Another 'what happened to these negatives?' thread

sdeeR

D
sdeeR

  • 0
  • 0
  • 23
Rouse St

A
Rouse St

  • 1
  • 0
  • 31
Untitled

A
Untitled

  • 2
  • 1
  • 49
Today's Specials.

A
Today's Specials.

  • 3
  • 0
  • 46
Street portrait

A
Street portrait

  • 1
  • 0
  • 39

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,175
Messages
2,787,467
Members
99,832
Latest member
lepolau
Recent bookmarks
1

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
I've recently started home developing my B&W film and it's been going pretty well. I just developed a new roll and things look good on most of the frames, but I noticed an anomaly on a handful of frames that I can't really explain:

The problem is what appears to be a band of slightly higher density starting at the edge of the frame and extending into the frame. It seems to affect about four frames on the entire roll of 36 and all of the frames are in portrait orientation. The higher density area appears to be in the same location on all affected frames.

I went back and looked at the previous roll I developed and I see something similar on one of the frames that is also in portrait orientation - it should be noted that this roll was shot with a different camera/lens. The area of higher density does not extend into the rebate area, so I assume that (and the fact that this issue is seen with multiple cameras/lenses) eliminates the possibility of a light leak.

I first noticed the issue in scans of the negatives, but I see the issue on the negatives themselves. I've included a couple of scans to illustrate the problem (I darkened some of the images to make the issue more obvious).

The film is Tri-X 400 developed in HC-110, Ilford Ilfostop stop bath and Rapid Fixer. The film was washed using the Ilford method followed by a final wash step using distilled water and a few drops of photoflo. The film was then hung to dry vertically.

Does anyone have any idea what might have caused this? Could these be as simple as drying streaks? I think they are in the direction in which the film was hung to dry, but admittedly I haven't tried cleaning the film with anything yet. They don't really look like that to me, though.

The first one below initially looked like a cloud to me, but then I realized the other frames showed the same band in the same location on the film and yet they were shot facing a different direction.

These two are from the same roll:
IRKlve2h.jpg


SJVmtB0h.jpg


This one is from a different roll shot with a different camera/lens:
Waysn0Fh.jpg
 

MARTIE

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
271
Format
Multi Format
Please, examine your negatives.
If they're drying streaks, then you should be able to see the residue on the surface of the film.
 

MARTIE

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
271
Format
Multi Format
If the streaking has a consistent and repetitive nature then the problem tends to be mechanical i.e. camera/taking stage related.
However, if these discolorations are more random then it tends to be more chemical related i.e. processing stage.
 

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
B&W film and sky can be a problem even when things go perfectly, I try to avoid a lot of that if possible. I'm not sure those are drying marks, but you can eliminate that in the future by misting the hanging negs w/ distilled water. Do it in a bathroom that has had the hot shower run to build up humidity and keep the door shut after you've sprayed the negs. The secret is to dry slowly, it works like this w/ enlarging papers as well. I've gotten those marks before from agitation that was too aggressive too.
 

bdial

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
7,473
Location
North East U.S.
Format
Multi Format
Can you post up a pic the negative strip whole and unreversed? And maybe both sides?
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,581
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Also….

what size film
what tank
What agitation protocol

what camera/lens
Might be irrelevant since happening with multiple, it seems
etc
 
OP
OP

logan2z

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

what size film
what tank
What agitation protocol

what camera/lens
Might be irrelevant since happening with multiple, it seems
etc

It's 35mm film.

Tank was a steel Nikor that holds two reels (Hewes), only the bottom reel loaded with film.

Agitation is as follows: Invert tank 5 times in first 5 seconds, knock tank to dislodge air bubbles
Repeat inversions every 30s for entire development time (of 6.5 minutes)

The cameras/lenses were a Leica M-A with 28mm/2.8 Elmarit ASPH, and a Pentax KX with Pentax 50mm/1.7. The Leica had a B+W yellow filter over the lens, the Pentax had no filter.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
Can you post up a pic the negative strip whole and unreversed? And maybe both sides?
I'll try to do that. The problem is the camera in my phone seems to dislike the frequency of the light in my lightpad and the images end up with dark banding, which will likely obscure this problem. Let me see what I can do...
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
I ran across this post that contains images that look very similar to mine. I wonder if the cause described in the post is the reason for my 'streaks', although in my case the streaks run along the long dimension of the negatives so maybe not. FWIW, I am only using a two-reel tank and filled it pretty quickly, probably within 10 seconds or so.

https://www.erikgouldprojects.com/coldcoffee/2016/12/31/streaky
 

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,354
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
I'll try to do that. The problem is the camera in my phone seems to dislike the frequency of the light in my lightpad and the images end up with dark banding, which will likely obscure this problem...

Hold your negatives to a window in daylight and use that as a light source. Or reflected light off a sidewalk or other light coloured surface in sunlight.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,581
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
It's 35mm film.

Tank was a steel Nikor that holds two reels (Hewes), only the bottom reel loaded with film.

Agitation is as follows: Invert tank 5 times in first 5 seconds, knock tank to dislodge air bubbles
Repeat inversions every 30s for entire development time (of 6.5 minutes)

The cameras/lenses were a Leica M-A with 28mm/2.8 Elmarit ASPH, and a Pentax KX with Pentax 50mm/1.7. The Leica had a B+W yellow filter over the lens, the Pentax had no filter.
Consider the possibility that you ae seeing surge marks.

