Pre-soak

charlief64 · Feb 19, 2012

I know this subject has been beat to death ... but .. I've pre soaked for 50 (yep, fifty) years. It's just part of my routine. Same reasons as Rick A. Never a problem.
charlie

Roger Cole · Feb 19, 2012

I never pre-soaked before I got a Jobo. Jobo recommends a 5 minute presoak so I use it. With most films and developers it pretty closely compensates for the continuous agitation giving similar times as for inversion. Plus it stabilizes the tank temperature. I run my B&W at 24C as recommended for T-Max RS developer but also use the same temp for others as it's high enough not to need to cool the solutions and the CPE heater can stabilize them.

chimneyfinder · Feb 19, 2012

Just a note to Ian. I'm not contending the effects of pre-soak, but I started to do it with Prescysol following the specific recommendation in the instructions, so there must be divided opinion/experience for staining developer. I never adopted pre-soaking in other developer - partly because, as you state I never came across film manufacturers literature that suggests it as a necessary step - and, although I tend to follow manufacturers recommendations, I will try Prescysol without it to see if there are any differences to the result.
Regards, Mark Walker.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 20, 2012

Doremus Scudder said:
I tray develop sheet film. Without a pre-soak, the sheets will often adhere to each other and take a looooong time to soak apart. I don't need that happening in the developer! It happens on occasion in the pre-soak if I don't let the previous sheet soak long enough, but then I can take the time needed to separate them without worrying about uneven development. I don't see this reason above, so let's add it to the great reasons PE listed.

I don't see how pre-soaking film before development can cause streaking and unevenness as someone above mentioned. Just the opposite would be my impression. Nor do I see many viable arguments against using a pre-soak that have been substantiated. DoremusScudder.com[/url]

that's my experience tooto test this justplace a drop of water domewhere on the film and let it soak for a minute. after processing it will be eadsy to spot where this drop was placed,because developmentwas somewhat hampered by the water soak and the density will be reducedin that area.this unevenness between wet and ry film develoment is enough reson for e to skip a presoak.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 20, 2012

Roger Cole said:
I never pre-soaked before I got a Jobo. Jobo recommends a 5 minute presoak so I use it. With most films and developers it pretty closely compensates for the continuous agitation giving similar times as for inversion. Plus it stabilizes the tank temperature. I run my B&W at 24C as recommended for T-Max RS developer but also use the same temp for others as it's high enough not to need to cool the solutions and the CPE heater can stabilize them.

please note that they recommend a 5min -presoak. i nevr had a problem with long presoaks, but short presoaks of a minute or so left me with streaks and water spots!!!

Doremus Scudder · Feb 20, 2012

Ralph,

I concur totally that a pre-soak "hampers" development. If I processed without a pre-soak, I would expect a slightly shorter developing times. The slowing of developer activity at the beginning of development is precisely the advantage of pre-soaking in my estimation. Certainly, one wants to be sure that the emulsion is fully saturated with water before beginning development in order to ensure that the streaking and spotting you mention does not occur. I find that a minimum of three minutes is needed for my processing. Jobo recommends five minutes.

I believe that the diffusion of developer into the emulsion after a pre-soak is more uniform, making a pre-soak a good idea for developing schemes that are sensitive to variations in developer activity at the beginning of development. This would include staining developers that have a tendency to like to streak and mottle and anything with rather short developing times, in which inconsistencies in developer uptake by the dry emulsion and uneven immersion are not attenuated by relatively long development times. With roll film, this ameliorates the inevitable 10-second difference in developing time between the top and bottom of the roll due to the time it takes to pour in the developer. Also, when processing multiple batches, one doesn't have to thoroughly dry tank and reels between batches to prevent water spots.

Again, I pre-soak because, depending on water hardness, etc., sheet film stacked on top of each other can stick together in the developer without it. I immerse my sheet film one-at-a-time in the water bath with about 20 seconds between, I then agitate my stack of sheets for three minutes-plus after immersing the last sheet. Even with the 20-second interval, I sometimes get negs sticking together. These separate on their own after prolonged soaking however. Since it happens in the pre-soak, no problems.

I expect that those who have problems with pre-soaking do not soak long enough, as you mentioned.

Best,

Doremus

www.DoremusScudder.com

Leigh B · Feb 20, 2012

RalphLambrecht said:
that's my experience tooto test this justplace a drop of water ~~omewhere on the film and let it soak for a minute.~~

I agree completely.

