Am I overagitating? And... can that only mess up some of a roll?

[Moose22]

Ran into something weird here.

First, I'm using xtol, just started so what's posted are off rolls 6 and 7. Omega brand tank like a paterson, using the reels like Freestyle sells with the big flat loading ramps.

I developed two rolls of delta 100. At the same time. Xtol full strength, this is the 6th and 7th roll so I did it 8min 40 seconds. Agitating was turning it over gently two times each 30 seconds, then a tap on the counter and let it sit.

One roll the whole roll came out about right. The second roll the first few have lots of bands emanating from the sprocket holes, but mostly on the first few, not on the last. So, the inside of the reel the problem is bad, the outside it's nonexistent. Here's an example:

These are shots #2 and 3 on the roll, so the ones that were loaded first on the reel. I did one a negative one converted:

You see the issue very strongly here. Straight out of the sprocket holes.

Half way through the roll the effect is way less:

And at the end of the roll it's almost not there at all:

Just for contrast, here's the second roll developed int he same tank at the same time. One each from the beginning and end of the roll. The whole roll is even like this:

These two are what I expect. So it's just one of the reels, and mostly the inside of the reel.

I tried to search for this, but just confused myself. It feels like over agitating, but I'd love some more experienced perspective.

Any advice here? Could I have not put in enough chemistry? Is what I think to be gentle agitation too much? Other than the ramps where you load the film I don't see any difference between these reels and the patterson ones, and roll 5 (arista in 120) and roll 8 (Delta 100 in 120) came out great with the same bottle of xtol working solution.

 

[MattKing]

I have and sometimes use those tanks, and almost always use those reels too, although I use the reels more in Paterson tanks.
In the very last image we can just about see some of the sprocket holes themselves, and that helps a lot, because this appears to be the result of surge of developer through those holes.
It probably is a result of how you are agitating, rather than how much.
It is important that the agitation be sufficiently randomized so as not to create repeating patterns of developer flow.
I always make sure that I impart some rotation when I invert the tank. In addition, I make sure that there is some air space above the fluid. When you invert the tank, you should be able to feel and hear the developer (and other chemicals) tumbling through the film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Matt, I tend to simply invert so I suppose the same pattern each time and yet I haven't seen these kind of marks and if random pattern cures this then why do the marks seem to lessen or disappear towards the end of the roll? I'd have suggested too vigorous agitation but the OP's agitation regime would seem to rule this out as well.

It does seem to disappear after the frame where the cat appears to be the look-out. Try including the cat in every roll at frame one

OK to remain serious, I unfortunately have no idea. Something does appear to happen after so many frames and the marks disappear but what this is beats me

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I never invert the tank. It seems to force the developer through the perforations, causing surge marks. Instead, I hold the tank in one hand, and agitate it in a figure 8 pattern. Five rotations every minute.

 

[mshchem]

I suspect not enough agitation. I agree with the need for random agitation. I was taught that inversion while rotating the tank between your hands is best. This is how I've done it for over 40 years. Ethol photo chemistry distributed a pamphlet "Agitated over Agitation" this is where I learned this method. 1970's

 

[MattKing]

The frames nearer the core will be influenced by different flow patterns than the frames nearer the edge.
The Omega/Arista/AP tanks are nice, but they are at least slightly different than Paterson tanks (or other tanks, for that matter). For one thing, the central core tube mates with the bottom in a slightly different configuration.
My advice is more oriented to making sure that you add as much randomness as is practical, then to do anything in particular.
FWIW, I've had good results when using the OP's tank and reels. The tanks have the advantage of being more compact than the Paterson ones I use, so they are better to use away from home.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Gently is your enemy. Try four energetic inversions combined with a bit of rotating motion, like Matt suggested. I try to rotate the tank around its axis 45° after each inversion, to get 180° total turn. If you have cash to burn, Heiland TAS is absolutely amazing.

I agree completely. I've never had problems with vigorous agitation, but I have had uneven development and bubble spots when I tried more gentle agitation to reduce foaming. From what I can tell, foaming is never problem as long as you have enough solution below the foam to cover the film. Just don't agitate so aggressively that you dislodge the film from the slots in the reel (probably not even possible with 35mm).

For small spiral tank developing, I agitate thoroughly for about 6-7 seconds, do the tank tap, and then set the tank down so the film spends most of its time in motionless developer. In fact, I now do 60 second agitation intervals (Ilford style) for everything instead of 30 seconds (Kodak style).

 

[Moose22]

FWIW, I've had good results when using the OP's tank and reels. .

I got the tank because the reels branded Omega were the ones with the wide loading ramps... and this tank came with patterson style reels so I ended up buying the reels aftermarket anyway. I LOVE the reels. The first roll of 135 was on the stock reel and loading was a bit fussy. Second and third loading was less fussy but nowhere near as easy as using these "new" freestyle reels. I wager by roll 10 using any reel system it won't matter what reel I use, I'll have the muscle memory to get it going, but I really do like the way these load.

