New poll -- presoaking

[ic-racer]

I used to pre-soak around the 1990s to slow process times to keep rotary process times from going under the 4 minute mark (per Jobo recommendations). Later I discovered I could get rotary process times at 24C over 5 minutes without the preasoak. So, since 2000 I have not been using pre-soak.

[Pere Casals]

Pre-soaking was absolutely necessary for even development when processing Tech Pan or litho film with a development time of about 45 seconds in Solarol before the reversal exposure. It also helps in short developing time in Dektol to boost contrast. I presoaked when developing 8 rolls of film at a time because of the erratic wetting in a large tank.

OK, necessary for reversing old TP with paper developers... any other benefit with pre-soaking?

Not exactly TP, but CMS 20 datasheet also speaks about contrast: "There is no need for pre-watering the film. Pre-watering will lead to an increased contrast". http://www.adox.de/Technical_Informa...structions.pdf

For CMS 20 "increased contrast" is not usually desired.

[Punker]

All films all types all formats I presoak 1 - 5 mins. No exceptions unless explicitly stated otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dentkimterry]

No pre-soak per Ilford instructions.

[dksea]

I'm just curious. How many of us pre-soak our film -- of whatever format -- before processing it (whatever that means)?

I don't see a way to set up a poll on this forum, and perhaps there is a way, but for now:

Do you pre-soak your film? Always/Sometimes/Never

In what? Distilled water/Filtered water/Tap water/Other(specify)

At what temp? Tap temp/Specific temp

How long? Minutes

Comments:

Seattle tap water is pretty soft so I use it. I have been presoaking film for 5 minutes. I process mainly ilford film in 120 and 4x5.

Doug King

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[sepstein17]

FWIW -- I always pre-soak both HP5+ and Bergger 400 pancro for 5 min. in DISTILLED water 68 - 70 deg. F - just one more step in the development process.

[Per Madsen]

Always, for two minutes with tap water at the same temperature as the developer to avoid air bubbles and for more even development.

[John Layton]

Interesting note regarding Ilford'd incorporation of surfactants to promote even development...and a warning about potential consequences of removing these surfactants via pre-soaking. Might be a bit ironic...but does not a pre-soak offer its own "surfactant" properties - which help to render the emulsion more amenable to even development? So...pre-soak vs. no pre-soak would not really matter? But then...what about the presence of anti-halation backing? I know that the presence of this backing might have no untoward effect...but I've always felt better to see this left in the pre-soak rather than in the developer.

I do have a suspicion (based on some experiences/results) that...at least to the extent that, as I tray-process by hand...a dry emulsion introduced directly into a tray of developer (especially a staining/hardening developer) is much more vulnerable to showing handling artifacts than the same emulsion which had been given a pre-soak.

As for roll films...I have in the past had some problems with some (admittedly subtle but still there) effects such as bubble-rings/streaks - noticeable in broad areas of mid to light mid-tones (such as skies) when I'd omitted a pre-soak. Makes perfect sense to me...especially given the much higher relative activity of developer to emulsion during the early phases of the development cycle.

Interesting discussion though...that after a half-century of pre-soaking - I might now have reason to question its efficacy and/or safety!

[Pere Casals]

Interesting note regarding Ilford'd incorporation of surfactants to promote even development...and a warning about potential consequences of removing these surfactants via pre-soaking. Might be a bit ironic...but does not a pre-soak offer its own "surfactant" properties - which help to render the emulsion more amenable to even development? So...pre-soak vs. no pre-soak would not really matter? But then...what about the presence of anti-halation backing? I know that the presence of this backing might have no untoward effect...but I've always felt better to see this left in the pre-soak rather than in the developer.

I do have a suspicion (based on some experiences/results) that...at least to the extent that, as I tray-process by hand...a dry emulsion introduced directly into a tray of developer (especially a staining/hardening developer) is much more vulnerable to showing handling artifacts than the same emulsion which had been given a pre-soak.

As for roll films...I have in the past had some problems with some (admittedly subtle but still there) effects such as bubble-rings/streaks - noticeable in broad areas of mid to light mid-tones (such as skies) when I'd omitted a pre-soak. Makes perfect sense to me...especially given the much higher relative activity of developer to emulsion during the early phases of the development cycle.

Interesting discussion though...that after a half-century of pre-soaking - I might now have reason to question its efficacy and/or safety!

"When sodium carbonate, one of the most commonly used alkali in film developers, comes into contact with acid (from the stop bath), carbon dioxide gas is released which can cause blistering in the emulsion of both film and paper." Page 103, The Darkroom Cookbook . IMHO bubbles are normally not due to pre-soak lack, nor bromide streaks.

Just make a test, pre-soak half of a test negative longer than the other half, you'll get a pretty uneven development, I tested that. So a short pre-soak that may end in an irregular wetting by the time developer is used, provocating unevenness. Also surfactants can be irregularly removed, I guess.

It is true that AA was recommending pre-soak, but we should know if in that era surfactants were included in the emulsion...

[Andrew O'Neill]

Never.