Another 'what happened to these negatives?' thread

OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
Well, that's something I hadn't considered. These photos were shot in very harsh midday light, and I do often wear a white Adidas tennis hat when I'm shooting in those conditions . If that's somehow related that would be pretty funny
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,262
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
FWIW, here is Kodak's recommendation for Photo-flo:

"Provide gentle agitation for 5 seconds of the total time. To reduce drying scum, mix KODAK PHOTO-FLO Solution with distilled water in areas that have hard water. "
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,262
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
logan2z said:
Well, that's something I hadn't considered. These photos were shot in very harsh midday light, and I do often wear a white Adidas tennis hat when I'm shooting in those conditions . If that's somehow related that would be pretty funny
Click to expand...
I've encountered stranger things.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
Well, my latest roll contains two frames that exhibit the same two high-density bands down the center of the frame. As before, both frames are in portrait orientation. I'm pretty sure I remembered to remove my hat before I shot them Oh, and this was with a different camera than the last two rolls.

Film is still 35mm Tri-X 400.

I'm at a loss to explain it...

 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,688
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Like Matt says, don't agitate your final rinse like that. I use the same, but with both 35mm and 120 roll film, I let my film lay at rest in the final rinse with three or four slight rises and slow falls for about 4 or 5 minutes. Another thing I have changed over to when it comes to drying film is that I no longer hang my film vertically. I rigged up some clips to hold the film in a horizontal position, which drains the film much faster of the final rinse. The horizontal hanging has really helped me in the streak or water spot problem. Just my 2 cents worth, JohnW
 

glbeas

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,937
Location
Marietta, Ga. USA
Format
Multi Format
Theres also the possibility of bromide drag, especially considering you were using a fairly dilute developer. Its possible your agitation technique is not aggressive enough to move the exhausted developer away from the film quickly enough. As a result the shadow areas with less development have stronger developer next to it and this gets moved into adjacent areas to make the darker streaks. This can happen when the tank is filled full enough theres very little air in it and these bubbles pushing thier way up as the tank is inverted help increase agitation.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,688
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
If it were bromide drag, it's going the wrong way for 35mm in a small tank. I think Matt is probably onto something with the internal light reflection thing. I don't know where it could be coming from, but it's possibly coming from the shutter box, back of the mirror when up or the rear of the lens itself. I'd work on one thing at a time. Try drying horizontal first, then go after a light reflection thing. He'll narrow it down. JohnW
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
I don't know much about the causes of Bromide drag, but the photos of negatives I've seen that are supposedly affected by it always seem to have the streaks running in the other direction. I'll try a slightly more vigorous agitation method on the next roll and see if that cures it.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
John Wiegerink said:
If it were bromide drag, it's going the wrong way for 35mm in a small tank.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought as well.

John Wiegerink said:
I think Matt is probably onto something with the internal light reflection thing. I don't know where it could be coming from, but it's possibly coming from the shutter box, back of the mirror when up or the rear of the lens itself.
Click to expand...
Well, this has now happened with three different camera bodies/lenses so I'm not sure how that's possible.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,688
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
logan2z said:
That's what I thought as well.


Well, this has now happened with three different camera bodies/lenses so I'm not sure how that's possible.
Click to expand...
Whoops! I missed the three different bodies. Well, then it does look like it might be a drying error. You should probably start there and try some of the recommendations. Let us know what you find out. JohnW
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
John Wiegerink said:
Whoops! I missed the three different bodies. Well, then it does look like it might be a drying error. You should probably start there and try some of the recommendations. Let us know what you find out. JohnW
Click to expand...
I'll look into the possibility of a drying problem and try some of the recommendations. Thanks.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
One more issue that has affected a couple of negatives: Dark circular areas in the sky, one per frame. These two scans are from adjacent frames, but there is one other frame that is affected on a different part of the roll. These spots are very difficult to see on the negatives but if I look very closely I do see areas that appear to have reduced density where these 'blobs' occur.

These seem too large to be air bells and I'm pretty careful to rap the tank on a hard surface after every agitation cycle. I also figured I would have more than one per frame if air bells were the cause and it seems too coincidental that they'd be in almost the exact same place in the two frames. I also thought maybe drying marks, but I don't see them when examining the negatives and I thought drying marks would look like lighter areas in scans. I'm washing my negatives using the Ilford method and doing the final rinse with distilled water and a few drops of Photoflo. I do have very hard water in my area, so perhaps I should mix my chemistry and perform all wash steps with distilled water.

Interestingly enough, the first few rolls of film I developed had no such spots and I used 3 drops of Photoflo in my 2-reel tank. For this roll, I decided to cut back to 2 drops since I was getting a lot of bubbling during the final rinse. I'd be surprised if using one less drop would cause this, but who knows. In any case, I re-washed the film just to be sure and there appears to be a bit of improvement (see 3rd scan), but the scans look a bit different despite me not modifying the raw scans at all.

I'm really committed to home development, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't getting discouraged.



Here's a rescan of the second negative after re-washing:

 
Last edited:

Craig75

Member
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,234
Location
Uk
Format
35mm
That looks an absolute pain to fix

It's not drag or surge marks as it only happens in portrait

It doesn't look like drying marks to me

The development regime looks correct.

Happens with multiple bodies

One reel in two reel tank with empty reel on top.


Be interested to know how this is resolved
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,262
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
When I see the last batch of examples, the first thing I think of is Edvard Munch ......
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
Fingerprints?

I'm very careful to avoid touching the film while I load it on the reel and I'd be surprised if I touched it in nearly the same place on three different frames if I did, but I'm baffled - again.

I've rewashed the film multiple times with very little perceptible change.
 

Scott J.

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
164
Location
Wyoming
Format
Large Format
I’m not sure this is Photoflo-related, but one thing came to mind when you mentioned adding “drops” of Photoflo to your tank when performing the final rinse. My experience with using Photoflo-200 on roll film (135 and 120) has been that you really need to use premixed Photoflo as opposed to adding a few drops to each tank on a per-use basis. Although Photoflo is water-soluble, it needs a little time to fully dissolve. If you add a few drops on the fly to a developing tank, you run a high risk of getting a hefty dose of not-fully-dissolved Photoflo on your negatives. Hanging them lengthwise to dry in that condition usually results in residue marks. (As a side note, this doesn’t seem to happen with sheet film, likely because the overall length of each film piece is shorter and the Photoflo can manage to slip off quicker.) Premixing my Photoflo (1+200) a couple liters at a time solved that problem for me.

Another thought: Are you doing a water pre-soak, by chance? When I first got into Pyrocat-HD (which traditionally uses a water per-soak), I found that I was getting a lot of density-related anomalies, particularly on 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film developed in the Stearman Press tanks. Doing away with the water pre-soak completely fixed that problem. My working hypothesis is that dilute developers are more prone to pre-soak-related anomalies due to the water impeding the movement of the developer into the emulsion. This seems especially problematic for reduced agitation development (e.g., inversions every three minutes).
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,262
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Scott J. said:
Although Photoflo is water-soluble, it needs a little time to fully dissolve.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Scott J. said:
If you add a few drops on the fly to a developing tank, you run a high risk of getting a hefty dose of not-fully-dissolved Photoflo on your negatives.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Scott J. said:
Premixing my Photoflo (1+200) a couple liters at a time solved that problem for me.
Click to expand...
I sort of agree.
It is important to make sure that the Photoflo is fully mixed in. I don't, however, recommend that you pre-mix it in quantity.
Instead, I suggest you mix up the Photoflo early in your session, and in sufficient quantity for that session's use. After a decently long period of time (at least 10 minutes), and after the film has been washed, it should be added to a separate container with the Photo-flo in it - not the developing tank, and after removal from the reel. Agitate it briefly, and then soak it for the rest of the time, making sure of even coverage.
It is fine to re-use that same batch of Photo-flo with every roll developed during that session, but it is best to discard it after.
The reason not to mix up and store a quantity of Photoflo is that working strength Photoflo is an ideal environment for the growth of mould!
 

reddesert

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
2,430
Location
SAZ
Format
Hybrid
2 or 3 drops of Photo-flo 200 are well below the recommended dilution. It's supposed to be 1:200, thus the name. If you have a 2-reel steel tank it's about 400-450 ml volume if filled all the way or 200-225 ml if you only put in enough to cover one reel. So you need 1-2 ml, or 1-2 cubic cm, which is a small volume but much more than 2-3 drops.

I don't worry about mixing it minutes ahead of time, but I mix it in a container and then pour the mixture into the tank (or sometimes I put the film into the Photo-flo container if I don't want to get Photo-flo on the reels, which is likely a non-issue for steel reels anyway). If you just drip a couple of drops into a tank already holding water and film, your chances of getting uniformly mixed Photo-flo in contact with all of the film are very small. And then it won't work.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format

Thanks to you and @Scott J. for the input re: photoflo. I can't tell you how many posts I've read/videos I've seen on the subject of film washing that describe filling the developing tank with distilled water and adding 2-3 drops of photoflo directly into the tank, and then agitating the mixture. I guess that's where I picked it up. But I'm sure it's better to mix up the working solution in another container before dumping it into the tank to ensure proper mixing.

But could the strange vertical light streaks and dark spots shown in my negative photos/scans really be the result of photoflo-based marks on the film rather than a problem that occurred during development?

Regardless, I'll certainly change the way I perform my final rinse and see if that helps anything.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,411
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
PhotoFlo needs to be mixed before adding to the film and start off following the instructions as written without any short cuts. Then as necessary adjust from there. There are many threads at Photrio discussing problems when drops of PhotoFlo were added. Again, mix the PhotoFlo by the instructions first.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format

Right, I fell into the trap of listening to the internet rather than following the manufacturer's instructions. I'll do the latter for the next roll and see what happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…