point is, up to where our eyes can observe the difference with not so huge temperature distances.

The experience is never enough

Regards

I meant the same print size as in a 10x8 off both negatives and the 120 Tmax400 prints were far grainier than the 35mm Tmax400 which was quite a shock, it would have been even worse at the same proportional size as in the same degree of enlargement. As I said the 120 negatives were unusable.

The process was identical exactly the same 2.5 litres of replenished Xtol, acetic acid stop bath and the same fixer Both 2.5 litre bottles), the same light-meter was used as well. So the only variables were temperature and time and I determined the development times which were identical, I only saw the temperature being taken for the developer with the 120 film but noticed no controls over the wash and when I asked was told he'd not checked the stop-bath or fixer.

Ian

 

[M Carter]

I'd think if you have a fridge or icemaker and are only doing a couple rolls, "why not" keep temps consistent, or plan for a slow & steady temp rise across the full process?

I live in Dallas, and hot water, all summer long is the norm. (I actually have to cool off after a bike ride before I take a damn shower!) So, ice bath, pre-chilled water, etc. It's not really difficult, and I only really precisely control pre-wash and dev. The stop's a bit warmer, as is the fix. Warm water gives a more efficient wash, so I've usually eked up 5-8 degrees by wash time.

Looking at empirical testing done here on APUG some time ago, I'd say the most important thing is add HCA to your process (or just keep a sack of sodium sulfite handy). I never thought of HCA as critical for film until I saw those tests. If you're concerned with soaking your film in hot water but cooling enough water for a wash is a problem, add an HCA step and back off on the wash times.

 

[LAG]

Excuse me Ian

I meant the same print size as in a 10x8 off both negatives ...

That’s it! Print sizes should be enlarged to the same proportion and at the appropriate visual distance, if you want a true comparison between them. If you have two different negative sizes, why not enlarging the prints the same way?

and the 120 Tmax400 prints were far grainier than the 35mm Tmax400 which was quite a shock, it would have been even worse at the same proportional size as in the same degree of enlargement. As I said the 120 negatives were unusable.

Worse? Well, should be the same! (at the right distance) Unusable? I have no doubt about this.

The process was identical exactly the same 2.5 litres of replenished Xtol, acetic acid stop bath and the same fixer Both 2.5 litre bottles), the same light-meter was used as well. So the only variables were temperature and time and I determined the development times which were identical, I only saw the temperature being taken for the developer with the 120 film but noticed no controls over the wash and when I asked was told he'd not checked the stop-bath or fixer.

Ian

Same agitation? (or stand?) ... not to mention that camera (motion …) and lens (D.O.F …) make lots of difference in this kind of test between formats, etc, etc. I see lots of variables

 

[Ian Grant]

Same agitation? (or stand?) ... not to mention that camera (motion …) and lens (D.O.F …) make lots of difference in this kind of test between formats, etc, etc. I see lots of variables

Agitation was basically the same certainly notbenough to be a factor, the camera and lens - an RB67 with a standardlen - make no difference to graininess in an image. The only variable is the temperatures in this case.

Ian

 

[LAG]

Excuse me Ian

Sorry i’m late with the answer, (it takes me too much time to write down the right words while thinking and translating at the same time) and besides I was in the darkroom …

Agitation was basically the same certainly notbenough to be a factor, the camera and lens - an RB67 with a standardlen - make no difference to graininess in an image...

Ian

I’m afraid they do Ian, because the light conditions (I mean the exposure) also count in the granularity (it’s all related). So does the contrast in printing affect grain as well … (now you’ll tell me everything was equal in this point of the process too, like the agitation now, no problem). Even when you store (in the best conditions) your film in the fridge before use (or after exposed in much more degree) the grain is affected, humidity is another factor, etc. I am sure you already knew this all too well.

The point is (between you and me) that I am certainly sure that comparing (and judging) two different formats have no sense for many reasons, and some of them are already explained above, but of course you have the right to compare them and blame the difference on the temperature (… don’t blame it on sunshine, don’t blame it on the moonlight, blame it on the boogie!).

The second point is that I am certainly sure that temperature (like other factors out of the “normal” curves) do affect the granularity (which is only a visual perception of silver crystals grouped) If you want grain, use HC-110 or Rodinal in stock solution and shake the tank like preparing a Brandy Mahattan. I believe on this point we agree each other.

