Author Topic: Photoflo Contamination (Read 4233 times)

tinm@n · « **on:** October 06, 2009, 11:35:07 AM »

I seem to remember reading on here about someone saying that using Photoflo created problems. I've also just read somewhere else that it can cause equipment contamination problems. I'm just wondering because I'm increasingly getting marked films and I'm re-thinking my negative washing techniques.

Anyone any views on Photoflo and other wetting agents and how they contaminate things ? Also how do I get distilled water ? Can I make it or do I have to buy it ?

Thanks
Tim

Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes. · « **Reply #1 on:** October 06, 2009, 11:39:06 AM »

Always used it, never had a problem, I would use some sort of filtered water if your water is hard.

for final rinse all you will need is a water jug with a filter in it. Fill your tank with that, squirt in fotoflow then run or dip your film through it.

Heather · « **Reply #2 on:** October 06, 2009, 01:30:27 PM »

Contamination would be making the reels sticky if you're using way too much of the stuff. I only put a drop or two in a tankful of water.
Distilled water doesn't seem to exist in the UK really so you have to use deionised/car battery water (available from car part stores or Halfords usually).

But I don't use distilled water for final rinses and have no marks on my film. I do use photoflo or rather jessops own-brand econo photo flo type stuff.

What marks are you getting on your film? Are you using a squeegee or anything similar like wet fingers to run down the length of the film?

Heather · « **Reply #3 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:56:42 PM »

Hello!

Might want to put a small warning in the topic title now. Not quite work safe

That kind of looks like underfilling the tank maybe? What tank are you using and what amount of dev/fix are you using with it?

tinm@n · « **Reply #4 on:** October 06, 2009, 03:00:12 PM »

Whoops - I've deleted an re-posted.

See attached example which may in fact be a combination of light leak and chemical effect

I would also add that the band on the edge of the film has a yellow look to it when I examine the negative in daylight. Also the water round here is very soft.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

Francois · « **Reply #5 on:** October 06, 2009, 04:11:46 PM »

Usually, photo-flo when used in small quantity (like said on the label) doesn't cause problems. Just make sure you don't get it foaming of it most probably leave water spots on the film. I tend to agitate very slowly by turning the spindle just to make sure there is some everywhere. Never had problems. I don't use distilled water (which can be bought at the grocery store). De-mineralized water is as close to distilled as you can get and should do the job if you want to go that route.

LT · « **Reply #6 on:** October 06, 2009, 04:18:12 PM »

I just typed a lengthy reply about my experiences with wetting agent contamination, but then re-thought the problem ...

these marks on tinm@n's pics are lighter in the positive, so they are darker in the negative, and are therefore developed more than the rest of the frame. Also, it has affected the filmbase+fog, making the fb+f lighter in those areas. I would suspect some kind of light leak .... or maybe not ....

the problems caused by wetting agent residue (which is not always sticky and obvious, often there is no perceptible residue visible) cause air bubbles to form around the sides of film and dev reel. These are nearly impossible to shift, no matter how hard you rap and bang the tank on your desk/floor/anything else, and result in under-developed areas around the frame edge (eg lighter on the negative, darker in the positive). these do not affect the film rebate though because this should not, at any time, be receiving any light that would affect the film emulsion in this way. FB+F should be uniform across all the unexposed areas of the film.

so .. maybe a lightleak somewhere along the way ... maybe a flaw in the film (are you getting this problem across several different types of film? Possibly a fault in your dev tank letting a small amount of light in? POssibly even a winding problem with the film roll ... perhaps the spooling mechanism in your camera isnt tensioning the roll enough allowing small amounts of light in through the edge and paper-backing?

It may be a different problem, but that is where I'd start if I was getting over-developed areas with such immediate transitions to normal developed areas like this.

edthened · « **Reply #7 on:** October 06, 2009, 04:45:45 PM »

Och tinm@n, rat grey oblong bittie spoils the hole foti f'r mee

moominsean · « **Reply #8 on:** October 06, 2009, 04:53:51 PM »

just for you...

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

LT · « **Reply #9 on:** October 06, 2009, 05:49:26 PM »

I knew we could always rely on sean to add some gravity to the situation ...

moominsean · « **Reply #10 on:** October 06, 2009, 05:52:52 PM »

i dunno, they seem to defy gravity.

LT · « **Reply #11 on:** October 06, 2009, 06:08:49 PM »

eyethangyoo.

edthened · « **Reply #12 on:** October 06, 2009, 08:40:42 PM »

Och ar dem things reel

P.S. wot wood foti-flo dae f'r rem ??

Francois · « **Reply #13 on:** October 06, 2009, 10:22:06 PM »

Quote from: leon taylor on October 06, 2009, 04:18:12 PM

so .. maybe a lightleak somewhere along the way ... maybe a flaw in the film (are you getting this problem across several different types of film? Possibly a fault in your dev tank letting a small amount of light in?

Maybe the solution to all this is a water bath before developing?
I know it makes air bubbles less likely to occur and development is more even (though it lowers contrast just a slight bit)...

Pete_R · « **Reply #14 on:** October 06, 2009, 10:29:10 PM »

Quote from: leon taylor on October 06, 2009, 04:18:12 PM

these marks on tinm@n's pics are lighter in the positive, so they are darker in the negative, and are therefore developed more than the rest of the frame.

Could it also be under fixing which would make the areas more dense therefore lighter in the positive? It definitely looks like a bubble to me but it would be interesting to see a longer strip (and I'm not referring to the model either).

Pete_R · « **Reply #15 on:** October 06, 2009, 10:38:55 PM »

I think the light area on the right is a light leak as that too extends into the film margin.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

LT · « **Reply #16 on:** October 06, 2009, 11:18:25 PM »

Yes - the bubble thing is throwing me too, but if it was bubbles preventing fixer from getting to localised areas, wouldn't the film need to be re-developed for the density to increase in those areas?

tinm@n · « **Reply #17 on:** October 07, 2009, 12:05:01 AM »

Thanks so much to everyone for replying to this. There's something for me to think about for sure in what you've said.

The problem has occurred across 120 and 35mm film so I am inclined to think it might be something to do with the processing tank, I hadn't thought of that yet. I need to wait till I get back to base at weekend and compare the last few negative strips again. I think the 1st step I'll take is to change to another development tank and develop a less important roll than this one to see how it goes. I'll also use fresh fixer.

By the way these are all stand developed 60mins in Rodinal 1+100 with agitation for 30 secs to start and a swirl at 30 mins, a process that has served me well for a good length of time.

cheers again folks

Pete_R · « **Reply #18 on:** October 07, 2009, 08:01:17 AM »

Quote from: leon taylor on October 06, 2009, 11:18:25 PM

Yes - the bubble thing is throwing me too, but if it was bubbles preventing fixer from getting to localised areas, wouldn't the film need to be re-developed for the density to increase in those areas?

I was thinking that the unfixed (or uncleared) areas will have more density than even fully exposed but properly fixed areas.

moominsean · « **Reply #19 on:** October 07, 2009, 03:29:47 PM »

i think it's just from improper agitation with maybe a bit of air. i've seen similar as well when the film is "wrinkled" on the spool or is almost touching another section of film.

Francois · « **Reply #20 on:** October 07, 2009, 04:00:22 PM »

If you think the reels might be contaminated with Photo-flo, soak them for maybe about an hour in very warm water (they can handle the temperatures required for color processing) and clean the tracks with a toothbrush. Photo-flo is simply a detergent and should come off under these conditions.