Permanent marker for darkroom work

koraks said:

@Graham06 and @Fatih Ayoglu thanks both for sharing your test results - this is very helpful!
It seems that on still wet paper (after squeegeeing off excess water), the pencil-type markers as well as the Pentel felt tip marker should work. That's encouraging. The Pentel marker has the advantage that the markings may remain even after the paper is rewashed (?)

Click to expand...

well, I have put back into the water and wiped with a tea towel. The markings are there but not like its pitt pen dark black. But quite readable.

Graham06 said:

My main use case is to be able to record the details of a test print before I forget them so its best recorded before I develop it.

Click to expand...

I know the topic is supposed to be about pens. But for your application, might be better to simply write the data on a smallish piece of clear plastic (use a black marker sort of pen). Lay this somewhere on top of the print during exposure to leave a permanent image, in white letters, of your note. (Typically one might use a larger sheet of plastic and partially insert it into one corner of the print.)

This used to be a standard method in photo labs to label color balance tests and that sort of thing. Use a bit of the appropriate solvent to wipe off the marking, and reuse the clear plastic if you like.

Readers of this thread in the USA might want to check this out: https://www.belart.com/wet-surface-pen.html

It's not available for shipping to the UK, so I can't investigate it myself. The same photo and copy appears on amazon.com and a few other websites. No brand name is mentioned anywhere, so I don't know whether it is the same as any of the other pens already mentioned in this thread. The photo looks fairly convincing, but who knows...

Mr Bill said:

I know the topic is supposed to be about pens. But for your application, might be better to simply write the data on a smallish piece of clear plastic

Click to expand...

That's a good idea that would work in some cases. Also has the advantage of allowing re-use. The minimum required text is often "9.6s exposure" But if would be nice if it were really "Paper: Ilford Warmtone Glossy, 2020 box Exposure: 9.6s at EI24, Developer: fresh Ilford Multigrade 1+9, Develop 90s" but it's tedious to write that on every test

Graham06 said:

... but it's tedious to write that on every test

Click to expand...

Well actually you'd only have to write the basic parts once on the clear plastic overlay. Just keep using it over and over. For the variable part you could use a second piece of clear plastic, writing only the bare minimum. Or use a solvent to remove just the part to be rewritten.

Fatih Ayoglu said:

So, @koraks and @halfaman

Firstly, I do apologize for the late reply. I have tested the pen I have mentioned. If there is actually water, it still writes on the paper however it gets lighter and lighter by each stroke. However the writing is permanent and it stay if you wipe it.

If you wipe the paper first, not airblow dry, just wipe to take excess water off, then it writes better and darker.

The difference of this pen with others might be due to a chemical it has, it has a strong smell.

(tested on Fuji Glossy CAII)

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info

koraks said:

Frankly, I mostly wonder whether we're using the same product. If you could check the type markings on your filling, that would be most useful.
Tried it again the other day, but it really doesn't work. Went back to the felt-tip markers I used before; if I have to dry the emulsion anyway, I prefer the ergonomics (I've never been a ball point guy) and bold lettering of the markers to begin with.

Click to expand...

Back home now and took a picture of my current re-fill with the still packaged new re-fill, the markings on the cartridge are identical.

I took the new re-fill out of the packaging and did a test on some Ilford MGIV RC paper. Apart from an initial stiffness with the new re-fill, which did require more aggressive pressing down, they are identical in usage.

If you look closely at the old unit, you can see colouring from usage in/under water; the slightly green bit.

With regard to your observations, yes, enough pressure is required that it does leave a slight indentation on the emulsion. However on the reverse side of the RC paper, no noticeable indentation is visible. But if I look with a magnifying glass (old eyes) I can see a very slight indentation on the reverse side.

As I'm not worried about slight indentation on test print emulsion, and I normally write on the reverse of good prints, it isn't an issue for me. I do see where you are coming from though.

Here is a test of the Milwaukee Inkzall markers I tried. $3.50 for 4 made it worth the experiment. They write well on wet emulsion, and marks mostly make it through development but they can easily be wiped off ( e.g if you accidentally touch the text ). Wiped text does have a faint ghost image that remains. It's a finer tip than a fine sharpie, but still a bit broader than I would prefer. An early test testing marks through a token dev , stop, fix with a bit of scrap worked great but I didn't use the full times.