Jokes apart and talking about believing ..., the final point is (which is the OP question “how high of a temperature shift can affect the image”) if you take a look at that entire post, you’ll see that F5B&W says: “I think I’m seeing an effect” (i undestand he is not sure of that) and that's after using the chemicals at 68 F and the tap water at 110ºF …

I insist, that shift is huge, and when that shift is dramatic, is “Reticulation”.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Okay, let's just assume that keeping tight temperature control is important and help the OP deal with his 110°F tap water...

Processing at 110°F/43°C is not really feasible for a number of reasons. So, whatever regime the OP comes up with, it is likely that a running-water wash will not be part of it (unless he buys an expensive in-line chiller). That means a fill-and-dump wash routine, which, although somewhat labor intensive, is a perfectly good way to wash. Wash time can be reduced by including a wash-aid step.

Assuming that the building/house/darkroom is air-conditioned, the easiest solution I can imagine is to simply keep all the chemicals and some jugs of water at room temperature and then process and wash at whatever temperature that is. As long as it's between 18° and 27°C, there should be no problems. The developing time would simply have to be adjusted for the processing temperature. Washing would be done with water from the room temperature jugs using Ilford's fill-and-dump guidelines (actually, I'd increase the wash time over what Ilford recommends). This would be easy, keep temps well within tolerance and only require filling up the requisite number of jugs with water and letting them sit long enough to come to room temperature. Even drying temps would be the same.

If the processing area is also quite hot, then using chilled water from a refrigerator or the like will be necessary. I'd mix all chemicals and the required amount of wash water to, say 20°C, just before processing and just let the temperature drift upward during processing. Assuming that all the solutions were in vessels of approximately the same size, the drift would be the same for all of them and, although the ending temperature would be higher than the starting, the change would be gradual and likely stay under 27°C by the end of the wash (if it doesn't, then a lower starting temp might be needed). Wash water would have to be in several containers the same size/configuration as the containers for the processing chemicals. I'd mix everything to starting temp then stick the thermometer in the last rinse-water/wetting agent vessel just to keep an eye on final temp. Development time would likely not need much adjusting from "standard" 20°C at all. An easy test of the viability of this method would be to fill a processing container with water at 20°C and then let it sit and note the time it takes to reach 27°C. If that time is equal to or greater than the total processing time, then you're good to go. Aqueous solutions take a surprisingly long time to heat.

Best,

Doremus

 

[TareqPhoto]

Ok, i processed one film finally after long long time, and i said we have a warm or hot water, well, at the night and very early morning just still in the dark time the temp is nearly 30°C, so i simply brought that bottle of water i stored in the fridge and mixed by slight amounts with tap water to get nearly 20-24°C, and used that mixed water for my chemicals and pre-wash steps.

The film is expired, and the chemicals almost fine even they are while ago opened and one of them expired as written on the bottle, but managed to get something, and the film is waiting to be dry and later will see how good the roll or film is.

 

[F5B&W]

Ian,

Reticulation. I think you are correct. The negatives, when printed, are focused at grain for the print, yet seem blurred or fractured or both. This was a consistent effect in multiple rolls of 35mm and 6x6. Chemistry temps were kept at 68-70 deg F. Wash water was ambient, at 110 deg F. I am going to explore Ilfords Wash Procedure.

I sense some disbelief on your part regarding the temperatures involved. I welcome you to visit the Phoenix area in July. Find out for yourself.

F5B&W

Excuse me Ian

Sorry i’m late with the answer, (it takes me too much time to write down the right words while thinking and translating at the same time) and besides I was in the darkroom …



I’m afraid they do Ian, because the light conditions (I mean the exposure) also count in the granularity (it’s all related). So does the contrast in printing affect grain as well … (now you’ll tell me everything was equal in this point of the process too, like the agitation now, no problem). Even when you store (in the best conditions) your film in the fridge before use (or after exposed in much more degree) the grain is affected, humidity is another factor, etc. I am sure you already knew this all too well.

