Pre-rinse or no pre-rinse

Doc W · Jun 23, 2015

summing up

Thanks for all the replies. My modest request has brought out some of the most knowledgeable and experienced Apuggers, which is great, but I was really hoping that there would be consensus on this. Here is what I have gleaned from this so far, and remember, I am only concerned with sheet film in a Jobo.

1) Those who argue against using a pre-soak say that it risky because it can cause uneven development.

2) Those who argue in favour of a pre-soak say that not using it is risky because omitting it can cause uneven development.

3) Another group simply finds it irrelevant. Do it or don't, it doesn't matter. Neither a pre-soak nor a lack of pre-soak will cause uneven development. This would lead me to think that if it doesn't matter, don't bother.

At this point, I am ready to flip a quarter and see if the Queen or a moose comes up (yah, I live in Canada).

A few other comments suggested that Jobo began to recommend a pre-soak for reasons not connected to uneven development, i.e., they were trying to get development times consistent with published development times. I really would like to know if a pre-soak increases or decreases development time.

A PS to Simon (and getting off the Jobo topic just for a moment): like you, I would never ever develop sheet film in a tray. I tried when I first moved to large format and it was a complete and utter disaster. I lost track of the time of every sheet and scratched half of them. I was dismayed because I followed the advice some guy who said it was easy, i.e., Ansel Adams in "The Negative." Well, good for him. He made it work but I sure as hell couldn't!

palewin · Jun 23, 2015

Normally I would side with any manufacturer's recommendation, in this case Mr. Galley speaking for Ilford. The problem arises when the manufacturer or developer of the film developer make different recommendations. Both Sandy King (Pyrocat) and Gordon Hutchings (PMK) recommend pre-soaks. Now since I use Ilford film, but those two developers, I am really stuck between a group of people who know their products better than anyone, and who disagree. I will continue to pre-soak as I have always done following Sandy's and Gordon's advice, and simply wonder why their respective advices differ!

Ari · Jun 23, 2015

I always run some water through the Jobo tank before starting development.
My method is to have two cycles of 1 minute each, then I develop.
Is that pre-soak or pre-rinse?
Either way, it's NOT what Ilford recommends, but I've always had great results with FP4 and HP5 in HC-110.

Photo Engineer · Jun 23, 2015

With a Jobo, as you pour the chemistry into the tank either in the non-lift or lift versions, as the liquid enters it is not even, and as rotation starts a wave of liquid, which can have several fronts to it, begins to spread across the surface of each sheet no matter how they are inserted into the tank. As a result, these wave fronts can create differences in development initiation and thus streaks. As the emulsion swells, the swell follows the initial contact time.

I guess you can see where this is leading.

A prewet damps out these fronts and evens up swelling. First contact and first swell are both done in the prewet, and not in the developer.

In a tray, this is much less of a problem and in dip and dunk or rack and tank, you rarely see a problem, but then if you intermix with Jobo processed materials, it is easier to match your results if you do a prewet in all of them.

However, this effect or problem varies with water supply. Simon and his people use water purified with Ozone, but in the US most water is purified with Chlorine. Does this make a difference? IDK. I won't guess. I'm just stating that over the surface of this earth, water varies and as Simon says, a prewet is not absolutely mandatory, but I would add what he did. Don't use it if you have no problems. Try it if you do. If it works, use it.

PE

DREW WILEY · Jun 23, 2015

I briefly presoak all my films. Always, always, always, and yet to see why not, with the alleged exception of a couple odd developers I have never tried. With rotary machines per se, there are ways to build them to rock them in the linear plane as well. But that's another story.

Vaughn · Jun 23, 2015

I always pre-soak. Gives me time to get the developer up to temperature and ready to pour in. I use mostly sheet film (4x5 to 11x14) in trays or Jobo expert drum. But also 120 film in two-roll tanks...metal lids and caps make for quicker developer adding, but it still takes awhile.

Doremus Scudder · Jun 23, 2015

The anti-halation layer is not on the emulsion side of the film; partially removing it will not affect development per se. However, not soaking for enough time to make sure that the emulsion is completely saturated could give uneven results if there were areas of the emulsion with more and less water in them respectively. Just make sure you soak long enough. I like three minutes.

As for the subject or pre-soak or not: when tray developing sheet film in batches, it is a necessity to ensure that the films don't stick to each other when submerged one-after-the-other in the developer. With other methods, I think it is superfluous if the film is immersed in the developer quickly enough. With some tanks, however, the pour-in time is substantial, and a pre-soak would help eliminate unevenness. I think this is one of the reasons Jobo recommends a pre-soak (in addition to tempering the tank). I would never think of trying to fill a four or six reel tank from the top without pre-soaking.

Doremus

Neil Grant · Jun 24, 2015

pre - rinse/tempering

I always pre-rinse when using plastic 'Patterson' tanks. I do this for tempering purposes because my darkroom temperatures can fluctuate widely, and I wish to avoid any inconsistency that could be introduced by the tank/spool heating or cooling the developer.

37th Exposure · Jun 24, 2015

YMMV but I've never had a single unevenly developed roll ever since I began presoaking 25 years ago. Before that it was hit or miss, despite all the tank banging and agitation techniques and whatever other headaches I tried. A simple soak and voila!

RalphLambrecht · Jun 24, 2015

37th Exposure said:
YMMV but I've never had a single unevenly developed roll ever since I began presoaking 25 years ago. Before that it was hit or miss, despite all the tank banging and agitation techniques and whatever other headaches I tried. A simple soak and voila!

never had an uneven development without presoak.simply forget it and voila!

Paul Verizzo · Jun 24, 2015

OK, I wasn't going to put my nose into this. But, a day later, irresistible.

I've never pre-anythinged.

If it's about bringing hardware up to a given temperature, that's really a totally different reason. The obvious alternative is that you bring the tubes, whatever, up to temperature in advance, ya know?

If you are doing divided development, you are nuts if you effectively reduce the amount of Bath A developer by a presoak. There is not only no reason to do this, it is counter to good results.

A philosophy: K.I.S.S.

removed account4 · Jun 24, 2015

hi doc w.

sorry to make a 2nd response
but why don't you shoot a couple of sheets of film
presoak half and develop the other half dry so you can
see what works for you ?

we all have our own things we like --
some like sheets in trays, others in hangers others in tubes ..
whatever works, works ... the trick ( as you know )
to fine what works for you ... and to tune-out all the people that
might say its wrong, or do it differently -

good luck with your quest for truth !

john

Rick A · Jun 24, 2015

When I started presoaking in small tanks it eliminated the odd air bell I would get, regardless of how I tapped, rapped the tank. Jobo recommended a minimum of three minutes for presoak, this swells the emulsion evenly to accept developer while the drum rotates, also brings the interior of the drum to temperature.

Doc W · Jun 25, 2015

jnanian said:
hi doc w.

sorry to make a 2nd response
but why don't you shoot a couple of sheets of film
presoak half and develop the other half dry so you can
see what works for you ?

we all have our own things we like --
some like sheets in trays, others in hangers others in tubes ..
whatever works, works ... the trick ( as you know )
to fine what works for you ... and to tune-out all the people that
might say its wrong, or do it differently -

good luck with your quest for truth !

john

Hi John, I had thought of that but here is the problem. The development times for pre-soaked will be different so it will be at least a little bit of apples vs oranges. I am bound to get different results in terms of density range with the two methods. I would have to work out equivalent development times for both so I could really compare. Even with the delightfully automated ATL-3, I am getting a little weary film testing at this moment. Also, I don't think that a simple test like that would tell me if one method is better than the other for avoiding uneven development. There are many people here who have used one or the other method in a Jobo for ages without any bad results.

I asked the question initially because I was just a little in the dark about the purpose of the presoak. I am still in the dark but not as nervous about it. Both methods seem to work for different people.

Dr Croubie · Jun 25, 2015

Doc W said:
1) Those who argue against using a pre-soak say that it risky because it can cause uneven development.

2) Those who argue in favour of a pre-soak say that not using it is risky because omitting it can cause uneven development.

That's all I've ever read, two totally contradicting arguments, and almost all of them based on personal experience of "I've done it this way for x years and never had a problem, therefore it's the right way" (and the rest based on "company y / famous photographer z told me to do it this way").

In terms of:
- presoaking reduces unevenness because it swells the emulsion first so developer can easily get into it (and it can't when the emulsion is dry)
vs
- presoaking causes unevenness because it swells the emulsion and developer can't get in
has noone ever looked at this scientifically?

Between Kodak and Ilford there's a combined, what, 200 years or more of photo emulsion experience? That's not even counting all the other companies who were/are around.

And in all of that time, has there never been any scientific experiments, under controlled conditions, with reproducible results (published in a reputable scientific journal is a plus but not mandatory), to confirm whether developer can 'get into' dry emulsion evenly, whether presoaking helps it, or blocks the developer from getting in?

cluttered · Jun 25, 2015

Dr Croubie said:
And in all of that time, has there never been any scientific experiments, under controlled conditions, with reproducible results (published in a reputable scientific journal is a plus but not mandatory), to confirm whether developer can 'get into' dry emulsion evenly, whether presoaking helps it, or blocks the developer from getting in?

Presumably Ilford's recommendation against pre-soaking is based on their own experiments.

My attitude is that, when in doubt, go with whatever the data sheet recommends. If not, at least be consistent

zanxion72 · Jun 25, 2015

With old films that have no wetting agents or their wetting agents are done, a pre-soak is required no matter what the manufacturer recommends. Ilford is not against pre-soaking, but they say it is not required because their films have wetting agents that get the job done.

cluttered · Jun 25, 2015

zanxion72 said:
Ilford is not against pre-soaking, but they say it is not required because their films have wetting agents that get the job done.

Not really. What Ilford actually says (in their FP4+ datasheet) is "A pre-rinse is not recommended as it can lead to uneven processing". (The original question in this thread was about FP4+ specifically.)

They're not saying "not required", they are saying "not recommended".

Of course, people are free to do whatever works for them.

zanxion72 · Jun 25, 2015

I have never had problems because of pre-rinsing my films. Also Ilford is rather ambiguous on this:

"For use in rotary processorswithout a pre-rinse, reduce the spiral tank
development times by up to 15%. A pre-rinse is
not recommended as it can lead to uneven
processing."

Read the first sentence please. This is a copy and paste from the FP4+ Technical Information leaflet by Ilford.

cluttered · Jun 25, 2015

That other sentence is simply saying that continuous agitation (as is the case in rotary processors) means that you should correspondingly reduce the development time.

At least, that's how I interpret it.

Paul Verizzo · Jun 25, 2015

Dr Croubie said:
And in all of that time, has there never been any scientific experiments, under controlled conditions, with reproducible results (published in a reputable scientific journal is a plus but not mandatory), to confirm whether developer can 'get into' dry emulsion evenly, whether presoaking helps it, or blocks the developer from getting in?

Wow, did that comment set off some alarm bells! I have a vague recollection about some processing vagaries many years ago. Not just amateurs, but at the researchers. Then someone noticed one used a presoak, the other one didn't. I don't think it was so much a matter of different results, but different times for those results.

Maybe my PBF (Perpetual Brain Fog) will lift and I'll recall what it was all about.

removed account4 · Jun 25, 2015

Doc W said:
Hi John, I had thought of that but here is the problem. The development times for pre-soaked will be different so it will be at least a little bit of apples vs oranges. I am bound to get different results in terms of density range with the two methods. I would have to work out equivalent development times for both so I could really compare. Even with the delightfully automated ATL-3, I am getting a little weary film testing at this moment. Also, I don't think that a simple test like that would tell me if one method is better than the other for avoiding uneven development. There are many people here who have used one or the other method in a Jobo for ages without any bad results.

I asked the question initially because I was just a little in the dark about the purpose of the presoak. I am still in the dark but not as nervous about it. Both methods seem to work for different people.

ahh, i get it. i don't use a rotary thingamagig so i didn't realize there was such a difference.
have fun !
john

Photo Engineer · Jun 25, 2015

I use the same process times with and without presoak!

Yes, there were scientific studies.

Yes, Kodak has printed recommendations to use a presoak on film.

Yes, I have published this on APUG before.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgh! I'm getting tired of this.

The wave front effect I mentioned earlier was part of the study and you can demonstrate it for yourself by just running an experiment with wet and dry film in the light in a rotating clear plastic tube!

PE

Sirius Glass · Jun 25, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
I use the same process times with and without presoak!

Yes, there were scientific studies.

Yes, Kodak has printed recommendations to use a presoak on film.

Yes, I have published this on APUG before.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgh! I'm getting tired of this.

The wave front effect I mentioned earlier was part of the study and you can demonstrate it for yourself by just running an experiment with wet and dry film in the light in a rotating clear plastic tube!

PE

Please folks, enough of this. Lets get back to using liquid dishwashing soap instead of PhotoFlo, whether or not magenta is a color, and can we make Kodachrome in grandma's cistern! Please want to read PEs statements on these again!

:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

Vaughn · Jun 25, 2015

One's print (or I suppose whatever one's end product is) is the ultimate test of one's procedures. Just go for it! More than likely no one else will ever want to print your negatives anyway.

Pre-rinse or no pre-rinse

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency