Another 'what happened to these negatives?' thread

[tokam]

I think that what you are seeing is areas of localised overdevelopment due to incomplete mixing of the HC-110 concentrate with water to make your working developer solution.

HC-110 is quite viscous and needs to be thoroughly mixed into water before use. Probably take at least 30 seconds stirring. Inspect the solution carefully to ensure there are no visible whisps of HC-110 concentrate at the bottom of your beaker before processing.

At the beginning of your actual development the undissolved parts of the HC-110 will act more vigorously on the emulsion resulting in increased negative density in localised areas of the frame. Also explains why only a a few frames on each roll are affected. By the time you have completed your second round of agitation in the tank the mixing of the HC-110 into water will be more consistent.

Ensure that your HC-110 is completely dissolved in water and try again and get back to us.

Edit: The above consideration applies to the older HC-110 which was Glycol? based. Don't know if this also applies to the current version of HC-110 as I haven't yet tried it.

 

[MattKing]

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.

My suggestion is to keep the Photoflo away from your developing tank (and developing reels) entirely.
For Photoflo I use a relatively short and squat 1 litre measuring graduate purchased in the kitchen section of a Dollar Store. After the film is washed, I remove it from the reel and slowly introduce the film into the graduate. It coils itself nicely and loosely as it goes in.
For a bunch of reasons, I also use this method to create a more easily measured stock solution of alcoholized Photoflo:
A convenient way to ensure the right concentration of Photo-flo

 

[logan2z]

I think that what you are seeing is areas of localised overdevelopment due to incomplete mixing of the HC-110 concentrate with water to make your working developer solution.

HC-110 is quite viscous and needs to be thoroughly mixed into water before use. Probably take at least 30 seconds stirring. Inspect the solution carefully to ensure there are no visible whisps of HC-110 concentrate at the bottom of your beaker before processing.

At the beginning of your actual development the undissolved parts of the HC-110 will act more vigorously on the emulsion resulting in increased negative density in localised areas of the frame. Also explains why only a a few frames on each roll are affected. By the time you have completed your second round of agitation in the tank the mixing of the HC-110 into water will be more consistent.

Ensure that your HC-110 is completely dissolved in water and try again and get back to us.

Edit: The above consideration applies to the older HC-110 which was Glycol? based. Don't know if this also applies to the current version of HC-110 as I haven't yet tried it.

Thanks for your thoughts. I am using the older, more viscous HC-110 product. Here's how I'm creating my working solution:

I'm first putting a fixed amount of water into a small graduate, call it x ml. I'm then using a syringe to extract some HC-110 concentrate and adding it to the small graduate until the amount of liquid in the graduate is x+y ml where y is the required amount of HC-110 required for my target dilution.

I then pour the liquid from this smaller graduate into a larger graduate. I follow this by pouring water into the small graduate and flushing whatever is left in it into the larger graduate. I then add enough water to the larger graduate to complete creation of the working solution. I then use a stirring paddle to stir the working solution. I haven't timed the stirring but it's probably not as long as 30s.

I must admit I haven't looked that closely to see if there is any unmixed HC-110 in the working solution as it appeared to be mixed well, but I will definitely do that next time.

 

[logan2z]

My suggestion is to keep the Photoflo away from your developing tank (and developing reels) entirely.
For Photoflo I use a relatively short and squat 1 litre measuring graduate purchased in the kitchen section of a Dollar Store. After the film is washed, I remove it from the reel and slowly introduce the film into the graduate. It coils itself nicely and loosely as it goes in.
For a bunch of reasons, I also use this method to create a more easily measured stock solution of alcoholized Photoflo:
A convenient way to ensure the right concentration of Photo-flo

My understanding was that washing steel tanks/reels with hot water would be sufficient to remove any lagging photoflo. I also thought that the final rinse with photoflo should be done with the film on the reel to ensure that the photoflo could reach the entire film surface. But at this point I'm willing to change up anything to improve my current results.

 

[MattKing]

With diligence, one can clean the Photoflo and gelatin and other residue off of steel, but I prefer not to introduce the Photoflo to that combination.
However I do think that under certain conditions the reels can inhibit the even application of the Photoflo.
I prefer to think of it as the film soaking in working strength Photoflo, not being rinsed in Photoflo.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My suggestion is to keep the Photoflo away from your developing tank (and developing reels) entirely.
For Photoflo I use a relatively short and squat 1 litre measuring graduate purchased in the kitchen section of a Dollar Store. After the film is washed, I remove it from the reel and slowly introduce the film into the graduate. It coils itself nicely and loosely as it goes in.
For a bunch of reasons, I also use this method to create a more easily measured stock solution of alcoholized Photoflo:
A convenient way to ensure the right concentration of Photo-flo

Jobo recommends removing the film from the reel and placing it in another container before pouring in the PhotoFlo. I have done that for many years even with steel tanks and that keeps me from having to do extra scrubbing on the reels and the tanks easier to clean.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

Surely this has to be something to do with your scanner, to produce similar marks in almost exactly the same place on different frames? No processing or drying error could do that, and you've already eliminated the camera.

 

[logan2z]

Surely this has to be something to do with your scanner, to produce similar marks in almost exactly the same place on different frames? No processing or drying error could do that, and you've already eliminated the camera.

I wish that were the case, but I see the marks on the negatives. I found it kind of baffling as well, hence the posting here In the case of the vertical 'streaks', I posted photos of the negatives earlier in the thread.

 

[grat]

Surely this has to be something to do with your scanner, to produce similar marks in almost exactly the same place on different frames? No processing or drying error could do that, and you've already eliminated the camera.

Well-- It depends on the consistency of the process. A very long time ago, when computers used floppies, an organization had problems with their backups-- each night, the backup would succeed, was verified as valid, and the next day, the backup would be corrupted. So finally, the sysadmin sat down with the secretary that was doing the backups and had her go through the entire process. She dutifully put the disk in, ran the backup, ran the verification, pulled it out of the computer, attached the label, placed the diskette into the typewriter, rolled the diskette through to the label, and started typing.

Not suggesting the OP is doing anything quite so ignorant, but you're right that with the marks being in the same place every time, it's hard to believe this is the result of fluid dynamics, hard water, or insufficient photoflo.

On the other hand-- OP, when you load the reel into the tank, can it slide up and down the central shaft? If so, have you thought about putting something in place to keep the reel from sliding up and down? I'd suggest a rubber band, but that might not be the best choice in the chemicals used for developing.

Personally, to add to the opinions on PhotoFlo, I add 1 drop per 100ml to the tank directly, *then* pour in the final 500ml of water (filtered, not distilled, but my water isn't that hard), and agitate gently with the swizzle stick for 30+ seconds, reversing direction every couple of spins. Anecdotally-- zero water spots. Then for cleanup, a whole lotta hot water run through and over the tank, the reels, the spool, and the funnel portion of the tank.

 

[snusmumriken]

I wish that were the case, but I see the marks on the negatives. I found it kind of baffling as well, hence the posting here In the case of the vertical 'streaks', I posted photos of the negatives earlier in the thread.

OK, I've looked back at your negatives post, and have swung back the other way! It notice that all the marks lie down the centre of the film, and at least one of them is an elongated set of concentric rings, similar to Newton rings in appearance. So I am now much more inclined to join the wetting agent hypothesis. Don't use more than the recommended concentration: I know for certain that can cause marks with hard water.

 

[logan2z]

OK, I've looked back at your negatives post, and have swung back the other way! It notice that all the marks lie down the centre of the film, and at least one of them is an elongated set of concentric rings, similar to Newton rings in appearance. So I am now much more inclined to join the wetting agent hypothesis. Don't use more than the recommended concentration: I know for certain that can cause marks with hard water.

I'm actually using less than the recommended concentration: 3 drops in 400ml of distilled water, which should be quite a bit less than the recommended 1:200 dilution.

If the issue is related to the wetting agent, then it may be due to the way I'm mixing/using it, as others in this thread have suggested.

Hopefully my next roll will go better.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Use less is not necessarily a good thing. You may well need to use more PhotoFlo.

 

[logan2z]

Use less is not necessarily a good thing. You may well need to use more PhotoFlo.

Understood, I'll go with 1:200 next time. I was just responding to the warning not to use too much, which I haven't been. Using too little, if anything.

 

[snusmumriken]

I am now much more inclined to join the wetting agent hypothesis. Don't use more than the recommended concentration: I know for certain that can cause marks with hard water.

Use less is not necessarily a good thing. You may well need to use more PhotoFlo.

Understood, I'll go with 1:200 next time. I was just responding to the warning not to use too much, which I haven't been. Using too little, if anything.

Hahaha. It's just possible both views are correct, depending on other conditions, like the hardness of your water.

Just to add to the diversity of views here, I don't pre-mix my wetting agent with water before adding to the film. I leave the film in its reel in the tank (minus lid), cover it with distilled water, and add 1 ml of Mirasol wetting agent using a medical syringe. I then gently lift the film out and re-insert it, twizzle the reel to and fro a couple of times, then leave the whole thing alone for 30sec before draining. This works for me. Also, although I rinse all my equipment with cold water, I don't take any special pains to remove all traces of wetting agent.

 

[foc]

Hi @logan2z . I have been watching this thread from the sideline and find it very interesting.

The wetting agent (Photoflo, Ilfotol, Fotonal, etc) should be diluted according to the instructions, as has been discussed above. Too much or too little can cause problems although IMO most people use too much.

Have you ever used a squeegee?
Now before everyone jumps in and calls me the devil incarnate, let me explain, please.

I was a professional photographer and lab owner for over 35 years and I always hand processed B&W films for the lab. AND I ALWAYS USED A SQUEEGEE after the final rinse..

The secret is to use a high-quality squeegee, make sure the blades are clean, wet, and supple before use, and the blades should just "kiss" the film in one smooth movement ( you may need to be supple yourself!!)

Squeegees get a bad name because most people try to gouge and scrape the film, trying to remove all the water from the film. All that is needed is to remove the excess.

I wonder if this would solve your problem?

BTW I never had drying marks in all the years.

(now the rest of you can get your pitchforks and torches and drive me out of town!!)

 

[Scott J.]

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!

Just a quick point of clarification: Storage-related mold and bacterial growth are technically possible in working-strength Photoflo but only as a result of biological contamination, where the primary causes are the use of tap water and carryover from reuse (even "clean" tap water typically has microbes in it). If you're preparing a few liters of working-strength solution in distilled water and using it one-shot over the course of several weeks, mold growth is very unlikely. If you prefer to use tap water, Matt's suggestion to pre-mix just before a developing session is a great idea.

 

[logan2z]

Have you ever used a squeegee?

Only on my car windows Nearly everything I've read said to never squeegee wet film.

Like most things related to film development, it seems, there's one camp that says "You must do this" while another camp says "You must never do this". Very confusing for someone new to home development

Much of the recent discussion in this thread has been about the washing/drying process. Is the consensus at this point that something in that part of the process is to blame for the issues I've posted about? I was pretty convinced that at least the high density vertical 'streaks' were somehow caused by uneven development, but it seems those more experienced than I believe the washing process might be to blame. For what it's worth, I've rewashed/dried the film multiple times and the 'streaks' remain.

For my next attempt, I'm going to change up a couple of things:

1) I'm going to agitate a bit more aggressively. I think I might be under-agitating a bit.

2) I'm going to go with a 1:200 dilution of Photoflo mixed in distilled water in a separate tank for the final rinse.

Someone I spoke to offline suggested that I presoak my film, but I think I might hold off on that one for now.

 

[logan2z]

I thought I'd provide an update in case anyone is following this thread:

I developed another test roll and changed up a few things. Firstly, I changed up the agitation protocol slightly to agitate a bit more 'vigorously', as mentioned in the Kodak Tri-X docs. Secondly, I decided to pre-soak the film for three minutes before beginning development. Lastly, I mixed the photoflo for the final rinse in a separate graduate (with distilled water) according to the Kodak-specified 1:200 ratio, rather than just adding a few drops to the developing tank.

First the good news: My negatives look very clean - no drying spots or marks of any kind. I was a bit worried about the 1:200 dilution of photoflo since most things I've read say that's way too much, and my film did have some visible suds on it when I hung it to dry. But the negatives dried very cleanly.

Now for the bad news: There are still a handful of frames on the roll with visible light-colored streaks/bands on the scans that are very subtly visible as dark bands on the negatives. Once again, most are on frames shot in portrait orientation, but there was one landscape shot affected. I've attached the scans and darkened the images to better highlight the problem areas. Interestingly, the bands often come in pairs separated by well-developed areas.

I'm at a loss to debug this problem further. I've used different developing tanks, cameras, lenses in an effort to eliminate any hardware-related issues. I made sure to stir the thick HC-110 very well and measure all of the chemistry very carefully. Everything was at 68 degrees. This has now happened across 4 different rolls of Tri-X 400 so it's not one defective roll of film. @MattKing I even shot this roll without wearing my white baseball hat The dark bands are very hard to see on the negatives, they are very subtle - but once I know where they are from seeing them on the scans I can find them on the negatives. So this isn't a scanning issue.

Needless to say, my first foray into home developing has been very frustrating. On the one hand, most of the frames on the rolls I've developed have turned out well and, generally, the film looks good. So I'm doing something right. But having 3-4 frames per roll ruined by some inexplicable phenomenon is a real bummer...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I see the bands. I have to think some more about what the cause might be.

 

[logan2z]

I see the bands. I have to think some more about what the cause might be.

Thanks, I'm out of ideas.

 

[snusmumriken]

Strange that in the landscape shot the streak still runs from heaven to earth, but now across the film?

 

[logan2z]

Strange that in the landscape shot the streak still runs from heaven to earth, but now across the film?

That is strange, isn't it.

 

[logan2z]

OK, I'm going to throw one thing out here that nobody has mentioned yet:

Is it possible that there is a tiny light leak somewhere in my dark room that is exposing the film to a bit of light while I'm loading it on the reel and into the tank? I've been so focused on the development process as the possible culprit that I've been taking my darkroom for granted and accepting that it's 100% light proof. I routinely check for leaks and haven't found anything obvious, but I guess it's possible that I've overlooked something subtle. Of course I've never had any issues making prints, but obviously film is a different story.

Not sure if these light streaks could be caused by a tiny light leak in the room and I'm not sure why a leak would only affect a small number of frames when the entire roll is exposed to the room environment, but the room is one of the only constants in all of this so far.

My next step might be to buy a changing bag in order to load my next roll in a different environment and see if that has any effect.

 

[Sirius Glass]

OK, I'm going to throw one thing out here that nobody has mentioned yet:

Is it possible that there is a tiny light leak somewhere in my dark room that is exposing the film to a bit of light while I'm loading it on the reel and into the tank? I've been so focused on the development process as the possible culprit that I've been taking my darkroom for granted and accepting that it's 100% light proof. I routinely check for leaks and haven't found anything obvious, but I guess it's possible that I've overlooked something subtle. Of course I've never had any issues making prints, but obviously film is a different story.

Not sure if these light streaks could be caused by a tiny light leak in the room and I'm not sure why a leak would only affect a small number of frames when the entire roll is exposed to the room environment, but the room is one of the only constants in all of this so far.

My next step might be to buy a changing bag in order to load my next roll in a different environment and see if that has any effect.

Yes, it is possible and that could explain why it is only at one end of the roll.

 

[logan2z]

Changing bag on the way. Let's see how that goes...