am I not using Photoflo correctly?

[AusDLK]

this these two frames from a 135 roll treated in Photoflo then transferred directly to a Kindermann forced air film dryer. scanned with a Nikon 5000.

i mixed about 1/2 oz. in 32 oz of distilled water.

are these messes Photoflo residue? they are not visible just looking at the negs, which look perfectly clean.

will rewashing get rid of these?

 

[Larry H-L]

I use only one or two drops in that much water. I would try to rewash, then weaker dilution, and lightly wipe it down (between two fingers works) then hang to dry. I don’t use heat.

 

[pixelated]

The standard dilution is 1:200, and depending on the water, some people consider that too high.
A rewash should help

 

[Muggins]

There's a whacking great fingerprint on the first one, and a less obvious one on the second (bottom left corner, only a partial print). I'm reasonably sure, unless you have a lab assistant named Florence, that PhotoFlo doesn't have fingers...

 

[AusDLK]

There's a whacking great fingerprint on the first one, and a less obvious one on the second (bottom left corner, only a partial print). I'm reasonably sure, unless you have a lab assistant named Florence, that PhotoDlo doesn't have fingers...

those are not fingerprints. the film was never touched

 

[AusDLK]

I use only one or two drops in that much water. I would try to rewash, then weaker dilution, and lightly wipe it down (between two fingers works) then hang to dry. I don’t use heat.

the Kindermann dryer is forced air only, no heat

 

[AusDLK]

The standard dilution is 1:200, and depending on the water, some people consider that too high.
A rewash should help

thanks, will try

 

[DownUnder]

I was told long ago that Photo Flo was one of those Urban Myths of darkroom processing. A small luxury but not at all essential.

Many darkroom workers use too much Photo Flo in the mix. And then make the mistake of bottling the solution and keeping it too long.

In my film processing avatar I used an eyedropper to measure my Photo Flo final rinse. A few drops in 500-600 mis of water in a Pyrex beaker, and that was it. Use a few times and then dump it.

Another friend used (and may still use) two drops of Dr Bronner's unscented liquid soap in a litter of water as his final rinse. Soaked the film/s for one minute, hang up the films, squeegee and that was it. Perfect negatives.

A carefully used squeegee on well-washed film when you hang it up, is just as effective.

To clean so-called 'contaminated' plastic reels, soak them in a mix of sodium bicarbonate (about half a teaspoon) and a dash of household vinegar in 500 mis of warm water. Leave for 10 minutes and then soak in a few changes of water. That's all there is to it. Stainless steel reels can be soaked in hot water - the guck easily washes off the metal.

Old tricks. We had dozens of 'quickies' in our darkrooms in the '60s and '70s, mostly from columns in the now long-gone famous US photo magazines. I once thought there could be a great book written about those, but somehow I never did get around to writing it...

TBH I used Photo Flo for many years only because I had two bottles of the stuff. One I bought in the 1960s - it lasted til 2000. The other was a gift from someone who closed up his darkroom. - I still have it and it will surely outlive me.

 

[Freakscene]

I got marks like this with Photo Flo 200 at 1:200. 1:400 both worked and did not leave marks.

Not that there are (were?) three strengths of Photo Flo.

How necessary it is depends greatly on your water and drying method.

 

[OmegaB600]

most people dont understand photo flo and what it does.

it removes moisture. and to be honest, negatives with more dark areas on the negative, NEED help getting the moisture out. photo flo helps.

by using it you help fight curling.


now the images above won't help determine anything, one needs a photo of the actual negative taken at short distance with the surface tilted to a light source to see whats ON the negative surface.

 

[Freakscene]

most people dont understand photo flo and what it does.

it removes moisture. and to be honest, negatives with more dark areas on the negative, NEED help getting the moisture out. photo flo helps.

by using it you help fight curling.


now the images above won't help determine anything, one needs a photo of the actual negative taken at short distance with the surface tilted to a light source to see whats ON the negative surface.

Photo Flo lowers surface tension. It actually makes your negatives dry more slowly. It does not remove moisture.

 

[AusDLK]

i re-wet the offending film in distilled water, let it sit for a few minutes. then dried again in my Kindermann dryer. the PF residue messes on the negatives were gone. i know that PF removes surface tension, as Mr. Freakscene pointed out, it cannot remove moisture.



my conclusion pending more film yet to develop is that i don't need to use PF with my dryers -- as long as i rinse in distilled water after washing.

i have been using Kindermann film dryers since i was a kid. fortunately, i have two of them, but they are nearly impossible to find any more.



mine look like the above but are dark blue in color. two 135 reels drop into the opening. there's an extension that allows two additional reels to be stacked, so up to four films can be dried at the same time.

i never hang my film to dry. too much dust in the air.

 

[Beemermark]

those are not fingerprints. the film was never touched

That's a finger print in the first photo. No if's or buts. Not sure I see anything in the second negative, it's not photo flo I use Photo flo all the time. After the photo flo rinse I use the nearest cotton towel to wipe the negative off. Too much photo flo leaves a very noticeable scum on the negatives which can be washed off after drying. So 1:200 or less. The hardness of the water is what determines the use of photo flo. Dish washer liquid also works but like others have posted a very weak dilution.

 

[Muggins]

That's a finger print in the first photo. No if's or buts.

If it's not, it's a thumb print or a toe print!

 

[AusDLK]

gentlemen, it's not a fingerprint. the film was never removed from the reel until it was scanned and could not have been touched. i wore a white glove when handling the film for the scan. the "fingerprint" (or "toe print"!) was gone after the re-wet that i described. i've seen similar patterns on previous scans that i discovered too late to do anything about. in this case, it's PF scum that wants to be a fingerprint.

Mr. Beemermark, the same with the area of the less affected scan, scum gone.

finally, anyone who knows anything will always use distilled water for a PF mixture, if not to mix all chemisty.

i did misuse PF, shoulda known better.