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

[Donald Qualls]

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.

This is the idea behind "preflash" -- but it wouldn't be visible in the level of density in the example negative up thread; preflash (correctly done, below Zone I exposure level) will push Zone I up to Zone II, approximately, but won't add enough exposure to push Zone II into Zone III. The area that shows those density bars is around a Zone III to IV, to my eye.

 

[usesfilmleaders]

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.

Hmmm. I did not know this flaw, in that case maybe Ortho 80 isn't a good choice.

 

[Lloyd Garland]

I doubt I can say anything that hasn't been said already, but what you need to do here is work out what is a constant and what is not. For example, you get the same problem from differing cameras, lenses and film stocks. So, do you use the same dev tank? Same chemistry? Same temps, same processing equipment (thermometer, measuring jugs, light tight changing bag) etc? Even with a different bottle of developer, fixer, stop bath and wetting agent, you may have the same batch number, (and my best guess) you may have contaminated water to mix the chemistry with. To be honest, I'd say the problem was happening "in camera", but I can't see that when camera, lens and film stock is not a constant.

Suggest you go buy a litre box of Ilford ID-11, mix it with distilled water you buy from a supermarket. You can't go wrong with ID-11! Don't use a stop bath (until you've tested things), it's something that isn't essential and will eliminate a variable from the mix. Buy a new bottle of fixer and chack the batch number isn't the same as the bottle you already have, and then try again. Mix the new batch of fixer with bottled distilled water again. If you can borrow a different developing tank, that too would be good. Basically, get away from what you're using now and start over. If you still get the problem after that then maybe you've upset a few too many leprechauns

 

[logan2z]

This is the idea behind "preflash" -- but it wouldn't be visible in the level of density in the example negative up thread; preflash (correctly done, below Zone I exposure level) will push Zone I up to Zone II, approximately, but won't add enough exposure to push Zone II into Zone III. The area that shows those density bars is around a Zone III to IV, to my eye.

I still have a hard time coming to grips with how a light leak in the changing bag could consistently result in a band (or parallel bands, in this case) of increased density straight down the long dimension of the frame. If the bands were in random locations, not perfectly straight/parallel, then I think a light leak would be a plausible explanation. Also, this issue has occurred when I've loaded film in a changing bag and outside a bag in a darkroom so I don't think the bag is the culprit. But I appreciate all of the theories, keep them coming. One of them might help me resolve this.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

There's nothing in Ilford's tech sheets to indicate it is subject to light piping. Its base seems to be acetate and not polyester which is subject to light piping

Are you possible confusing polyester with acetate?

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

That is the point I made in post #38 and I got jumped on.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Well my dusty box works very well with consistently good development and prints for decades.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I still have a hard time coming to grips with how a light leak in the changing bag could consistently result in a band (or parallel bands, in this case) of increased density straight down the long dimension of the frame. If the bands were in random locations, not perfectly straight/parallel, then I think a light leak would be a plausible explanation. Also, this issue has occurred when I've loaded film in a changing bag and outside a bag in a darkroom so I don't think the bag is the culprit. But I appreciate all of the theories, keep them coming. One of them might help me resolve this.

I do not see a light leak in the changing bag causing banding. The banding does not cross frame lines. The OP had multiple cameras that need CLAs. Game over and keep the flashing in the pants.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is the idea behind "preflash" -- but it wouldn't be visible in the level of density in the example negative up thread; preflash (correctly done, below Zone I exposure level) will push Zone I up to Zone II, approximately, but won't add enough exposure to push Zone II into Zone III. The area that shows those density bars is around a Zone III to IV, to my eye.

Flashing will not change the banding. This is clearly a shutter problem in multiple cameras.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Flashing will not change the banding. This is clearly a shutter problem in multiple cameras.

Someone had suggested this might be akin to a preflash, where a sub-Zone I level of exposure could raise the density of parts of the image without crossing into the rebate. I explained why that wouldn't happen at the density of that part of the negative.

It's very puzzling. The Leica has no mirror to reflect onto the film, and a horizontal traveling shutter (i.e. parallel to the bands), eliminating the "easy" explanations for in-camera reflections or shutter hesitation. Orientation and failure to cross into the rebate, to my mind, eliminates fogging while loading the film into the developing tank. Everything except the variety of cameras that have shown this says "in camera" to me.

 

[pentaxuser]

Sirius if the banding is common across several cameras in terms of location, size etc on the film which it appears to be, doesn't that mean that all of his camera have to have the same fault in the same place? I wonder what the odds are for this to be the case

I take it that it is logan's specific cameras to which you refer and not the makes of those cameras, otherwise I'd have thought that at least several here would have reported it?

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius if the banding is common across several cameras in terms of location, size etc on the film which it appears to be, doesn't that mean that all of his camera have to have the same fault in the same place? I wonder what the odds are for this to be the case

I take it that it is logan's specific cameras to which you refer and not the makes of those cameras, otherwise I'd have thought that at least several here would have reported it?

pentaxuser

Yes the odds are small, however without the bands in the spaces between the frames, the odds of a processing error have gone to a mathematical zero.

 

[removedacct3]

Hmmm. I did not know this flaw, in that case maybe Ortho 80 isn't a good choice.

It is not a flaw, it is by design

 

[Donald Qualls]

without the bands in the spaces between the frames, the odds of a processing error have gone to a mathematical zero.

Just as with vertical-shutter SLR and horizontal-shutter rangefinder cameras, in-camera failures that would be fixed by the (one per camera) CLAs you recommended earlier approach that same figure.

I can see how in-body light baffles could reflect light enough (off the edge) to make this banding. These exist in both the SLR and Leica, in approximately the same locations (aside from the mirror back), and a bright area just above the frame might just do it...

 

[usesfilmleaders]

It is not a flaw, it is by design

"Light piping" as described earlier sounds like a design flaw that allows light to creep in and fog the roll. If Ilford Ortho 80 was designed to be film that gets fogged like that, to me it sounds like a flaw. I suggested logan2z use that film so he could make short rolls and see if the cameras have a shutter issue because the film can be developed in a tray under a red safelight. 1 roll for every 35mm camera would rule out equipment failure. Since the film can also be developed in regular tanks logan2z he could actually look at the film on the reel to determine if it was a reel loading issue, and rule that out. There are not really many things that can cause problems like he is experiencing. Camera, loading film, developing film. I wonder where and how he loads his reels, dark bags are notorious for light leaks.

 

[logan2z]

Yes the odds are small, however without the bands in the spaces between the frames, the odds of a processing error have gone to a mathematical zero.

Despite the fact that I've seen this flaw when using multiple bodies, I am starting to feel like this is, in fact, an in-camera issue based on the comments here and my own observations. I just don't see how a light leak or a processing error could be the cause of this any longer.

I've focused on the processing step for so long because that was relatively new to me and I figured I was messing something up along the way. But based on all of the help/suggestions I've received in this and my other thread, I think it's time for me to take a closer look at the cameras involved and see if I can isolate the issue.

 

[eli griggs]

If it were no in more than one camera, I'd suspect the shutter curtains need attention.

Perhaps they all do?

 

[BradS]

mmmm....pinholes in the (Leica) shutter(s)???

but in the same place ? Seems really unlikely....but possible.

 

[logan2z]

mmmm....pinholes in the (Leica) shutter(s)???

but in the same place ? Seems really unlikely....but possible.

I consider almost anything a possibility at this point

 

[Europan]

Do yourself the favour to take photos of your cameras, lens removed, shutter open. I have some knowledge of motion-picture equipment, I regularly blacken the rim of aperture plates as well as shiny parts in the space between lens mount and film. Just like through a sunshade in front of a lens the rear room should be shaded. Not that Vantablack would need to be introduced but matte paint is valuable. One of the most neglected technical subjects of photography by the way is light reflected from the sensitive surface. Films are not black.

 

[TomTX]

The figure of 8 rotation method is important with tank developing. and I'm beginning to think X-ray damage possibly. I wonder whether if you order film online, it is being put through a X-ray machine? what a mystery you have to solve!

 

[brian steinberger]

I consider almost anything a possibility at this point

I think the bands are marks from using too much photo flo. I know you followed the instructions but I got similar marks years ago and took a long time to figure it out. Basically you do need photo flo, but just enough and no more. How much you need depends on you testing. I now use 5 drops to 500ml of distilled water. And lastly hang on a 45 degree angle so the water flows off on the edge and not straight down the middle as the film dries (which is where your density bands are). I would advise trying to develop a roll without any photo flo and see if you still get marks, then work your way up a few drops at a time. If you’re interested in hanging film on a 45 degree angle PM me.

 

[logan2z]

I thought I'd post a follow-up to this in case anyone else struggles with this issue and stumbles onto this thread.

It appears that @brian steinberger was right, this issue was caused by Photoflo, probably too much.

Rather than continuing to experiment with Photoflo, and possibly ruining more film in the process, I decided to switch to LFN as the wetting agent for the final rinse. I also added a 5 minute soak in distilled water before the final rinse, as has been suggested by @Doremus Scudder, for those of us with hard water. Doing this completely eliminated the streaking I've been struggling with for months. It's nice to finally develop a roll of film without streaks ruining some of the frames!

I can't say I understand why Photoflo could cause an irreversible issue like this. I did try and rewash affected film, clean it with distilled water, film cleaner, etc and could never eliminate the streaks - they seem to be permanent. I'd be interested to hear any theories about that but I'm just happy this issue appears to be behind me.

Thanks again to everyone who spent time to suggest ways to eliminate this issue. Although frustrating, I learned a lot throughout the process.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Post #8. Just sayin'....

 

[logan2z]

Post #8. Just sayin'....

Yup, I should have credited you for suggesting to dump the Photoflo too - 90 posts ago Something told me that couldn't have been the source of these issues, but I was clearly wrong. Thanks for helping me to see the light