Pre-soaking part of the film and leaving the remainder dry is a very bad idea.

I must confess that in my half-century+ of developing film I've never tried that.

As I mentioned previously, I've never had a problem when I pre-soak the __entire__ film.

- Leigh

David Lyga · Feb 20, 2012

a belated caveat

I should like to warn those about presoaks in the case of microfilms like Kodak Imagelink: do this and you will have no emulsion left. I found out the hard way and found no other films to be of that ilk. Why? I do not know but be aware. - David Lyga

Trasselblad · Feb 20, 2012

Ah! The "eternal" pre-soak or not discussion. Few topics firmly divide people in distinct for or against camps, like this one.

I believe that whilst it was warranted and recommended many years ago, changes in both film coatings and developers has made it optional. I can't find the reference now, but if my memory serves me well Kodak, for instance, recommends against pre-soaking their modern B&W films. Maybe PE can correct me on this and the statement I read somewhere that the anti halation coating actually contains agents that will promote fast and even action of the developer and that pre-soaking will make things worse since it washes away those very same agents.

Only thing I have noticed from personal experimentation is that if I pre-soak - especially Kodak films- the water comes out tinted. Usually blueish or pinkish, or in the case of Fuji, greenish (maybe because the packaging is green . If I skip the pre-soak, the developer comes out crystal clear. Especially true when using replenished Xtol. I get less fouling of Xtol over time by skipping pre-soaking. That is my main reason not to. But to each and everyone his/her own, I suppose.

declark · Feb 20, 2012

Trasselblad said:
Ah! The "eternal" pre-soak or not discussion. Few topics firmly divide people in distinct for or against camps, like this one.

There's always the UV lens filter vs no filter debate.

I stopped pre-soaking for a while and I don't like how it muddies up my stop and fixer with dye so will probably go back to soaking depending of course on this lively debate.

georg16nik · Feb 20, 2012

Efke ir820

IR 820c has a clear base and a water-soluble anti-halation (AH) backing. In order to remove this backing, for higher actual speed, and for more uniform development, it is recommended to presoak films

http://www.maco-photo.de/files/images/MACO_TA820c_ENG.pdf

Simon R Galley · Feb 20, 2012

Dear All,

ILFORD do not advise the use of pre-soak, on the grounds that it is just not needed for any of our film emulsions. But if you do... I do not think you will see any adverse effects on any of our products, as long as it is not an excessively long pre-soak. For me its a non-issue, if your darkroom processing discipline is to use it, and you feel it helps thats great. I do not pre-soak, never have. Anti-halation dyes will not cause any 'chemical' issue within the dev/stop/fix process but as PE says it may make your dev a bit 'muddy'.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

declark said:
I stopped pre-soaking for a while and I don't like how it muddies up my stop and fixer with dye so will probably go back to soaking depending of course on this lively debate.

Just out of curiosity: Why is that a problem? Does it adversely affect your film developing?

I've always been a 'show me and I will believe' kind of person. And in my years of developing film I've never been able to see any difference at all in my prints, between film that had a water bath prior to developing and film that didn't.
If you can't see it in the prints, why does it matter?

RalphLambrecht · Feb 20, 2012

i agrre pre soak for development timesof less than 4 minutea and other special cases but not under 'normal circumstances, and if you do, do it for at least 3-5 minutes.

George Collier · Feb 20, 2012

I have posted this before, but will again since Simon weighed in here. Also, I seem to be alone with this issue. When developing Delta 400, in either Rodinal or HC110, I notice a difference in the sound agitation makes after the first minute or two, as if the chems aren't moving about as much inside. Then, when dumping the developer, it is accompanied by a strange amount of foam, which has built up during development. I don't know if harm was done (not the the developer, but to development uniformity), but it bothered me, so I presoak every time with D-400 to avoid this.
I've never had this with any other films (not with FP4 either, that I can remember), and residual Photo Flo on the reel from the previous roll is not possible (I remove the film from the reel and "see-saw" the film in PFlo.
The presoak comes out colored with AH die, as would be expected. Anyone else observe this?

Photo Engineer · Feb 20, 2012

George, I have seen this with some films. It is due to the use of particular wetting agents (surfactants) during the coating operation. They act like photo flo added to the film. Also, some lubricants added to film to help coating will cause a similar problem.

I see it in a presoak with some films, and tests without a presoak reveal the same problem in the developer.

This can cause non-uniformity.

PE

declark · Feb 20, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Just out of curiosity: Why is that a problem? Does it adversely affect your film developing?

I've always been a 'show me and I will believe' kind of person. And in my years of developing film I've never been able to see any difference at all in my prints, between film that had a water bath prior to developing and film that didn't.
If you can't see it in the prints, why does it matter?

No problem with developing Thomas. For some reason, maybe getting lazy and wanting to expedite things a bit, I cut out the pre-soak. No real scientific test, but it looked like the AH dye was carrying over more into my stop and fixer which I didn't care for.

Photo Engineer · Feb 20, 2012

If you use an indicator stop, that mud color can obscure the indicator dye. IDK if this is a problem with anyone though but it is a thought.

PE

jmdco · Feb 20, 2012

A question for Simon

When I must develop much film, I use the method of addition of X percent at the time of development in order to recover the revealing one.
I always do a pre soak the film for two reasons.
The first is the preparation of the film (temperature and gelatin).
The second is to pick a developer cleaner, without foam color that gives the anti-halation layer.
I do this with satisfaction for over 30 years (what does not renovate me ... S... )

Film: HP5
Developer: LC-29 or Microphen

In the case of this method, the pre soak is to do or not?
Cordially

Roger Cole · Feb 20, 2012

jnanian said:
if you want to have some fun, save your pre soak water, and your developer.
pour all the blue black dye in your developer beaker .. and watch as it vanishes ..
it seems that some developer are designed to absorb the AH dye and not loose potency ...
so, if you don't pre soak, the dye is absorbed into your developer and probably not carried into your stop or fixer ( without you realizing it).

i always pre soak out of habit, but when i forget, or just don't do it, i don't worry about it ...

have fun !
john

I found this to be true this weekend. I don't have running water in my darkroom (yet) so I use a big 7 gallon water container as a source, a holding bath for prints, and dump waste water into a bucket to take upstairs for disposal later. I developed 12 sheets of T-Max 400 in my Jobo. As usual the pre-soak water came out deep blue-purple. I drain it into a pan under the Jobo drain. Then I developed in T-Max RS developer, one shot at 1+7. Sure enough, the color is not only diluted but pretty much eliminated.

I had seen this before but hadn't really paid close attention, taking it to be mainly dilution. It isn't - the developer clearly does something to the dye rather than just diluting it.

Are these wild colors that come out in pre-soak water or developer these days really anti-halatation dyes and not sensitizing dyes? I remember when the T-Max films came out. They did this while older films of the time like Tri-X did not, and it was widely believed to be due to sensitizing dyes. Now I get it from most older style films too. The night before I processed the T-Max 400 I ran a roll of 120 Foma 400 and three 4x5 sheets and the wild green color is just as weirdly vibrant as the dark purple of Kodak.

bdial · Feb 20, 2012

The crucial question here is;

Did Saint Ansel pre-soak?

Roger Cole · Feb 20, 2012

bdial said:
The crucial question here is;

Did Saint Ansel pre-soak?

Yes, he did. See chapter 9 of The Negative. In my paperback copy he discusses it with regard to deep tank processing with hangars on page 206, and again for tray development in the next section he recommends it.

I don't do it for inversion development, but then I mostly only do that with Diafine and it's not good for two bath anyway as PE mentioned. But I will continue doing it with my Jobo for all my other development.

Jim Jones · Feb 20, 2012

Pre-soak is absolutely necessary in a few processes. One example is in developing high contrast film in Solarol developer. With a total time of maybe 90 seconds in the developer, not using pre-soak will lead to conspicuous uneven development. Another example is in tanks with many reels of 35mm film. Air bells may not be dislodged until the tank is full, and will leave their mark.

clayne · Feb 20, 2012

Highly doubt it's sensitizing dyes. PE would know more, but my gut tells me these are not so easily removed - or maybe impossible to remove/wash out.

Roger Cole · Feb 20, 2012

Well I know that prior to the appearance of the T-Max films I developed a lot of film and never saw colored dye come out in the developer or pre-soak. Then the T-Max films did this, and now it seems most all films do (but not all - I know I've seen one that doesn't, maybe Delta 3200?)

What did they do for AH before these dyes? Or were they just less colorful and we didn't notice?

Pre-soak

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency