Using Kodak Photo-Flo in Record Cleaning

I didn't read the original link nor have I ever used a vacuum record cleaner (I have an ultrasonic). Speaking in generalities, then: as a photographer for a couple of decades who used photo flo on a daily basis when developing film, there's no way I'd put any amount of photo flo on a record. Photographically, the purpose of photo flo is to minimize streaks and water marks. It does that by repelling water and allowing the water to be squeegeed off the film/evaporate without leaving streaks and marks. My (non-chemist) understanding was always that it does so because the photo flo remains as a layer/barrier on top of the film emulsion such that the water doesn't penetrate to the surface of the film emulsion. Since the photo flo therefore remains on the film, I assume t would likewise remain on the record. That may or may not be good for the record long term (again, I'm not a chemist), but putting that aside, I wouldn't particularly want my stylus scraping through a residual layer of photo flo.

 

Okay so I recieved a response from a chemist at work. I advised him I am using 3 cups of distilled water to one cup of isopropyl alcohol and adding 2 or 3 drops of Photo flo as a wetting agent. Then rinsing with distilled again and vacuuming drying. His response was using a rinse afterwards with so little photo flo to begin with that there should be no residue left over. He also wants me to bring him a record that I have used this practice on and one that i haven't . I am planning on doing that and seeing what the results are. He did note chemically speaking there should be no adverse effects to the record itself with the chemicals involved. Hopefully I get more back from him.

 

I'll be very curious to hear his thoughts. My personal experience with Photo Flo in an alcohol based home brew record cleaning solution is that two or three drops per gallon isn't even enough to really get the solution to spread, but much more than that -- and certainly up to the level where it's acting more like a detergent -- and it can be a pain to get off the record, but a 20 or 25% alcohol based solution that evaporates easily with a just enough Photo Flo or other surfactant to get the solution to spread, leaves so little residue behind that it often sounds cleaner to me than without a rinse -- it's almost like a rinse, but a rinse with a little solvent and evaporating agent in it. I've grown to prefer that kind of cleaning and even that kind of cleaning without a rinse, to something with more surfactant or detergent and a rinse. So, it's interesting to hear a chemist say that.

 

I'm not a chemist either but Photo Flo is mostly water, some propylene glycol and p-tert-octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol serving as a surfactant or wetting agent to break the surface tension of the liquid PF is added to so that it will flow and spread not kind of bead up -- I don't know anything about photography but I suspect it's minimizing streaks and watermarks by allowing what ever fluid you're putting the photo into to spread evenly, not because you blocking contact between the liquid and the film, in fact probably you're doing the opposite, improving that contact by ensuring that the fluid spreads evenly and easily. Then you use tiny amounts of it in a gallon of record cleaning solution, so little that I think it's barely functioning as a surfactant even. Whether it's working well or not as a surfactant in those dilutions in our homebrew record cleaning solutions is a good question, but with the nature of the ingredients, the extreme dilutions we're using (usually in combination with other, quick evaporating alcohols), and the possibility that we're rinsing afterward, I think there's no reason to sweat the Photo Flo as a remaining on the record as some kind of barrier that the stylus is scraping through. Furthermore, it's not always the worst thing to get some kind of layer between the stylus and record if it's extremely thin, evenly applied and reduces stylus-groove friction (like Last and Stylast).

 

Just to clarify, the chemist said that with so little Photo Flo no rinse should be necessary or that with a rinse, low risk of residue? I don't use it but know one professional archivist who has used it for years, I guess with distilled or some kind of "purified" water.
I always rinse, but I'm rather compulsive.

 

I'd need to clarify but I took his response that it shouldn't matter either way with it being so diluted. I've never had an issue using the process and have no reason to change. Personally I do notice a difference when adding in the photo flo, it spreads easier and more evenly. When I pass him some records next week I'll follow up.

 

Those who don't use photo-flo seem to use Jet Dry, what makes it any easier to rinse off? Really I've been using Photo-Flo for years, 8 parts water, 2 parts 91% or more pure Isopropyl alcohol and a few drops of Photo-Flo with no issues. Now I rinse with ultrapure water so I doubt there is an issue.

 

I use Photoflo in my dyi solution. 3 parts distilled water to 1 part 99% purity isopropyl alcohol and then I add just enough photoflo to this mix to stop the solution from beading away from itself on the surface of the record. The trick is ti use just enough so the solution thoroughly wets the grooves of the record. I've never had an issue with it leaving any residue.

