Pre soak/pre wash why or why not?
-
A
- Thread starter Vetus
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Canon EF 16-35 F4 IS USM
- Started by jordanka16
-
For Sale James "Theory of the Photographic Process", 4th Edition $75
- Started by laser
-
For Sale Contax Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar/Tessar Lenses
- Started by wjlapier
-
For Sale Darkroom supplies, accessories. Local (Tacoma, WA) pickup only
- Started by binglebugbob
-
Found Looking for a Wollensak 6" (159mm) f12.5 Extreme W.A.
- Started by lecarp
Forum statistics
Without intent to be rude, but this is both a well-discussed and contraversial topic where discussions rarely end well. Have you tried the search facility with the terms "presoak" and "pre-soak"? Either or both will yeield the prior discussions that will help you with your question of "why". Another easy option would be to peruse Ansel Adam's The Negative, where the topic is well discussed including why he advocated pre-soak of emulsions back in the good old days.
In this era, I use Ilford B&W film and their recommended processing practices. The simple answer from my experience is that pre-soak simply doesn't add value. Others claim that it might increase the even-ness that the chemistry is absorbed by the film and others claim that some films benefit from having the anti-halation layer washed off by such a process.
If you have read forum posts about pre-soaking, I'm sure that you have seen this information already, though.
In this era, I use Ilford B&W film and their recommended processing practices. The simple answer from my experience is that pre-soak simply doesn't add value. Others claim that it might increase the even-ness that the chemistry is absorbed by the film and others claim that some films benefit from having the anti-halation layer washed off by such a process.
If you have read forum posts about pre-soaking, I'm sure that you have seen this information already, though.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
The only time I presoak any film (including Ilford), is when I'm tray developing several sheets of 4x5 or 8x10. This is so that they do not stick together once placed in the developer. There are a few films (roll and sheet), that I always prewash, due to dyes that discolour my fix. I hate that. 
this topic is fairly high on the list of contentious religious topics. For others, see also...
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/religious-topics.181399/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/religious-topics.181399/
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I'll leave it open for now. Here is an opportunity to remain respectful of other's views on this topic for once...The minute it goes sideways, it will be closed...
To prevent sheets of film from sticking together, and rinsing away anti halation dye are two good reasons. Other than that why would you want to swell the emulsion with water? Is it to help the fim to develop evenly or to slow down the initial development. I am curious, I'm not throwing it out there to start a heated debate.
Search results for query: presoak
www.photrio.com
Search results for query: pre-soak
www.photrio.com
Search results for query: prewash
www.photrio.com
Search results for query: pre-wash
www.photrio.com
###
-30-
What I find so extraordinarily fascinating about this subject is that, for a domain, photography, whose very nature is based on science and scientific experimentation — chemistry, physics, and a whole bunch of maths (damn you, exponential curves!) —, there doesn't seem to be one rigorously scientifically proven paper showing once and for all that you should, or shouldn't, or use to should (with older emulsion films) and shouldn't any more )with modern emulsion films), pre-soak.
Why is that — why is it that something that should (or am I naive?) be pretty easy to prove or disprove be relegated to the list of "contentious religious topics"? Shouldn't we know by now?
Why is that — why is it that something that should (or am I naive?) be pretty easy to prove or disprove be relegated to the list of "contentious religious topics"? Shouldn't we know by now?
... and little interest in doing basic research investigations, including literature reviews (if you can call reading old posts a literature review).
Perhaps in addition to all of the "purely scientific disciplines" assiciated with photography you should add psychophysics too.
I agree. I've done my research, but I know my conclusion — I don't pre-soak —is based less on other people's opinion about it (and, alas, in old as in new posts you often find opinions cleverly disguised as scientific research) than on the fact that in the many books I have on film developing, pre-soaking is rarely, if ever, mentioned. I don't think I would even have heard about it — about the "controversy" around it — had it not been for forums such as this one.
Hence my fascination.
That said, back to the sink, I have three rolls of 120 to develop. Without pre-soak
.Some of the confusion (for want of a better term) comes from rotary processing (typically Jobo) recommending a pre-wash. This stemmed from the higher temperature/short stage time of colour processing, where it paid to stabilize the tank and film/paper at process temperature before starting the chemical stages.
Monochrome negative processing is typically done at moderate room temperature, and does not have to handle multiple emulsion layers with different characteristics.
Beyond that, I think it is just whatever makes you happy. Oh, and don't poke the sleeping bear!
Monochrome negative processing is typically done at moderate room temperature, and does not have to handle multiple emulsion layers with different characteristics.
Beyond that, I think it is just whatever makes you happy. Oh, and don't poke the sleeping bear!
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
The bottom line is that it's a personal choice, with personal reasons. I mentioned why I do it (sometimes), and it is by no means scientific. I am only aware of one manufacturer who recommends against it with their films. Ilford. They claim that it may cause streaking.
That is why I'm asking the question, I have read old post and considered the following claims: a pre soak can prevent mottling, bring the film and tank up to temperature, aid even absorption of developer, prevent the shock of developer hitting the film, slow down the activity of the developer, swell the emulsion etc. Some say the length of the pre soak matters, too little makes no difference so why do it? Other posts state too much pre soaking may affect the desired density and actually damage the emulsion or at least make it soft and increase the films potential to get scratched.
The companies who make film must have scientifically tested if pre soaking film has any advantages for both roll film and sheet film.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I often use BTZS tubes, and a prewash is a welcome step to eliminate AH layer on some films like TMY-2.
The reason I started using a presoak was to warm the tank prior to color development. When in doubt just adhere to manufacturer's instructions.
There's been trillions of films developed over the years in commercial labs with never a prewet.
You might be right but aside the Jobo recommendation it seems that only film enthusiasts discuss such a process, not film manufacturers. I may have missed something as I've not done an intensive review of film manufacturer literature, but never seen this recommended by a film manuyfacturer and not-recommended by one of them. I think this is one of those "what you see is what you get" and "what you experience is what you can believe" situations. This isn't the topic where one can ask for "the definitive answer" no matter how many times that is attempted.
EDIT: perhaps a review of the photographic journals would yield such a study. The keywords might be "kinetics of development" as absorption rate of developer was discussed quite a while ago - 1890's by Hurter and Driffield and others. Their interchange in the journals probably rivaled the discussions of today's forums! Here's an extracted summary of one such study, by Shepard and Mees, about that same time, addressing the issue for thick emulsions on glass plates. The difference, though, was basically deemed negligable.
Last edited:
This, with Andrew O'Neill's "the bottom line is that it's a personal choice, with personal reasons," may be as close as one can get to the perfect answer to the OP's question.
One often neglected, and too often derided, particularity of the photographic process is its ritualistic aspect — the "if it works for you and give you negatives you like keep doing it exactly the same way even though there are parts of it you won't be able to justify scientifically" aspect. I think it's a mistake to put that in the "religious", if not "supersticious", category. I rather believe this happens because, contrary to any other process of a similar nature, this one takes place entirely in the dark. We know, intellectually, what's going on, but we can't see, and even less verify, what's going on. Our only proof that what went on is actually OK is the result.
That's it for my little foray into psychophotography
.…and even the Jobo recommendation may or may not have to do with process uniformity.
There are too many variables involved for there to really be a single definitive answer. Everything from emulsion components to format to equipment, processing methods and conditions and even the typical subject matter of one’s pictures can potentially lead to different conclusions. Kodak was always vague about it. Ilford’s wording seems clear in some cases, others not. A lot of the conventional wisdom is relatively ancient and who knows how right or wrong it ever was. Etc.
One thing most will agree on is that the decision to pre-wash or not will have an effect on the development time - although what effect might be more contentious. For example the general assumption is often that pre-washing will necessitate a longer development time, while when I tested this with a few films I found a pre-wash accelerated development. I concluded on average the wetting/swelling/priming effect more than offsets whatever initial dilution effects there are within the emulsion. However this could potentially change depending on the developer etc. I don’t know.
There are too many variables involved for there to really be a single definitive answer. Everything from emulsion components to format to equipment, processing methods and conditions and even the typical subject matter of one’s pictures can potentially lead to different conclusions. Kodak was always vague about it. Ilford’s wording seems clear in some cases, others not. A lot of the conventional wisdom is relatively ancient and who knows how right or wrong it ever was. Etc.
One thing most will agree on is that the decision to pre-wash or not will have an effect on the development time - although what effect might be more contentious. For example the general assumption is often that pre-washing will necessitate a longer development time, while when I tested this with a few films I found a pre-wash accelerated development. I concluded on average the wetting/swelling/priming effect more than offsets whatever initial dilution effects there are within the emulsion. However this could potentially change depending on the developer etc. I don’t know.
I'm just a fool, I follow the manufacturer's' instructions, either film or developer. As far back as I can remember niether Kodak, ILford, Foma, GAF/ANSCO Defender, or Forte called for Presoak. With a divided developer do not pre soak but you can warm water to bring the tank temperature up to developer temp, the dump the tank before adding part A. A few of Photographers Formulary developers call for pre soak, not sure why but I assume PF has tested. When I use HC 110, D76, DK50, Clayton F76 ect I do not pre soak. As noted above, in the end it's your call.
Indeed. Not sure which PF developers you are specifically referring to, but this one doesn't recommend presoak but terms it "optional". Also, the reference to AA's The Negative is a clue to their bias/logic. I shall not use the term "fanboy" as that is rude. 
This one specifies pre-soak, in a drum processing situation.
And this one appears to state a Sandy King recommendation to presoak for 2 minutes (page 2, paragraph 2), but it's in the paragraph on fixing so I'm not too sure what to make of it. Potentially confusing editing, perhaps, but seems to advocate for a 2-minute presoak.
A number of different recommendation, it seems, depending on...
This one specifies pre-soak, in a drum processing situation.
And this one appears to state a Sandy King recommendation to presoak for 2 minutes (page 2, paragraph 2), but it's in the paragraph on fixing so I'm not too sure what to make of it. Potentially confusing editing, perhaps, but seems to advocate for a 2-minute presoak.
A number of different recommendation, it seems, depending on...
Last edited:
... and here's a developer documentation with information on presoaking, depending on...
For the most part, it all depends, I suppose.
For the most part, it all depends, I suppose.
Time and money seem to me good reasons not to pre-soak, given that when I stopped pre-soaking years ago I saw absolutely no change in my results. I can develop a roll of film and have it hanging in the shower in 10 minutes + the time in the developer. Adding additional time to pre-soak makes no sense to me. And since I use steam distilled water for the entire process, pouring an additional quarter liter of distilled water down the drain makes no sense either. YMMV
Not sure which PF developer you are specifically referring to
I think MCM 100, I checked PF website, the last page with development times is not scanned in. I looked for a copy I had but must have tossed it.
When in the Air Force tech school we were told not to pre soak, but at various bases some NCOIC or Supers included a pre soak. Reasons given, were to soften the emulsions so developer soaked in more evenly, remove any dust on the negative. In dusty areas with 4X5 I can see some logic in it, otherwise does not make much sense to me. If there is water in the emulsion then it takes longer for the developer to replace the water, so how much more time to add? I don't think any of the wires or papers I worked at did a presoak. On the other hand as AA and Sandy King used a denistomer for personal E.I, the pre soak is taken into account.
I think MCM 100, I checked PF website, the last page with development times is not scanned in. I looked for a copy I had but must have tossed it.
When in the Air Force tech school we were told not to pre soak, but at various bases some NCOIC or Supers included a pre soak. Reasons given, were to soften the emulsions so developer soaked in more evenly, remove any dust on the negative. In dusty areas with 4X5 I can see some logic in it, otherwise does not make much sense to me. If there is water in the emulsion then it takes longer for the developer to replace the water, so how much more time to add? I don't think any of the wires or papers I worked at did a presoak. On the other hand as AA and Sandy King used a denistomer for personal E.I, the pre soak is taken into account.
I'm laughing with you, not at you, Paul. If I had a nickel for every time I knew I had a copy of something and couldn't find it...
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |