Pre-soak or not?

M

marke

Well-known
Local time
7:39 PM
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
1,099
Location
Wisconsin, USA
View My Gallery
When I first learned film developing 36 years ago, I never heard of pre-soaking the film. But when I returned to souping my own last year, the instructor in the refresher course I took told me to pre-soak. I've been doing it ever since, but I'm wondering what circumstances might determine when it's best to pre-soak and when it's not.
 
marke said:
When I first learned film developing 36 years ago, I never heard of pre-soaking the film. But when I returned to souping my own last year, the instructor in the refresher course I took told me to pre-soak. I've been doing it ever since, but I'm wondering what circumstances might determine when it's best to pre-soak and when it's not.
Click to expand...

Do not presoak prior to using a two-part developer. The design of such developers has the film's emulsion sucking up the Part A developer, which is retained by the film before Part B is poured in. If you presoak, the 'sponge' is already full - Part A won't be picked up as readily (or at all) by the film's emulsion.

Diafine is one such developer - don't presoak it.

I typically never presoak anyway.
 
Ilford Party Line:

It is not a good idea, but the theoretical objections are rarely significant in practice, so if it makes you happy, do it.

EXCEPT, as others have noted, with two-bath developers, where it's a truly rotten idea, for the reasons they give.

Pre-soaking attracts as much religious warfare as agitation (cf agitation thread).

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Last edited:
On Pnet somebody recommended pre-soaking if using a jobo and a film with short dev-times, I can kind of see why but even with less than 10 minutes it usually works for me.

martin
 
Somewhere I read that it helps the emulsion swell... or something to that effect.

I pre-soak. Makes me feel better than pouring developer so rudely on an otherwise fast asleep roll of film (however crudely it was separated from its metallic womb of the canister). 🙂
 
Believe Ilford. After all, they make the film. I imagine they run countless rolls of test films. If they say it makes no sense to pre soak, then they're probably right.
 
I presoak 120 film because in my experience it prevents some patches of underdevelopment. More like disks of underdevelopment. Fairly subtle, but visible in clear skies.

I don't with 35mm and have never had uneven development. This for 40years plus.

Why the difference? I can't figure it out.

I use Jobo inversion tanks, lots of agitation to start then not much.
 
I never pre-soaked until two years ago, but now do it 100% of the time. Kind of makes sense, to me, that a developer will have a better chance of penetrating evenly into a wet emulsion that a totally dry one.

I have no idea whether I'm right or wrong. I do like the results I get so will continue to pre-soak.

Jim B.
 
Ten years ago I worked in a boutique b&w lab in NYC; the guy who started it, on the strength of his processing skill and reputation, taught me to do it, at least while I worked processing film in his lab.

Now out on my own, I've noticed some film/developer combos are better without a pre wet, where others seem to give better results with one. I don't worry about it too much- but I will say that certainly the advice not to pre wet with any two bath developer is correct. I also don't pre wet any film when using Rodinal 1:50 (a favorite).

Om the other hand, if I'm processing in HC110, Ilford FP4 and HP5 both look better to me if they get a pre wet- as do Kodak Tri-X, and a few other films. Your mileage may vary.

I used to be one of the religious ones on this topic, but since I've learned better, I got over it.
 
Last edited:
drewbarb said:
...I also don't pre wet any film when using Rodinal 1:50 (a favorite)...
Click to expand...

Interesting what you say about Rodinal. It is, as I understand, an extremely active developer and as such begins to act immediately and with great vigor (so to speak). So, if there would be a film to pre-soak (according to the reasoning of pre-soak zealots 🙄 ) Rodinal would absolutely be the developer to do that with. Go figure. Not one iota of this makes sense to this 20+ year black and white film guy.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys. As I stated earlier, I've been pre-soaking since my refresher class last year, except for a few times I felt courageous. And I can't say I noticed a difference. I had felt that it might allow the film better/more even absorbtion of the developer, possibly eliminating any air bubbles. But in reality, I have never had an air bubble on film in my life, and couldn't see how it would happen if you agitate and tap. So I guess I'll just eliminate that step from now on. And that means more drinking water for my dog too. 😉
 
Pre-soak may help cut-down on antihalation stuff

Pre-soak may help cut-down on antihalation stuff

On some of the Kodak film, pre-soak may help get rid of the antihalation coating.

I think it was T-Max film that usually has more antihalation coating than TriX.

But if you don't have problem with purple cast after souping, no need to do it.

-PB
 
pbhome said:
On some of the Kodak film, pre-soak may help get rid of the antihalation coating.

I think it was T-Max film that usually has more antihalation coating than TriX.

But if you don't have problem with purple cast after souping, no need to do it.

-PB
Click to expand...


Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is antihalation coating?

Ever so often I do get a bit of a purple cast, but I thought that was either do to a spent fixer or not enough washing.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
The unloved Panasonic Lumix GF1
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Archiver
A
Hayli
Pentax 17 rewind knob not turning when advancing
Replies
8
Views
1K
Godfrey
Godfrey
Mos6502
Nikor Developing Tanks and Reels (Legends and Lore?)
Replies
17
Views
3K
Beemermark
Beemermark
Muggins
Six-20 "Kodak" Junior
Replies
0
Views
538
Muggins
Muggins
underlord
Pointless post or end of an era?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
JSteed#2
J
Back
Top Bottom