PDA

View Full Version : Pre-soak


Dave miller
2nd October 2008, 06:20 AM
There are those that do, and those that don't. Care to share your perceived pros, and cons of your method?

As a confirmed pre-soaker I just like to get rid of the mucky stuff (anti halation dye?) before I put the developer in.

Trevor Crone
2nd October 2008, 10:01 AM
I with you on this one Dave. The only one time I didn't pre-soak in water before development I got 'air-bells' (bubbles), small dark spots on the film.

Although I read some time ago, soon after Ilford released Delta 100, that the pre-soaking of this film was not recommended because of an incorporated wetting agent. However I chose to ignore this advice and decided to continue to pre-soak, never had a problem with this film or the 400 version.

Bill
2nd October 2008, 10:21 AM
I'm one of the don't pre-soak people. Just wasn't taught to do it when I started processing so have never done it. Do you have to compensate time as the developer is more dilute at the start or does it not matter?

Dave - As you said you are now using Prescysol is it a requirement of that developer or would you use it with say Rodinal or ID11?

Trevor - I thought that air-bells gave clear spots on film where it was not developed and the fix removed the undeveloped emulsion. I thought the dark spots were on the prints.

As you guys think it worthwhile I will try it on my next films. The last large format films I processed had clear spots and I put this down to a dodgy film, Fomapan 100. I was processing in a Jobo CPE2 with constant agitation which I would have thought would dispel any bubbles. The developer was Perceptol 1 + 2.

Bill

Trevor Crone
2nd October 2008, 11:23 AM
Ah...Bill you spotted the deliberate mistake:rolleyes: Thank you, I should have said clear spots on film which print as dark spots. Another senior moment:o

Dave miller
2nd October 2008, 11:54 AM
I’m not sure that it matters which method is used. Consistency must be the overriding key to the developing process I think. The pre-soak will help by equalising the temperature, assuming that is that it was stabilised to the same temperature as the developer to start with. I imagine that as Trevor suggests, it will also greatly reduce the chance of air-bells forming.

The residual water left after the pre-soak must dilute the developer by a small amount, but how much this will effect the process is hard to say. I’m sure the agitation method employed will be a far greater factor than water retention on the finished negative.

Peter Hogan
2nd October 2008, 12:33 PM
The main reason to pre-soak is indeed to prevent formation of air bells on the film surface. The removal of the anti-halation dye from 120 films incorporating the newer silver technology (Delta 400, T-Max etc).
Peter

Trevor Crone
2nd October 2008, 01:09 PM
The residual water left after the pre-soak must dilute the developer by a small amount, but how much this will effect the process is hard to say. I’m sure the agitation method employed will be a far greater factor than water retention on the finished negative.

Interesting point you've raised Dave, certainly worth carrying out a side by side test. Develop one film/sheet with a pre-soak and one without, keeping every thing else the same to see if there's a notable difference with regard to negative density.

The other point you've mentioned with regard to temperature. I find the pre-soak applied at the same temperature as the developer is a useful aid in maintaining consistency.

Stoo Batchelor
2nd October 2008, 01:53 PM
I always pre-soak and have never had an air bell from the day I started. Also, to increase the chance of not getting air bells, instead of just "Gently Tapping" the tank on the work surface, as always seems to be suggested, I hold the tank squarely at the bottom and give four very firm slams on to the work surface, followed by one final hard slam.

Argentum
2nd October 2008, 02:18 PM
The only time I would normally use a presoak is when a film / dev combination has a very short development time. In that case, the fill time will be a larger percentage of the total time and therefore what gets covered in the tank first gets a siginificantly longer dev time. Using a presoak will slow down the development start up and smooth out that potential problem.
Combiplan tanks fill slowly and so a presoak when short dev times are being used with that tank would definitely be a help. But for most film / dev combinations it should not be necessary unless speciifically recommended to stop a known problem.
I have never experienced air bell problems. Ilford films have a wetting agent specifically designed to allow fast take up of developer into the film.
Look at this way. With no presoak the only thing that will get absorbed into the gelatin is developer which if it has been properly mixed, will have an even effect on the film. If you use a presoak, then the film is full of water so then the flow pattern of the developer over the film surface becomes important as it has to wash out the water to get into the gelatin. It will be diluted by that water. Is that as likely to be as even as using no presoak? Maybe, maybe not. It just adds another variable to go wrong and IMO is not genrally required.
I think if you were to read all that has been written on the subject and where it was used, you will find that mostly it is used when you want soft development or to slow down development.