The point is (between you and me) that I am certainly sure that comparing (and judging) two different formats have no sense for many reasons, and some of them are already explained above, but of course you have the right to compare them and blame the difference on the temperature (… don’t blame it on sunshine, don’t blame it on the moonlight, blame it on the boogie!).

The second point is that I am certainly sure that temperature (like other factors out of the “normal” curves) do affect the granularity (which is only a visual perception of silver crystals grouped) If you want grain, use HC-110 or Rodinal in stock solution and shake the tank like preparing a Brandy Mahattan. I believe on this point we agree each other.

Jokes apart and talking about believing ..., the final point is (which is the OP question “how high of a temperature shift can affect the image”) if you take a look at that entire post, you’ll see that F5B&W says: “I think I’m seeing an effect” (i undestand he is not sure of that) and that's after using the chemicals at 68 F and the tap water at 110ºF …

I insist, that shift is huge, and when that shift is dramatic, is “Reticulation”.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

With reference to the sticky post on Film Wash.

I live and work in rural Az, and the summertime temps of my wash eater is ambient air or hotter. Water comes out of the tap at 110 deg F or hotter, and won't cool off. (It makes showering very interesting.). So, if I've refrigerated my developer, stop bath and fixer (not using a HCA yet) to 68 deg.F, then I'm washing in H2O of 110+ deg.F. I think I'm seeing an effect on my 6x6cm and 35mm negatives of the temp shift in my negs, but I'm not positive of the cause.

My question is, how high of a temperature shift can the stock of HP5 and/or TRI-X before affecting the image?

It's best to have all baths as close together in temp as possible but ,washing warmer actually makes the washing process more efficient;just don't let it get too hot or the emulsion will get soft and easily damaged;Alternatively, cool a few gallons of wash water and use the Alford washing technique.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

What is bad for film is not the temperature of the wash water but a sudden change in temperature that the film experiences. Therefore take the film in gradual steps from the temperature of the fixer to the ambient temperature of the water.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Keep a gallon in the fridge and dilute with warm water before use . The Ilford film washing method uses very little water.

 

[Luis-F-S]

I've had film reticulate at washing at 80 F so I develop n wash at 68F regardless of the feed water temp

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I've had film reticulate at washing at 80 F so I develop n wash at 68F regardless of the feed water temp

Interesting. Of course the tendency toward reticulation depends on the specific film. Poorly hardened ones would give the most trouble. Today's hardened emulsions are more resistant. In fact I remember a couple of threads where the OP wanted reticulation as a creative tool. They were having a great deal of difficulty in obtaining it. One successful user of this technique develops in hot Dektol (100F if I remember correctly) and then plunges the film into ice water! In all my years in photography, and they are many, I have never seen reticulation except in text books. But then I stick with first tier films.

Following Kodak's newer recommendation I process at 75F which is closer to the ambient temperature here in Florida and also the wash water temperature. No problems whatsoever. In the past developer temperatures were given as 65F or 68F. But this was based on the average temperature of poorly heated darkrooms in Europe.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

No all the film was fresh, the 120 Tmax400 was film from a batch I was using at the time all, the ones I used before & afterwere excellent. There were no issues with the development itself it was the same 2.5 litres ofdeveloperor the exposure. The only difference was the other photographer processed the 2 rolls he shot in my darkroom and neglected to control temperatures only checking the developer temperature at the start. It was late Autumn so the tap water temperature would have bben quite low under 10º C so quite significant.

Low temperature wash water is known to cause what in German is called "Schrumpelkorn" or reticulation - making negatives totally useless. Books here in Germany usually warn you not to use tap water without heating / temperature control in your process.

In my personal experience, film is more susceptible to reticulation at the lower end of the temperature scale, while I have not had problems washing at somewhat (a few degrees) warmer temperature. But I totally agree, tight temperature control is a requisite for best quality results.

 

[Moorlander]

From what I learned, film doesn't like sudden changes in temperature. So what I do, if I have the same problem (or in winter the other way around) I bring approx. 2 l of Water to the same temperature as the fixer. (That is for a 500ml developer tank), fill the tank with 500ml of the temperature controled water and while agitating, add 500ml of tap water. I repeat this procedure and so I do not have large sudden changes in temperatures., as with each wash step the washing water will have gradually approached the tap temperature.

Andreas