Close to the best result so far. I should have made marks with the other top contenders, but I forgot. Bought a broad black space pen refill; maybe it will work for me. Thanks @Mick Fagan for the tests.

Oh, and I bought a thermal label printer for $20: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C3L93F2Q Works great and the app is nice. Makes it through developing perfectly, but I'll use on food containers, bins, 35mm film cartridges etc.Is a bit too awkward to write "image started to emerge at 32seconds" with it halfway through development. Might be a good thing to write the details on the back of a good final print. It did make test prints on fiber paper dry unevenly.

I bought a Space Pen refill #SPR4B (bold black) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FTGCFI and have just tried it, and it works the best so far. It writes nicely on dry paper under the enlarger, and the text washes out a bit during developing, but is still clearly readable (better than any other pens and markers) and the broad point is still finer than the finest markers I tried.
I pulled the print out of the wash water to write the time it took the image to emerge and the line is broad and smudgy but is still clearly readable. Not perfect, but good enough. Paper was Ilford warm tone glossy.

I also wrote the same info using the Inkzall as insurance and that washed out enough to be illegible. I also tried a 2B 0.7 mm clutch pencil and I couldn't even see where the marks were. The location is in the attached images somewhere. The fat 5mm pencil I tested earlier works much better.

Given that success, I bought a pen to hold it: a stainless Parker Jotter. The SPR4B refill comes with and attachment to allow it to fit into Parker refill pens

So this is recommended by me and at least two others on this thread. @koraks bought a medium refill and it didn't work for him. I don't know if a broad point works better, but I thought it would give me the best chance of success.

I think this is the end of this small side-hobby. If you find something that works better please post exact model details and perhaps purchase links, but I'm going to be happy enough with this. Thanks to everyone who posted recommendations and tests.

still I’m trying to understand why we are trying to write down on a wet paper rather than dry one?

When I print, I always put test notes at the back of the paper, with Stabilo OHP pen before I dip the paper into the developer and during the whole process, the writing stays there. (In fact I usually put the notes before I put the paper into an easel)

Fatih Ayoglu said:

still I’m trying to understand why we are trying to write down on a wet paper rather than dry one?

When I print, I always put test notes at the back of the paper, with Stabilo OHP pen before I dip the paper into the developer and during the whole process, the writing stays there. (In fact I usually put the notes before I put the paper into an easel)

Click to expand...

I guess I could write on the back in many cases, and sometimes I do, but I like to see the print and what it is together on the same side. Sometimes I scan tests, and its annoying to scan both sides. Sometimes I do test steps with uneven segment sizes (I don't have a good step wedge tool and things slip) or custom increments, and I mark the edges and numbers as I print.

When developing lately I have been noting the time the image first appears, and that is a number that gets forgotten quickly so should be written down asap, and of course the paper is now wet.

Nothing wrong with your system, just not my preference in many cases.

Fatih Ayoglu said:

still I’m trying to understand why we are trying to write down on a wet paper rather than dry one?

Click to expand...

Esp. with color, make a test strip, process it, then write the exposure settings on it for reference. Having to dry the strip before being able to write on it slows things down. But I've given up on the whole thing, apparently it just doesn't work on RA4/RC paper. The successful examples of @Graham06 appear to be on FB paper and I can see how this will work, since the paper base itself acts as a cushion, facilitating the writing. On RC/RA4 paper, it's the emulsion itself that ends up buffering the pressure and that doesn't work as long as the paper is wet.

I believe the alternative would be putting some notes on the edge/margin of emulsion side of paper before exposing. Of course that wouldn’t work for test strips. Or doubling the work, 1st putting at the back, develop wash, once dry copy the info to the front.

When I test print for RA4, that is what I do, like exposing a quarter of 8x10 sheet with different filter settings and then put the filter settings when the paper is dry.

Fatih Ayoglu said:

I believe the alternative would be putting some notes on the edge/margin of emulsion side of paper before exposing

Click to expand...

I find that a little hard to do in the dark. YMMV.

Fatih Ayoglu said:

When I test print for RA4, that is what I do, like exposing a quarter of 8x10 sheet with different filter settings and then put the filter settings when the paper is dry.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. Drying the strips takes time though. I'd find it useful if I could skip this step, especially for the coarse initial adjustments.

Anyway, I've given up on trying to 'solve' this marginal 'problem'; my conclusion is that there's not really adequate solution that'll work in my use case.