Distilled water, have some around when developing

I use distilled water with rinseaid for the final wash and also for the development with Rodinal as our water here has so many traces of minerals which might effect it.
 
I prefer a timer and some music playing in the background; when using Diafine, music alone is enough when I play pieces I already know, which help me clock and keep me entertained. I'd hate to spoil a good beer (or wine) taste with fixer fumes.
 
I find wetting agent concentration to be very critical. The 1:200 is the maximum I dare use, or it starts making things worse again, and below 1:400 it's homeopathic and I might as well use plain distilled/de-ionized water.

My hard tap water is all I use for most things except the final wash and rinse. I do the Ilford sequence (5-10-20 inversions) with tap water, because washing is more efficient with hard water, then another 20 inversions in distilled water (use it and chuck it) then a final 30-second rinse in Agepon (Agfa's wetting agent -- I bought a litre many years ago) as close as I can easily make it to 1+300. This last bath is re-used for as many films as I do that day.

Two further thoughts are that Paterson water 'filters' (actually strainers -- see link below) are invaluable, and that I, too, heard the story about residues on plastic reels (not metal) in pre-Internet days. I strongly suspect that all you need is good cleaning in hot water, but even so, I transfer from plastic to stainless for the final rinse if I've used plastic (as I often do for 120).

Paterson filters (brilliant tools): http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/mt paterson water filter.html

Cheers,

R.
 
I have access to a MilliQ machine and use 0.22 micron filtered MilliQ water for all stages of photo processing, but Adelaide tap water is notoriously dodgy. Back in the 1970s and 80s, Adelaide had honour of being the only place in the developed world where international shipping would not take on drinking water. Funny.

I am just at the end of a long (~4 years) 'trial' examining the issues of plastic reels and wetting agent residue. I have come to the conclusion that it can occur, but you have to be incredibly careless, almost to the point of obstinate recklessness, to actually achieve sufficient residue to make your reels malfunction.

Good water is an integral part of the fight against dust and marks. I've been fighting those since the first time I stepped into a darkroom.

Marty
 
Roger Hicks said:
Two further thoughts are that Paterson water 'filters' (actually strainers -- see link below) are invaluable, and that I, too, heard the story about residues on plastic reels (not metal) in pre-Internet days. I strongly suspect that all you need is good cleaning in hot water, but even so, I transfer from plastic to stainless for the final rinse if I've used plastic (as I often do for 120).
Click to expand...

I do not understand. Why not just start with a metal reel if you want to do the final rinse on a metal reel, thereby avoiding the extra film handling?
 
semilog said:
I do not understand. Why not just start with a metal reel if you want to do the final rinse on a metal reel, thereby avoiding the extra film handling?
Click to expand...

Two reasons: First, I can process two films end to end on a plastic spool, but not on stainless, and second, if I use the CPE-2, I have to use plastic.

Cheers,

R.
 
Freakscene said:
I have access to a MilliQ machine and use 0.22 micron filtered MilliQ water for all stages of photo processing, but Adelaide tap water is notoriously dodgy. Back in the 1970s and 80s, Adelaide had honour of being the only place in the developed world where international shipping would not take on drinking water. Funny.

I am just at the end of a long (~4 years) 'trial' examining the issues of plastic reels and wetting agent residue. I have come to the conclusion that it can occur, but you have to be incredibly careless, almost to the point of obstinate recklessness, to actually achieve sufficient residue to make your reels malfunction.

Good water is an integral part of the fight against dust and marks. I've been fighting those since the first time I stepped into a darkroom.

Marty
Click to expand...

Dear Marty,

Great! That'll save me a few minutes each time I process a batch of films.

It's always the 'fear factor': the crossover pont between which you think "This guy REALLY doesn't know what he's talking about" (using wash aid with films and RC paper) and "I've never seen any research on this and can't be arsed to check it for myself, and it's not too much trouble, so I'll err on the side of caution."

In the middle comes "On the balance of probability, I don't think this is likely to be a problem, and it's certainly not worth the hassle."

@Semilog, "^--- Ah, that makes complete sense. A failure of imagination on my part. " No, I think I'd have asked the same question myself, so we must be about equal in imagination here. My post was of a type all too common on the interned: "I know the answer, so I can't think why anyone else wouldn't."

Of course, that one gets really interesting when you only think you know the answer...

Cheers,

R.
 
sazerac said:
Back when I started photography someone told me not to use photo flow on my reels and in my tanks because it would leave a residue. I have been removing the film from my reels and soaking the film in a bucket of photo flow and then hang to dry. I use stainless reels. Has anyone else heard of this? This is one old habit I'd like to drop to make my life easier.
Click to expand...

This is JOBO`s official statement to the topic, available on their web-site (... and being a chemist myself it actually makes sense to me):
Why can't I use stabilizer, Photo Flo, or other wetting agents in my JOBO tanks?

Stabilizer or wetting agents, of any type, any brand, should not be used in the tank or with the film on the reels. It doesn't really damage the reel, but it causes a sludge-like build-up which ultimately can cause contamination and loading problems. Wetting agents and stabilizers don't wash off. They seem to chemically bond with anything they contact. Kodak even has instructions for users of stainless steel reels for reducing (not eliminating) the buildup.
In our darkroom at JOBO USA, we use a Rubbermaid or Tupperware type container to hold our stabilizer. The snap-on lid keeps the solution clean between uses and we don't have to smell the odor from the stabilizer. We choose a container deep enough for 120 film and wide enough for 4x5 film. When we're ready to stabilize the film, we simply twist the roll film reel counterclockwise to open the two halves, and then allow the film to drop into the solution. After one minute, we wipe off the excess with a JOBO squeegee. We don't get any scratches on the film, and we avoid build-up on the reels.
​
 
If you're in NA, Walmart sells a 7 gal. BPA free, Canadian made blue water container. Take that to a friend's place, or coffee shop with an RO filter and use that water.

Alternatively, if you run into a sale of Aquafina, and it's lower priced than distilled, that should work well.

Use a TDS meter to ensure there are no solids in your developing/processing water.
 
Wow, wonderful to what extend some people are going to avoid water spots. Photo-flo or no photo-flo, purifide water or not, if the surface of the film is contaminated (and chances are it is after all handling from production stage to the developing tank) there will be always inconsistent results with final rinse.
 
timor said:
...................... if the surface of the film is contaminated (and chances are it is after all handling from production stage to the developing tank) there will be always inconsistent results with final rinse.
Click to expand...

I am very confident that my film, except for the leader and last 1" where it is attached to the spool, is untouched by human hands until I cut it into 5 frame strips. And even then, only the edges.
 
timor said:
That's you. What before that ?
Are you still having spots ? Time to time ?
Click to expand...

Before the film comes to me, I am positive it is untouched by human hands. It is loaded onto spools and put into canisters by a machine at the factory, not by a bunch of people sitting in a dark room doing it by hand.

I cannot say I never have water spots. I never say never. But it approaches that level.
 
Of course machines are doing this. But before that film must be created. I don't think Kodak is doing it, nor Ilford. Some chemical factory is creating sheets of that thing, which has to be rolled to the thickness, cut into stripes, perforated etc. All by machines and machines like to be lubricated, fluids are used on rollers to avoid sticking of warm material to it, the whole process of manufacturing. Then Kodak will apply emulsion, film runs again through rollers. Did you notice that 99% of spots is happening on the celluloid side of the negative ? Almost never on emulsion side ?
Wow, long story. I gonna shut up now.
 
This water spot business seems like the kind of thing that would easily be clarified with a few actual lab tests.

The more I think about it, though, I like the notion that water can adhere in the sprockets of 35mm film. Then, while it hangs to dry, gravity overcomes the surface tension holding the water in place, and a little bead of water rolls out onto a partially dry negative.
 
timor said:
Of course machines are doing this. But before that film must be created. I don't think Kodak is doing it, nor Ilford. Some chemical factory is creating sheets of that thing, which has to be rolled to the thickness, cut into stripes, perforated etc. All by machines and machines like to be lubricated, fluids are used on rollers to avoid sticking of warm material to it, the whole process of manufacturing. Then Kodak will apply emulsion, film runs again through rollers. Did you notice that 99% of spots is happening on the celluloid side of the negative ? Almost never on emulsion side ?
Wow, long story. I gonna shut up now.
Click to expand...

Some coating lines actually suspend the substrate on air so it doesn't touch any rollers. The film is coated as 'mother rolls' (great big ones) which are then 'converted' (slit, chopped, and, if necessary, perforated).

It seems logical to me that most drying marks would be on the non-emulsion side as it's easier for the water to bead on a non-absorbent surface. This also explains why 35mm is worse than 120: there's often an anti-curl backing on the other side of 120, and it's (relatively) easy to put something in the backing to stop the water beading.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom