Another 'what happened to these negatives?' thread

[snusmumriken]

I agree with Matt, I cannot see any streaks either. This could be a scanning problem.

I thought I see could see them in the post #121 images, but not equidistant from the sides: about ⅓ of the way across from left and right, running vertically relative to the image. If I'm looking at the right thing, that symmetry suggests the sides of some liquid effect running down the film centre. In post #114 the more obvious and bulgy streak also has a 'liquid' signature.

 

[logan2z]

I thought I see could see them in the post #121 images, but not equidistant from the sides: about ⅓ of the way across from left and right, running vertically relative to the image. If I'm looking at the right thing, that symmetry suggests the sides of some liquid effect running down the film centre. In post #114 the more obvious and bulgy streak also has a 'liquid' signature.

Right, maybe not exactly equidistant from the left and right edge but fairly close.

I don't know what could possibly cause liquid during the development stage to run down the long dimension of the film - in two places nearly equidistant from the frame edges - in order to create increased density there.

I thought for sure that switching to the Jobo tank would help to eliminate this since it uses a completely different fill design, but I guess there's something else going on that I still can't put my finger on.

 

[glbeas]

Either its a scan artifact or the streaks are actually in the sky and you are getting pictures of them.

 

[logan2z]

Either its a scan artifact or the streaks are actually in the sky and you are getting pictures of them.

Unfortunately I don't think it's either. I see the issues on the negatives and I don't think I'd be so 'lucky' as to keep catching such naturally-occurring streaks in the sky on different days and at different locations.

 

[pentaxuser]

logan2z, have you seen the post on FADU that suggests that the kind of mixing which is OK for all other developers may not be enough for "old" HC110. The post suggests a method which may or may not work, assuming of course that HC110 itself is the problem

I just cannot rid myself of 4 thoughts:

1. Out of the many tens of thousands of times( a conservative estimate?) of mixing surely in a few of those times the mixing was not thorough enough for the issue to have arisen? So has this problem in fact arisen but we on Photrio have just been not in the few to have ever experienced it?

2. We are now so flummoxed by this problem and vania's that we have got to the point of effectively "clutching at straws"

3. If the issue centres on the difficulties of mixing with the old syrup HC110, does the new much less syrupy HC110 solve the problem?

4. Is the problem for whatever reason(s) solved by the use of another developer for those who have been the unlucky few to be adversely affected by the problem?

pentaxuser

 

[logan2z]

logan2z, have you seen the post on FADU that suggests that the kind of mixing which is OK for all other developers may not be enough for "old" HC110. The post suggests a method which may or may not work, assuming of course that HC110 itself is the problem

I just cannot rid myself of 4 thoughts:

1. Out of the many tens of thousands of times( a conservative estimate?) of mixing surely in a few of those times the mixing was not thorough enough for the issue to have arisen? So has this problem in fact arisen but we on Photrio have just been not in the few to have ever experienced it?

2. We are now so flummoxed by this problem and vania's that we have got to the point of effectively "clutching at straws"

3. If the issue centres on the difficulties of mixing with the old syrup HC110, does the new much less syrupy HC110 solve the problem?

4. Is the problem for whatever reason(s) solved by the use of another developer for those who have been the unlucky few to be adversely affected by the problem?

pentaxuser

Yes, I've read the posts on FADU, including the ones re: mixing of HC-110.

I've wondered about the new formulation of HC-110 as well since it's supposed to be less viscous, but I don't have any on hand to try. I might order some from Freestyle and develop a roll.

In the meantime, I developed a test roll using Ilford DD-X late yesterday and the negatives are still drying. I'm going to scan them this evening and see how things turned out.

 

[pentaxuser]

In the meantime, I developed a test roll using Ilford DD-X late yesterday and the negatives are still drying. I'm going to scan them this evening and see how things turned out.

Yes, I look forward to seeing your results. It may be crucial. If DDX works OK and vania has said that his change to ID11 works then it certainly suggests that there is something in the HC110 process that may be at fault

pentaxuser

 

[Wallendo]

I shoot multiple films and have settled on a regime of agitation for one minute continuous agitation followed by 10 rotations every minute for all films. A previous poster posted the same. My experience is that HC-110 doesn't mix quickly. Wether this helps or not is unproven, but works for me.

