Argh! Wazzup on my negative?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Stefano Bramato, Aug 20, 2004.

  1. Yesterday I developed a batch of Tmax six Tmax 400 rolls in more than
    enough Microphen stocksoup.
    Fixer is okay, temperature is controlled.

    For economy (and for the first time) I developed as suggested by
    ilford (plus 10% time every roll)and a 10% more as usual to fit my
    diffused enlarger head fort roll.

    Only for three rolls it went everything allright but I don't know why
    but if you look at these images I see this horrible darkish strip as
    monster's skin.
    First time in ten years of my little experience!


    www.bramatobros.com/pictures/post20082004/


    Whats up?
    An exausted developer?


    Please an help!
    Every suggestions is precious!!

    PS: the slight marks are from my glass proofer.
     
    Stefano Bramato, Aug 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Stefano Bramato

    Nick Zentena Guest


    Too much photoflo? Not washed off?

    Nick
     
    Nick Zentena, Aug 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Now that's bizarre.

    I take it the rolls were done one at a time in a 1-roll tank?

    I agree with Nick Z.: the pattern does look 'foamy' and
    therefore photoflo or the like is a suspect.

    Since the pattern is dark, the action would have:

    o bleached the film
    o interfered with the developer
    o held back exposure in the camera
    o mechanically damaged the emulsion.

    Could it be reticulation from too hot a wash water? -- doesn't look
    like any reticulation I have ever seen.

    All I can offer is that the problem is _not_

    o A deposit: The pattern is dark.

    o Insufficient developer: on the second shot there is a definite
    edge to the left, and the negative is OK past that edge.

    Interestingly, it is the white part of the pattern that is
    continuous -- suggesting the problem is in the paper side of
    the process.

    Just to make sure: does this also appear on the negatives or is
    it only on the proof?
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Aug 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Stefano Bramato

    jjs Guest

    Way strange. I think it's the girl's fault. :)
     
    jjs, Aug 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Foaming.

    Developers, being alkaline, are always a little prone to foaming (as
    detergents would do); they can get more so under some circumstances. If
    you didn't rinse your tank and reel(s) thoroughly between batches, you
    might have carried over some wetting agent into the developer, which
    would make it more prone to foaming (on all subsequent cycles, if you
    reuse your solution).

    Regardless of that, however, if you have enough developer, any foam
    formed will tend to float above the film unless the foaming is
    exceptional; you're seeing this evidence of foaming because your liquid
    level wasn't far enough above the top of the reel. Each time you reuse
    developer, you need to pour the used soup back into the working solution
    bottle, and remeasure for the next batch; this both prevents premature
    exhaustion (the time adjustments are for a full liter, not for the
    500-or-so ml needed for a single 120 roll) and ensures that developer
    carried over into the stop bath (and thus lost from the developer
    solution) doesn't reduce the volume enough to uncover the top edge of
    the film.

    Better still is to use a one-shot developer, or a two-bath that doesn't
    suffer depletion with reuse. Yes, lots of people reuse developers in
    stock solution form, like D-76 and Microphen. I'm not convinced it's an
    economic advantage, and the risk of problems with negatives makes it
    less so.

    --
    I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

    Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
    Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
    Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

    Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
    and don't expect them to be perfect.
     
    Donald Qualls, Aug 21, 2004
    #5

  6. i don't think so.
    usually I drop 5 tears of photpflo per tank.
     
    Stefano Bramato, Aug 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Il computer puo essere un grande strumento, ma in mano a Nicholas O.
    Lindan sta a vedè che scrive sul niusgrup:
    Sigh...
    both!!
    Negatives appear like foggy in that side.
    It can be something interferred with developing?

    I really don't realise what the hell is happened....

    :(
     
    Stefano Bramato, Aug 21, 2004
    #7

  8. :D
    hope not.
    is my sister...
    :D

    btw it's the first time in 10 years of small experience that this
    happens to me...
     
    Stefano Bramato, Aug 21, 2004
    #8
  9. Foaming.

    woah!
    it can be something like this, involuntary done.
    It may be happened because I shortly rinsed my one 120 reel tank with
    fresh water after reuse, and maybe some drop ow water+wetting agent
    could be sticked on the tank...


    For developer quantitities:
    it is always more than enough because I use 750 ml. for batch of
    stock.
    This time I used a stock solution because all of this shots was made
    push +1 and usually for push I use Microphen stock.
    So i decided to develop all my batch of six different rolls with
    stock.

    Thanks a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    :D


    Stefano



    always a one shot developer 1:1 (usually microphen or Id11).
     
    Stefano Bramato, Aug 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Better still is to use a one-shot developer, or a two-bath that doesn't
    Oh yes, i really do this everytime.
    THis time not....

    this is economic for sure!
    You are wise, very wise!
    You're right!!
    Thanks
     
    Stefano Bramato, Aug 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Developers, being alkaline, are always a little prone to foaming (as
    It looks like foam, but...

