Pre-soaking negs

I've never done a water pre soak before developing. I read it is so the negatives will "soak" in the developer. Is it better? I'd try it myself if I just could get those dang film hangers that are on back order from Calumet. Call me whatever you want, I'll never give up the "darkroom".

Sorry. I tried to erase that last sentence. I

just don't want to be looked at as a

"dinasour". I don't want to feel ancient or

out dated for doing my craft the traditional

way. Whatever draws me to use a view

camera, also does so with the traditional

darkroom. I think this style of printing is a

craft to be appreciated, just like the

appreciation we give to the view camera. A

medium format camera would make life a

lot easier, but I choose to lug that awsome

piece of 4x5 equipment around instead. Is it

that I'm not evolving, and my darkroom will

be near impossible to use at some point in

my lifetime. Gee, I hope not.

I always did pre-soak my large-format negatives, the reason being that

due to the large surface the negatives might streak and soaking makes

the gelatine more receptive to the developer, at least , that's what I

got told and I've never questioned the good results. I think that you

are right to do so and I am interested in the answers too!

About the cameras and the darkroom. This is precisely what I meant

while answering somewhere else on the forum a entry which question the

traditional darkroom to favour the digital one. I mean it is a

contradiction to use a view camera and the do your printing on digital.

I would be like to play medieval music on a sinthesizer which had been

sampling the sound of the original instuments.

The result can be interesting but the point is missed.

regards

I generally pre-soak for about a minute when using T-max emulsions. I

get consistently good results. One thing you might consider if you are

using the Ilford Delta films is that they incorporate a built-in

wetting agent that Ilford says eliminates the need for pre-soak. If

you do pre-soak those films, you will alter your development time, or

so I am led to believe!

If you are pre-soaking, per JOBO tech types, TMax films do best with

a 5 minute soak and the other films do well with about 2 minutes. If

what you are doing works well, why change it? If you are starting

out, try some using a pre-soak and some without and see if one gives

any advantage over the other. If there is no actual advantage you can

see, then you can go without the pre-soak.

Raven I always presoak both roll and sheet films for about 30 secs.

to 1 min. The one time I didn't I got "air bells" and uneven

development. Also this helps to bring the dev. tank to the same temp.

as the developer solution.

Regards,

Trevor MONO-CRONE dinasour

I've read that pre-soaking film, regardless of the manufacturer

will cause a change in the development time due to the fact that

the water in the emulsion must be "replaced" by developer, and

that can take up to one minute to happen.

Yes, pre-soaking can and most likely will change your development

time a bit. But if you are a careful and observant worker you will do

a basic test or two & find the times that work for you and how you

photograph. The basic times are only a starting point. Many I know

who follow them never realize the full potential of their negatives

as they live with over or underdevelopment and don't know the

difference. A small bit of time testing can save you years of

mediocre images. Also, don't be afraid of longer development times,

well past 10-15 minutes, if they give you the results you are looking

and hoping for.

As one who is getting close to pre-dating the dinosaur age, I have

been presoak negs for about 40 years because the man who taught me to

develop film said to. I have never found a reason not to. I believe

it makes the developer even out. I also never have air bubbles and I

have solved the air bubble problem for a lot of younger photographers

by suggesting a pre-soak. I usually add a bit more time to the

development to allow time for the developer to replace the water.

Some films, such as the old Plus-X emulsion, almost required a water

soak to prevent bubbles. The way I feel about it, it takes just a

minute or two, so why not do it for insurance. I manage to do about

every thing else to negs that can be done to damage them, but I never

have an air bubble.

Very short presoaks should be avoided. If the water does not have a

chance to soak the film evenly, it may cause uneven development. I

have tested the difference between presoaked and non-presoaked

negatives. I had to add about 15% to the development time with the

presoaked negatives to get similar densities.

I am a pre-soaker...in addition to all the other reasons given, I

feel it allows me to get the sheets organized and ready to slide into

the tray of developer... -Dave

I presoak everything for 5 minutes. What's wrong with being a

dinasour? Regards, Pat

Thanks everybody for the response. What is

wrong with being a dinasour???

I process sheet film in trays and presoak not only to promote even

development but to keep the damn film from sticking together-J

I believe the previous poster who mentioned "wetting agents" was

correct - Ilford (and maybe others?) incorporate a wetting agent with

their films. A way to pre-soak these films and not lose the benefits

of the surfactant is to use the pre-soak water in the developer.

While developing large film (12x20) in a tray, I do this by using a

tip I got from Fred Newman (of Darkroom Innovations - now called The

View Camera Store). I'm using D-76 at 1:1, and start by pre-soaking

the film in 16 oz. of water (at normal dev. temp) for 4 min., then

adding 16 oz. of D-76 directly to the water (giving me a dilution of

1:1) and starting the development timer at that point. It works

great - smooth skies, no streaking of any kind, etc. I don't see why

this method couldn't also be used in rotary tanks.

I don't think anyone who frequents a "Large Format Photography" page

would consider you a dinosaur for not wanting to give up silver based

photography and darkroom work.

 

<p>

 

The only times I can recall getting airbells (air bubbles) on my

negatives was when I didn't presoak, so I do it all the time, unless

the process forbids it (like 2 bath development, where airbells are

unlikely, anyhow).

 

<p>

 

I frequently do 2. I am sure this changes the development rate, but

I've never had uneven development with it. It just changes the total

time I need. A very short presoak is likely to give you uneven

absorbtion of the water and uneven development. One to 3 minutes

should prevent this, as it has for me.

I recently decided to switch to rotary processing for my negatives. I

decided to use the Jobo 2500 series tank for 120 and 4x5 negs. I was

having nothing but trouble until I discovered that the 5 minute

prewet suggested by Jobo was the problem. I just completed a test of

Agfa APX 100 in 120 size, developed in POTA. I found that the prewet

seiously distorts the characteristic curve, causing an increase in

density at the higher densities, thus increasing the overall contrast

by quite a bit. The curves with and without prewet fall on top of

each other up to a density of about 0.4. After that, the prewet

causes a growth of density which reaches 0.3 or so, and has the

effect of producing a very peculiar curve shape. Without the prewet,

the curve runs smooth and straight as can be.

Of course, I have not tested every film and developer, but my belief

is that the 5-minute prewet should be viewed with deep suspicion. I

will be keeping you posted on my website www.vsta.com/~alrob on

further research in this area.

 

<p>

 

Al Robinson