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

[logan2z]

My struggles with high density bands on some of my developed negatives have been well documented in another thread on the forum. Unfortunately, it appears as though my struggles continue as these bands have shown up on my latest roll.

The infuriating thing is that these show up no matter which camera, lens, filter (or no filter) I've used, regardless of film (both Tri-X and FP4+), developer (HC-110, DD-X, and now Rodinal), developing technique (inversion agitation, constant rotary agitation), developing tank/reel (steel Nikkor tank with Hewes reels, Jobo tank with Jobo reels), how/where I load the film onto the reel and into the tank (darkroom, changing bag). I think I've covered just about every variation possible and yet the problem remains. And it's pretty consistent as well - the bands almost always show up as a pair separated by a bit of space, running straight down the long dimension of 35mm frames, and almost only when the frame is shot in portrait orientation - of course it's possible that the issue is simply most visible under these circumstance since these frames of mine generally have large expanses of empty sky. It also only usually affects a couple of frames on a roll, and often on adjacent frames. The bands do not extend outside the frame and so aren't likely caused by a light leak somewhere in the chain.

I'm frankly at a total loss as to what could be causing this, and I'm about ready to mothball my film cameras and take up oil painting instead

I've included a photo of one of the negatives from my latest roll, along with a scan. Admittedly, the bands are pretty subtle and I only see them in the scan when the exposure is turned down significantly, but they're there. This is confirmed by the dark band(s) visible in the photo of the negative - also tweaked so that the bands are more easily visible.

For reference, my development methodology was as follows:

1. The film was 35mm Ilford FP4+ loaded onto a Jobo reel and into a Jobo tank inside a changing bag.
2. I pre-wet the film for 3 minutes using constant rotary agitation via a Jobo roller - so by hand, not using a Jobo processor. I changed the direction of rotation every 4 rotations.
3. I developed the film using Rodinal 1+50 for 10 mins and 15 seconds at 68 degrees F.
4. Development was stopped using Ilford Ilfostop for 1 min.
5. The film was fixed using Ilford Rapid Fixer for 5 minutes.
   * All phases of development were done using constant rotary agitation via the Jobo roller.
6. The film was washed using the Ilford method.
7. The final wash step was done using Kodak Photoflo diluted 1+200 in distilled water. The film was soaked in the Photoflo mixture for 3 minutes then hung up vertically to dry using Jobo film clips.
8. After 24 hours, the film was cut and sleeved in a PrintFile sleeve.
9. Finally the film was scanned on an Epson V550 flatbed scanner.

For the most part, the negatives look good. Only two adjacent frames on the roll show evidence of these bands, the rest seem properly developed without any strange artifacts.

I can't for the life of me figure out where this is going wrong. Help me before I lose my marbles!

Two high density vertical bands running down the middle of the frame
(tweaked in Lightroom to show the bands more clearly)

A photo of the top portion of the same negative
(tweaked in Lightroom to show the bands more clearly)

 

[Oldwino]

Is this possible this is simply a film defect?
there's another thread with something similar: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...fp4-in-120-line-on-the-back-of-a-roll.194551/

I have little defects on pretty much every roll of Ilford film I use, minor stuff mostly, and FP4 seems to be the most troublesome of them all.

 

[xkaes]

I don't see any bands.

 

[logan2z]

Is this possible this is simply a film defect?
there's another thread with something similar: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...fp4-in-120-line-on-the-back-of-a-roll.194551/

I have little defects on pretty much every roll of Ilford film I use, minor stuff mostly, and FP4 seems to be the most troublesome of them all.

I don't think so - I wish it were!

The defect in that thread is a pretty obvious line down the entire length of the film strip. Mine is not visible when looking at the film and only affects two frames. I've also had the same issue with several rolls of Tri-X, I've only just started using FP4+ recently.

 

[logan2z]

I don't see any bands.

They're a bit subtle, but I can see them and others have seen them when I posted about this problem before.

I'll have to make some prints and see if they show up there, but they definitely shouldn't be on the negatives. The source has proved very elusive.

 

[warden]

Damn, that's frustrating. It's good to see the pic of the negative, which shows that the issue stops at the end of the image area, as opposed to continuing between frames.

So, this same issue happens with different cameras, films, lenses, chemistry and developing technique? The only remaining variable is you! Maybe give the camera to a friend, have the film developed professionally, and see what you get. If the film comes back with the same problem at least we'll know Logan is not the problem.

 

[Pieter12]

I have no idea if it would make any difference with your issue, but my developing times and technique are a bit different and since I started using an automated rotary processor (Aura) with both Jobo and Paterson tanks, my film is clear of any unevenness that I might have experienced in the past. I don't shoot a lot of FP4, almost exclusively medium format HP5+ rated at 160 and developed in Rodinal 1+38 for 7:30 at 20º, a time and dilution I came up with through trials. This is my process (and I understand other methods may be just as valid):
No presoak
Develop for 7:30 in the Aura cradle that rotates at 50 rpm for 30 sec, then slows down to 10 rpm and every 30 seconds reverses direction and repeats the rotations, until the development time is completed.
No stop, just a 1 minute rinse with clear water (inversion)
Fix for 5 minutes, either with the rotary cradle or manual inversion
Water rinse for 1 minute (inversion)
Hypo wash for 3 minutes, manual agitation for the first minute
Wash in running water for 10 minutes
Immerse in photoflo solution (probably about 3 ml in 1.5 liters) for 30 seconds--the time it takes to walk from the washing station to the bathroom for me.
Unspool and hang to dry in the shower with the curtain closed for 2-4 hours, depending on the ambient temperature.