The other possibility is that there is a problem with the actual capture of the image. Are you shooting at mid-day? Are you using a lens hood? Have you sent off a roll to a commercial lab to see if the streaking persists? The fact that the streaks run from sky to ground regardless of orientation suggests this is not a development issue.

 

[logan2z]

The other possibility is that there is a problem with the actual capture of the image. Are you shooting at mid-day? Are you using a lens hood? Have you sent off a roll to a commercial lab to see if the streaking persists? The fact that the streaks run from sky to ground regardless of orientation suggests this is not a development issue.

I've shot rolls at various times of the day, I've used multiple cameras and lenses across three different 35mm systems, some with hoods some without.

All of my film prior to my own development efforts was shot on these same cameras and developed at a commercial lab without streaks like this.

 

[logan2z]

Well, I scanned my roll of film developed using Ilford DD-X and...

No streaks!!

I don't know if that proves the mixing theory or not but it certainly looks like this is somehow related to my use of HC-110.

I'm going to develop another roll over the weekend using DD-X to see if this was just a fluke, but it's looking promising so far.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well, I scanned my roll of film developed using Ilford DD-X and...

No streaks!!

I don't know if that proves the mixing theory or not but it certainly looks like this is somehow related to my use of HC-110.

I'm going to develop another roll over the weekend using DD-X to see if this was just a fluke, but it's looking promising so far.

Thanks for the report on DDX If you repeat the success with DDX then in terms of there being an issue of some kind with HC110 we would appear to be getting closer to QED - the famous final line required by the teacher after the proof on a geometrical problem

pentaxuser

 

[logan2z]

Thanks for the report on DDX If you repeat the success with DDX then in terms of there being an issue of some kind with HC110 we would appear to be getting closer to QED - the famous final line required by the teacher after the proof on a geometrical problem

pentaxuser

As I mentioned in the thread at FADU, I might also try one more experiment with HC-110 at a higher dilution (H) and 9 mins developing time with a longer initial agitation of 30 seconds.

Other than the streaks, I have liked my results with HC-110 and it's far more economical than DD-X. I figure I've come this far, what's one more roll of film in order to satisfy my curiosity

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the report on DDX If you repeat the success with DDX then in terms of there being an issue of some kind with HC110 we would appear to be getting closer to QED - the famous final line required by the teacher after the proof on a geometrical problem

pentaxuser

Sorry, but the only proof achieved here will be that logan2z gets better results with DDX than HC110.
There is some not yet identified combination of factors in play here.
Otherwise (nearly) everyone using old HC110 would be complaining.

 

[logan2z]

Sorry, but the only proof achieved here will be that logan2z gets better results with DDX than HC110.
There is some not yet identified combination of factors in play here.
Otherwise (nearly) everyone using old HC110 would be complaining.

Right, I'm not trying to claim that there's some issue with the HC-110 product, just that there's something about my use of the product that is resulting in these streaks. That's what has been so frustrating about this - there are tons of people using HC-110 successfully but I have been unable to do so as of yet, for some unknown reason.

I'm going to burn one more roll of film this weekend to try a higher dilution (H) and a different agitation scheme. If that doesn't work, I'll stick with DD-X for now.

 

[MattKing]

Remind us what water you are using to dilute the HC-110.

 

[logan2z]

Remind us what water you are using to dilute the HC-110.

I've tried both tap water and distilled water at 68 degrees F.

 

[logan2z]

One thing I'm wondering about is if my bottle of HC-110 - the original formula that has since expired - is somehow 'off'. I know it has the reputation of lasting forever and I did post a picture of my bottle in another thread and was told it looked 'fine', but I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility.

Maybe I'll pick up a new bottle and see what I get with that.

Or perhaps I should just stick with DD-X and call it a day. It's really convenient to mix 500ml at 1+4 for the Jobo 1520.

 

[pentaxuser]

logan2z, try a leader test with your HC110 to see if it fully develops it i.e. turns the leader black enough that when held up to an incandescent 100W bulb the tungsten wires only glow an orange colour such that the wire can be picked out easily.

Well that's my test for a developer's efficacy. In the "old days" most photogs knew other photogs via clubs etc such that you could always ask another to try developing say half your film with your developer but his processing equipment while you did the same with the other half and your equipment plus his half of his film and that way you might begin to narrow down the causes but this is far from easy these days

As I said, we seem to have covered all the angles in this problem and that of vania's in terms of a forum Q and A and have got precisely nowhere

Matt, being cognisant of the sensitivities when a Kodak item is involved I did try to cover this by saying "in terms of there being an issue of some kind with HC110". The "some kind of" phrase was meant to cover "including the processing involved"

I am convinced that by dint of time, effort, cost and scientific problem analysis the cause will eventually be discovered. but how long this would be and at what cost in terms of $ and frustration is anybody's guess

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Matt, being cognisant of the sensitivities when a Kodak item is involved I did try to cover this by saying "in terms of there being an issue of some kind with HC110". The "some kind of" phrase was meant to cover "including the processing involved"

Acknowledged.
Unfortunately, the sensitivities some of us have regarding the use of the term "proof" are just as, well, "sensitive".
As the often misunderstood saying goes, it is the hard case that proves the rule.
Which of course makes use of an archaic and rarely used meaning for the word "proof".
(Hint: liquor).

 

[logan2z]

logan2z, try a leader test with your HC110 to see if it fully develops it i.e. turns the leader black enough that when held up to an incandescent 100W bulb the tungsten wires only glow an orange colour such that the wire can be picked out easily.

Ahh, I'm glad you posted this, you jogged my memory. Way back when (a couple of months ago ) as I began my foray into home developing. I was concerned about my expired bottle of HC-110 and posted here asking if it was ok to use it. @Sirius Glass suggested the same leader test, I performed it, and the film clip got to the level of density that you described in my chosen development time. That's why I proceeded to use it. So, I guess there's likely nothing wrong with the HC-110 I've been using.

I am convinced that by dint of time, effort, cost and scientific problem analysis the cause will eventually be discovered. but how long this would be and at what cost in terms of $ and frustration is anybody's guess

In some perverse way, I've actually enjoyed all of the experimentation I've done to try and isolate this problem, and I've learned a huge amount from everyone who has replied to this thread, so thank you! But I'd really love to get back to focusing on photography rather than taking endless pictures of empty sky for testing purposes

I know I've waffled back and forth on this in my last few posts, but I think I might just move forward with DD-X for the time being and see how that goes. I will probably pick up a new bottle of HC-110 at some point and give it a shot. I'm really curious if I have any better luck with the new formula.

 

[MattKing]

This is a really weird suggestion, but what the heck.
I see people espousing the quality of so-called alkaline water for drinking.
In the unlikely event that your water - both tap and purportedly distilled - is weirdly acidic, how about trying alkaline water as the HC-110 dilutant?

 

[logan2z]

This is a really weird suggestion, but what the heck.
I see people espousing the quality of so-called alkaline water for drinking.
In the unlikely event that your water - both tap and purportedly distilled - is weirdly acidic, how about trying alkaline water as the HC-110 dilutant?

I've been open to all suggestions since nothing I've tried so far has seemed to work, but not sure about that one, Matt

 

[logan2z]

BTW, I took a quick look at the HC-110 page on BH's site and the developer is listed as 'Currently Unavailable'. That's odd.

 

[MattKing]

They are probably having trouble getting some.
Adorama and Freestyle list it as In Stock.

 

[Wallendo]

If there were a chemical problem with HC-110, it would uniformly affect all the negative, it would not produce streaks. If the problem is developer related, it is probably a mixing issue. I suspect that continuous agitation for 30-60 seconds would solve your problem.

I routinely use metal reels. When inverting the tank, the reels move through the liquid helping agitation. If using Paterson style tanks, make sure the tank isn't too full, so that the fluid moves around in the tank.


Kodak's development suggestion probably works well IF you premix your developer into an intermediate dilution per their recommendations. This would assure adequate mixing. If used "one shot", more agitation is probably desirable.

Although I am far from an expert, my impression is that film developing in 90% chemistry and 10% alchemy.