Do you Pre-wash your film?

[gerbilthemistake]

Originally Posted by drewbarb

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.)

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.

[Fawley]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

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]

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]

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

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Fawley

-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]

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]

Originally Posted by xwhatsit

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]

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]

Originally Posted by david.elliott

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]

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]

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

[newspaperguy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

+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]

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]

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

[FrankS]

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]

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]

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]

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

[loquax ludens]

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.