At my wit's end: high density bands on my negatives again

[usesfilmleaders]

Hello. I really do not have a solution for you other than what in the medical profession might be called "rule out". In order to figure out exactly what is going on, whether it is your film, your water, your development method, or your camera you need to rule all these things out, one by one, so make a list, use 1 film, one camera 1 developer.

It will require you buy an expired or used (not pre exposed by sold cheep by someone who doesn't want it) bulk roll of film.

Make exposure rolls for IDK a cubit and use this length as your standard. With your camera make test exposures, develop the roll. the first one in a tray just rocking it. rule out your cameras first. if you have more than 1 camera do it for each of them.

Once you rule out your camera, next on your list might be your film reels, then your developing whatever you use, and see exactly when your streaks appear. Right now there are too many variables - - - films developers cameras ways you develop --- if you just do things one at a time you might be able to figure out what it is.

 

[Nige]

Crimping or bending the film can cause exposed areas to react differently to developer resulting in areas of higher density.

I've had two cases of "unknown density" on my negs. First one only showed up occasionally, turned out it was a 'faint' light leak on a Mamiya 645 back when I left it wound on at a single exposure for a long time and left the camera in sunlight for extended periods. Running through exposures 'quickly' showed no trace. Eventually someone noticed the extra density on the film rebate and explained the cause and I eventually determined why it was only affecting the occasional frame. New foam fixed it. Doubt this is what's happened here though.

The second, and why I quoted Doremus, is I put some 120 film through a 620 Box Brownie. I didn't file enough of the plastic spool and it was physically difficult to wind on to the next frame. The film came out with numerous higher density sections but no physical 'kinks'. I prepared my 120 film better (filed more of the spool) on subsequent occasions and the film ran through the camera smoothly, with no density 'tug' lines. So, with rough handling, I think this could be possible, but once again, unlikely in this case.

I doubt it's the chemical side of the processing. I would process a film (or portion) of an unexposed film to see if it's the physical handling.

 

[foc]

What is your developing reel loading proceedure?
Do you load in a darkroom or dark bag?
If loading in a darkroom, is it totally light tight (stay 20 mins in it and you should still see no light leaks)
If loading in a dark bag, do you do it in a darkened room or full light?
Do you wear a watch, or is your phone nearby when loading the reels in the dark?
Could there be static (from clothes etc) when the reel is being loaded? (you could try an earth/ground wristband).

 

[LimeyKeith]

Can I ask a) if this problem occurs near the start, end or at random intervals in the roll, and b) are you using commercial cassettes of film and not self-loading them?

You have empirically eliminated specific cameras, lens, films, processing chemicals and processing equipment as the cause of your problems so, to paraphrase Mr Holmes, ".... whatever is left must be the cause." Between opening a fresh film carton and lifting the fully processed film out of the chemicals there must be a point of commonality for all the instances where this problem occurs so you need to think very carefully about your procedures.
For example: are you absolutely certain the the problem occurs no matter whether you load your reels in your changing bag or your darkroom? I stress this because over my six decades of shooting film I have seen more instances of random fogging caused by changing bag light leaks than any other.
Just some food for thought .......

 

[Donald Qualls]

Crimping actually crossed my mind

But once again, if this were pressure marks, I wouldn't expect it to cut off sharp at the edge of the frame; I'd expect it to cross into the rebate.

 

[logan2z]

What is your developing reel loading proceedure?
Do you load in a darkroom or dark bag?
If loading in a darkroom, is it totally light tight (stay 20 mins in it and you should still see no light leaks)
If loading in a dark bag, do you do it in a darkened room or full light?
Do you wear a watch, or is your phone nearby when loading the reels in the dark?
Could there be static (from clothes etc) when the reel is being loaded? (you could try an earth/ground wristband).

As mentioned, I've used both a darkroom and a dark bag to load film. The latter is what I use currently and do it in a darkened room. I don't wear a watch while loading film and my phone isn't nearby.

I think it's been established that this problem isn't a result of stray light or the streaks would cross into the rebate area rather than bring constrained to the frame.

 

[logan2z]

But once again, if this were pressure marks, I wouldn't expect it to cut off sharp at the edge of the frame; I'd expect it to cross into the rebate.

Dumb question, but would that be true in the case of a pressure mark? If there is no exposure to light in the rebate, would a pressure mark cause any buildup of density there?

I did take a close look at the emulsion and base sides of the affected frames and I see no evidence of crimping or kinking.

 

[BrianShaw]

In post 1, was there an undocumented step 7.5: wiping/squeegeeing?

 

[Donald Qualls]

My experience is that pressure marks are well above Zone 1 density, and my understanding is that they'd independent of light exposure -- or alternatively, silver halides (or something else in emulsion, other coating layers, or film base) is slightly triboluminescent, making it generate its own light fogging with sufficient flexure.

Which is to say, yes, I'd expect pressure marks to show in the rebate. I've seen them on my own 120 film in the unexposed head or tail portion.

 

[logan2z]

Can I ask a) if this problem occurs near the start, end or at random intervals in the roll, and b) are you using commercial cassettes of film and not self-loading them?

You have empirically eliminated specific cameras, lens, films, processing chemicals and processing equipment as the cause of your problems so, to paraphrase Mr Holmes, ".... whatever is left must be the cause." Between opening a fresh film carton and lifting the fully processed film out of the chemicals there must be a point of commonality for all the instances where this problem occurs so you need to think very carefully about your procedures.
For example: are you absolutely certain the the problem occurs no matter whether you load your reels in your changing bag or your darkroom? I stress this because over my six decades of shooting film I have seen more instances of random fogging caused by changing bag light leaks than any other.
Just some food for thought .......

I'm using commercial film cassettes, I am not loading them myself.

I'm certain the problem has occurred when loading film in both a darkroom and a changing bag. I moved to a changing bag in an attempt to eliminate this problem.

As has been mentioned by others, this does not appear to be related to fogging of the film or the issue would extend outside of the frame.

 

[logan2z]

In post 1, was there an undocumented step 7.5: wiping/squeegeeing?

I didn't mention wiping/squeegeeing because I don't do it. I don't touch the film surface once I take the film out of the tank.

 

[logan2z]

My experience is that pressure marks are well above Zone 1 density, and my understanding is that they'd independent of light exposure -- or alternatively, silver halides (or something else in emulsion, other coating layers, or film base) is slightly triboluminescent, making it generate its own light fogging with sufficient flexure.

Which is to say, yes, I'd expect pressure marks to show in the rebate. I've seen them on my own 120 film in the unexposed head or tail portion.

Thanks for the info, good to know.

When you've had pressure marks on your film, were you able to see any evidence of creasing/kinks by looking at the film surface? I've looked carefully and I don't see any obvious evidence of this.

 

[Donald Qualls]

When you've had pressure marks on your film, were you able to see any evidence of creasing/kinks by looking at the film surface?

Occasionally, but not always. A pressure mark apparently takes less abuse to create than a visible crease in the base.

 

[logan2z]

Occasionally, but not always. A pressure mark apparently takes less abuse to create than a visible crease in the base.

I could see this possibly happening at the start of the film strip while just getting the film started on the reel, but I'm not sure how I could kink the film at frame 30 while loading it onto a Jobo reel - and kink it vertically right in the center of the frame without affecting the area outside the frame. But, in the interest of getting to the bottom of this, I'm going to load a reel a few times in the light with a scrap roll and see if anything like this seems possible.

Appreciate your help!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've only ever seen pressure marks from fighting with 120 film going into a stainless reel (I don't use stainless reels and tanks any more for this reason). I've never had a problem with either 35 mm or 120 on Paterson reels, nor (back in the day) with those or 127 on other brands of plastic reels (FR and Yankee were big when I first did my own film).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Try ditching the pre-soak and machine agitations, use a forceful three tappings of the tank to dislodge any bubbles every time you agitate and, use a forceful drop and rise when agitate turning/rotating the tank bottom about a 1/3 to 1/2 at the end of each lowering of the tank during agitation.

If done consistently, I suspect your bands will disappear, as I've used this method for class se to fifty years and can no recall ever having an issue with bands, that was no the direct result of light leaking.

Watching YouTube darkroom film developing, I feel none of the folks I've seen, give good, solid agitations to roll films.

Shoot a series of short rolls, using cutoff tongue and back cuts so you do no waste good film stock on your reloaded cassettes, say about six frames and, try my method of developing to see if the banding shows back up

You did not mention spinning yourself three times counter clockwise and then two times clockwise.

 

[Donald Qualls]

three times counter clockwise and then two times clockwise.

Wait. Wasn't that once clockwise, twice counter, twice clockwise, and once counter? And that was an agitation technique, nothing to do with film loading, right?

 

[usesfilmleaders]

I could see this possibly happening at the start of the film strip while just getting the film started on the reel, but I'm not sure how I could kink the film at frame 30 while loading it onto a Jobo reel - and kink it vertically right in the center of the frame without affecting the area outside the frame. But, in the interest of getting to the bottom of this, I'm going to load a reel a few times in the light with a scrap roll and see if anything like this seems possible.

Appreciate your help!

With Ilford Ortho you load reels and develop under a safelight. Data sheets or web posts suggest you can use film developer too.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Data sheets or web posts suggest you can use film developer too.

Shoot Film Like a Boss (YouTube channel) has a number of videos with this film, developed in Rodinal. It's not a lith film, it's a pictorial stock, like the tranditional ortho films from the first half of the 20th century.

BTW, only RED safelight is safe, and you'll want to test that -- sensitivity extends into yellow, so an amber safelight will fog the film.

 

[usesfilmleaders]

Shoot Film Like a Boss (YouTube channel) has a number of videos with this film, developed in Rodinal. It's not a lith film, it's a pictorial stock, like the tranditional ortho films from the first half of the 20th century.

BTW, only RED safelight is safe, and you'll want to test that -- sensitivity extends into yellow, so an amber safelight will fog the film.

Yes, I said it was Ilford Ortho film not Litho film. logan2z can actually see how the film loads on the reel. short rolls will speed up the rule out one thing at a time from loading the film in the camera to hanging it to dry.

 

[foc]

You did not mention spinning yourself three times counter clockwise and then two times clockwise.

Maybe try casting chicken bones under the light of a full moon, then do the spinning and finally develop the film.

 

[eli griggs]

You did not mention spinning yourself three times counter clockwise and then two times clockwise.

The spin is reserved for painting sessions with Pearl Jam in the good ear buds.

Seriously, do no knock different approaches that work for others and indoing so stepping out of your Orthodoxie, until you can correctly test out the process, enough times to come to a fair conclusion, otherwise, you simply lock your brain in a dusty ol' box, and negatively influence others whom may want to try to think of solutions that do no occupy that dusty ol' box you can no step out of, yourself.

IMO.

 

[Europan]

You say the bands do not exist on the frame lines (an expression from cinematography), i. e. the unexposed area between the images lengthwise, so it’s the cameras though.

It can be cameras, plural, because they may have a common issue. Since the bands are quite central something inclined at an angle just in front of the aperture can be the cause. What cameras do you have? I’m thinking of the rear side, shiny parts on the back of mirrors.

 

[250swb]

Yes, I said it was Ilford Ortho film not Litho film. logan2z can actually see how the film loads on the reel. short rolls will speed up the rule out one thing at a time from loading the film in the camera to hanging it to dry.

Ilford Ortho 80, and I assume other ortho films, are subject to 'light piping' because of the acetate base, so daylight can travel down the length of the film in the acetate base and fog the emulsion a long way in, but you'd expect it slightly worse near the start of the film. So always load and unload in subdued light. It's just a thought. It is a similar case with Adox CMS20, the film shouldn't be loaded, or unloaded with the leader out, in daylight, at all, ever, never, cross your heart and hope to die.

 

[LimeyKeith]

...I think it's been established that this problem isn't a result of stray light or the streaks would cross into the rebate area rather than bring constrained to the frame.

Not necessarily so. In a changing bag a very faint light leak, say from a small pinhole, impinging on the film as you wind it on to the spiral could expose a part of the film to a degree that would not normally be developable. However, when that light impinges upon a frame of the film that has been exposed in camara, that part of the film will have received the extra exposure from the pinhole which may now reveal itself as an area of greater density when developed. If you are familiar with wet printing think of burning in part of the image.
As mentioned previously, you have eliminated all generally accepted causes for the fogging so perhaps the improbable needs to be considered.