I'm not convinced it's a tank issue, but it is definitely isolated to the inside part of the tank. I wish I'd realized this issue when I hung the film up so I knew if it was the top or bottom reel, but alas...

I'll give it a little more agitation next time, doing a third and fourth flip, and I'll do two rolls at once to replicate the setup. I try to be random, I flip it over, turn it 45 degrees, flip it back turning it some, twice. I've only done 2 flips because I read "for 5 seconds every 30" and, frankly, any more takes more than 5 seconds. Doing three or four in 5 seconds feels like I'm making James Bond a martini.

It does seem to disappear after the frame where the cat appears to be the look-out. Try including the cat in every roll at frame one

Yeah, it's possible. This is not my cat, but she likes to hang out with me. Sometimes she knocks on the front door to try and get me to come sit on the porch with her. It's really weird.

She appears on the last frame of more than one roll where I wanted to take it out of the camera and get it developed.

 

[Ozxplorer]

Hi... a little while back I experienced something akin to your issue it turned out to be the fact the film chamber seals needed to be repaired. The reason why the initial few frames are affected is the result of time taken between loading the film; starting to take pictures then advancing to the next frame. The longer the frames are out of the canister the more time light has to enter the back exposing the sprockets and to wash further down into the negative of those negatives exposed for the longest period. This causes the variable degree of fogging per negative... I don't think your issue is development related.

 

[gone]

I never DON'T invert the tank. Are you using one of those lil twirly sticks to agitate? If so, throw it away and just do inversions. That twirley action is what ruined many of my negs, that sprocket hole thing was a deal killer.

If you're using inversions, then I don't know what went wrong. Nice cat by the way. I shoot Delta 100 and love it, looks great the way I do the inversions, which are done pretty much as you stated.....1 inversion after the first minute, 1 inversion every 30 seconds (or 2 or 3 every minute), and none for the last minute. The inversions should be made in one motion and the tank is rotated a little bit in a twirly type manner. Then you spike it down onto a board or kitchen counter top to dislodge bubbles.

 

[Moose22]

Hi... a little while back I experienced something akin to your issue it turned out to be the fact the film chamber seals needed to be repaired. The reason why the initial few frames are affected is the result of time taken between loading the film; starting to take pictures then advancing to the next frame. The longer the frames are out of the canister the more time light has to enter the back exposing the sprockets and to wash further down into the negative of those negatives exposed for the longest period. This causes the variable degree of fogging per negative... I don't think your issue is development related.

I'll keep an eye on it. This was a newer camera in good condition, so I hadn't considered this possibility! I have run a couple dozen rolls through it over the last year, but maybe it's going?

Anyway, I threw a roll of Delta in it last week but have only fired a few frames. Going to kill it off this weekend. We'll see what it looks like.

I never DON'T invert the tank. Are you using one of those lil twirly sticks to agitate

No. Every place I read gave some variety of agitation with things like flipping it over, so did Kodak's instructions, so did Ilford's, so that's what I am trying.

I was actually meaning to ask if anyone used the swizzle stick for anything.

 

[radiant]

Please remember that there is really small change to anything between "heavy" agitation or "gentle". The gentle agitation only makes things risky, so prefer heavy rather than too little. Your photos do not get better with developing techniques but you can ruin your negatives easily with tricking around on developing.

Just agitate properly, inverting the tank every 30 seconds. Maybe add a bit more development time too. Your negatives are nowhere ruined by doing that. I would argue many many many problems go away. It is about tolerances, be on the safe side!

 

[Craig75]

It's definitely surge marks in my world. All I can think from Yr agitation technique is that you are inverting the tank too slowly though

 

[pentaxuser]

OP, if it all centres around agitation as the bulk of posters are suggesting and they may well be right, here's a suggestion: Try the Kodak regime. The amount of inversions in the time interval Kodak gives and its what I use with Xtol, may in fact ensure the correct level of agitation

No marks in what must be nearly 15 years of use in my case so Kodak may well have pitched it right

pentaxuser

 

[Ivo Stunga]

As to the problem being present just at one end of the roll - I'd assume it's because of the impaired fluid movement towards the center - tightening spiral, more film per area and core being present...

 

[albireo]

I use the tank and reels below - for both 35mm and 120. I believe the reels are the same ones OP uses. Regardless of developer, I invert every minute, for a total duration of max 10 seconds, and tend to do 1 inversion (up-down) for 35mm and 2 (up-down up-down) for 120.

I invert EXTREMELY slowly and have never seen the effect shown in OP's message.

I would suggest the opposite is true: fast, energetic inversions (think making a Martini) gives subpar negatives IME. Perhaps turbulent flow results in areas on the negative (eg those closer to the sprocket holes) being affected by differential development.

 

[radiant]

I would suggest the opposite is true: fast, energetic inversions (think making a Martini) gives subpar negatives IME. Perhaps turbulent flow results in areas on the negative (eg those closer to the sprocket holes) being affected by differential development.

Please describe subpar?

I think the "gentle" agitation is just a placebo style effect. But placebo is not wrong; if you *feel* your photos become "better" (and you cannot describe it) then it is really good for you.

Wont believe me? Check this video for example - results at 11:49.

 

[MattKing]

I was actually meaning to ask if anyone used the swizzle stick for anything.

Paterson tanks actually come with instructions that recommend using it continuously for the first 30 seconds (IIRC) of the development, but not thereafter.
And the AP tank and reels shown in albireo's post is what I have.
If you look at the centre column near the bottom, you will likely note that it differs slightly in its shape and the way it interfaces with the bottom of the tank when compared with the Paterson approach. So fluid flow could be different, and surge problems could manifestthemselves in different circumstances than with Paterson tanks.
As I posted, go for the tumbling developer.

 

[albireo]

Please describe subpar?

I think the "gentle" agitation is just a placebo style effect. But placebo is not wrong; if you *feel* your photos become "better" (and you cannot describe it) then it is really good for you.

You make a lot of extrapolations based on a single word. Nothing 'imagined' in my 'subpar'. For me, subpar = measurably inferior. An immediate example that comes to mind (but there are many ways to ruin a negative via too vigorous agitation). In my setup (so with my water, my tank/reels, my chemicals) vigorous agitation can provoke large bubbles, actually foam, which create areas of uneven development. Inverting gently makes sure no bubbling happens and my negatives are consistently evenly developed. YMMV.

 

[albireo]

I was actually meaning to ask if anyone used the swizzle stick for anything.

I do. I use the swizzle stick for C41 development using the Tetenal kit. As I don't want to risk staining anything by inverting the (somewhat leaky) AP tank especially during blix, I decided to experiment with doing away with inversion altogether for both developer and blix to replace it with regular 180 degrees clockwise anticlockwise movements of the sticks. No issues whatsoever.

 

[pentaxuser]

Now we have one poster saying he uses what he thinks are similar reels as the OP with what sounds like very gentle inversion so similar to the OP and yet he has never seen this effect the OP describes

Can the effect we see be due to the nature of the reels? Might they not be the same as Albireo uses>? It all suggests to me that there might just be another cause, does nobody else feel this way or is the body of opinion that it is still 100% down to agitation?

So OP is what albireo shows as his reels the same as yours? Once we get that question answered then maybe we can narrow down the cause of the problem to an extent at least.

pentaxuser

 

[john_s]

.......

I invert EXTREMELY slowly and have never seen the effect shown in OP's message.

I would suggest the opposite is true: fast, energetic inversions (think making a Martini) gives subpar negatives IME. Perhaps turbulent flow results in areas on the negative (eg those closer to the sprocket holes) being affected by differential development.

I use Jobo 1500 type tanks (common size) with enough developer to nearly fill the tank and leave a small amount of air space which is important for agitation. My inversions are fairly gentle turning over the tank a complete 360, not back and forth. My aim is to freshen up the developer in contact with the film without being vigorous. I initially agitate for a couple of minutes, turning the tank a little each time to avoid a regular direction of flow. After initial agitation I do minimal agitation at an interval of about 3 minutes. My negatives have improved over the years and one reason IMO is that the gentle agitation has evened out my contrast. Someone wrote "expose for the shadows, develop for the mid tones, agitate for the highlights."

If it matters, my developers are Pyrocat-HD and ID-78, two rather different developers, and I haven't had surge marks.

 

[MattKing]

leave a small amount of air space which is important for agitation

I quote this for emphasis.
And my reels are identical to the ones albireo (and the OP) use.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I think the "gentle" agitation is just a placebo style effect.

Under rigorous test conditions, the detectable differences between a small amount of inversion agitation (essentially, just enough more than absolutely nil to get even development) and continuous inversion, when contrast etc is controlled for, are essentially negligible. A lot of what people think are agitation effects may in fact be developer 'coverage' effects. In this case however, it sounds like insufficient initial agitation - I've seen quite a few problems people have had with various edge oddities disappear after giving an appropriate and decisive (doesn't need to be aggressive) initial agitation period - the first 30s-1min of development seem crucial to getting good & even development.

 

[albireo]

Under rigorous test conditions, the detectable differences between a small amount of inversion agitation (essentially, just enough more than absolutely nil to get even development) and continuous inversion, when contrast etc is controlled for, are essentially negligible. A lot of what people think are agitation effects may in fact be developer 'coverage' effects.

I don't mean to doubt years of rigorous research on the effect of agitation on grain and actual development uniformity, in general.

However, _some_ developer coverage effects (let's call them 'local coverage artifacts') are inextricably associated with agitation. Even if I use an optimal amount of developer solution for my tank/reel/film combo ('coverage') I might still experience local coverage artifacts that I can correct by fine tuning fluid dynamics during development IME.

Some developers, I have found, are prone to producing foam if intensely agitated. This foam will show up on the developed negative as oval/circular lighter areas surrounded by a darker ring. The inverted image will present ring artefacts. These are completely avoidable by making sure the developer does not produce foam, which in my experience happens when its movement is kept steady and slow.

Fomadon LQN, just to make an example, is a developer that will produce foam if intensely agitated.