Do you Pre-wash your film? [Archive]

drewbarb

07-24-2007, 09:13

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.)

shadowfox

07-24-2007, 09:31

His methods include a pre-wash for all films 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.

So you pre-wash in the developer to prepare the film for the developer. I'm sorry, I don't get it :(. Could you elaborate a little on the actual process to help newbies like me?

BillBingham2

07-24-2007, 09:35

My guess is that you prewash the film in a water bath at the same temperature as you are using throughout the process. Interesting idea, how long do you do it for? My guess is about three minutes, but that is only a guess.

B2 (;->

drewbarb

07-24-2007, 09:36

So you pre-wash in the developer to prepare the film for the developer. I'm sorry, I don't get it :(. Could you elaborate a little on the actual process to help newbies like me?
Hey Fox- Sorry- maybe I should have been clearer. Pre-wetting is the practice of soaking the film in plain water before the developer. I use 2 minutes in clean water, same temperature as my dev, same agitation routine. Hopefully this thread will yeild other thoughts on the possible benefits of the practice.

payasam

07-24-2007, 09:41

Pre-wetting film makes sense, which is why people do it: but if the tank is tapped smartly on the table top once the developer has been poured in, there's little danger of air bubbles remaining.

jan normandale

07-24-2007, 10:01

Barb, I develop my own. I don't prewash. I read your post to a thread elsewhere here at RFF and saw you mention this part of your process.

Thanks for the idea, I'm going to try it.

nikon_sam

07-24-2007, 10:12

Drew,

I did it years and years ago (I think it started for me with Ilford films) and then I dropped doing it...
The reasoning back then that I read was "for more even developing and to help prevent pinholes (air bubbles) in film" or something like that...
I think I'll be trying it again...

Thanks,

BTW...I posted two shots in the "Pink Problem" thread for you to gander...

rich815

07-24-2007, 10:40

I thought I remember somewhere reading that Ilford specifically recommended against it for their films. Something about how it washed away a wetting agent or something that Ilford felt helped in the development process. That said I've started doing it when I use the more specialized developers like Dixactol Lux and Exactol as they are prone to uneven development if the film and canister are a different temp than the developer and if the developer hits the dry film unevenly when being poured into the small tanks. It did help for that. Otherwise with developers like D-76 and Rodinal I sometimes do it when I rememeber but do not recall any benefit or detriment.

oftheherd

07-24-2007, 10:51

I thought I remember somewhere reading that Ilford specifically recommended against it for their films. Something about how it washed away a wetting agent or something that Ilford felt helped in the development process.
...

I always wondered what Ilford did differently. I noticed back in the 70s that their film dried differently than anyone elses. I just couldn't get uneven drying which was the cause of drying spots or in extreme cases, drying blemishes. A drop of water anywhere on FP4 or HP5 was difussed out in the film and no drying spot. I thought is was neat, and figured it had something to do with the emulsion or base. Maybe it was an additive after all. Whatever, I really liked that about their film.

EDIT: I don't use a prewash. I think I may have tried it a couple of times when I first read about it, didn't see any noticable difference, and decided it was more trouble than it was worth. I know many people swear by the procdure though. As I mentioned in the other thread, I think it had to do both with presumed more even development, and not needing stop bath. Some people think that is too much of a shock to their film.

Doug

07-24-2007, 10:57

Some films have an anti-halation dye that dissolves out into the developer, staining the developer. If you reuse developer, then you might prefer it not be stained. A pre-wash will dissolve the anti-halation dye to protect the developer. One reason for pre-wash anyway. When I've done it I've also added just a drop of Photo-Flo wetting agent to help avoid air bubbles.

One problem, theoretical, is that after the pre-wash the water now present in the emulsion may slow the developer in reaching where it needs to work, and dilutes it there if only at the beginning. It's this very effect which makes the pre-wash a bad idea with Diafine, which relies on full-strength Part A soaking into the emulsion.

topoxforddoc

07-24-2007, 12:08

I don't bother and never have. With B/W everything is pretty much at room temp anyway before you start.

Charlie

.JL.

07-24-2007, 12:15

I don't pre-wet my film, and will probably never try it unless I run into uneven development problems. Fairly consistent results so far, and no problems at all.

sjt

07-24-2007, 12:38

I have been prewashing films for about 10 years. I pour in pre wash, agitate 10 inversions, tap tank on table to release bubbles. I repeat with the film, and I cut development by 20% to compensate for the dev being able to take quicker due to the emulsion being wet.

The reason I heard for it that convinced me to do it was that the prewash makes the film wet and when the developer is poured in it can take to the film more evenly, thus helping even development. I think the example was illustrated by pouring water over a piece of dry film and the water ran in different directions, wetting the film unevenely where the water ran. If this is dev on a dry film, then this may encourage uneven development where the dev ran first. With a prewash, everything is nice and wet and this is avoided.

Its not much of an effort to prewash, and I haven't had uneven development (well only when I put 7 35mm films in one huge tank and got streaking from the sprocket holes but that's my own stupid fault - I now limit the films in one tank to 3). I usually put the prewash in then mix the dev, measure its temp and then calculate the dev time while the film is soaking in the prewash.

Hope this is useful

rich815

07-24-2007, 12:48

nikon_sam

07-24-2007, 13:27

nikon_sam

07-24-2007, 13:30

Never Satisfied

07-24-2007, 14:57

Hi, I've been prewashing for atleast the last 1o years and have had no problems at all. I prewash for 5 mins and then develope at the normal time with no adjustment becasue of the prewash.

I started this practice when I got uneven development in some rolls of the original Ilford SFX 200. The Ilford rep rcommended it, it worked and I've continued the practice for all films, even for films I have processed on a commercial scale for other labs.

Cheers Andrew.

Pablito

07-24-2007, 15:14

Having done it both ways, I simply follow the recommendations of film and/or developer manufacturer. Sprint Systems film developer works better, more evenly, with a presoak, which they recommend.

sepiareverb

07-24-2007, 15:47

Kodak tech support has gone back and forth on this- sometimes saying you should, sometimes you shouldn't. I don't bother unless I'm getting into a short development time- less than 6 minutes I will prewet just to be safe, but like Alex I've never seen any difference in my own or students films. I do prewet sheet films- but more for the ease of handling and to prevent them sticking together in the developer should I not get them fully under before the next sheet goes in- any fussing with partially wet films takes place in the water, so I can concentrate on agitation cycles during developing.

Consider the effect of uneven development on a sheet of paper- very hard to see the difference of even 15 seconds difference of immersion after a 2 minute developing time- with film we have usually a much longer development to even out the small difference in immersion time.

John Robertson

07-24-2007, 17:34

Pre-wetting film makes sense, which is why people do it: but if the tank is tapped smartly on the table top once the developer has been poured in, there's little danger of air bubbles remaining.
I do both, probably a "belt and braces"thing!! Most E6 processes recommend a pre soak to bring everything up to temp.:angel:

drewbarb

07-24-2007, 18:47

Ok, we now have in this thread two completely opposite statements:

"One problem, theoretical, is that after the pre-wash the water now present in the emulsion may slow the developer in reaching where it needs to work"

and

"I cut development by 20% to compensate for the dev being able to take quicker due to the emulsion being wet."

So, which is it?
Neither. Pre-washing won't change your development time at all. The first "theoretical" idea is just not true; the second idea, the practice of cutting development time might work well to produce great results, but it has nothing at all to do with the pre-wash. The practitioner has simply discovered a processing time that works with his method of exposure, his water content, temperature, and agitation technique. The idea that the pre-wash will reduce the time needed for development is nonsense- unless he's using water that has developing characteristics all it's own.

One other point about pre-washing- as some have noted, it tends to really help when you get into very short development times- say, less than 7 minutes.

jan normandale

07-24-2007, 19:25

awww .... I'm still going to try it. It's only film

Chris101

07-24-2007, 21:21

Yes I do. Religiously.

payasam

07-24-2007, 21:50

John, are not E-6 temperatures relatively high?

wlewisiii

07-24-2007, 21:55

I don't because I primarily use Diafine. A presoak is a _really_ bad idea with a two bath compensating developer... :eek: and the instructions say not to do it, too :angel:

William

vicmortelmans

07-24-2007, 22:30

What I would really love to learn, when reading this kind of discussions, is the hydraulic and chemical detail of the development process.

Prewetting, for example, is said to enable the developer to reach the active emulsion faster. Why? Because the water already soaked into the emulsion layers and the developer moves through the water.

Sounds reasonable.

The same goes for concentration and agitation of the developer. Higher concentrate will bring more developer into the emulsion to react with the silver halides. And agitation will allow for quicker refresh of the developer that's in the emulsion.

And then on a smaller level, what's the role of grain? What is a grain actually? A clob of silver halides? Is it the grain itself that is activated by exposure? Is a grain something binary: activated yes/no - developed yes/no, or is it capable of storing gradations? And about sharpness: Some developers retain the structure of the grain (e.g. Rodinal), others seem to break it down or soften it.

And how does all this work in the time? Highlights are told to develop first, while shadows come up later. Why is that? How is the dilution of developer evolving during development. Why can you e.g. stand develop for hours at high dilutions without much risk of burnt highlights? Is it just because developer runs out? What if you refresh developer or if you increase the volume? Will it still stand-develop safely for hours on?

Can someone recommend a good book that covers this process??

Groeten,
Vic

colinh

07-24-2007, 22:38

I'm with the "No, because Ilford says don't" crowd, because I use mostly Ilford film. The datasheet for my other favourite, SPUR Orthopan UR, also says not to.

If some datasheet says I should do it, then I will.

Easy :)

colin

Chris101

07-25-2007, 01:05

... Can someone recommend a good book that covers this process??

For cook-book type recipes, Creative Darkroom Techniques, by Kodak (no individul author listed.) How to do all sorts of stuff, before, during and after regular processing.

For a discussion of standard processing, The Negative, by Ansel Adams. It's all about fine tuning the process to control the characteristic light vs density curves. And more.

For the chemistry of film, The Fundamentals of Photographic Theory, by T. H. James and G. C. Higgins. A chemistry background is recommended for this one. It's from the 60's, and so, may not be fully up to date, but fortunately, not much has changed with film for the last 40 years!

vicmortelmans

07-25-2007, 01:19

Chris, that's good information! I already read Adams, but he's not in detail on the chemistry. Your third reference seems more like what I'm looking for!
Groeten,
Vic

mr_phillip

07-25-2007, 03:26

When I lived in Cheshire I got to know a guy at Ilford pretty well, and he recommended against pre-soaking films. His view was that, while it had been a good idea with vintage films in order to ensure even development, with modern films it was a complete waste of time. Since then, I haven't bothered with pre-soaks unless the manufacturer expressly recommends it (such as Adox/Ekfe CHS films, which are essentially '50s technology anyway).

drewbarb

07-25-2007, 07:34

Lots of good info on this thread- thanks especially to Chris for the resources to check, and Mr. Phillip for his thoughts from his friend at Ilford. I think I'll keep pre-wetting most films, in the interest of not fixing what isn't broken with my processing technique; but I might try a few rolls (especially of Ilford films) without pre-wetting, and see if I can see a difference. Thanks all.

jan normandale

07-25-2007, 08:52

John Robertson

07-25-2007, 18:00

John, are not E-6 temperatures relatively high?
yes thats true, about 40degC, but its easy to maintain with a water bath.

John Robertson

07-25-2007, 18:01

Yes I do. Religiously.
In holy water perchance??:rolleyes:

goo0h

07-26-2007, 04:17

A friend pointed me to this:

http://wiki.silvergrain.org/wiki/index.php/Presoak

Gabriel M.A.

07-26-2007, 04:47

Where's the "only when appropriate" option?

I do it for TJ-Max films. Otherwise, the fixing step becomes a pain.

John Robertson

07-26-2007, 05:55

A friend pointed me to this:

http://wiki.silvergrain.org/wiki/index.php/Presoak
thanks for this site, a lot of info there.

drewbarb

07-26-2007, 06:19

What "film/developer combos" do you use with your pre-soak?
The developers I keep around all the time for regular use are Rodinal, HC-110, Microphen, Xtol, Diafine, and ID-11, although sometimes I am asked to use others. I shoot Fuji Neopan and Across, Ilford HP5 and FP4, Delta 3200, Kodak Tri-X and HIE. Clients send me all sorts of other films, too, from the usual suspects of APX, Delta, and TMax films to the occasional weird Chinese and eastern European films one rarely sees in the Midwest U.S.

I pre-wet everything except film to go through Diafine, and sometimes other divided compensating developers.

Thanks to the person who posted the wiki silvergrain page. I may try to do some testing without pre-wetting to see if I may get better (or at least different) results. One other point- I have never heard of pre-wetting being a strategy to eliminate air bubbles. When I process in closed tanks I always tap them periodically to dislodge airbubbles- even during the pre-wet stage.

totifoto

07-26-2007, 07:04

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.

This is what I was told as well when I learned how to develope B&W films. I always do it for at least a minute before the developer.

delft

09-12-2009, 08:57

Thank you for encouraging me to re-think my processing habits, Drew. I pre-soak 120 and 4x5 (5x4), but I'm not quite sure anymore about why I do this. For large format, the fact that my combi-plan tank takes some time to fill may have something to do with it. For 120, I vaguely remember a film that coloured even the stopbath with it's anti-halation dyes (or was the stop off?). I'll be following this thread with interest.

Dirk

P.S. I also presoak C41 to get the stuff at the right temp.
P.P.S. When I presoak, I do it for 1 minute, at dev temp.
P.P.S. I could not miss this opportunity to write 'P.P.S'.

lkgroup

09-12-2009, 09:06

I do for every developer except Diafine and Xtol. I use a 1 min prewash and use a Jobo processor. In my experience the i minute wash doesn't change times, but might bring temperatures to a consistent temp and also might provide a washing to dyes from the film.

Lco

crawdiddy

09-12-2009, 09:28

I have not used pre-wash before, but I'm interested to try it.

My current problem with developing is uneven development, aligned with sprocket holes. (Bromide drag?)

It's really bad with stainless steel reels. I tried a Patterson tank and it was gone. Then on the next Patterson tank roll, I only did about 2 or 3 inversions instead of the 5 I had been doing, and it was back. I guess I need more inversions.

All along I had struggled with whether bromide drag was caused by too much or too vigorous agitation, or by too little. Lately I'm thinking too little.

newspaperguy

09-12-2009, 10:59

I do, and have for many years. Started was I was doing a lot of LF & MF shooting in dusty conditions and pre-wetting (just fill tank, bang, jiggle and dump) seemed to stop my spotting problems.

Old habits die hard.

Oh yeah, now it's all Tri X & HC 110.

Roger Hicks

09-12-2009, 12:17

Ilford Party Line: theoretically a bad idea but probably does no harm in the real world. Certainly confers no advantages. May involve development tome adjustments.

As William points out, it's a REALLY bad idea with two-bath devs.

I've never done it, and never seen the point.

Good books: Haist, Glafkides (Google them, separately)

Cheers,

R.

ZorkiKat

09-12-2009, 12:24

One advantage of prewashing (if the water temp is the same as the developer) is that it tempers the film to the right processing temperature. Here in the tropics, the film and tank would be several degrees higher than the developer temp. Pouring 20 degree C developer in a 29 C film and tank would alter the process temp.

Just because Ilford says it's a waste of time doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Prewetting is time-tested, and most of Ilford's recent recs aren't, and not too universal.

Ronald M

09-12-2009, 13:38

There is no reason to do so except for sheet film that gets hand inleaved agitation.

Imerse the film in such a way as the wet/dry edge starts on an edge and moves to cover the film rapidly without backtracking.

Patterson tanks that fill bottom up work. So does a rotary processor. So does a stainless tank if you drop the reels into the developer in the dark. Pouring thru the top breaks the rules and can get you into trouble, the bigger the tank the bigger the trouble. Single reel tanks are normally ok, but I still do the dark routine. It never causes trouble.

agitate vigorously and in a random manner so as not to set up a pattern which 9 of 10 will try to correct with even less agitation making things worse. I can tell you how do do it, but do not want to hijack the thread.

JohnTF

09-13-2009, 00:44

What I would really love to learn, when reading this kind of discussions, is the hydraulic and chemical detail of the development process.

The same goes for concentration and agitation of the developer. Higher concentrate will bring more developer into the emulsion to react with the silver halides. And agitation will allow for quicker refresh of the developer that's in the emulsion.

And then on a smaller level, what's the role of grain? What is a grain actually? A clob of silver halides? Is it the grain itself that is activated by exposure? Is a grain something binary: activated yes/no - developed yes/no, or is it capable of storing gradations? And about sharpness: Some developers retain the structure of the grain (e.g. Rodinal), others seem to break it down or soften it.

Can someone recommend a good book that covers this process??

Groeten,
Vic

Long ago, many of us were doing probably too many experiments, but I had a friend with a densitometer and a very good exposure meter. He spent a year photographing gray cards, checking to be sure they were evenly illuminated, and trying various agitation methods, checking the negatives with the densitometer for even development.

We all knew that the common agitation of the day, often turning the film using a spindle, produced more velocity at the outside, and just inverting the tank would possibly lead to uneven hydraulics, so the best compromise seemed to be shaking the tank up and down, except I pointed out that the middle of the frame would get more fluid flow.

Bob finally started shooting sheet film and developing it with a paint brush, painting the developer from one end to the next for the most even development, which for him seemed to yield a very even gray, verified by his testing. Then I pointed out that the leading edge- well you get the picture. At the end of the year he had used a lot of chemistry and film.

I did and do prerinse in most cases, but I also try to use developers that allow reasonable length development. And I use tanks that allow rapid filling from a beaker, and rapid emptying of used developer, plus a generous amount of developer.

I do not rap the tank sharply, any bubbles that firmly attached are not of this earth, and it can cause the tank to crack along the injection molding lines. I have seen people slam a stainless tank down hard enough to crack walnuts. I think some gentle tap is OK. I normally agitate at normal recommended intervals, but seem to find different intervals recommended for the same developers in different sources.

I also use plain tempered water for rinse, rapid fix with hardnerer, a good wash in tempered water, and a final rinse in distilled.

Probably reasonably good treatment, certainly better than machine handling.

Bob did get a letter from AA, saying he had great technical skills, possibly the best he had seen, but knew nothing about photography. He framed it.

Regards, John

Freakscene

09-13-2009, 00:46

For the chemistry of film, The Fundamentals of Photographic Theory, by T. H. James and G. C. Higgins. A chemistry background is recommended for this one. It's from the 60's, and so, may not be fully up to date, but fortunately, not much has changed with film for the last 40 years!

Film chemistry and physical composition has changed massively in the last 40 years. For good chemical evidence, try one of Crawley's developers with iodide on a modern film and watch it fail...

Marty

JohnTF

09-13-2009, 00:55

As to antihalation dyes, some of the European films have dyes that wash out in the prerinse, Kodak, no. Also, the need for these dyes is not uniform, film with black paper behind them need less I believe, and the base color of some 35mm films seems to have some additional antihalation function, or so I have been told.

I suppose some experiments with the lights on and some scrap film is in order. ;-)

I probably have less energy for experimentation and just go to the pages of data papers and the big Kodak book, and check what I wrote in them to make an estimate of what development times I am going to use that day.

Next long post might be about the photographing of gray scales and all the fun I had testing the ranges of tones of various films. ;-)

John

Roger Hicks

09-13-2009, 03:05

All along I had struggled with whether bromide drag was caused by too much or too vigorous agitation, or by too little. Lately I'm thinking too little.
Spot on. All the texts, plus thought experiments, plus actual experiments, will confirm this.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

09-13-2009, 03:08

Just because Ilford says it's a waste of time doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Prewetting is time-tested, and most of Ilford's recent recs aren't, and not too universal.
As Ilford themselves cheerfully admit, as noted in my post, it probably does no harm. That doesn't mean it's good, either. 'Time tested harmless' is a bit of a non-recommendation.

Cheers,

R.

Turtle

09-13-2009, 04:09

I was under the opinion that pre-wetting resulted in longer dev times as the emulsion had already absorbed plain water.

I dont because I have problems enough with air bubbles with my water supply and do not want to wash out wetting agents.

I did in the past when using Pyrocat HD

crawdiddy

09-13-2009, 04:29

Spot on. All the texts, plus thought experiments, plus actual experiments, will confirm this.

Cheers,

R.

Thanks Roger. I'll be increasing my inversion reps.

ZorkiKat

09-13-2009, 05:32

As Ilford themselves cheerfully admit, as noted in my post, it probably does no harm. That doesn't mean it's good, either. 'Time tested harmless' is a bit of a non-recommendation.

Cheers,

R.

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...:cool:

Roger Hicks

09-13-2009, 07:19

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...:cool:

Sorry, you're losing me. Use the Ilford 3-bath wash seqence, and you need about a litre and a half of cool-ish water for a 2-reel stainless tank. Not beyond the wit of man to produce, even in the tropics. Nor is it beyond the wit of man to cool the tank before putting the dev. in, via a water bath. .

Nor have I heard Ilford interdict the use of hardening fixers in exceptional circumstances -- and water coming out of the tap at 35 degrees is exceptional in most of the world.

I strongly suspect that Ilford has not 'forgotten' anything, and that they know a good deal more about film processing than you or I. It's just that they aren't so doctrinaire about it.

Cheers,

R.

ZorkiKat

09-13-2009, 07:33

Sorry, you're losing me. Use the Ilford 3-bath wash seqence, and you need about a litre and a half of cool-ish water for a 2-reel stainless tank. Not beyond the wit of man to produce, even in the tropics. Nor is it beyond the wit of man to cool the tank before putting the dev. in, via a water bath. .

R.

Perhaps you'd have to experience the actual / real (situations here) to see what I meant.

Yes, we put tanks and bottles in cooling baths. But ask anyone who does home BW processing and lives a few degrees from the equator how feasible it is to cool a barrel full of wash water for the final wash.

It's not a question of wit. It's applying the tried and proven in a familiar situation....in our case, following the traditional / old methods of processing is not a matter of doctrine or dogma. It's what the situation calls for.

Roger Hicks

09-13-2009, 07:40

Perhaps you'd have to experience the actual / real to see what I meant.

Yes, we put tanks and bottles in cooling baths. But ask anyone who lives a few degrees from the equator how feasible it is to cool a barrel full of wash water for the final wash.

It's not a question of wit. It's applying the tried and proven in a familiar situation.

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.

Brad Maestas

10-16-2009, 11:15

At this time I do not. I learned the basics with Tri-X and D-76 (without pre-soak) at my junior high school newspaper. I hadn't heard of it until I started joining forums (APUG, etc.) and saw various youtube videos of people doing it (like Jason Brunner). I have recently returned to developing my own B&W so right now I am just trying to get into a routine again. I am interested in trying it some time though.

Santafecino

10-16-2009, 11:15

I prewash because Fred Picker (Zone VI workshop) told me to.

Fraser

11-03-2009, 12:26

I never found the need but can be useful in tmax films to get rid of the orange film base and save the fixer, mind I don't use stop bath either!
Tap the tank once at the beginning then 10 inversions at the beginning and then a couple once a minute. I think with black and white you need to find your own way that gives the best results.

narsuitus

01-05-2010, 14:39

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.

Chris101

01-05-2010, 16:12

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!

mabelsound

01-06-2010, 03:32

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.

tkjaer

01-17-2010, 10:55

When I remember to do so, yes.

Turtle

01-18-2010, 03:15

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.

ItsReallyDarren

02-19-2010, 11:42

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.

FS Vontz

02-21-2010, 06:52

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..

Juan Valdenebro

03-08-2010, 11:52

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

AJShepherd

05-21-2010, 01:23

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!)

PKR

07-17-2010, 23:00

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.

PKR

07-17-2010, 23:26

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...:cool:

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.

PKR

07-18-2010, 00:37

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.

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.

tlitody

07-19-2010, 11:09

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.

Fawley

07-19-2010, 11:25

Some films have an anti-halation dye that dissolves out into the developer, staining the developer.

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.

Roger Hicks

07-22-2010, 09:41

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.

gerbilthemistake

07-22-2010, 09:46

Fawley

07-22-2010, 14:29

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.

-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.

sepiareverb

07-22-2010, 16:26

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.

david.elliott

07-22-2010, 16:31

I prewash for rodinal stand development. Never tried it without a prewash though.

Roger Hicks

07-23-2010, 01:33

-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.

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

xwhatsit

07-23-2010, 02:28

After seeing the bright blue dye that came out of the tank the first time I developed Efke KB25, I now prewash every film the first time I try it :P

Roger Hicks

07-23-2010, 05:51

After seeing the bright blue dye that came out of the tank the first time I developed Efke KB25, I now prewash every film the first time I try it :P

Fair enough, though as I understand it, that the vividness of a dye is no particular guide as to whether a pre-wash is advisable to remove it. The only company I know that recommends pre-washes, and then only for some of its products, is Maco -- and I don't always have that much faith in instructions emanating from a company that regularly fails to distinguish between EI and ISO in their development recommendations. The products they sell are usually very good, but they tend to make rather exaggerated claims for them and to be idiosyncratic in their processing recommendations.

Cheers,

R.

david.elliott

07-23-2010, 06:17

So please help me out a bit here Roger...

If I want to stand develop in rodinal 1:100, there is no need for me to prewash? Leaving out the initial water bath will change nothing?

Roger Hicks

07-23-2010, 08:12

So please help me out a bit here Roger...

If I want to stand develop in rodinal 1:100, there is no need for me to prewash? Leaving out the initial water bath will change nothing?

It may change the dev time somewhat, but otherwise, I don't think there's any advantage at all. This doesn't mean you will see no difference: just that all the sensitometry points to the unlikelihood of seeing any. And of course lots of people see what they wat to see.

Cheers,

R.

david.elliott

07-23-2010, 08:53

Thanks Roger. When I have the time, I'll fire off a test roll and see what happens. My guess is with the long development times for stand development, I might not see any difference.

filmfan

07-23-2010, 09:56

I have recently stopped pre-washing as well...

newspaperguy

07-23-2010, 10:16

IMO - Sometimes dust may be causing the spots that are blamed on air bubbles... that being said, I use short development times (HC110) and always prewash.

I still have batch of un-even (top-t-bottom) 120 negs that I failed to
evenly wet before I poured the developer in. Just my .02

Roger Hicks

07-23-2010, 10:43

One thing I should add is that if pre-washes work for you, they work for you. All I'm trying to counter is the evangelistic spirit of those who try to maintain that pre-washes are a secret that the manufacturers are withholding out of spite. Pre-washing is like religion. If you think it's good for you, it may be, but that's no excuse for maintaining that you and your brethren alone are privy to the secrets of the universe. Well, not unless you use a different meaning of the word 'privy'.

Cheers,

R.

Finder

07-23-2010, 11:38

The only reason to pre-wash your film is to keep your camera clean.

I can only think of two reasons for a pre-wash. Your process has a clear air-bell problem or you are getting uneven development during submersion. The first is rare, but I have seen it. The second is one where I cannot think a process or material big enough where it would be an issue--this is a case of possibility vs. probability. As far as any advantage to image quality, there is none.

This reminds me of a story of a student I had who had found the "secret" to reducing granularity in his negatives. Simply mix a little stop bath in with the developer. It works, but...

Matus

09-20-2010, 10:43

I use 4 minute pre-wash (clear water of course). However only when I develop with Pyrocat HD (1:1:100). Especially with modern films like Delta or Tmax it washes away a lot of dye (the water comes out dark blue/magenta). Truth to be told I have read somewhere at APUG or LFF when I started with Pyrocat HD (about 3 years ago - still using the same bottles I bought back then !) - might have been Sandy King. I have also never tried to skip it.

2WK

06-02-2012, 21:28

After recently hearing from a master developer, who handled Helmut Newton and Juergen Teller's negs, say you must pre-wash....I now pre-wash. Seeing all the crap that comes off the negs before you get started doesn't really bother me. Plus, it didn't seem like pre-washing did Helmut Newton any harm....

lam

06-02-2012, 21:46

Yes I always pre-wash, generally fill it once while i'm getting setup let it sit for a bit, then dump it out and see all the colors..then refill maybe 2-3 times more before putting actual developer in.

vitaly66

06-02-2012, 21:58

+1 for presoak, two minutes in distilled water first brought to development temp. Primarily for tempering purposes as I work in extreme environments and want to mitigate the effects of seaonal temperature variability, especially important during the development stage of processing.

Using PMK pyro, TF-4 fixer, many B&W films in 120 (HP5, Neopan, Fomapan, etc.)

crispy12

06-02-2012, 22:40

What is the blue dye that comes out from the wash? I washed some Tmax 120 as well as Shanghai GP and both came out blue. Another time I skipped the wash and the developer came out as normal, seems like the reaction removed all the blue. No difference in negs anyway.

robklurfield

06-03-2012, 03:11

The "dye" is actually the anti-halation layer.

FrankS

06-03-2012, 09:48

During my first 10 years of developing film, I used to pre wash. During these last 20 years of developing film, I do not. But I've used only a limited number of common black and white film types.

BobYIL

06-03-2012, 10:16

Way back in the 60's we used to pre wash some films as a principle: LF against dust and the Adox KB-14 for the blue anti halation layer.. Other than these two and with any Ilford or Kodak 35mm or MF films never needed pre wash.

Teuthida

06-03-2012, 13:49

Only when I develop ACROS films and am using a re-usable developer. The ACROS films have a very strong anti-halation dye that turns yo ur developer purple.

DougFord

06-03-2012, 14:00

no, I don't 'pre-wash' my film. I use the usual suspects in 35mm - triX, apx100, neopan 400.

loquax ludens

06-11-2012, 10:26

I presoak my films, regardless of format, emulsion, type, or manufacturer recommendation. It's just part of my standardized film-processing regimem, but not a matter of religion. It's a carry-over from sheet film processing where I find it essential to presoak the negatives to make them easier to handle and to prevent them from sticking together in the developer. In the case of rollfilms, I consider it a tempering step to ensure that films and equipment are all at the same temperature, as well as a cleaning step that may eliminate some dust particles.

I have to admit that I find it satisfying to see the lovely deep blue anti-halation dye-tinted water that comes off of some films. :) I wish they all had that.

As Roger said earlier in the thread, presoaking is a time-tested harmless technique. That doesn't turn it into a recommendation, but it does mean I can enjoy it as part of my regimen without worry.

filmfan

07-24-2012, 06:16

So I never pre-washed until recently when a photographer friend of mine with 20+ years of experience told me to pre-wash at +2*F over the temp that you develop at. He said it helps the developer reach all the emulsion immediately when you pour it in.

ChrisPlatt

07-24-2012, 13:42

dschal

07-24-2012, 16:18

I presoaked tri-x 120 yesterday and got rid of some, but not all, of the magenta stuff. I also used Permawash after the first wash, and even that did not get rid of it all. I haven't printed yet, but it's a drag, I don't like it, and I was trying to like tri-x. Back to HP5....

Dave

mervynyan

07-24-2012, 16:46

yes, same temperature or even cold water to raise for few seconds.

filmfan

07-24-2012, 18:30

What is the issue with the purple tint with Tri-X ?

dschal

07-24-2012, 19:00

It's the anti-halation layer. A lot of it comes out in the prewash, but not all. I haven't printed these negs, so I'm not sure if there will be any impact on the contrast of a wet print. Some people have noticed it in scanning. There has been a lot of discussion of this on the RFF.
Dave

JohnTF

07-24-2012, 20:20

I noticed it more in other films, have you tried just fixing some scraps and seeing if it is inherent in the base?

You might try two hardening fix baths and a good wash.

If you are scanning B&W , why would the scan pick it up any more than the antihalation in 35mm films? I recall seeing the pink or magenta more in 120 -- which should have less antihalation necessary?

I probably imagined for a long time that the gray color of 35mm film bases rendered a bit different range of gray scale than MF films-- sort of like a fogged or flashed MF film, but I seem to be the only one so inclined to think so.

Regards, John

Photo_Smith

07-24-2012, 23:46

I do it most of the time, especially with colour. I'm not convinced that it makes a huge difference especially with long development times, I like to do it with the more fragile emulsions with non hardened gelatin–they seem to be better although this is subjective.

I doubt it will help or hinder the up take of actual developer, initial agitation followed by a tap will be fine, anyhow developer doesn't start working soon as it hits the film, there is a natural inertia period that varies depending on the developing agent and the sulphite concentration.

Also just a note, the colour that comes out isn't just anti halation dye. Other dyes are acutance dyes trimmers and spectral response modifiers–lots of organic dyes in films...

mwoenv

07-25-2012, 12:12

I don't pre-wash black and white - see Kodak: How to Develop and Print Black and White Film, AJ-3, 2005, which does not include pre-wash. I do bring the tank/reel/film up to the developing temperature before developing and this has provides excellent, consistent results. Pre-washing will leave residual water in the tank which will dilute the developer.

I do pre-wash in color developing because the C-41 chemical manufacturer's include this in their instructions (Unicolor, Rollei Digibase). Each film turns the pre-wash water a different color which represents dyes that will get into the developer if not removed during pre-wash. But I am aware that others claim pre-washing results in less density and less vivid colors. I have been hapy with the results including pre-wash (negative density looks fine and colors are true).

DNG

07-25-2012, 17:49

A lot of interesting replies. I have presoaks since the 1970s. When I was using Plux-X as my main film. I now use HP5, and to tell you the truth, I haven't really thought about not prewashing. There seems to be an opinion that prewashing can effect developing time. I don't know, but I shall do a roll or 2 without prewashing. but keep everything else constant as before.

I also process in Rodinal 1:25. But it seems like I have to give a 400 film and exposure of ISO 100 with standard agitation 10 seconds every minute, to get negatives that have a good contrast. I do scan, so even a slightly soft negative is okay.

kdemas

07-25-2012, 21:27

I generally pre-wash before stand developing and when using film with a whopper of an anti-halation layer (like ADOX 25). Does it really make a difference...good question. It works for me so I leave well enough alone :)

Tom A

07-29-2012, 21:28

Generally I dont pre-wash, certainly not with 2 bath developers or extremely dilute developers (Rodinal 1:100/1:200) and in most cases it does not make a difference.
With certain developers it does make a difference, PMK and Pyrocat HD are two. I tested the Pyrocat HD with and without prewash (5 min cont. agitation) and the density change was significant.
Most modern films, as stated, probably does not need it with stock developers (D76 etc), but when you get into the extreme dilutions you need to compensate for the additional water from the pre-washed film (anything from 4-6 ml/roll). The anti-halation layer should not affect the developing process (it is on the "back" of the film) and with stand and semi-stand developing you leave the film in it long enough anyway.
It is a way of getting rid of some dust though - cameras tend to accumulate it and it then, of course, it migrates to the film (and with unswerving accuracy ends of in the areas that are difficult to spot!).
The trick is to be consistent, either do it all the time or not at all. At least then you have removed one variable in the process.

taskoni

07-31-2012, 07:28

I am not going to try that - I like the way my negatives look, I like the grain I get too :)

Regards,

Boris

Nelson Tan

08-22-2012, 04:59

I've processed Tri-X with and without pre-washes... I didn't see any differences, but I guess the quality of the water and the developers used may influence your own decision to pre-wash.

grapejohnson

04-08-2013, 14:20

Has anyone found that a pre-wash helps reduce the Tri-X purple negative problem?
I'm interested only in reports of real world experience here, not armchair speculation.
And yes, I have read discussions of the effects of fixer strength, fix and wash times...

Chris

I thought this would have something to do with a pre-wash, but I just compared a bunch of different rolls of film that I shot, including my first roll of Tri-X which I didn't pre-wash, to all the ones later which I did. I started pre-washing about five rolls in when I read in a book from the library that it helps your development come out more consistently, though I'm not sure if it's the pre-wash or just my experience that has made things come out better.

I think the purple has more to do with Kodak's celluloid than something to do with the emulsion or dye, because TMax is equally as purple, as is P3200. It also explains why all Kodak film is equally curly. I love the emulsion for Tri-X, but I much prefer the actual celluloid of all Ilford and Foma films as they dry much flatter, especially Ilford.

I generally put a pre-wash in my film when I get my water to 68 so I can make fresh Photo-flo, stop bath, and for mixing up a developer like Rodinal and just leave it in there without agitation until I get everything else up to temp.