Blue negative after developing

[fbfotografie]

I just developed my first black and white negative. Well sort of. The film is currently drying but the negative is blueish. Something must have gone wrong.

Details:

500ml Patterson Developing tank
Rodinol 1+100 (5ml on 500ml) developer
Adofix as fixer (1+9)
Water as stopbad
Semi-stand developing, agitation during the first minute, then 10 agitations at the 30min mark. Removal of the developer after 60min. 3 washing/stopping cycles with clear water (incl. agitation). Then 4min fix (continuous agitation). Washing with water for an additional 8min.

Before I continue with the next film, can somebody tell me what I did wrong? Thanx!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

What film is it?

 

[Brian C. Miller]

What brand of film did you use?

 

[fbfotografie]

I am sorry! It is Fomapan 120 Iso400.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If it's Foma film in 120 format it's supposed to be blue.
With any other film that would be slightly strange.

As an aside: why are you doing standing development anyway, risking uneven development, before you have learned to process the way your products were designed to? It's usually considered a technique for extreme situations.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Have the same problem with Arista EDU 120. My Xtol that I replenish is also blue/green from souping the film. As far as I know, It hasn't caused any problems. I think it's the anti-halation dye.

 

[fbfotografie]

If it's Foma film in 120 format it's supposed to be blue.
With any other film that would be slightly strange.

As an aside: why are you doing standing development anyway, risking uneven development, before you have learned to process the way your products were designed to? It's usually considered a technique for extreme situations.

I am scanning my film and found that the best way to do this is stand developing.

Thanx for the information..feel somewhat stupid..

 

[edp]

Have the same problem with Arista EDU 120.

Same thing as Fomapan 100. Same blue polyester base.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Have the same problem with Arista EDU 120. My Xtol that I replenish is also blue/green from souping the film. As far as I know, It hasn't caused any problems. I think it's the anti-halation dye.

Doesn't it look cool, though? I love that turquoise color and almost want to keep a few rolls around just for the color.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I am scanning my film and found that the best way to do this is stand developing.

Thanx for the information..feel somewhat stupid..

Don't feel stupid. I remember first time I processed a roll of Foma 120 film, and I had the same reaction as you.

So you get better results with standing development when you scan your film? Interesting. Perhaps it compresses the tone scale enough that the scanner has no problems seeing the full range...

Either way, there's no reason you can't do that while agitating normally, and eliminate the risk of uneven development. But, I'll leave you alone... Have fun!

 

[JohnMeadows]

I remember too my suprise and seeing the colour of the developer as it came out of the tank (I use one-shot). At Christmas time I recall thinking that it was the perfect Christmas film, as the developer came out a bright cheery green, a lovely colour for that time of year

 

[r-brian]

I developed a roll of the Arista in DiXatol ( a staining developer) once. The yellow-brown stain on the blue base gave me green negatives. Decided not to try that again.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I developed a roll of the Arista in DiXatol ( a staining developer) once. The yellow-brown stain on the blue base gave me green negatives. Decided not to try that again.

Did you try to print it? I ran some Foma 400 through PMK Pyro, with green stain also, and it printed like a dream on graded paper.

 

[fbfotografie]

The film is dry and beautifull! Lost 2 negatives during drying (see drying streaks) so I DO need wetting agent .

On stand developing I quote Steve Sherman:

'Thirty plus years of negative making for the wet darkroom process tells me that the Semi-Stand / Reduced Agitation development is the closest thing to a magic bullet there is. When executed properly, ( yes there is an increased chance of development artifacts) less than 10% in my experience, the technique Maximizes FILM SPEED, Maximizes HIGHLIGHT COMPRESSION and Maximizes MID TONE MICRO CONTRAST. The three most sought after components of negative making and film development.

This technique will allow the skilled technician to photograph in ANY lighting conditions during ANY time of day and obtain a satisfactory and easily printable negative.

HOWEVER, the single most important component to the success of a negative, ( I would suggest no matter what means you produce the final positive outcome ) is the quality of the light in which the negative was exposed!'

But I would also try the normal route in the future.

Added some of the resulting images.

 

[dehk]

Sometimes you need Stand Development, but most of the time just regular development. I'll leave that for you to experiment

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I used stand development with Arista EDU 400 for a one hour exposure. I used HC-110 diluted 1-100 in stand development for an hour. The negs were OK. Arista and Foma film have very bad reciprocity effects, but the film is gorgeous.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I know the work of Steve Sherman, and it works great for him. No reason it can't work great for you too. I've done a lot of it myself.

You will have to find out for yourself which works best, and therein lies the fun of this. Know this, however, most reports on uneven development have something to do with standing development. And, Steve shoots sheet film while you shoot rolls. There's a difference in magnification factor and the edge effects you get from Rodinal. If you're happy with those edge effects in roll film, especially when printed large, then go for it. Don't let me stop you, by any means. I'm just trying to give you both sides of the argument. Kind of like my own devil's advocate of sorts.

The film is dry and beautifull! Lost 2 negatives during drying (see drying streaks) so I DO need wetting agent .

On stand developing I quote Steve Sherman:

'Thirty plus years of negative making for the wet darkroom process tells me that the Semi-Stand / Reduced Agitation development is the closest thing to a magic bullet there is. When executed properly, ( yes there is an increased chance of development artifacts) less than 10% in my experience, the technique Maximizes FILM SPEED, Maximizes HIGHLIGHT COMPRESSION and Maximizes MID TONE MICRO CONTRAST. The three most sought after components of negative making and film development.

This technique will allow the skilled technician to photograph in ANY lighting conditions during ANY time of day and obtain a satisfactory and easily printable negative.

HOWEVER, the single most important component to the success of a negative, ( I would suggest no matter what means you produce the final positive outcome ) is the quality of the light in which the negative was exposed!'

But I would also try the normal route in the future.

Added some of the resulting images.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

On stand developing I quote Steve Sherman:

'Thirty plus years of negative making for the wet darkroom process tells me that the Semi-Stand / Reduced Agitation development is the closest thing to a magic bullet there is. ...'

You might want to try William Mortensen's technique of refrigerated development. Mortensen would pour in the developer, give the can a good shake, and then put it in the fridge. Time was three to five days, and agitation was, "when I think about it."

I tried it with Fuji Acros 100, and Ilford Ilfosol 3. I used cold water straight from the tap, mixed it up, poured it in, gave the can a shake, and chucked it into the fridge. I gave it a shake in the morning and evening, for five days. I think I left it in too long. The results were good, but a bit dense. Next time I'll try three days.