4x5 Developing Woes. Odd Edge Markings.

[Mick Fagan]

It's the tabs in the tank's film holder that's holding back development, all right. The reviewer got the same effect: take a close look at the sample image toward the end of the review (the one of the footpath with the stone wall), and you'll see it.

Sufficient agitation should limit the effect -- or just keep it in mind while framing your shots.

Yep, in exactly the same place as on my negatives.

If or when I meet David, I'll ask him. I don't know him personally, but have been to a couple of talks he has given; he is, relatively speaking, local to us in Melbourne.

Mick.

 

[tih]

Sufficient agitation should limit the effect -- or just keep it in mind while framing your shots.

I was thinking about what Bill Burk wrote about the tabs keeping the developer from properly wetting the film, and it struck me that it might be interesting to see if a good pre-soak with plain water would make a difference. The developer should more quickly and evenly penetrate into the emulsion, even behind the tabs, if it's already wet.

And then there's the way it seems to happen on one side only. That makes me suspect that the internal geometry of the tank, with film holders inside, is such that there is little movement of the fluid along that side during inversions. Perhaps one could do the inversions in such a direction as to enhance the flow in the difficult area? In other words, rotate the tank around the axis that runs perpendicular to the sheets of film.

(Just guessing from the side-lines, here; I use the MOD54 myself.)

 

[Molli]

Have I made mention of the fact that you're all wonderful? THANK YOU for all of your responses, suggestions and, happily, the answer to the riddle!

Bethe, I can mask the contact print edges - or even trim them down afterwards. It's not my preference (I'm a big fan of black), but it's certainly doable. I also have a number of old Kodak Printing Frames on my eBay watch list, but they're all overseas and everyone wants fifty odd dollars for postage. Making a couple has also been on my To Do List, but it's just another one of those things I'm working my way up to!)
The portrait that I cropped 98% away from before displaying online really does need to be 'full frame' since I framed it poorly and losing the bottom centimetre makes it worse. Otherwise, I will just keep the possibility in mind that I may lose that bottom edge and frame accordingly.

Hi,

I just acquired the Stearman tank with the new, hollowed out holders. I see no comparable artifacts in my negatives (just did a batch of slide film in E6).
I do agitate violently per the instructions in the E-6 kit. Emulsion faces out when I insert the sheet in the holder, of course.
I suspect that the redesigned holders address this problem. You may want to contact Stearman to get his input, and get a couple of the new holders sent to you if he thinks that will solve the problem.

Thank you for taking a look at your negatives for me (everyone else, too, thank you!) That's really encouraging to read that the hollow holders aren't showing any issues, and a relief to know that I can do something about this..... definitely time to start saving my pennies, I think.
I'm not allowed to whine when there are solutions!

It's the tabs in the tank's film holder that's holding back development, all right. The reviewer got the same effect: take a close look at the sample image toward the end of the review (the one of the footpath with the stone wall), and you'll see it.

Sufficient agitation should limit the effect -- or just keep it in mind while framing your shots.

Oh, wow, I didn't see those when I read that review. Had you not mentioned they were there, I'd not have noticed them at all. Maybe I should just steer clear of mug shots in front of bare walls! I'll try increasing agitation (or perhaps the violence of it!) and see if that helps and, as you say, keep the possible side effect in mind in future. Thank you for your time, tih!

 

[Molli]

I was thinking about what Bill Burk wrote about the tabs keeping the developer from properly wetting the film, and it struck me that it might be interesting to see if a good pre-soak with plain water would make a difference. The developer should more quickly and evenly penetrate into the emulsion, even behind the tabs, if it's already wet.

And then there's the way it seems to happen on one side only. That makes me suspect that the internal geometry of the tank, with film holders inside, is such that there is little movement of the fluid along that side during inversions. Perhaps one could do the inversions in such a direction as to enhance the flow in the difficult area? In other words, rotate the tank around the axis that runs perpendicular to the sheets of film.

(Just guessing from the side-lines, here; I use the MOD54 myself.)

I was typing as you replied. I like the possibility that a change in agitation method could do the trick - or even a pre-soak. Thank you for the suggestions. I'll have to go and dig up some old HP4 I have since I can't quite bring myself to experiment with 4x5 sheet film!

 

[brazile]

Coming to this late: I've seen them, I have always believed they're from the tabs, and in my case at least once, they were from a bit of anti-halation backing being left on the back of the sheet, which additional fixing and washing addressed.

Robert

 

[Molli]

Coming to this late: I've seen them, I have always believed they're from the tabs, and in my case at least once, they were from a bit of anti-halation backing being left on the back of the sheet, which additional fixing and washing addressed.

Robert

I'm feeling less special by the minute!
I'm not sure whether I feel better or worse that it's not actually my fault.

 

[tim48v]

We address this in our blog post: https://shop.stearmanpress.com/blogs/news/sp-445-film-holders-rev-2

Normally any impact from the film holder tabs are masked by the border imposed by the camera's film holder.

Presoaking will probably not affect it at all and is not recommended by most film manufacturers.

Some film holders seem to be "tighter" or might have a small amount of "flash" from the molding process. These can be cleaned up with a little fine sandpaper. Just run it rough side up under the fingers, and be gentle!

More info in another blog post: https://shop.stearmanpress.com/blogs/news/a-short-history-of-our-film-holders

 

[Molli]

We address this in our blog post: https://shop.stearmanpress.com/blogs/news/sp-445-film-holders-rev-2

Normally any impact from the film holder tabs are masked by the border imposed by the camera's film holder.

Presoaking will probably not affect it at all and is not recommended by most film manufacturers.

Some film holders seem to be "tighter" or might have a small amount of "flash" from the molding process. These can be cleaned up with a little fine sandpaper. Just run it rough side up under the fingers, and be gentle!

More info in another blog post: https://shop.stearmanpress.com/blogs/news/a-short-history-of-our-film-holders

Tim, my apologies for not responding to your post much sooner, I'm afraid I completely overlooked it. This will teach me to keep following a project even after I have the end product in my hands! Thank you for directing me to those posts, they show the issue perfectly. I did clear my holders of any flashing as per instructions when I first received the tank, but will take to it (very gently!) with some fine grit sandpaper before its next use and see if that helps. Failing that, I'll save my pennies for the hollowed out holders. That extra little ridge to break tension beneath the side tabs might be just the thing to solve this for me. It's odd that mine all appear in the image area. My holders are predominantly Lisco Regals, with a couple of Riteways thrown in to the mix if that has any bearing on anything.

At any rate, Tim, I do hope you didn't overlook the posts where we all said how much we LOVE your tank! As I said right at the beginning, my assumption is always that the problem lies with me, not the equipment. Your tank really is a true pleasure to use, so, my thanks to you for that and for taking the time to point me in the right direction for further information.