 

A really good discussion of record cleaning solutions can be found here:
Record cleaning- you're doing it wrong! | Audiokarma Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums »
Why not use a simple surfactant and good quality water. Nothing else is really needed according to the Library of Congress as well as the Canadian Conservaton Organization.
Cheap, easy and free of contamination as you know exactly what is in there.

 

I use photo-flo to clean my negatives. That's what it was designed for... nothing else. Why in the frick would you use it on records when there are so many record-specific record cleaners available?

 

It took forever to wash photo-flo out? You must have a pretty weird and non-standard process. Photo flo is used at the very end of the whole thing, immediately before drying the negatives. I've been using it for 30 years and have never never never had any sort of problem with residue.

 

I disagree slightly with the characterization of PhotoFlo. It is not used to "clean" negs. Its' sole purpose is to break down the surface tension of water on film so that it sheets off the film instead of beading up right before you put your negs into the drying cabinet.

 

Has nobody mentioned "Ilfotol" as a wetting agent/surfactant?
I just bought some recently and have yet to use it but I bought it because after researching the subject for a while, the consensus was that Kodak's Photoflo is not to be used and that Ilfotol is the go to surfactant.

 

Photo Flo is water, propylene glycol and a surfactant: p-tert-octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol. Mostly water. The surfactant is what you want in a record cleaning solution -- it breaks the surface tension of the water and allows it to flow and spread (so it'll get into the grooves instead of just sitting on the surface of the water). You can use another surfactant as others have mentioned in this thread, if you're DIYing a record cleaning solution. But some surfactant is a normal component of a record cleaning solution. Nothing really special about Photo Flo that makes it a problem in a record cleaning solution, especially at the very diluted concentrations it's typically used in. I think it just happened to be a relatively available surfactant without perfumes and such that people could get their hands one for making record cleaning solutions.

 

good luck...

 

Nice useless response.

If you think you need to wash photo flo out, you have absolutely no idea how to use it. My guess is that you were using a far higher concentration of photo flo than was clearly described in Kodak literature.

If you worked in a pro lab, you probably were told not to change the fix bath until it was a murky soup. I trained with Ansel Adams and learned to toss out fix far far earlier than any pro lab. The residue you complain about was not due to Photo flo. It was due to ****ty dirty fixer.

 

What you say is true, but why waste your money on a photo specific chemical when you can get (as you say so well) a far cheaper surfactant?

 

Well, like I said, I think 20 or more years ago when people were first using Photo Flo as an additive in homebrew record cleaning solutions, you could still walk into a photo store somewhere around American and buy it and use it. Similarly to what you can do with something like Ifotol, which is also a surfactant and a glycol ether and water. Or Tergitol. Some people just use a couple of drops of dishwashing soap, but of course that had dyes and perfumes, which I think is why people go to the photo supply stuff to find something free of those things. People are looking for a dye and perfume free surfactant/detergent.

 

Good point.

 

Yeah, my bad. I was typing quickly. I meant to say that photo flo eliminated water spots and left cleaner negatives. It was not specifically a detergent.

 

This article specifically recommends Ilford "Ilfotol" wetting agent. Although a similar photographic product to Kodak "Photo-flo", it is apparently chemically different and OK to use with records, whereas "Photo-flo" is not.

 

I think we've come full circle. That's where this thread started, with a link to the londonjazzcollector site.

 

You're right! When I read the thread I thought "I've just read something that addresses this very issue", but didn't read it carefully enough to recognise the OP had already referenced it. It's a funny old world.

 

I'm a convert to Photo Flo. I own a Nitty Gritty 1.5fi (Automatic fluid application, automatic scrubbing and fluid removal) For years I bought "off the shelf" RCM fluids. Then I went through a phase of making home brew mixtures and experienced a couple of pump leaks/replacements. I realized too late that I was using too much alcohol which, when left sitting in the reservoir for extended periods, would eat at the glued seams in the fluid tank and lines.

I tried the MOFI Super Record Wash as I wanted a mixture that was low or no alcohol because I NEVER empty the fluid tank. The beading was inconvenient, especially given the records are wet, scrubbed and vacuumed upside down. But I liked the cleaner enough to try adding Photo Flo rather than throw the record wash out. Magic. Easily the best cleaning regimen for me to date. I know some claim the MOFI SRW is supposed to bead but I can see so much gunk in the waste tray and even as the record is wet, I can already see an alarming amount of particulate suspended in the liquid.

 

Ilford was recommended by Moth when I bought their record cleaner in the early nineties and afaik was fairly universally adopted - certainly in the UK. It worked very well and I used it for around 15 years.