I assume that you ensured enough developer to cover the reel with film. You filed the tank halfway rather than full, I assume :smile:
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
Consider the possibility that you ae seeing surge marks.

I assume that you ensured enough developer to cover the reel with film. You filed the tank halfway rather than full, I assume :smile:

Never assume anything :smile:

I didn't completely fill the tank, but I put in enough developer to just cover the top reel - just as if both reels held film. I thought that was the "right" thing to do (hey, I read it on the internet somewhere :wink:) rather than just covering the first reel. I did it primarily because I'm using HC-110 Dilution E and was concerned that I wouldn't have enough developer in a single reel tank, so I went to a two-reel tank with one roll of film and one empty reel. I definitely hear developer movement when performing inversions.

Re: surge marks, don't those generally run between the sprocket holes? In my case, they are running in the opposite direction.

Any ideas as to what I'm doing incorrectly are more than welcome. I'm one botched roll away from buying a digital camera :D
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,581
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
I hereby retract my assumption! I should have posed that as a question. Will do better in the future. :smile:
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
Try continuous agitation for the first 30 or 60 seconds as manufacturers recommend!
From the Kodak Tri-X Data Sheet:

MANUAL PROCESSING
Small-Tank Processing (8- or 16-ounce tank)
With small single- or double-reel tanks, drop the loaded
film reel into the developer and attach the top to the tank.
Firmly tap the tank on the top of the work surface to
dislodge any air bubbles. Provide initial agitation of 5 to 7
inversion cycles in 5 seconds; i.e., extend your arm and
vigorously twist your wrist 180 degrees.
Then repeat this agitation procedure at 30-second
intervals for the rest of the development time.

==============
The only thing I'm doing differently is pouring the developer into the already loaded tank rather than dropping the reel into the tank full of chemistry. I've never seen anyone actually do the latter.

Pictures of negatives coming shortly...
 
Last edited:

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,581
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
I’m not nearly as experienced as many others on this forum regarding processing but I’ve experienced more agitation-related concerns with “half-filled” tanks (1 roll in a 2 roll tank) than when completely filled. Like you did, I tend to waste chemistry by fully filling the tank in hopes of avoiding that concern. Has wicked problems when using just enough chemistry to cover 1 reel. Maybe it’s a crackpot observation but no nearly as crackpot as putting reels into chemistry-filled tanks. Looking forward to your negs.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,294
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
From the Kodak Tri-X Data Sheet:

MANUAL PROCESSING
Small-Tank Processing (8- or 16-ounce tank)
With small single- or double-reel tanks, drop the loaded
film reel into the developer and attach the top to the tank.
Firmly tap the tank on the top of the work surface to
dislodge any air bubbles. Provide initial agitation of 5 to 7
inversion cycles in 5 seconds; i.e., extend your arm and
vigorously twist your wrist 180 degrees.
Then repeat this agitation procedure at 30-second
intervals for the rest of the development time.

==============
The only thing I'm doing differently is pouring the developer into the already loaded tank rather than dropping the reel into the tank full of chemistry. I've never seen anyone actually do the latter.

Pictures of negatives coming shortly...
Ok not all manufacturers then, but it's rather common.
Of course you've never seen anyone drop the reel into the tank full of chemistry, doing that with lights on would ruin the film. I'm joking, I don't think that's necessary except with huge tanks that fill slowly.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
OK, I finally got a couple of half-decent photos of the negatives on my lightpad.

The first photo is with the base side up - ignore the reflection of my camera in the second frame from the right. I've circled the area of higher density in the rightmost frame.

FNS9XYRh.jpg


The second photo is with the emulsion side up. Since it is less reflective, the area of higher density is visible in the two rightmost frames (circled).

d07X2tUh.jpg


I took a pretty close look at the negatives, and I don't see any obvious water marks/streaks on the surface of the film. Nonetheless, I tried a gentle cleaning of the base side of the last frame with a cotton ball and some distilled water but that had no visible effect (other than to cause the film to curl at the end :smile:).

I'm still puzzled as to what caused this issue on only 4 out of 36 frames. Hopefully someone more experienced in film developing has some insight...
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,232
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I think it is subject flare, reflecting off either something in the scene or in the camera or?
I see no sign of it between the frames.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
I think it is subject flare, reflecting off either something in the scene or in the camera or?
I see no sign of it between the frames.
I don't know, Matt. It happened on a couple of other frames on this roll shot in different physical locations, and I saw it on one frame of another roll shot with a different camera/lens. :sad:
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,232
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I understand that it happened with different lens and camera combinations, and in different locations.
But if you find yourself drawn to particular types of lighting, perhaps that is the commonality.
Or perhaps you like to photograph wearing really bright hats :D.
 
OP
OP

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,727
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
If it was some sort of drying mark/steak as has been suggested in this thread, is there anything to do at this point to remove it? Is it worth attempting to rewash the negative strip?

One thing I didn't mention is how I did the final rinse - I didn't simply dunk the film in the distilled water/photoflo mix but performed 20 inversions in the tank. That did create quite a lot of suds. I'm not sure if drying marks are the culprit here, but I just wanted to mention this in case it somehow contributed to this issue. Maybe a gentle dunk would be better in future.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom