Black and white development problem

[Bruno Dias]

Good afternoon, I would like someone who could answer this question. When I reveal black and white in some photos appear black spots, I do not know what I am doing badly in the process of development, do not always appear to me but some photos I get these spots

 

[pentaxuser]

Is this a scan of the negative that has been made into a positive? Are these black spots on the negative. Under a magnifier can you see the black spots on the negative?

I can see no spots on your picture. Where should I be looking?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
By "black spots" do you mean the dark shadow that hides a part of the subject's face?

 

[Saganich]

I also can't see any spots. Are you referring to the uneven smoky areas in the sky? That might be uneven development or film scanning. I find scanners do strange things along the edge of a frame where the negative is dense. See if the unevenness is on the negative. If yes then you may have processing or camera issue.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't see any on your example, but if you have black spots on your prints, then there are most likely pinholes in your negative. What film are you using, and are you using an acid stop bath?

 

[pentaxuser]

I understand that on a computer you can use red arrows to show us the spots on the scan. Unfortunately I don't know enough about computers but if you know how to do it then it might be sensible to use arrows

pentaxuser

 

[Bruno Dias]

I also can't see any spots. Are you referring to the uneven smoky areas in the sky? That might be uneven development or film scanning. I find scanners do strange things along the edge of a frame where the negative is dense. See if the unevenness is on the negative. If yes then you may have processing or camera issue.

Yes, I'm talking about smoke areas especially in the sky, or at the edges of the photos. I've been reading and may be related to tank agitation in the development process

 

[Sirius Glass]

1. Please post a photograph of the negative.
2. Which developer did you use?
3. What was the temperature?
4. How long did you develop the film?

 

[Bruno Dias]

Is this a scan of the negative that has been made into a positive? Are these black spots on the negative. Under a magnifier can you see the black spots on the negative?

I can see no spots on your picture. Where should I be looking?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Yes i can see in the negative these irregular smoke stains

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes i can see in the negative these irregular smoke stains

Are these smoke stains on the extreme left of the picture which begin to appear about half way up and become more noticeable towards the top? If we were to divide the picture into say 10 sections( so tenths) from top to bottom the stains at the top left are in about a tenth of the sky? Have I got his right?

Secondly is this the only frame of the film that has these stains on this film? I think you are saying that on some films but only on some frames of those films these stains appear? Have I got this correct? Finally do these stains always appear in the same section of the frames in which they appear here in your example?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Less density on the negative... Are you sure you have enough developer in the tank to cover the film? The grey dots almost look like bubbles...

 

[Ian C]

The dark areas along the upper left edge of the frame are likely caused by air bubbles that mass together to form a “suds” or “foam”. The foam, being mostly air bubbles, floats on top of the developer close to the upper edge of the film as it rests in the tank.

If the foam gets deep enough, it displaces the developer. Then the foam insulates the film from the developer in these areas. They lack development, so the finished negative lacks density in these areas. When rendered as a positive image, these areas are dark and lack detail.

The cure is to make sure that there is sufficient developer in the tank to completely cover the top edge of the film and to reduce the vigor of the agitation so that little or no developer-displacing foam (air bubbles) is generated.

I recommend the following agitation recipe for elimination of development problems:

Keep the axis of the tank vertical at all times during agitation. Grasp the tank in both hands and move it in a circular path in a horizontal plane of, say, 250 mm to 300 mm in diameter. Orbit quickly one rotation anticlockwise and stop abruptly. The solution will continue to rotate inside the tank. Wait one second and repeat in the clockwise direction, and so forth. The action will give proper agitation of the developer inside the tank and keep it mixed uniformly as development proceeds.

At the end of the agitation cycle, knock the bottom of the tank about 6 – 8 times against your work surface (countertop or tabletop). This is to dislodge any possible air bubbles from the film so that they will float to the surface of the developer. This orbit-and-stop agitation usually generates very few, if any, bubbles. In contrast, inversion agitation generates many bubbles, which can interfere with correct film development.

The agitation I’ve described is a variation of a method known as “Figure-8 Agitation”. Both of these work well to produce negatives of uniform density and free from air-bubble defects (foam and individual-bubble areas known as “air bells”).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found completely filling the tank,

thumping the tank several times each time a new chemical is added and
three or four complete inversions for five seconds every thirty seconds​

works better than Figure 8 Agitation.

 

[Agulliver]

I will echo what Sirius says regarding "thumping" the tank. When I was taught small tank film development back in 1986, I was told to give the bottom of the tank a bang or two on the bench. This is supposed to help even development and fixing.

 

[pentaxuser]

So, Bruno, we now need to know (a) how much developer you use and what the capacity of the tank is (b) your agitation including whether you do the thumping as suggested.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Bruno Dias]

So, Bruno, we now need to know (a) how much developer you use and what the capacity of the tank is (b) your agitation including whether you do the thumping as suggested.

Thanks


I use ilford Ilfosol 3 with distilled water usually 1/9 as it is medium format use 550mml of solution, ie 55 of fixer and 495 of water for 6.5 minutes. The truth is that I don't know the tank limit I saw that 550mml of solution would cover a 120mm roll



pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Bruno, what do you mean that "you saw that 550ml would cover the 120 roll - how did you see this? I also think it is important that you answer my questions in #10 about how many frames this happens on, whether it happens on all films so far

Thanks

 

[Bruno Dias]

Bruno, what do you mean that "you saw that 550ml would cover the 120 roll - how did you see this? I also think it is important that you answer my questions in #10 about how many frames this happens on, whether it happens on all films so far

Thanks

Basically I put the 120mm pulley in the tank and filled it with water until it was submerged that gave 550mml, this did not happen to me in all the photos, only three were like this

 

[pentaxuser]

Bruno, most tanks I know of are either of 450 ml capacity( Durst tank ) or 480ml capacity( Jobo) but I think the Paterson is larger. In case there is any leakage I'd fill a Jobo with 500lml and most use 600ml for a Paterson. These capacities are all for 120 film If you can tell us the make of the tank we may be able to say what the tank actually holds. While 550ml might cover the reel it maybe in only just covering the reel. In the course of inverting the tank some of the developer may run out. As others have suggested try more developer until it is closer to the top pf the tank. I have to be honest and say that if only 3 frames were affected on this film then I don't think that not using quite enough developer can explain this. If there is not enough developer then all of the frames should be affected in the same area as the edges of all the frames will not be covered by the developer

While it was three frames in this film, how many were affected in other films and was it always in the same place and were there any films where none of the frames were affected?

It sounds as if your tank is one that is meant for 120 film. Was this a 120 film or a 135 film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Bruno Dias]

Bruno, most tanks I know of are either of 450 ml capacity( Durst tank ) or 480ml capacity( Jobo) but I think the Paterson is larger. In case there is any leakage I'd fill a Jobo with 500lml and most use 600ml for a Paterson. These capacities are all for 120 film If you can tell us the make of the tank we may be able to say what the tank actually holds. While 550ml might cover the reel it maybe in only just covering the reel. In the course of inverting the tank some of the developer may run out. As others have suggested try more developer until it is closer to the top pf the tank. I have to be honest and say that if only 3 frames were affected on this film then I don't think that not using quite enough developer can explain this. If there is not enough developer then all of the frames should be affected in the same area as the edges of all the frames will not be covered by the developer

While it was three frames in this film, how many were affected in other films and was it always in the same place and were there any films where none of the frames were affected?

It sounds as if your tank is one that is meant for 120 film. Was this a 120 film or a 135 film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Bruno, most tanks I know of are either of 450 ml capacity( Durst tank ) or 480ml capacity( Jobo) but I think the Paterson is larger. In case there is any leakage I'd fill a Jobo with 500lml and most use 600ml for a Paterson. These capacities are all for 120 film If you can tell us the make of the tank we may be able to say what the tank actually holds. While 550ml might cover the reel it maybe in only just covering the reel. In the course of inverting the tank some of the developer may run out. As others have suggested try more developer until it is closer to the top pf the tank. I have to be honest and say that if only 3 frames were affected on this film then I don't think that not using quite enough developer can explain this. If there is not enough developer then all of the frames should be affected in the same area as the edges of all the frames will not be covered by the developer

While it was three frames in this film, how many were affected in other films and was it always in the same place and were there any films where none of the frames were affected?

It sounds as if your tank is one that is meant for 120 film. Was this a 120 film or a 135 film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

In the other rolls always appeared in the same place on the left side on the edge the tank says:

1-120 - 220 films = 550cc 20oz

Thanks for your patience, I started revealing now in medium format black and white, I will basically try to fill the tank with 600mml and make the smoothest rotations with the beats at the end of each rotation

 

[Bill Burk]

Are you using a Paterson tank? If so, fill it to the brim.

 

[koraks]

This is a tricky one to troubleshoot. Looking at the nature of the problem, there's a few possible causes that come to mind:
* Problems with the backing paper interacting with the emulsion. OP says the film was stored under favorable conditions, so it's a little less likely to be the cause, unless it's a manufacturing/materials problem.
* It is possible that condensation occurred on the surface of the film when loading the film into the camera. This is most likely to occur if the film was stored refrigerated and not allowed to come to ambient temperature before loading it into the camera.
* Particulate contamination of processing chemistry could result in this kind of defect pattern.
* Manufacturing/Q&A problems in the film/emulsion itself. Given the brand and type of film, this is somewhat far-fetched.

It does not look like air bubbles in the processing chemistry, chemistry volume or agitation problems to me.

 

[Bruno Dias]

This is a tricky one to troubleshoot. Looking at the nature of the problem, there's a few possible causes that come to mind:
* Problems with the backing paper interacting with the emulsion. OP says the film was stored under favorable conditions, so it's a little less likely to be the cause, unless it's a manufacturing/materials problem.
* It is possible that condensation occurred on the surface of the film when loading the film into the camera. This is most likely to occur if the film was stored refrigerated and not allowed to come to ambient temperature before loading it into the camera.
* Particulate contamination of processing chemistry could result in this kind of defect pattern.
* Manufacturing/Q&A problems in the film/emulsion itself. Given the brand and type of film, this is somewhat far-fetched.

It does not look like air bubbles in the processing chemistry, chemistry volume or agitation problems to me.

Aprender a pronunciar

It is possible that beyond all that has been said I am not doing the tank wash the cylinders. And get leftover chemicals. What do you recommend to wash the development material?

 

[removed account4]

hi bruno

sorry for your troubles. as others have mentioned don't skimp on the developer, after you do your initial agitation bang the tank on something hard a couple of times and do it for the 2 next cycles, try not to develop your film for less than 5 mins you will probably get uneven development, i always pre-wet my film no matter the developer i use, so i fill the tank up and agitate continuously for 1 min and i bang the tank on the sink as SG says to do with the developer ( pre wet softens the emulsion and gets it the same temp as the developer and while some people don't pre wet, its just one of those things i never stopped doing ...
regarding the washing the tank .. i use metal reels, and sometimes plastic ones... after you fix, fix remove, final wash and photo flo ( or whatever rinse aid you might use ) and hang your film to dry
put very hot running water into your tank and rinse it well, do the same thing for the reels .. some folks use funky chemicals to get rid of "build up" but IDK i've never had issues and have been using
the same tanks and reels ( for the most part ) for the better part of 3 decades.. you can gently use a scrubby ( the plastic kind you would use for expensive pots and pans, not a metal steel wool/brillo pad ) to asure you have clean reels and tanks and with plastic you want to be careful you don't scrape the finish off to allow chemistry to become a real "polter guest" you know--never leave..
have fun !
john

ps welcome home !

 

[pentaxuser]

Aprender a pronunciar

It is possible that beyond all that has been said I am not doing the tank wash the cylinders. And get leftover chemicals. What do you recommend to wash the development material?

If you mean the tank when you say cylinder then the tank needs washing in plain water after you empty out the fix but this will happen anyway when you remove the remains of the fixer from the film by filling with the tank with water, then agitating the tank several times and then dumping the water.

I assume that after emptying the fix that you wash the film on the reel in the tank? I use the Ilford process which involves filling with water, agitating 5 times then dump. fill with water agitate 10 times then dump, filling with water agitate 20 times then dump. To be sure I have washed the film I actually do 15, 20, 25.

In case there is any chemical now stuck to the reel use a toothbrush with warm water and scrub the reel. If you now follow the full process of develop. stop, fix and wash there should not be any need to use a toothbrush again

pentaxuser