Using Kodak Photo-Flo in Record Cleaning

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Dalziel53, Jan 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dalziel53

    Dalziel53 Senior Member Thread Starter

    I found the following reference to Kodak Photo-Flo which indicates that people have found problems with it. Anybody find this to be the case?

    Taken from here:
    https://londonjazzcollector.wordpress.com/for-audiophiles/home-brew-cleaner-for-vacuum-rcms/

    Note: The US equivalent wetting product from Kodak, “Photo-flo” is specifically not recommended due to its ingredients containing chemicals which remain as a coating on the surface, which will contaminate the stylus tip. I have no personal knowledge of its effects but it seems well documented, though as with everything, the internet can be an echo-chamber of misinformation. One writer even suggested the vinyl groove needs “lubrication” to smooth the travel of the stylus (think car engines) whereas the whole purpose of cleaning is to ensure naked contact between the stylus and the information encoded into the grooves, and nothing between the two, hence alcohol dissolving any contaminants which are then vacuumed away.
     
    Randoms likes this.
  2. chervokas

    chervokas Senior Member

    Well, lubrication that reduces stylus/groove friction definitely reduces the artifacts of stylus/groove friction -- random pops and certain kinds of mechanical noise. But I have yet to find a lubricating substance that doesn't have other problems such as leaving behind a residue that cakes a stylus or real challenges with application, etc. Last Record Preservative, which doesn't claim to reduce friction, does seem to clean up high end into (it claims to reduce IMD), doesn't leave behind any kind of visible residue on the stylus and is very easy to apply. Stylast stylus treatment, also from Last, does claim to reduce friction, but I haven't tried it in years. Perhaps worth a shot.

    As to Photo-flo, it's 60 - 70% water, 25-30 % polypropylene glycol and 5 to 10 % p - tert - octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol, according to its MSDS and used in a record cleaning solution at an extreme dilution, so you have almost just trace amoungs of PG and the alcohol in the final record cleaning substance. Whether or not the PG leaves a film behind that can't be rinsed off (and I think rinsing after cleaning with a fluid that has surfactants is probably a good idea), I dunno, maybe. Whether it's more or less the case with Photo-Flo vs something like Tergitol, which is the surfactant the Library of Congress apparently uses in its record cleaning solution, is a question for a chemist, which I am definitely NOT. However I have used Photo-Flo in homebrew record cleaning solutions with alcohol and water, followed by a vacuum drying, water rinse, and another vacuum drying, and I personally don't hear any audible problems with residue.
     
    BuddhaBob likes this.
  3. raferx

    raferx Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Yup. I use it in an old Stereophile recipe that works like a champ. A couple drops per 500 ml with alcohol, distilled water and a drop of Windex.
     
  4. Dalziel53

    Dalziel53 Senior Member Thread Starter

    The article also questions the "couple of drops" saying that any wetting product needs at least 5 ml per litre. Do you think it is possible to use too much Photo-Flo? Also, does the Windex complement the Photo-Flo?
     
  5. chervokas

    chervokas Senior Member

    Well, 5 ml per litre of Photo-Flo would be like 1.25 ml of PG per litre, so a small fraction of a percent in the solution and even a smaller fraction for the alcohol. As I understand it -- and again, I'm no chemist -- at higher concentrations a surfactant acts more like a detergent, so "too much"? Maybe too much to be acting just as a wetting agent but I dunno about too much to cause any problems. And of course it's water soluble so a good rinse should take care of any film. But I'm just talking as a semi-informed consumer and not a chemist. Seems to me if you're only using the thing as a wetting agent you can experiment with quantities until you have just enough for the surface tension to break and the fluid to spread, which might be less than 100 drops but more than, say, 5.

    I have no personal opinion about Windex, never used it or any other kind of additive/cleaner. I steer clear of anything with dye or perfume too.
     
  6. raferx

    raferx Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I guess it does... it's the best/quietest mix I've ever used.
    LP surface noise is practically nonexistent after a single run through my Okki Nokki.
     
    Sailfree likes this.
  7. Darksolstice

    Darksolstice Forum Resident

    Location:
    Murfreesboro Tn
    what are the ratios of alcohol\water?
     
  8. DaverJ

    DaverJ Forum Resident

    Location:
    East Tennessee
    BUMP for this old question - what is the best alcohol (91% Iso)/distilled water/PhotoFlo ratio?
     
  9. Rafer---If you have the formula for this I would like to try it. I have been using a mix of: Distilled H2O, 99% pure isopropyl alcohol, Distilled white vinegar, and a couple drops Dawn dish washing liquid. This mix works well, but I am always open to improve the process.
     
  10. gloomrider

    gloomrider Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Hollywood, CA, USA
    +1 99% isopropyl
     
  11. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    I've mixed up the exact formula in the OP. When I compare it to the Nitty Gritty fluid, the londonjazzcollector formula seems to have more surfactant then the NG. I don't think its problematically so, but I'd wager you could use less and have the same effect.

    As as aside, I kind of laughed the first time I read the londonjazzcollector formula - he takes great pains to point out how much superstition and misinformation there is surrounding record cleaning formulations, but then warns against the dangers of PhotoFlo with no real explanation or citing of sources.
     
  12. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I think the real punchline here is getting whatever fluid you use- whether home brew or commercial- off the record once the fluid has done its job. And, for that reason, go for an additional rinse step of 'pure' water (whatever grade you are comfortable paying for) as additional insurance that the fluid/contaminant residue has been effectively removed.
    I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to fluids and methods- I use a variety. With a point nozzle vacuum machine, like the Monks, I've found that the fluid seems to matter less. But, on occasion, I still find some pretty grotty old records that need additional work, multiple cleans using different fluids/methods.
    One archivist I know uses Photo-Flo and he is dealing with some serious old records. I don't think the alcohol is a big deal if you get it on and off the record pretty quickly (for vinyl, not shellac or laminates). On the Photo-Flo not being recommended, I think there was some discussion a while ago that this meant it hadn't been tested for vinyl LPs by the manufacturer, rather than that it was 'bad' for the records.
     
    timztunz likes this.
  13. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    I agree. I think in particular what needs to be removed is the surfactant, so not having any more of it then necessary seems beneficial. The difference in how the pure water rinse behaves in terms of beading up varies quite a bit depending on what type of fluid I use. The "less surfactanty" enzyme cleaner I use hardly results in any beading during the rinse stage, for instance.
     
  14. BKphoto

    BKphoto JazzAllDay

    never...ever.....

    I'm a photographer with 25 years in business...used it a billion times...it leaves a residue behind...

    no thanks...
     
  15. raferx

    raferx Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    It's an old Stereophile formula I believe, I've changed it a bit. I do this: For 500 ml total cleaner:
    400 ml distilled water
    100 ml Isopropyl
    two drops photo-flo
    two drops Windex
     
    Reese and DaverJ like this.
  16. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    Are you speaking of photo-flo in particular or surfactants used in photography in general? I sort of have a hard time believing Kodak's formula is dramatically different then the others.
     
  17. fab4

    fab4 Forum Resident

    Location:
    France
    I used to use photo flo and others photograpy surfactants when i was developing negative films, they did leave residues....so i guess it would be the same in a micro groove. Will never let that stuff touch my records.
     
    Licorice pizza likes this.
  18. gingerly

    gingerly Change Returns Success

  19. Wngnt90

    Wngnt90 Forum Resident

    Nor do I hear or see anything after the same proceedure.
     
  20. Wngnt90

    Wngnt90 Forum Resident

    The proper amount of surfactant to use is only enough to stop the mix of distilled water and isopropyl from beading on the surface of the record...whatever type of surfactant you use.
     
  21. BKphoto

    BKphoto JazzAllDay

    yeah, photoflo...u could definitely see it in the bottom of the neg dryer

    took forever to wash it out of the spools and neg dev canisters...

    do what you want but no way I'd use it...
     
    Rolltide likes this.
  22. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    You might have been seeing white stains? That was more likely the minerals left behind from the dried up water. I was a photographer for many years and they used to say add a capful to a gallon of water. If Stereophile says 2 drops into 500 ml, that would be 16 drops into a gallon which would probably work out to about a third or a quarter of a cap a gallon. I think that's a pretty light mixture.

    That said, I've made several record washing fluids over the years and never been happy until I started buying MOFI One Record Cleaner. That fluid leaves nothing behind except silence. Of course, it cost $25 a liter. Ouch. I wish I knew what THAT recipe was.
     
    Rolltide likes this.
  23. blakep

    blakep Senior Member

    It's a generalization perhaps (I'm in full agreement with your statement above) but I would say that there are many people who have tried the DIY route with respect to record cleaning fluids and then further experimented with commercial offerings who have found the DIY to be sorely lacking.

    That is my experience as well and it's further complicated by the fact that there are pretty significant qualitative differences even among the commercial offerings as well as qualitative differences in rinse water depending on its purity.

    I learned quickly that, as much as I like the results of a clean record, I don't really enjoy the act of cleaning the record ;). And I sure don't want to do it more than once if I don't have to. As a result, I've settled on a commercial first stage cleaner that I find gives excellent results and the highest purity water available for rinsing. The results are easily/audibly superior in my experience and I don't have a problem cleaning a record once at a cost of 25-30 cents vs. cleaning it multiple times with inferior results to save 15 or 20 cents.
     
  24. Upinsmoke

    Upinsmoke Well-Known Member

    Location:
    SE PA
    Never had any of those issues using AIVS products.
     
  25. CrewU

    CrewU Forum Resident

    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    I use a couple of drops of photo flo in my home brew solution and I don't have any issues. Ill see if I can get a chemist at work to give an opinion. I think my employer makes most of what is in photo flo.
     
    Rolltide, BuddhaBob and Sailfree like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine