Presoaking film and development time

[M Carter]

What conclusion did you come to about the short but unspecified soak time that resulted in a weird crack pattern on the base side when it is dry?

In my case, eliminating the 2-minute pre-soak was the thing that eliminated the crack-like pattern on the base of Delta 100 sheets when developed in Pyrcoat-HD. The fact that others have observed a similar phenomenon seems to lend credence to the idea that there really is something going during the presoak with some film-developer combinations that results in this anomaly.

My only conclusion was that a short pre-soak caused the crack-like texture. I develop two sheets in a small, modded film tank, with strips of polystyrene "I-Beam" rails (from a model railroad shop) epoxied down the sides, to hold the film in place (they're very thin, like 1/16" and ended surge mark issues for me). So the film is base-side against the plastic tank wall, but it sort of "arcs out" enough that fluid can get behind it.

I don't know if a longer soak would even-out the texture, but I kinda though "why am I even pre-soaking"; this was my initial forays into a rotary process that would work for me, so I tested a few things. But dropped the pre-soak and all was good.

It was really vexing - after a minute in fresh fix, I move the sheets to trays for a last bit of fixing and inspect them before washing, but the cracks don't emerge until the film is dry. I had a lot of "great" sheets I was psyched to print, and then it was "what the hell?!??!"; took me a few tests to think of skipping the soak.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Cracking" would seem to mean emulsion reticulation. And that would be due to either temperature shock from going too hot to too cold, or visa versa, in respective solutions, or pH shock due to too strong a stop bath. I don't see how a correct pre-soak could have anything to do with it. Nor would the choice of Pyrocat.

 

[john_s]

There has been some talk (above) of problems occuring with a "short" presoak. Steve Sherman's article at unblinkingeye says:

4-5 minute presoak is mandatory, uniform absorption during initial agitation is critical!

Maybe a longer presoak would obviate some people's problems.

Also, it seems clear that sheet film supported from behind can have problems as a result of the antihalation coating dissolving differentially/incompletely.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's an awfully long time. Mandatory? I seriously doubt it. I've successfully employed a number of pyro developers (both pyrogallol and pyrocat derived) with quite a variety of sheet films, and never needed more than a 2 min presoak for any of them. But it is important to properly shuffle the sheets in the tray, even in plain water, just like all the succeeding steps. If people are just swishing things around, or using tank, that's a different story.

Rotary processing is a little more complicated, depending on the exact style of drum and the nature of the rotation itself. I routinely make color prints rotary style, but no longer process film that way. I do use Jobo hand inversion tanks and reels for roll-film. But all my rotary drums are of a different more efficient design than what Jobo offers, and some are way bigger anyway. No need to ask, because you can't buy them or even likely find them anymore.

 

[John Wiegerink]

"Cracking" would seem to mean emulsion reticulation. And that would be due to either temperature shock from going too hot to too cold, or visa versa, in respective solutions, or pH shock due to too strong a stop bath. I don't see how a correct pre-soak could have anything to do with it. Nor would the choice of Pyrocat.

Drew,
I thought the folks mentioning Delta 100 cracking pattern were pointing toward the none emulsion side?

 

[Pigsonboy]

I use Fomapan 4x5 and 5x7 a lot cause of price. I need to rinse it and pre soak to get rid of the blue/green antihalation layer.

Using PMK Pyro mainly and negatives still come out pink after much rinsing. But appears not to affect development process.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My use of TF4 alkaline fixer seems to distinctly help removing any of that residual pink stain. With most films, it's totally removed, and relatively quickly in the final wash cycle. It's also important to use not too strong of a stop bath. 1/4% solution is adequate unless you reuse your stop solution - something I don't recommend in this case. The typical 2% acetic acid solution risks just too much acid carryover into traditional fixers. PMK is my most common go-to developer;
but it's really no more an issue with residual dye issues than other developers.

 

[DREW WILEY]

John - I don't see how a "cracking" pattern (like mud cracks?) can pertain to the base side. Maybe they could post a picture of an example. But a mottling effect of residual anti-halation dye on the base might be hypothetically possible under certain odd processing conditions. It's hard for me to relate to, since never in all my decades of working with many types of film, have I ever had that happen. I have seen emulsion side actual reticulation on very old outdated thick-emulsion films, of a variety no longer made.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There has been some talk (above) of problems occuring with a "short" presoak. Steve Sherman's article at unblinkingeye says:

4-5 minute presoak is mandatory, uniform absorption during initial agitation is critical!

Maybe a longer presoak would obviate some people's problems.

Also, it seems clear that sheet film supported from behind can have problems as a result of the antihalation coating dissolving differentially/incompletely.

That's an awfully long time. Mandatory? I seriously doubt it. I've successfully employed a number of pyro developers (both pyrogallol and pyrocat derived) with quite a variety of sheet films, and never needed more than a 2 min presoak for any of them. But it is important to properly shuffle the sheets in the tray, even in plain water, just like all the succeeding steps. If people are just swishing things around, or using tank, that's a different story.

Rotary processing is a little more complicated, depending on the exact style of drum and the nature of the rotation itself. I routinely make color prints rotary style, but no longer process film that way. I do use Jobo hand inversion tanks and reels for roll-film. But all my rotary drums are of a different more efficient design than what Jobo offers, and some are way bigger anyway. No need to ask, because you can't buy them or even likely find them anymore.

I use 2 to 3 minutes presoaking for all film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

John - I don't see how a "cracking" pattern (like mud cracks?) can pertain to the base side. Maybe they could post a picture of an example. But a mottling effect of residual anti-halation dye on the base might be hypothetically possible under certain odd processing conditions. It's hard for me to relate to, since never in all my decades of working with many types of film, have I ever had that happen. I have seen emulsion side actual reticulation on very old outdated thick-emulsion films, of a variety no longer made.

Drew,
The only defect I have ever seen on the base side of any film I have used is possibly a scratch lengthwise that might have happened during the slitting process. Reticulation was a problem with older films like the original Tri-X, but I have a hard time trying to even make it happen on the modern stuff. Film just seems to get better and better, but backing paper is sure questionable, that's for sure. Johnw

 

[john_s]

My reading of some of the above posts is that what looked like cracking was actually antihalation coating differentially (incompletely) dissolving due to ribs supporting the back of the sheet film in some film holders in development tanks.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My brother would sometimes deliberately reticulate Super-X sheet film by passing it back and forth between hot and cold developer. Gave a cracked look much like that deliberately done with certain pottery glazes. That doesn't work with modern films. Now I suppose there's some silly app that does it automatically in camera or cellphone.

But a lizard-skin effect on the backside might indicate the back sticking to a drum wall partially wetted, and then peeled away retaining signs of that error.

 

[Helge]

I continue to presoak. Testing development times has led to negatives with optimum density and contrast, and most importantly, very even and consistent.

The upturned curve that is part of the result of the test is not desirable in many peoples book.
It effectively lowers speed and increases contrast in a way you almost never want.

It also introduces an extra variable in a process with way too many variables already.

While there of course is differences between different film and developers, they share enough fundamentals, for the likelyhood of this tendency to be universal is high.
It also matches well with my own empirical observations.

I have been presoaking film since I learned about it on APUG and I have never had a problem with it. Furthermore I have seen that the development is better and more consistent with presoaking.

Is that real or confirmation bias? Rhetorical question.
I’ve never seen a true ABX compare between non presoaked and presoaked.
Only anecdotal evidence from amateurs and recommendations from, granted, true experts like PE.
PE worked with different equipment and with a whole other level of heuristics, haptics, and tacit experience that none of us will ever reach.

We have just seen evidence strongly indicating it not being a good idea.

It’s seems to have spread in popularity, mostly because it’s a relatively easy free rite, where people get the feeling of doing “something” with nothing. “So why not?”.

 

[john_s]

The upturned curve that is part of the result of the test is not desirable in many peoples book.
It effectively lowers speed and increases contrast in a way you almost never want.

I did read that with interest, and it is not desirable. I use Pyrocat-HD with minimal agitation and according to my tests and results my contrast is not excesssive, but it's certainly worth considering for other faster acting developers. My developing time with Pyrocat is quite long so may reduce the contrast boost to insignificance. I started to prerinse when I had patches of lower density (like very subtle air bells) when I started using roll film. Prior to that, with 35mm film I hadn't had anything like an air bell for decades.

Now that I think about it, I'm now using HP5+ which some people complain is not contrasty enough or that it rolls off at higher zones. If that is so, maybe I am getting some contrast boost which balances out a natural rolloff of HP5+. Whatever, I'm happy with my results.

 

[Helge]

I did read that with interest, and it is not desirable. I use Pyrocat-HD with minimal agitation and according to my tests and results my contrast is not excesssive, but it's certainly worth considering for other faster acting developers. My developing time with Pyrocat is quite long so may reduce the contrast boost to insignificance. I started to prerinse when I had patches of lower density (like very subtle air bells) when I started using roll film. Prior to that, with 35mm film I hadn't had anything like an air bell for decades.

Now that I think about it, I'm now using HP5+ which some people complain is not contrasty enough or that it rolls off at higher zones. If that is so, maybe I am getting some contrast boost which balances out a natural rolloff of HP5+. Whatever, I'm happy with my results.

Good point. Long development times with slow acting developers is like a pre wash in itself.
Prewashing with 1+99 Rodinal for example, is pretty pointless.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The upturned curve that is part of the result of the test is not desirable in many peoples book.
It effectively lowers speed and increases contrast in a way you almost never want.

It also introduces an extra variable in a process with way too many variables already.

While there of course is differences between different film and developers, they share enough fundamentals, for the likelyhood of this tendency to be universal is high.
It also matches well with my own empirical observations.



Is that real or confirmation bias? Rhetorical question.
I’ve never seen a true ABX compare between non presoaked and presoaked.
Only anecdotal evidence from amateurs and recommendations from, granted, true experts like PE.
PE worked with different equipment and with a whole other level of heuristics, haptics, and tacit experience that none of us will ever reach.

We have just seen evidence strongly indicating it not being a good idea.

It’s seems to have spread in popularity, mostly because it’s a relatively easy free rite, where people get the feeling of doing “something” with nothing. “So why not?”.

I can only report my results. I am not running a R&D lab here.

 

[Vaughn]

...

We have just seen evidence strongly indicating it not being a good idea.

...

And the evidence points equally to why it is a good idea to continue pre-soaking if one has already incorperated it into one's workflow and image-making. Or, if one stops pre-soaking, to expect subtle changes in one's prints that might have to be restored in some other manner.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Presoak per se has zero to do with upturned curves etc. I do the same thing for straight line color separation negatives. But if the current trend in long "stand development" is implied, and it that means I have to stand around so long that it's difficult to get freed from the cobwebs once it's time for the stop bath, well, I can't comment on that kind of Rip Wan Winkle method.

And the convention of presoaking is not based on anecdotal advice. That kind of thing is far more likely to be found on web chatter.

 

[Helge]

And the evidence points equally to why it is a good idea to continue pre-soaking if one has already incorperated it into one's workflow and image-making. Or, if one stops pre-soaking, to expect subtle changes in one's prints that might have to be restored in some other manner.

Sure, if you are truely happy and know exactly what you are missing/changing. Then of course.

I however noticed a subtle but marked improvement in tonality and highlight capture with my last three rolls since I stopped prewashing and kept to “normal times” to a tee.

 

[Helge]

Presoak per se has zero to do with upturned curves etc. I do the same thing for straight line color separation negatives. But if the current trend in long "stand development" is implied, and it that means I have to stand around so long that it's difficult to get freed from the cobwebs once it's time for the stop bath, well, I can't comment on that kind of Rip Wan Winkle method.

Stand is a specialty method that is useful for absolute beginners, rolls where you are unsure about rating and for cases where you want the effects.
You set it and forget it. Whether it “stands around” for an hour or three means very little. Go about your business and do other stuff.

The results of Scott J.s research more or less speaks for itself.

 

[pentaxuser]

And just when I thought this thread was about to get boring

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Helge - my business isn't guessing about the turnout of a development session. I want it done right the first time, and in reasonable time, and not worrying about sea level rise inundating my darkroom if the film still isn't sufficiently developed sitting there for the next thirty years. Gosh that sound like a recipe for uneven development. I don't intent to try it, but have certainly read my share of complaints by those who have.

 

[Helge]

Helge - my business isn't guessing about the turnout of a development session. I want it done right the first time, and in reasonable time, and not worrying about sea level rise inundating my darkroom if the film still isn't sufficiently developed sitting there for the next thirty years. Gosh that sound like a recipe for uneven development. I don't intent to try it, but have certainly read my share of complaints by those who have.

I’m not here to proselytize stand. It’s kind of off topic too.

I’d say this though, consider how “watery development”, as described by among others A. Adams, works and it’s similarity to the first step in a presoak and to stand. And in fact to how seemingly more controlled stand works.

And then consider the potential folly, of the idea of how much extra control you imagine to exert, by merely pushing another step of diffusion into to the process.

The truth is, we really have a surprisingly weak understanding of what actually physically happens when developer hits the film.
Someone might have done a lot of professional and/or thorough research at some point, but we don’t know of it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The selection of sheet film was quite different in the AA era. Thick emulsion films like Super XX soaked in and retained solutions much more effectively. Water bath development was more realistic, though alway a risky option due to potential unevenness. I've worked with that method as well as two-bath development where the alternate tray contained just water and a little wetting agent. I've also cooked up certain developer tweaks which are both very very dilute as well as quite predictable even on modern T-grain emulsions. All kinds of things can hypothetically work, and many do. The point is, is there a better more straightforward way to do the same thing or not?

 

[Helge]

All kinds of things can hypothetically work, and many do. The point is, is there a better more straightforward way to do the same thing or not?

Exactly.