Argentum
2nd October 2008, 03:18 PM
Another time where it could have a benefit is on Jobo type processors.
The dev may well require less developer than would cover the film when the tank is vertical. So you put developer in which starts development on the bottom half of the film but then you have to put down what you have poured the developer from, maybe put a top on the dev tank and take the dev tank and put it on the processor. Then you have to switch the processor on. By the time you have done that, you would already have uneven development marks on the film. So in that case, a presoak is probably a good idea. I suspect that is one reason why Peter says you should use it with Prescysol on jobo processors.

RH Designs
2nd October 2008, 03:45 PM
Never pre-soaked, never had an air-bell. Always tapped the tank as Stoo says, but not too hard!

Dave miller
2nd October 2008, 04:01 PM
I don't think that's right Rob. My Jobo tanks have a beaker which holds the developer until the tank is turned horizontally, it is at that point that the dev flows out into the main tank as the drum is placed on the rotator.

Dave miller
2nd October 2008, 04:03 PM
I have a mental image of dev splattered Stoo holding the remnants of a tank base. :D

Argentum
2nd October 2008, 05:02 PM
I don't think that's right Rob. My Jobo tanks have a beaker which holds the developer until the tank is turned horizontally, it is at that point that the dev flows out into the main tank as the drum is placed on the rotator.

I have some of those jobo tanks, but they are all print drums and not film drums which use a different top. At least mine do.

Trevor Crone
2nd October 2008, 05:11 PM
I have some of those jobo tanks, but they are all print drums and not film drums which use a different top. At least mine do.

Rob is correct, for example the Jobo Expert drums require chemistry to be poured in as they rotate, they don't have a reservoir like the print drums.

Argentum
2nd October 2008, 05:54 PM
I think the lift system on the jobo processors helps with giving even development because the dev can be poured in with the tank inplace and rotating.
If you don't have the lift system, as on my jobo, then a presoak would be a good idea. I've only just a bought a second hand CPE-2 and this is not something that I had considered before hand. But the tank fill is pretty quick and with long enough dev times I don't think there will be problems. I bought the non lift setup as I thought that it would be less prone to failure as their is no gearing system in it. (also cos I'm a cheapskate ;))

Dave miller
2nd October 2008, 05:57 PM
I stand corrected, mine are 2840 print drums, I use paterson tanks for films.

Rob Archer
2nd October 2008, 06:41 PM
Just to play 'devil's advocate' - I've never pre-soaked, and never had air bells. I always tap the tank a couple of times after filling with dev, although more gently after cracking a tank and ending up wearing most of the dev!

Incidentally, Ilford specifically don't recommend pre-soaking for their films - perhaps it has as much to do with the film and, in particular, what is used for the anti-halation layer. I seem to remember that the dev came out purple after developing Tri-X. It always seems to be clear with Ilford.

Not being patient or scientific enough to do my own tests it would be interesting to see any definitive results.

Rob

Argentum
3rd October 2008, 12:54 AM
I stand corrected, mine are 2840 print drums, I use paterson tanks for films.

I think that drum is good for 10x8 film if you have the 10x8 holder that goes with it.

Bill
3rd October 2008, 06:38 PM
Today I have carried out a test just to see what happens. There is a difference albeit slight. For a Zone V exposure the difference in density is about 0.03, measured using my Analyser Pro. At Zone I it is 0.07 and at Zone VIII 0.01. In all cases except Zone VIII the with pre-soak density is less than without.

I did write it up much fuller but it seems to be too large to post.

If anybody needs more detail I can supply it.

Any thoughts or comments welcomed.

Bill

Monoman
4th October 2008, 11:29 AM
My experience in this - as in all things - is limited to 35mm and 6x6cm, so I can't speak for what happens when developing sheet film. Nor do I have any scientific knowledge!

Pre-soaking has never been part of my routine. People claim many benefits for it - avoidance of air bells, eveness of development, maintenance of processing temperature and removal of anti-halation layer being the main ones. As it was the air-bells issue which has dominated this discussion, here's my five-penn'orth.

Air-bells are produced by bubbles of gas in the diluted developer adhering to the surface of the film thereby causing undeveloped spots. These bubbles are in the water that we use for dilution. (If you doubt this, fill a measuring cylinder with water from the hot tap. Mine is often cloudy until the gas has evaporated.) Therein lies the answer. If you prepare your developer from water which has been standing in a container for a few days, and not from water taken directly from the tap, any bubbles will have evaporated or dissolved and you'll have no problems with air-bells. If you have this water in the same tempering bath as your other chemicals and your tank (filled with water for your first rinse bath after the fixer) you'll have no need to use a pre-soak to maintain temperature either. Using this method, even in a house whose water supply seems to contain lots of bubbles, I've never had a problem - and I don't tap, bang, slam or otherwise abuse my developing tanks!

My guess is that air-bells are more likely to occur in highly diluted, one-shot developers like Rodinal than in stock solutions of the ID11 type for the same reason. By the time the stock solution is processing its 3rd or 4th film, it's been standing long enough for any bubbles to have gone.

For some years I've used a Nova film processing unit which holds a developing tank and 3 x 1 litre bottles at any temperature you set. My method is to have the tank filled with water, the first bottle filled at least a couple of days beforehand with water, the second bottle with diluted stop bath and the third diluted fixer. If I'm using a developer at stock dilution and re-using it (T-Max developer is the one I usually use in this way) then that takes the place of the bottle of water.

When processing a film, the water in the tank is first emptied into a jug and kept aside for the first rinse after fixing. The film is then loaded into the tank and the tank sat back in the tempering bath whilst the developer is mixed using some of the water in the first bottle. Even using a Paterson tank there is sufficient water to process 4 films in quick succession from the one bottle. Development, stop and fixing then take place in the normal way (without tank abuse!!!) then the water which was originally in the tank is tipped in as the first rinse while I take the tank, jug and thermometer into the bathroom to complete the wash cycle. The Nova unit is very convenient, but prior to having it, a washing up bowl half filled with water at a couple of degrees above processing temperature was just as effective, if not as elegant!

I don't know if this adds anything to the discussion. It's simply a description of a method which has evolved for me over a long period during which I've not been troubled by air-bells.

Trevor Crone
5th October 2008, 04:18 PM
Today I have carried out a test just to see what happens. There is a difference albeit slight. For a Zone V exposure the difference in density is about 0.03, measured using my Analyser Pro. At Zone I it is 0.07 and at Zone VIII 0.01. In all cases except Zone VIII the with pre-soak density is less than without.

I did write it up much fuller but it seems to be too large to post.

If anybody needs more detail I can supply it.

Any thoughts or comments welcomed.

Bill

Thanks for this Bill most useful. It's good to have a scientific approach (use of densitometer) to this then just a visual one. I suspect that these small changes in density would be difficult to detect visually, at least with any real degree of accuracy.

Trevor.

Dave miller
7th October 2008, 06:27 AM
Today I have carried out a test just to see what happens. There is a difference albeit slight. For a Zone V exposure the difference in density is about 0.03, measured using my Analyser Pro. At Zone I it is 0.07 and at Zone VIII 0.01. In all cases except Zone VIII the with pre-soak density is less than without.

I did write it up much fuller but it seems to be too large to post.

If anybody needs more detail I can supply it.

Any thoughts or comments welcomed.

Bill

Have you tried uploading it to the article section Bill? Should be able to fit War and Peace in there. If not either email it to me as an attachment, or give it to me when we meet next weekend.

Bill
7th October 2008, 09:46 AM
I haven't tried that Dave.

I will print it off and talk to you about it this weekend. You can then tell me if it is worth posting.

See you Friday

Bill

Dave miller
7th October 2008, 11:42 AM
I haven't tried that Dave.

I will print it off and talk to you about it this weekend. You can then tell me if it is worth posting.

See you Friday

Bill

Of course it's worth posting. :)

Les Meehan
11th October 2008, 04:16 PM
Today I have carried out a test just to see what happens. There is a difference albeit slight. For a Zone V exposure the difference in density is about 0.03, measured using my Analyser Pro. At Zone I it is 0.07 and at Zone VIII 0.01. In all cases except Zone VIII the with pre-soak density is less than without.

I did write it up much fuller but it seems to be too large to post.

If anybody needs more detail I can supply it.

Any thoughts or comments welcomed.

Bill

Bill

Your results make one thing very clear; that 0.07 reduction in density at zone 1 is very significant and definitely requires a reduced EI to compensate. The loss of shadow detail would no doubt be of interest upto around zone 3.

I am a pre-soaker and make sure any zone tests are done only that way.

Mike O'Pray
3rd November 2008, 08:28 PM
I have followed this thread with interest, noting especially the difference of opinion between two contributors on the effect of neg densities between pre-soak and no pre-soak. As about three further weeks have elapsed, has a comparison on prints from the pre-soak ve no pre-soak negs been possible?

One of the benefits of a small forum is that things stand a better chance of reachng a conclusion which is precisely the problem with other large forums where it can become a free for all and then suddenly die with loose ends abounding.

So in Agatha Christie mode: Was it the butler whot did it? Thanks

Mike O'Pray

Peter Hogan
7th November 2008, 08:54 AM
Well, as Dave said in his first post, there are some that do and some that don't... and I suspect that we've all been doing it our own favourite way for years, and been happy with the results. And if we're happy with wot we get there's no point changing or worrying about it, is it?

Dave miller
7th November 2008, 09:40 AM
Well, as Dave said in his first post, there are some that do and some that don't... and I suspect that we've all been doing it our own favourite way for years, and been happy with the results. And if we're happy with wot we get there's no point changing or worrying about it, is it?

I beg to differ. :wag: We have every right to worry about these things, in fact it is right that we should worry; I’d be worried if we didn’t worry, for that in itself would be extremely worrying, for who else will worry if we cease worrying, it’s very worrying.

Bill
7th November 2008, 03:30 PM
Mike,

I'm with Peter on this one. If you are happy with the results you are getting then continue with your working method.

We all have our own working methods and equipment and thus results will vary from person to person. It's a case of finding what works for you and sticking with it.

The negatives I prepared were of a grey card so there would be no value in printing them. They were done purely to measure density variation.

By all means test for yourself on your type of subject and then decide which works for you.

Regards

Bill

Sandeha Lynch
7th November 2008, 08:57 PM
Ah, but if you ain't happy, then wot ??

I wasn't happy (and for far too long) about the sprocket streaks I'd occasionally get on my negs in my Jobo tanks. Then I read the instructions. Jobo recommend presoaking as a matter of course, and largely (I assume) on account of the tank's internal design and flow patterns.

Never had streaks since then.

Nor airbells, but I use filtered water from a Brita jug and slap the tank against my palm.

Bill
9th November 2008, 09:52 AM
Ah, but if you ain't happy, then wot ??

I wasn't happy (and for far too long) about the sprocket streaks I'd occasionally get on my negs in my Jobo tanks. Then I read the instructions. Jobo recommend presoaking as a matter of course, and largely (I assume) on account of the tank's internal design and flow patterns.

Never had streaks since then.

Nor airbells, but I use filtered water from a Brita jug and slap the tank against my palm.

Of course, you have answered your own question. I think it is a case of either reading the instructions, trying different things for yourself or tapping into a resource such as this Forum until you are happy.

Once you have found something that works stay with it.

Bill