Bromide drag (?) on pushed HP5+ or something else going on?

[emilkarl]

I've developed some HP5+ pushed to 800. Used HC-110 at dilution B (1:31) for 10 minutes. Agitated for the first 30 seconds, then 12-15 seconds every minute starting at 1:00. Stop for 30 seconds and then fix for 3:30.

Negs come out with lines that I figure can be bromide drag but I'm unsure. The process is the same as I usually do without this effect but I have come up with this effect a couple of times now and not sure what the reason can be. I usually don't get it with Tri-x 400. Photos have been shot outside in quite moist weather if that has any effect on it?

Shooting with Leica M6 and Voigtländer lens. Trying to figure out if there is anything wrong with my process if it's some technical thing with the camera?

Please help

 

[pentaxuser]

So we are looking at negs here? The first one looks like a print to me and strangely "foggy" all over. In the second one are the white streaks examples of what you suspect as bromide drag? Can you take a digital picture of each negative and show us that?

Bromide drag is usually associated with lack of agitation and your agitation method certainly does not lack agitation.

pentaxuser

 

[emilkarl]

So we are looking at negs here? The first one looks like a print to me and strangely "foggy" all over. In the second one are the white streaks examples of what you suspect as bromide drag? Can you take a digital picture of each negative and show us that?

Bromide drag is usually associated with lack of agitation and your agitation method certainly does not lack agitation.

pentaxuser

These are scans of the negs, but you can clearly see the lines on the negs as well. These are scanned with Plustek 8100 and exported to jpg from Lightroom.

It was a foggy day so the pictures are expected to be foggy, but on the first one, you have white lines coming from the left into the picture and the second from the top.

I will take pictures of the negs.

 

[osella]

Does the shutter travel vertically on the M6? If it isn’t bromide drag the shutter might not be closing all the way.

 

[emilkarl]

Does the shutter travel vertically on the M6? If it isn’t bromide drag the shutter might not be closing all the way.

Hmm ok, how can I see that?

 

[relistan]

Hmm ok, how can I see that?

The shutter is horizontal on the M6, so it's not that. Are they very thin negatives in general? It looks to me like under development, probably exacerbated by not quite enough developer to fully cover the top of the film, or maybe just barely enough.

 

[pentaxuser]

Unless this famous bromide drag occurs when agitation is slightly more than normal such as is the case here, as well as when agitation is similar to that involved in stand development then I think we can rule out bromide drag as the cause. There is no reason why HP5+ is any more likely to display bromide drag than Tri-X assuming that everything else about the taking and processing remain the same

pentaxuser

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I've developed some HP5+ pushed to 800. Used HC-110 at dilution B (1:31) for 10 minutes. Agitated for the first 30 seconds, then 12-15 seconds every minute starting at 1:00. Stop for 30 seconds and then fix for 3:30.

Negs come out with lines that I figure can be bromide drag but I'm unsure. The process is the same as I usually do without this effect but I have come up with this effect a couple of times now and not sure what the reason can be. I usually don't get it with Tri-x 400. Photos have been shot outside in quite moist weather if that has any effect on it?

Shooting with Leica M6 and Voigtländer lens. Trying to figure out if there is anything wrong with my process if it's some technical thing with the camera?

Please help View attachment 259498 View attachment 259499

What tank are you using?
Are you filling it up all the way?

 

[emilkarl]

Here are some negs, hope that can give you a better clue. Some of the negs have the issues appear more clear than others but it's there on all of them when scanning.

I used 300ml of liquid in a regular Paterson 2 reel tank with only one reel in as I always do. From what I can recall the reel was at the bottom of the tank.

Edit: on IMG_8062-min.jpg you can see it in the bottom of the negs. Was confused when taking the picture

 

[DeletedAcct1]

No, those are light leaks to me

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

No, those are light leaks to me

+1

 

[emilkarl]

Here is another picture from the same roll. This day the weather was not so foggy nor sunny.

I have a roll in the camera. Maybe it would be a good idea to try with more liquid. 400ml or something just to rule out that issue.

 

[Craig75]

They look like surge marks to me.

10s agitation every 30 seconds seems excessive and a single reel loose in a 2 reel tank sounds like a recipe for surge marks.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Here is another picture from the same roll. This day the weather was not so foggy nor sunny.

I have a roll in the camera. Maybe it would be a good idea to try with more liquid. 400ml or something just to rule out that issue.

No, it's useless.
To me there's some kind of light leak, maybe the tank itself is the culprit or you've messed up with it during development. As simple as not having locked the funnel lid of the Paterson...

 

[Craig75]

No, it's useless.
To me there's some kind of light leak, maybe the tank itself is the culprit or you've messed up with it during development. As simple as not having locked the funnel lid of the Paterson...

Its not a light leak as the pattern follows the sprocket holes if you look at image 8059.

Actually looking again it looks like more than one thing has gone wrong here as the film edge isnt clear either on the side with the sprocket pattern.

Quite a lot seems to have gone wrong!

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Its not a light leak as the pattern follows the sprocket holes if you look at image 8059.

Actually looking again it looks like more than one thing has gone wrong here as the film edge isnt clear either on the side with the sprocket pattern.

Quite a lot seems to have gone wrong!

Well, could be a combined light leak (probably in-tank: this will answer why only on one side) AND bromide drag!!

 

[relistan]

No, those are light leaks to me

+1

+1

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The density at the top edge is from a light leak... Which is a more serious issue then bromide drag. You'll have to find where the leak happened. For bromide drag, next time have more stock developer, or increase agitation cycles.

 

[Arvee]

Light leak. Film rebate is fogged.

 

[Craig75]

Its hard to see how you could get such a perfectly straight light leak though.

The other side of the film edge is pretty dirty in places too but none of it is in image itself. That side looks like surge marks too as its all around the sprocket holes just to a milder degree than the other side.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Its hard to see how you could get such a perfectly straight light leak though.

The other side of the film edge is pretty dirty in places too but none of it is in image itself. That side looks like surge marks too as its all around the sprocket holes just to a milder degree than the other side.

To me there's no way surge marks or bromide drags could happen in a Paterson tank 2 reels with 300ml of developer and following the Ilford agitation method.

 

[pentaxuser]

They look like surge marks to me.
10s agitation every 30 seconds seems excessive and a single reel loose in a 2 reel tank sounds like a recipe for surge marks.

Well his agitation regime may be more than the likes of Ilford recommend but only by 5 seconds (15 secs as opposed to 10 secs per minute) but he is not agitating 30 sec every minute if you look at the agitation in his first post

This may leave two things to be explored:
1. If he is using a 2 reel tank has he ensured that the bottom reel which holds the film is not riding up the central tube out of the developer
2. If his agitation is 12-15 secs then how does he knows it is this many seconds? It sounds as if It might be not measured against a clock and is it possible that within 15 secs or more if he is casual with the timing, is he able to create surges if he agitates very vigorously?

OP I'd cut the agitation to 10 secs per minute only even on the first minute and ensure that in those 10 seconds you do not exceed 10 inversions at most

Can I guarantee this will solve your problem? No but it will eliminate the agitation regime as the likely cause.

pentaxuser

 

[Patrick Robert James]

That is a light leak.

Are you bulk loading? That could be from the edge of the tightly wound film being hit with light. The light will "pipe" into the center of the film, but not at the sprocket holes.

 

[emilkarl]

Thanks for all the replies and theories. I think I will start by trying both reels in the tank and maybe 400ml liquid instead of 300 just to make sure it covers the film and see how it goes. Hopefully, it's not something with the camera, if it were I would probably see it on all my rolls of film right?

Regarding the agitations, I time it but I usually do 3 inversions (laps) in around 12 seconds.

That is a light leak.

Are you bulk loading? That could be from the edge of the tightly wound film being hit with light. The light will "pipe" into the center of the film, but not at the sprocket holes.

No, I'm not bulk loading.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Thanks for all the replies and theories. I think I will start by trying both reels in the tank and maybe 400ml liquid instead of 300 just to make sure it covers the film and see how it goes. Hopefully, it's not something with the camera, if it were I would probably see it on all my rolls of film right?

Regarding the agitations, I time it but I usually do 3 inversions (laps) in around 12 seconds.



No, I'm not bulk loading.

That is not a development error. Did you open the bottom of the Leica before you rewound the film?