Re: Re: mini-pin + photo flo sub

> --- Christian Harkness <chris.harkness@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I once used a liguid detergent for dishwashers instead of Photo-Flo &
> > it throughly ruined my negatives, much worse then if I had not used
> > Photo-Flo. so....
>
> This is why I suggested away from it in my initial message. PhotoFlo is one of
> those products that has been used forever and has worked well for countless
> photographers. When using something from the cabinet, you have to worry about
> immediate problems, as well as those that may be detrimental to the archival
> properties of your film.
>
> I can't imagine using something that has not been extensively tested on my
> negatives, since if they go, they're gone (prints can always be reprinted).
>
> Cheers -
>
> george

    Two more points

        1. Photo-Flo is pretty inexpensive already. A 16 oz bottle costs
            about $10.00 and makes 24 gallons of working solution, so thats
            about 50 cents per gallon. If you used 8 oz for a roll of 35mm
            film, thats 16 rolls per gallon and 384 rolls per bottle. Even if
            dishwashing liquid is less expensive, your savings are a few
            pennies per roll.

        2. Even with a wetting agent, using distilled water makes a big
            difference in preventing water spots on your negatives. The photo
            news groups have periodic questions from people who use wetting
            agents and still have crud on their film. The answer is to use
            distilled water.
Received on Fri Mar 8 13:07:33 2002