Advice needed: defects on image produced during development

[Photopathe]

Hi!
I am seeking advice to help identify the source of those imperfections that I assumed were produced during development. By looking at the images I also assume not all defects are the same and not all produced by the same problem. I would like to improve my technique to try avoid these artifacts as much as possible. I cranked up the contrast on the positive versions of the images to make the defects more obvious. I do not always get those defects but they do appear from time to time.
I use Paterson plastic tanks and reels. I mostly use Xtol 1+1 (with distilled water). I use a reduced agitation method: wet film with water for the first 5 min then start development with 1 minute agitation then 10 seconds agitation each 3 minutes. I use ecopro/legacy pro neutral fix (equivalent to PF TF5). Stop bath is plain water.
Thanks!

 

[koraks]

Hm, interesting. What film is this? It's medium format, right?

 

[john_s]

The disks at the top of the first print in the sky look like air bells that dislodged some way into developing, leaving a disk of less developed emulsion. Although I agree with reducing agitation to some degree, I think it's vital the agitation be thorough at the beginning for a good 2 minutes, and all the time in a pre-rinse.

 

[Photopathe]

Second picture is Foma Creative 200, third one is Tmax 400 and first one I don't remember. First one is 35mm, the other two are medium format.

 

[Rick A]

Your first image looks like a classic case of air bells.

 

[bluechromis]

There is a method of development where, in the dark, one drops the film reel into the tank already filled with developer. There are a number of advantages to this, and it is the method Kodak recommends. It can reduce uneven development due to uneven wetting of the film, such as with pouring marks, because all the film becomes wet at the same time. It is said to also reduce the risk of air bells because the film is landing in a still, non-aerated, developer rather than the developer being poured over the film, which creates more bubbles and frothing. You do need a dark space to do this.

 

[bluechromis]

There is the image that has a blue positive and there is a big cliff on the left. It has faint striations in the sky. They seem awfully linear to be air bells. Could they be something that was in the scene like clouds or airplane contrails? Could they represent some kind of physical damage to the negative?

 

[pentaxuser]

There is the image that has a blue positive and there is a big cliff on the left.

OP, just my curiosity but what was the objective in turning a b&w negative into a blue positive?

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Second picture is Foma Creative 200

I suspected this. These are typical defects for this film in 120 roll film format. They're not your fault; it's manufacturing related.

Air bells sound like a decent explanation for the other defects.

Agitation should be fairly vigorous, and tap the tank on the table/counter after an agitation cycle.

 

[Photopathe]

OP, just my curiosity but what was the objective in turning a b&w negative into a blue positive?

pentaxuser

No reason. I scan with a digital camera. I wanted to make the defects clear and obvious by sending both the negative and the reversed image. I cranked up the contrast and just didn't bother to convert to black and white so the natural tint of the film is still there and it's amplified by the exaggerated contrast.

 

[Photopathe]

There is a method of development where, in the dark, one drops the film reel into the tank already filled with developer. There are a number of advantages to this, and it is the method Kodak recommends. It can reduce uneven development due to uneven wetting of the film, such as with pouring marks, because all the film becomes wet at the same time. It is said to also reduce the risk of air bells because the film is landing in a still, non-aerated, developer rather than the developer being poured over the film, which creates more bubbles and frothing. You do need a dark space to do this.

That's interesting. If I keep getting these bubbles I will try this. Meanwhile I will just try agitating during pre-rinse and also tap on the counter systematically (I think I have been sloppy on that part).

I suspected this. These are typical defects for this film in 120 roll film format. They're not your fault; it's manufacturing related.

Air bells sound like a decent explanation for the other defects.

Agitation should be fairly vigorous, and tap the tank on the table/counter after an agitation cycle.

That's very good to know. Do you know of other films that often have these defects? I would try to stay away from them.

 

[koraks]

Do you know of other films that often have these defects?

No, not really; Fomapan 200 is pretty much unique in this respect for all I know. Other brands, in particular Ilford, sometimes suffer from backing paper offset problems, but that's fairly rare and often related to poor storage conditions and expired film.

 

[pentaxuser]

No reason. I scan with a digital camera. I wanted to make the defects clear and obvious by sending both the negative and the reversed image. I cranked up the contrast and just didn't bother to convert to black and white so the natural tint of the film is still there and it's amplified by the exaggerated contrast.

Thanks for the reply

pentaxuser

 

[Cheshire]

Well i have an independent theory on the very last negative/picture.. those two lines are very similar to what I see when the 120 format negative jams/binds/bends in the reel when I load it.

Also a former arista 120 user.. but im not understanding the method your using. Ive never rinsed the negatives down before processing. Always been film to reel, reel into tank, close up tank, and pour premixed chemicals into the tank and go at it.