    On the second shot, of the boy on the bollard, the 'foaming' on the left side
    of the negative (above[?], when the neg was developed) has a sharply demarcated
    strip to the left where the negative is again normally developed.

    And the demarcation line from foam to not foam towards the center of the
    negative is diffuse - as if the negative was standing in ~1/8" of foamy
    something - and then the air in the foam causes the negative to go light,
    as if it were interfering with the development. The rest of the negative
    above the foam is correctly developed.

    Conclusion: 1) If it was foam then the right side of the negative was above
    the foam; 2) The liquid the foam was made from did not affect the negative,
    it was the gas in the foam that lowered the negative density.

    Which sort of precludes foam in my book.

    Sweet mystery.

    First step to solving it is to find out how to make it happen again...
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Aug 21, 2004
    #11
  12. What they said. All the suggestions seem to come down to some foaming
    interference with development. I think that is the problem, too. How
    it got to be there seems to be as Donald suggested. How to check it
    out may be as Nicholas surmised; make it happen again.

    This time, make sure you have a sloppily rinsed tank after using the
    Photoflo, or whatever. Put a roll into used developer on which you
    have some exposures with a similar distribution of light and dark
    areas. If you get a similar result, then you know; forever. These
    experiences can pay off in the future. I had some; I should know.

    As to the fully developed light area on the left side of the boy's
    picture, I originally thought it might have originated in printing. I
    don't believe that's so anymore. Looking closely at the image and the
    edge markings leads me to think that the foam may have been heavier
    during development in one or more areas of the tak, therefore,
    affecting the edges of some frames and parts unevenly.

    In both images, the effect diminishes and disappears into the darker
    areas. This implies that the interference of the foam, and its air
    content, was enough to retard development where significant exhaustion
    would be taking place; the hoghlights. In the darker areas, there
    would seem to have been enough developer active to properly develop
    the image.

    The brighter extreme edge of the boy's picture seems to be ocurring in
    an area with less foam action and coverage than in the girl's picture
    and could be caused by fresh developer from the adjacent unexposed
    border where the edge markings seem to be adequately developed. This
    leads to a question about your agitation.

    How often? Method? Vigorous or gentle? How long was the film left
    to stand between agitations? Any rotation of the tank?

    After the introduction of wetting agent into the developer, the
    agitation could have determined how the pattern occured.

    Hope this helps.



    Robert Vervoordt, MFA
     
    Robert Vervoordt, Aug 22, 2004
    #12
  13. Stefano Bramato

    Dan Quinn Guest

    They look COOKED to me. The scratches, I don't know. Dan
     
    Dan Quinn, Aug 22, 2004
    #13
  14. Stefano Bramato

    John McGraw Guest

    Hay Stefano
    I assume you mean the linear marks, as the "slight marks"? No?

    Is there a reason to discount fixer carry over (as in fixer having not
    been washed from one side of the reel) as the cause of the "monster
    skin" effect?

    Also You might try soaking the rolls in H2O & then refixing,
    rewashing, & of course redrying, although if this worked, it would not
    indicate fixer carry over, It's just another possibility.

    Good luck, John
     
    John McGraw, Aug 23, 2004
    #14
  15. I think I see it: It is foam that is trapped under the top spiral
    reel.

    The properly exposed strip at the left on the 2nd shot is due to the
    top reel excluding the foam from inside the spiral, wherein the film
    sits.

    And it explains why the foam/developer interface is not even, as it
    would be in a glass of beer: the bottom of the foam is flat, the top
    is bumpy. Since the foam has been held under by the reel the bumps
    are on the bottom.

    I concur with other posters: photo-flo carry-over is the culprit, the tank
    and/or top wasn't washed between rolls.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Aug 23, 2004
    #15

  16. thanks alot!!

    Stefano
     
    Stefano Bramato, Sep 1, 2004
    #16
  17. "Stefano Bramato"
    Not at all. Thank _you_. There is nothing so much fun as a
    really good problem.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Sep 1, 2004
    #17
  18. Still, some form of agitaton should have dislodged this. I can't
    believe that any small amount of wetting agent foam could survive even
    one inversion of a tank.

    While your suggestion about the foam being under the top spiral of the
    reel, seems to answer most of the questions, agitation is an area of
    complete silence and probably holds the final key to understanding the
    mystery.

    Robert Vervoordt, MFA
     
    Robert Vervoordt, Sep 2, 2004
    #18
  19. Not at all. Thank _you_. There is nothing so much fun as a
    :D

    Hope this problem will not appears again.
    Awaiting next batch of ten rolls...
    :D

    Thanks!!
     
    Stefano Bramato, Sep 4, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.