Do you Pre-wash your film?

Do you Pre-wash your film?

  • Yes

    Votes: 233 42.5%

  • No

    Votes: 261 47.6%

  • What's a pre-wash?

    Votes: 54 9.9%
  • Total voters
    548
The main reason I did not use a prewash was because I was working for a newspaper and the film wet time had to be kept to a minimum in order to make deadline.
 
I really like the prewash of ... delta 3200 in 120 size, I think - it comes out purple. The first time you do it, the thought goes through your head, that you have just washed the image right off the film!
 
I only soak E-6, to get the temperature right and because they instructions say so. But as for B&W...I used to do it until I was developing some Neopan 400, and the emulsion on the leader just flaked off in my hands while I was hanging it up to dry. Eventually I figured out (with the help of Fuji) that something in the forumlation reacted to the high hydrogen sulfide content in my well water, which I'd been using straight from the tap as a pre-soak.
 
No. I have lived in many areas with variable water, used many films and may devs and I have never found any reason or benefit. I have done it on recommendation (pyrocat some years back) but when I stopped, saw no changes whatsoever so never bothered again. That includes when using Efke films, staining devs etc, but then again I am sure there are times when it is a good idea.

Personally, I have seen no practical benefit at all.
 
Last edited:
I prewash film. Not because I believe it washes away any antihalation layers or brings the film to the correct temperature or any other reason like that.
I do it because the water always comes out bubbling from my tap. It almost feels like its pouring out carbonated water. Very bubbly. When I don't presoak I the bubbles find a way on to the film and leave spots and airbells. By coincidence of prosoaking I don't have air spots anymore.
 
I started developing my own film recently, and I've taken a very half-assed approach to it. I load in the wardrobe
(with light leaks🙂), and then shake the film about then now and again once it's in the tank whenever I've come back from watching tv, or whenever I've finished buttering my toast. I don't leave film in a developer overnight or anything(that's a bit ridiculous, I do actually care about my photographs), but I take a very relaxed approach to development and I have no idea what pre-washing means(other than the educated guess that it involves putting the film into some sort of liquid before it goes into some other sort of liquid). I like to think that it's composition and exposure that are important rather than development. I really went off track there didn't I..
 
I don't presoak. I ran a test to compare results with a few films and found no difference at all. I have never had any bubbles or bromide drag or uneven development problem either. I have a small tank for 2 35mm or 1 120 rolls, with plastic reels, and use all my chemicals only once.

Cheers,

Juan
 
I don't pre-wash with most films, but if I'm using any of the Rollei films I do, just to get rid of the dye - the water comes out a very vivid colour!
(I quite like the Rollei films, but the negs are a pain to scan as they just curl up which makes it hard to get them in the negative holder!)
 



I recently processed a large number of rolls of 35mm b+w film, after using a lab service for years (they screw up 4 rolls of non replaceable photos). I read everything I could find published by both Ilford and Fujifilm, the makers of the film I use. I found one of them suggesting not to pre-wash (I’ve looked for the citation and can’t find it). The reason given was that the current thin-based film material would benefit from the shortest wet time during processing. This didn’t stop me from using a 1:1 solution of D76 or using a Permawash + 10 minute wash. The film looked good. I didn’t pre-wet for this batch, but will pre-wet in future processing. I always thought that a soft emulsion was a plus. And, also thought that any small particles logged in the film cassettes or on my tank and reels might be removed during the pre-wash before the developer hit the film. Any advice on my technique is welcome.
 
ZorkiKat said:
Some of Ilford's recommendations don't, and won't work all the time. Like Prewetting and Use of Hardening fixer plus short washes.

Apparently Ilford forget that there are places in the planet where "room temp" is around 30-35C and that the tap will spout water at about the same temps.

It's one thing to temper the processing solutions (dev/stop/fix) at the recommended temps, but it's an entirely different thing to chill wash water as well. Possible but not practical. Ilford advocate the use of non-hardening fixers and short washes. That's sound, since little fixer is retained by unhardened emulsions.