Maybe this might help. The main differences I see are no presoak, rinse instead of stop and a much shorter photoflo time. And wet printed with a condenser enlarger (that usually will make any imperfection stand out), not scanned.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If they are on different films from different cameras then your processing is the problem. Try skipping the PhotoFlo. I never liked that stuff and stopped using it over two decades ago. Always had problems with streaks. Edwal LFN works well and never leaves any residue if you still want to use a wetting agent. I stopped using wetting agents years ago. These days I just hang the film to dry and wipe it with a KimWipe until the non emulsion side is dry. 120 film I just hang up.

 

[logan2z]

Damn, that's frustrating. It's good to see the pic of the negative, which shows that the issue stops at the end of the image area, as opposed to continuing between frames.

So, this same issue happens with different cameras, films, lenses, chemistry and developing technique? The only remaining variable is you! Maybe give the camera to a friend, have the film developed professionally, and see what you get. If the film comes back with the same problem at least we'll know Logan is not the problem.

I'm perfectly fine with being the problem In fact I'm quite convinced that I am! I just want to know what I'm doing wrong so I can fix it once and for all.

 

[logan2z]

Maybe this might help. The main differences I see are no presoak, rinse instead of stop and a much shorter photoflo time. And wet printed with a condenser enlarger (that usually will make any imperfection stand out), not scanned.

Thanks for sharing your process.

FWIW, presoak is something I started only recently. The problem occurred before I started presoaking.

Re: Photoflo, I was doing the "add a few drops" thing early on but started closely following the 1:200 dilution specified by Kodak to see if that would make any difference. It didn't. I might either try less Photoflo time or try a different wetting agent like LFN.

 

[logan2z]

If they are on different films from different cameras then your processing is the problem. Try skipping the PhotoFlo. I never liked that stuff and stopped using it over two decades ago. Always had problems with streaks. Edwal LFN works well and never leaves any residue if you still want to use a wetting agent. I stopped using wetting agents years ago. These days I just hang the film to dry and wipe it with a KimWipe until the non emulsion side is dry. 120 film I just hang up.

Hmm, Photoflo is something that has been mentioned before as a potential problem. Hard to imagine that it could cause two nearly perfectly straight bands right in the middle of only a small subset of frames. But a different wetting agent or none at all is not something I've tried yet. Might as well give it a shot, I don't have any other ideas.

 

[warden]

Hmm, Photoflo is something that has been mentioned before as a potential problem. Hard to imagine that it could cause two nearly perfectly straight bands right in the middle of only a small subset of frames. But a different wetting agent or none at all is not something I've tried yet. Might as well give it a shot, I don't have any other ideas.

I don't think Photoflo is the problem either considering when it's used in processing, but it's worth skipping that step anyway just to eliminate one unlikely variable. In fact It's a good idea to simplify everything you can until you've solved the problem, so if I were in your shoes I'd limit myself to one camera, one lens, one film, no filter on the lens, and consistent processing technique and chemistry until you see the problem occur again. And keep good notes when the problem returns. You might already be doing all of this, I'm just thinking out loud.

I was about to suggest a lens hood if you're not using one but I note the sun is to the right and behind you on the supplied image, making me think lens flare is unlikely to be the issue. It's weird, this one. But yeah use a lens hood anyway.

Have you tried rewashing any of the problem negatives? I don't think it will make a difference personally, but if there is some weird residue on the negative...

 

[Europan]

The tank is the problem. Films need to be bathed in various directions, rotation of the spiral is not enough. Believe me, I have processed all kinds of films in spiral reels for years commercially, you get evenness only with free agitation by which you also stir up the baths constantly. I did motion-picture films in all widths, 120, 127, 135, and sheets.

Use larger open containers in the dark. Rubber gloves. More volume but perfection.

And do away with wetting agents. All it takes is a damp viscose sponge cloth you pull the film through with little pressure.

 

[koraks]

The tank is the problem.

He used different tanks, and rotation as well as inversion. So that can't be it. Otherwise I'd agree and suggest that it's a rotation issue as well, if not for the fact that he already ruled that out.

@logan2z where on the film did this defect occur? Is it at the start, towards the end or someplace in the middle?
Can you make a photo of the affected area of the film, emulsion side, slanted against the light so that any potential unevenness in the emulsion is visible? I hope you know what I mean, but something with a little glare so that any differences in surface texture of the emulsion side become visible.

It's very frustrating indeed. And puzzling, too!

 

[logan2z]

I don't think Photoflo is the problem either considering when it's used in processing, but it's worth skipping that step anyway just to eliminate one unlikely variable. In fact It's a good idea to simplify everything you can until you've solved the problem, so if I were in your shoes I'd limit myself to one camera, one lens, one film, no filter on the lens, and consistent processing technique and chemistry until you see the problem occur again. And keep good notes when the problem returns. You might already be doing all of this, I'm just thinking out loud.

I was about to suggest a lens hood if you're not using one but I note the sun is to the right and behind you on the supplied image, making me think lens flare is unlikely to be the issue. It's weird, this one. But yeah use a lens hood anyway.

Have you tried rewashing any of the problem negatives? I don't think it will make a difference personally, but if there is some weird residue on the negative...

I always use a lens hood and, as you noted, this image was shot with the sun behind and to the right of me so probably not lens flare. And I've had this issue with a variety of lenses too.

I have tried re-washing the negatives in the past when this happens and that didn't make any difference.

I'm going to finish shooting a roll and then develop it without using Photoflo this time to see if that changes anything.

 

[logan2z]

He used different tanks, and rotation as well as inversion. So that can't be it. Otherwise I'd agree and suggest that it's a rotation issue as well, if not for the fact that he already ruled that out.

@logan2z where on the film did this defect occur? Is it at the start, towards the end or someplace in the middle?
Can you make a photo of the affected area of the film, emulsion side, slanted against the light so that any potential unevenness in the emulsion is visible? I hope you know what I mean, but something with a little glare so that any differences in surface texture of the emulsion side become visible.

It's very frustrating indeed. And puzzling, too!

That's right, I've had this problem with inversion as well. That's one of the reasons I tried rotation to see if that would eliminate the problem.

In this particular case, the problem occurred on frames 30 and 31 of a 36 frame roll. But I've also seen it happen earlier/later on a roll as well.

I'll try and get a photo of the emulsion side of the affected frame in raking light tomorrow and post it to the forum. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[koraks]

Alright, so that's pretty far towards the end, but not the extreme end.
I notice when I leave a 35mm strip to dry in its entirely, suspended lengthwise/vertically, it tends to buckle briefly as the emulsion dries at around roughly the spot where your defect was. I wonder if the buckling somehow plays a role. Or at least the drying process. I don't have any clear hypotheses; it's more that you've excluded just about everything else...

 

[Dali]

Scanner issue maybe?

 

[Donald Qualls]

As I'm reading it, those bands are parallel to the length of the film and don't intrude in the rebate between frames -- which rules out light leaks and makes developing error seem unlikely. If there were exposed in a camera with vertical traveling focal plane shutter, hesitation in the curtains (both together, presuming a fairly narrow slit for a bright outdoor scene) could result in bands like this. Have the previous problems always been with film from this camera?

 

[gone]

If they are on different films from different cameras then your processing is the problem

That makes sense, it would have to be that.

 

[pentaxuser]

I recall your previous thread, logan2z, where none of us was able to identify the source of the problem but it would seem from the way you reintroduced us to this recurrence that the problem had disappeared for a while so it might be helpful if you were to remind us of what you did that eventually appeared to solve the problem and then say what, if anything, has changed in what you are now doing. By anything I mean anything at all you can think of, however inconsequential it may be

Otherwise I fear that all we will do again is give you a long list of what it might be as we are doing already. There has to be a means of eliminating some of the causes and even if not completely doing so at least stop the thread wandering into those more unlikely areas

I personally blame living in the SF Bay area but I was hoping to keep that in reserve until we have exhausted all other possibilities

pentaxuser

 

[logan2z]

Scanner issue maybe?

No, the issue shows up on the negative itself. See the photo of the negative I posted.

 

[logan2z]

As I'm reading it, those bands are parallel to the length of the film and don't intrude in the rebate between frames -- which rules out light leaks and makes developing error seem unlikely. If there were exposed in a camera with vertical traveling focal plane shutter, hesitation in the curtains (both together, presuming a fairly narrow slit for a bright outdoor scene) could result in bands like this. Have the previous problems always been with film from this camera?

Unfortunately no This has occurred with different cameras, including a Leica M camera with a horizontally traveling focal plane shutter.

 

[BradS]

chemistry and process seem to have been thoroughly ruled out.
camera too.
film mfgr as well.

What do the defects have in common?
film storage? shipping? supplier? frame number? time of year? (really grasping at the wind here).

 

[koraks]

(really grasping at the wind here).

Not at all, you're starting systematic analysis.
As you said, go through the entire process:

* Shipping
* Storage
* Loading
* Exposure
* Unloading / reeling
* Processing
* Drying
* Storing
* Digitizing/printing

Some parts are pretty much ruled out. Others aren't.
For instance, the thought occurred to me if the affected film has been taken through x-ray or even CT scanners at some point? Sometimes you take some rolls on a trip, don't use one or two, bring back home and use at some other point in time. Things like these introduce difficult parameters to control for.
Note: not that this looks like very typical x-ray damage. It's too localized and too neatly aligned with the edges of the film to my taste.

It's a *lot* of parameters. The difficulty is, we might be dealing with two problems, one of them might have been solved while the other only emerges. This would bring back into view suspects that were already cleared previously.