What has happened to my negatives?

[Tronds]

The magenta cast will be washed out in the final wash. Some remaining color will not be any problem where you scan or wet-print your images.
Besides that, your developer will get a beautiful color if you don't pre-wash. Try developing a TMAX and a Shanghai GP3 in the same developer. You your developer will get a fantastic color. I doesn't hamper the developer or any subsequent films developed in it in any way.
Bromide drag is caused by insufficient agitaion. The other uneven development marks may also come from unsufficient agitation, but pre-wetting increases the need for initial agitaion. My experiments with two-bath developers indicates this. When using a Diafine clone the first bath is to be agitated like normal B6W development, but the second bath, where the emulson is wetted with developer requires CONSTANT agitation to avoid uneven development marks just like you got. This is also described in many books written from 1930 and up til 2010.
Knowing that, why introduce a practice that MAY cause problems. I am not saying thet it will cause problems, but it may.
I like to keep things as simple as possible and in this case it means drop the pre-wash.
BTW, reading the Tetenal instructons, it says pre-heat. That is not pre-wash. It is just placing the tank with the film in the warm water bath for some minutes before you start processing. Using a steeel tank, a few minutes is required. Using a plastic tank, a longer time is required to get it up to the correct temp.

 

[analog what is that?]

Seems to me that Tronds has a point, if pre-wetting takes care of any magenta cast, so will a thorough final rinse, since both are clean water......

This discussion about an ancient technique is funny, AFAIK it was rendered obsolete by modern film technology in the 1920's as far as I have been able to ascertain. Kodak STOPPED recommending it, and I have translated work here from the 1920's that states it is not necessary.........

There is one side to this discussion that is over-looked IMHO: in what context are we discussing this, what exact development technique?

There has been a resurgence of this pre-wetting technique in an environ ment where this is risky: diluted developers and long dev. times combined with stand or semi-stand development.

First: bromide streaks invariably stems from lack of agitation. There is NO way around that, teach yourself how to agitate properly, and teach yourself what is proper according to the film/developer/dilution you choose to use. Many people dont understand what bromide streaking IS and what causes it, and I think the name is a bit misleading.

Seems to me that some thinks bromide streaking occurs because there is too much bromide in the developer, and suggest taking KBr out, when exactly the opposite is the case! Adding KBr insures a base level concentration of Br in solution - so that the miniscule Br released from the film emulsion does not disturb the rest of the film. (in that context used or old developer should cause less bromide streaking.....)

Pre-wetting is especially risky when one deals with diluted developers, since dilution reduces alkalinity, and any detergent (alkali!) is a help to wetting the entire surface..... Especially the effect of this can be witnessed in countless discussions on other forums dealing with homebrew developers, especially Caffenol.
Combining low-concentration recipes of Caffenol with extremely long development times, semi-stand development AND pre-wetting has caused a flurry of reports of stained & streaking negatives, and several workers have stopped using the technique probably in despoeration....

As to Kodak references to pre-wetting : it is a well known fact that the germans always had better engineers than Kodak....... and in the standard works on photo technology from the 1930's onwards (my tome is from 1955) this is mentioned and NOT recommended. It is dismissed as outdated.

However this is also a question of context: since much of Kodak's work from the 1940's onwards was directed toward the large photofinishing plants and building an empire that locked out amateurs and independent workers from the photo finishing business:
Their big machines, running film continously, pretty much takes care of all what I has said aginst pre-wetting.

So if you have a million dollar, continous running process on hand, pre-wetting can probably be a boon, I don't know, I have a few tanks and a kitchen work bench.

 

[Rudeofus]

The other uneven development marks may also come from unsufficient agitation, but pre-wetting increases the need for initial agitaion. My experiments with two-bath developers indicates this. When using a Diafine clone the first bath is to be agitated like normal B6W development, but the second bath, where the emulson is wetted with developer requires CONSTANT agitation to avoid uneven development marks just like you got.

I think you mix up some effects here. If you use a two bath process as the one you described here the first bath's job is to soak the emulsion with developer, but barely any development takes place at this stage. That first bath basically works to completion (emulsion saturated with dev), therefore you run little risk from reduced agitation. The second bath is where the actual development takes place, and if you don't agitate, internal streams in the dev liquid will do it for you (poorly and unevenly), and you'll get uneven development. Prewetting may or may not have an adversarial effect on the first step,it probably depends on the pH of the water you prewet with and how much of that water remains in the tank, but your description has little to do with it.

One comment to the thread starter: Foma film uses older type emulsions compared to T-Max and contains more silver. There is a good chance that Foma simply needs more developer than T-Max. A good way for checking whether that's your problem is looking whether films with less exposure (i.e. less silver halide converted to silver) show less of that effect.

 

[removed account4]

i never heard that it was an outmoded process ..
and even into the 1980s was recommended by both instructors and kodak to do a pre-developer water bath.
when xtol arrived that was the first time i remember being told not to use a water bath to pre-wet ...
that and when i worked for someone who had me doing her deep tank-stuff ...
she didn't use stop either and had a friend with blue hair named muffy,
so naturally i thought she was kind of a punk, and didn't ask many questions ...

 

[Tronds]

I think you mix up some effects here. If you use a two bath process as the one you described here the first bath's job is to soak the emulsion with developer, but barely any development takes place at this stage. That first bath basically works to completion (emulsion saturated with dev), therefore you run little risk from reduced agitation. The second bath is where the actual development takes place, and if you don't agitate, internal streams in the dev liquid will do it for you (poorly and unevenly), and you'll get uneven development. Prewetting may or may not have an adversarial effect on the first step,it probably depends on the pH of the water you prewet with and how much of that water remains in the tank, but your description has little to do with it.

One comment to the thread starter: Foma film uses older type emulsions compared to T-Max and contains more silver. There is a good chance that Foma simply needs more developer than T-Max. A good way for checking whether that's your problem is looking whether films with less exposure (i.e. less silver halide converted to silver) show less of that effect.

I think you mix up somethng here.
Pre-wetting is NEVER used with two-bath developers. If you pre-wet a film before pouring in the first bath, the film is already saturated by water, and will not soak up enough developer and ypu may end up with a almost blank film.

The effect of a saturated emulsion is waht causes problems with pre-wetting and a one-step developer.
The emulsion is filled with water and if the agitation is insufficient, the water isn't displaced by developer evenly across the film and uneven development is the result.
In a continous process there is enough agitaton so pre-wetting can be used, but I can't say I remember that it was used at the photo finishing lab I worked for many years ago. It isn't neded and using pre-wetting is just another extra step requiring more time through the machine and more floorspace.

BTW. A 100% correctly made two-step developer does NO development the first bath. There are several ways to control this, mainly pH and restrainers of some kind. Even sugar may be used to restrain development in the first bath.
My PC version is close to that. A part of the film leader placed in the first bath in plain daylight will get slightly grey in 5 minutes. This is accomplished by adjusting the pH to 7.0 and adding some restrainers. Using 4+4 minutes results in a perfectly developed film, IF continous agitation is used for the second bath.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Whoa, my initial question seems to have spawned quite a discussion.

Anyways, I started pre-soaking my films quite recently as I didn't like the magenta cast in TMAX negatives, and the pre-soak seems to take care of it. Also I like the thought of beginning with a perfect temperature, both for the film and the developer (and since Tetenal C41 recommends using pre-soak to get an even temperature I thought what the heck...). Maybe I'll stop using pre-soak once I've tried a more vigorous agitation scheme, but I'm trying to change only one variable at the time.

However, it seems to be more important to use a bit more developer and also using additional spirals to make sure that the film is all the way down on the bottom. And perhaps use a more vigorous agitation scheme.

Oscar,

You're on the right track. Also try using initial agitation for one minute, and take care of insuring proper flow of liquid inside the tank when you agitate.
The discussion on prewetting will never end, because all we have are recommendations and random accounts, without any facts.

Good luck!

- Thomas

 

[Photo Engineer]

I am glad to hear that there are so many experienced photo engineers here on APUG to save us from ourselves! Some are brilliant and know that an alkali is a detergent! OMG. That is wrong!

Mixed with the wrong are many correct comments. So, you all reading this have to weed through the chaff to get to the good stuff.

Here is a post of mine from long ago that should pretty much explain the mystery of presoaking!


If film is fully swollen with plain water, and then dipped into acid or base solution, then you can measure the pH change instantly at the bottom of the film near the base. Other ingredients can be shown to arrive later. Diffusion of H+ and OH- are nearly instantaneous. If you do the same thing with dry film, the diffusion front of liquid can be seen advancing and wetting the base side of the emulsion if you view it from the back. In this case, both swell and diffusion take 15" or less depending on thickness so acid and base fronts and developing agents diffuse more nearly together.

Equillibrium of the developer salts in a wetted film takes about 15" for the remainder to catch up.

Therefore, both unwetted and wetted film take about 15" max at 68F (20C) to fully spread through the emulsion. This is as nearly a photo finish (pun intended) as you could ever desire! And, the timing just about cancels out. Now, this can be offset by very hard water and water with a very alkaline or acidic pH, and it can also be affected by a number of other things, but on-average things equal either way and the prewet serves to temper things at high temps and to reduce defects.

Just MHO.

To describe one test, a film is dyed with an insoluble indicator dye and then treated with acid or base and the delta density vs time is measured. When the known Dmax is achieved by full pH change, then equillibrium has been reached. This can also be done for reflective materials. You can measure the change in color with time and you can also take cross sections and place them on a microscope and add a drop of acid or base under the slide cover and observe the wavefront of dye change and time it. The same thing can be done with developer to time the appearance of silver and the rate at which it develops in a front through the coating.

BTW, the person who taught me this was Milan Dvorak, nephew of the composer of the same last name. He was one of Kodak's prime experts in photomicography. I was a dud!

So, there is a quote from Feb. 2010. The bottom line is that the prewet improves uniformity and helps eliminate streaking. OTOH, a prewet should never be used with a divided developer. That comes from another post in another prewet thread.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

On another topic, if Agfa photo engineers were superior to Kodak photo engineers, then why did their film always show higher grain and poorer keeping and why did Kodak discover DIR and DIAR couplers and not Agfa?

No, I really think that they were rather equal but moved in different directions just as management did. And they have ended up very close in the final analysis, bankrupt!

PE

 

[analog what is that?]

Have a look here Ron, transklated from german by a pro translater, these guys was always better than you lot and you knew it! hehe

http://ascorbate-developers.blogspot.com/2011/06/pre-wash-another-myth-exploded.html

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, I'm surely impressed, particularly with the ambiguity of the comments in the sense that one can do either. So the conclusion is either prewet or don't prewet! How utterly nice and just like this thread so far.

Just the even tempering alone from process to process is worth a prewet. But, go ahead and ignore advice from the early days. As noted here, Kodak was advising use of a prewet into the 40s and 50s. And, it had nothing to do with the surfactant! In fact, both Kodak and Agfa used similar suractants from the 20s to the present day! One of them is Saponin, a natural product. The modern surfactants such as Triton X 100 and 200 and Alkanol XC are also used but are in such small amount that there is little effect on the processing of the film.

I have given the arguments above for the diffusion basis of using a prewet, and have done the lab experiments with film and paper.

As for excellence, I would say that all of the companies in the 1st tier have engineers that are pretty closely matched for capabilities. I have met and talked to many Fuji and Agfa engineers and know this for a fact! Kodak, it seems to me, was running ahead in C41 and MP products and Fuji and Agfa had a lead in E6 products.

PE

 

[removed account4]

Have a look here Ron, transklated from german by a pro translater, these guys was always better than you lot and you knew it! hehe

http://ascorbate-developers.blogspot.com/2011/06/pre-wash-another-myth-exploded.html

the person who runs that blog .. sometimes doesn't know as much as he claims.
there is a thread here on apug where he made claims about caffenol developer
and how it won't work unless it is precisely measured out, and mixed a certain way and used
a certain way &c ... i entered the thread at one point with a different perspective .. that
caffenol WILL work if not measured out with a lab scale to the nearest fraction of a gram,
and mixed in a certain order, and used a certain way .... i was ignored, and then called names
and it was suggested that i had no idea what i was talking about ...
even though i had nearly 1000 images in my apug gallery to prove my point and ... the alternate route ..
i had 5 years experience using coffee developers, he had less than 6months ... and he was the self proclaimed expert / guru on the subject.
he may know about certain subjects, he is a retired chemist ( from what he says )
and he has a large interest in photography, but i wouldn't take everything he says, or posts as the gospel ...

the reason i mention this, is just like with pre wet, and with water instead of stop ... eyeball-measured chemistry too ...

in the end, it really doesn't matter, does it ?
if pre-wetting ( or whatever you are doing ) works ... do it,
if it doesn't then, don't do it

 

[Photo Engineer]

John;

I am with you. There are self proclaimed experts and those with real work behind them! Some even think that detergents are alkalis and when this is pointed out, they ignore it. Of course these people know nothing really. Works like yours and Mark Overton's are quite important.

PE

 

[Rudeofus]

Folks, is there a reason a thread about uneven development and optional prewet has to turn vitriolic like this? There is a handful of folks worldwide who formulate and use home brew developers and APUG should be a platform for rational information exchange about these endeavours, not a battle field.

Prewetting may be beneficial in some cases and detrimental in other cases, but it shouldn't start WW3 here.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You are, of course correct and I stand by my comment that you should "use what works for you"!

PE

 

[pentaxuser]

in the end, it really doesn't matter, does it ?
if pre-wetting ( or whatever you are doing ) works ... do it,
if it doesn't then, don't do it

This seems to be a commonsense approach to the issue to me....but can I trust anyone who worked for someone who had a friend called Muffy?. It might be that the OP also knows someone called Muffy and all his problems stem from this also

Incidentally if you think things can get rough here, try persuading the Roman Inquisition about your new theory of the Earth's rotation round the Sun

The next time I look through my telescope I'll keep my mouth shut

G Gallilei
AKA pentaxuser

 

[George Collier]

PE - My compliments on your patience. No doubt comes from years on APUG.

 

[removed account4]

John;

I am with you. There are self proclaimed experts and those with real work behind them! Some even think that detergents are alkalis and when this is pointed out, they ignore it. Of course these people know nothing really. Works like yours and Mark Overton's are quite important.

PE

thanks ron !

john

ps. it's obvious your work is important too !

 

[Tronds]

The big boys club has finished off the discussion and are real pleased with themselves, BUT did you solve the problem?
NO!

 

[Hexavalent]

The big boys club has finished off the discussion and are real pleased with themselves, BUT did you solve the problem?
NO!

Did you not read the posts regarding agitation?

 

[removed account4]

The big boys club has finished off the discussion and are real pleased with themselves, BUT did you solve the problem?
NO!

tronds

im not in any club, and to be honest, i am a bit leery about any club that would have me as a member ..

what are the problems people are supposed to have because i haven't ever had trouble using a water bath ...

yesterday i used a water bath and processed 7 rolls of film, it all came out fine ...
i use a water bath with 110, 35mm, 120, and sheet film upto 8x10
and sometimes with paper negatves i pre soak in water before i stick them in the developer ...
and have consistently used a water bath with a coffee based developer "stand" developing
and steady agitation for 5+ years and haven't had any problems
and i have also used a 2 bath developer ( caffenol c partway, and ansco 130 partway ) with both film and paper
and have never had troubles .... i have used probably 5 or 6 different film developers and at least a dozen films and papers over the 30 years too ..

with regards to the OP ...
no one knows if the OP's problem was solved
he hasn't posted another round of development ..

maybe it was the water bath?
maybe it was the loose reel in a big tank ?
maybe it was inconsistent / poor agitation ?

i don't think being hostile will solve the OP's ... or anyone's trouble

john

 

[Photo Engineer]

Good summary John. I think others were so busy thinking up arguments and just being angry in general that they missed what you and Ian have pointed out. There were lots of answers, but the rhetoric covered them all up!

PE

 

[clayne]

I think I've figured this thread out: Tronds is actually Muffy.

 

[MattKing]

A question about semantics here:

Is there an equivalence between "no longer recommends a pre-wet" and "recommends against a pre-wet"?

I ask, because I cannot recall ever reading instructions from either Kodak (with whom I am most familiar) or Ilford that tells me "do not use a pre-wet".

I disagree with Tronds about using a pre-wet, but I am prepared to be convinced by fact and argument that I am wrong.

I disagree with Tronds' approach to the posts of others.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Matt;

Ilford says as you say "don't", but Kodak, after the 40s and 50s recommending it be used, is virtually silent on the matter. Jobo is in favor of using one. We have a vague haze surrounding it. Mow own lab tests say that it is useful for eliminating pinholes and uneven development. I outlined a test above showing part of the experiment testing this. Thats about all I can say.

If it works, use it!

PE

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I still can't see any difference between negatives that had a pre-soaking bath and those that didn't. Quality, evenness of development, and tonality is the same.
The only films I've ever had pinholes with is Foma and Efke, and with those films it didn't matter whether I pre-soaked or not.

I agree with Ron - use what works. But whatever the OP was doing did NOT work, hence the problems.

John summarized the potential problems pretty well in post # 45 above, and it's worthwhile exploring them all.
If it were me I'd start with making sure the reels don't slide up the column, and then work on agitation.