But do that in the tropics, and the emulsion frills or crazes. Seen it happen. Not just with the oldfashioned Efke films, but with Fuji Neopan, and Ilford Pan F as well.

However, using hardening fixer makes the emulsion tougher. And washing the film even in water as it comes out of the local tap doesn't cause their gelatin to swell too much or abrade easily. Washing is longer than what Ilford now say; but since the water here is warmer, the cycle isn't as long as the 30-60 min routine for the 15-20C taps in colder climates.

And prewet here HAS an advantage- it prevents the 'hot' film, reel, and tank from warming the cool developer. That's the reverse of what the fussy tea lovers do in preparing tea - warming up the pot first before putting in the leaves. The English know this well...😎
Click to expand...

In doing some recent processing I found Fuji asking for hardner in the fixer for Acros 100 processing. Fuji chemicals aren't sold here in California. I called Fuji and spoke to a chemist and asked how much hardner to add (using Kodak Rapid Fix w/seprtate hardner) he told me he didn't know. So I used about 1/4 of the amount given for a Gal. of solution. Your post has me thinking. I didn't think about tap water much higher than 20c. What kind of chemicals and film do you use? p.
 
Roger Hicks said:
A litre and a half is not a very big barrel. That's one of the reasons they recommend this wash technique.

No-one is going to argue that your technique doesn't work for you.

It is widely known that very high temperatures can cause film processing problems. I don't think Ilford has 'forgotten' anything, including this.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I think Roger has a point here. I remember reading about a short wash description in my recent reading. There was a very short, complete change of wash water, proceedure described in, (I think it was) Ilford's web site. Remember, you can always re-fix and re-wash if the results aren't up to par. If I were in the tropics with film to process, I would give it a try. p.
 
I pre-wash / soak only when I need to. And that is only when I have problems when I don't pre-wash. For example, I had a combi plan tank and sometimes saw streaking where developer was running down the film as I poured it in. The thing fills so slowly that dev starts where it runs down film well before the whole 4x5 sheet is covered leaving streaks. Pre-wash helps stop that as the film is already full of water. But then you need longer time to compensate for pre-wash. Got rid of the combi plan and bought a jobo 2521 instead. Much better.
 
Doug said:
Some films have an anti-halation dye that dissolves out into the developer, staining the developer.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I always wondered what that was and why I only got it occasionally. (Delta 400?).

I'm with sepiareverb on this. Most books I have read recommend it, giving more even development as the reason. I therefore presoak when my developing time is short. Usually however, my times are over 10 or 12 minutes because I like using dilute developers. In this case I figure that development is slow enough that it shouldn't matter.
 
drewbarb said:
The issue of pre-wetting or pre-washing film has come up in several threads recently. This got me thinking. I learned to process film 20 years ago, and never heard of the technique of pre-washing film until I started processing film at a small high-end black and white boutique lab in NYC eight years ago. The guy who founded the lab trains everyone who works there in his methods of processing film, regardless of their experience. His methods include a pre-wash in plain water of all films to be developed in standard developers, except where contra-indicated. The way it was explained to me, pre-washing helps in a variety of ways, including stabilizing the the film at the development temperature, and swelling the emulsion, preparing it for the developer. The idea is that this results in more even and consistent developing, and slightly finer grain.

Regardles of the precise science or voodoo here, I have continued the practice ever since. I now run a small lab offering boutique black and white services to a few other photographers, and I pre-wash all my own film and all the film I run for my clients (except films that will be run in two bath developers like Diafine which specifically indicate not pre-wetting).

So that's what I was taught, and this has been my experience. I'd like to know your thoughts on the practice, and get an idea of if and why people do this or don't do it. Thanks.

(Edit for clarity.)
Click to expand...


Drew if you don't mind me asking, what is the name of your lab? I didnt know anyone in Louisville still did B+W development. I know that Murphy's doesn't and I though Fulltone and Motophoto sent theres off somewhere out of state.

Oh and to answer the poll, I do not pre-wash anymore. I was told and read that it didn't make a difference, I've seen no differences since I've stopped.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Interesting. Most of the books I've read reckon it's a waste of time with most films and developers. We must read different books.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

-Ansel Adams "The Negative"
-Henry Horenstein "Beyond Basic Photography"
-Jack Coote "Monochrome Darkroom Practise" who doesn't specifically recommend it but briefly discusses the reasons its done. Coote worked for Ilford for years. Its interesting to note that he does specifically recommend it for XPI400 (now XP2?). There have been many threads from people developing their own XP2.
 
I've found a film that actually needs a prewet in my darkroom- Rollei Pan 25. I get lots of airbells without a PhotoFlo prewet, none with. This with a long development time. Tested it several times, for I find it a pita.
 
Fawley said:
-Ansel Adams "The Negative"
-Henry Horenstein "Beyond Basic Photography"
-Jack Coote "Monochrome Darkroom Practise" who doesn't specifically recommend it but briefly discusses the reasons its done. Coote worked for Ilford for years. Its interesting to note that he does specifically recommend it for XPI400 (now XP2?). There have been many threads from people developing their own XP2.
Click to expand...

Well, first, I said 'most films and developers'. The fact that Coote did recommend it for one film and no others tells you something. So does the fact that this recommendation is dropped from later editions, after XP2 came out (3rd ed, 1996). And the six lines on pre-soaks on page 102 certainly don't recommend it, though equally clearly, they don't condemn it: manufacturers don't like to offend their customers, even (or especially) when the customers don't know what they're talking about. The Ilford Party Line at the time was that it was theoretically a bad idea, but in practice harmless and pointless (source: Mike Gristwood, then at Ilford).

Likewise Clerc (Photography Theory and Practice), one of the standard works, says that it is often used for 'quantity work with sensitive material in long bands (e.g. cinematograph film)', often in association with a wetting agent, but then goes on to say that 'preliminary wetting has usually no advantage in cut sizes' except when a wetting agent is added to a desensitizing bath. I'd back his sensitometry against AA's any day.

I can find no references to the advantages of pre-wets in Haist (Modern Photographic Processing), Glafkides (Chimie et Physique Photographiques) or Neblette (Photography, Its Principles and Practice), probably the most highly regarded standard works: if it's in there at all, it's well hidden. The same is true of John & Field, Textbook of Photographic Chemistry, and the only reference I can find in Shepherd and Mees's classic work, The Photographic Process, says, "A plate soaked in water to near its maximum swelling, develops as fast, or faster, than a dry plate" sic. That was with a ferrous oxalate developer. Later research by others indicated that developer concentration was very important, and might result in longer or shorter development times.

Craeybeckx in the Gaevert Manual of Photography -- a manufacturer again (and remember, Clerc and Haist both worked for Kodak) -- says 'the pre-soak is generally unnecessary with modern developers containing wetting agents', and since that was written in the 1950s, many emulsions also contain wetting agent. Freeman, in Basic Photography, a Primer for Professionals, advocates adding a small amount of wetting agent to all developers made up from bulk but does not advocate pre-washes. I can find no mention of pre-washes/pre-soaks in the 5-volume Kodak Darkroom Dataguide; if they were any use, you would expect to find them in GN-11, Negative Quality

The Ilford Manual of Photography, 5th edition, 7th reprint (with revisions) 1966 specifically recommends against it for flat film but advocates it for some (unspecified) fine-grain developers: "Previous wetting of flat films or plates in a so-called "forebath" is not normally recommended . . . tends to encourage uneven development in the form of streakiness . . . may also necessitate a different development time -- usually longer than the normal time -- a point which is readily overlooked. Pre-soaking is desirable when certain fine-grain developers are employed, to discharge backing dyes which would otherwise interfere with development. It is also justified prior to the dish development of roll films, to reduce the tendency of the film to curl."

Finally, consider a simple observation. If pre-wetting were really of any significant use for a majority of films and developers, or even for a significant minority, it would be given a prominent place in all books on photography and would be advocated as an all but essential step. The fact that it is not so promoted suggests, very strongly, that it is effectively an irrelevance.

Cheers,

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