Bronica SQ-A, possible light leaks?

[Meow7]

So we had developed the second test roll on the Bronica SQ-A. It came with a ME prism finder which certainly had it's oddities regarding metering so the second roll was shot using the WLF and an external meter. Metering was better but the images have some bars on the sides which look like they could be light leaks or flaring or... and it's not in all of them. It's very subtle but there. It could be:

Film allowed to get a bit loose during loading, or unloading, which could be since when he loaded it, the film ran a bit past the arrow and he wound it back to the arrow.

Flaring, some were shot sort of towards the sun, which was low in the sky, but a rainy day... but they are regular bars, not what you would see in flaring usually.

I'd like to rule out leaks from the back since it's the same back as before, but you never know.

Processing?

or the WLF, can you get light leaks from a WLF? It fits the same as the prism finder, it moves a bit, you can push it back and forth on it's seat.

Too cold film, he gets a little hurried in his excitement to get film loaded!

The last 3 images were shot with the prism finder and do not have the same affected areas.

Any insights would be greatly appreciated, thanks!!!

 

[eatfrog]

I don't think this looks like light leaks. Do you see anything on the negatives?

 

[hsandler]

It looks like processing to me, not a light leak. I used to see overdevelopment along the edges sometimes if I agitated the tank too vigorously when developing, creating turbulence near the film edges. When I switched from using a tank with one of those dipstick agitators that rotate the film reel to a Patterson tank which has a lid and allows inverting the tank to agitate, it largely went away, but I'm still careful to do the inversion slowly now. You could try shooting a roll and having it processed by a lab just to change up the development regime to see.

 

[glbeas]

We would need to see a shot of the negative including the outside edges for an accurate opinion. A light leak in the back will show outside the image area. Developing problems can make the increased density as well but only in the image area. A light leak around the mirror may make problems similar without density outside the image area. You can check that looking through the back with a flashlight in the front end without the lens.

 

[Meow7]

Thanks for the replies, here are some images of the negatives. The outside of the image area is not affected. It could be the pricessing, I developed the first roll and I'm fairly.gentle in my.agitation, my.son did the second, he could have been a bit more enthusiastic with the agitation! It doesn't show up in all imahes tjough, some.shots talken inside seem to.be.fine...

 

[Meow7]

This one seems to be fine, so I am not sure how processing would affect that, unless the processing issue only affected images at a certain point in the roll.

 

[Meow7]

I sent that from my phone, sorry for all the typo stuff!

 

[glbeas]

Heres another possibility, did you fill your tank all the way to the top so no air was present inside? This can cause a problem when inverting the tank as the developer doesnt get moved from top to bottom. The air bubble provides room for agitation on inversion as it pushes the developer out of the way as it rises. Use only enough to completely cover the reel.

 

[Meow7]

I did not fill it up, I never do, I put in the recommended amount to just cover the reel.

 

[glbeas]

Well that eliminates another one. When you agitate do you turn the tank over then right back, about a second per inversion? Thats how I do it. It should never be shaken like a spraypaint can.

 

[Meow7]

IF I do inversion it's very gentle, figure 8, but I have been using the swizzle stick for a while now, generally slowly. I develop a lot of film, 120 and 35mm and there is no reason this one should be different, except my son did it. I asked him if he agitated it vigorously, he said he did it fairly gently, sooo. Another roll is in the camera, so we'll see what transpires next.

 

[hsandler]

This one seems to be fine, so I am not sure how processing would affect that, unless the processing issue only affected images at a certain point in the roll.

I have found that overdevelopment of the edges is indeed a problem that tends to affect one end of the roll more than the other. It has to do with turbulent flow and more circulation of the developer at the those edges than elsewhere, so most likely the end that is on the outside of the reel; i.e. the first few exposures on a roll of 120 film. But I'm not at home to check any of my old negatives right now and I can't remember which end for sure, only that the problem was not uniformly affecting an entire roll. The good news is your Bronica camera and back are probably fine.

 

[Meow7]

Would it affect 120 film more that 35? I have not had this with 35mm but have to admit I've had some odd dark corners on film from my Fuji GSW690II that I always blamed on the camera...

 

[glbeas]

What developer? Overly short developing times can give uneven density. Not usually a problem in temperate climates.

 

[glbeas]

Another thing just thinking, did your son have any problems pouring the developer in quickly?

 

[Meow7]

9:00 68f, Xtol 1:1. TF4 fix 6:00... I don’t think he poured it in too slowly...

 

[shutterfinger]

Heres another possibility, did you fill your tank all the way to the top so no air was present inside? This can cause a problem when inverting the tank as the developer doesn't get moved from top to bottom. The air bubble provides room for agitation on inversion as it pushes the developer out of the way as it rises. Use only enough to completely cover the reel.

I always fill the tank to the top with NO air space when doing inversion processing. I have been doing this since 1976 and never had an issue with development. I use stainless steel tanks and reels and on occasion a JOBO 2500 tank. I've processed 35mm, and 120, and 4x5 regularly. The reel moves about up/down 1/4 inch in the stainless steel tanks.
When I invert its a 150° to 170° turn, pause for 1/2 second then return to upright which takes 1 to 1 1/4 seconds from start to finish.

The problem is chemical flow across the film which gets blamed on how vigorous the agitation is or is not, the frequency, and the chemical volume.
Do you wash the reels and tank at the end of processing?
Are all the slots and groves in the reel(s) free of any build up?
Is the gap between the turns of film on the reel even at the end of processing? A twist to load reel may be packing the film in one area narrowing the gap between turns and not other other areas. Use a scrap roll in daylight to verify correct loading/spacing.

My pour in/pour out time for 16 ounce tanks is 10 to 15 seconds. A pour in/pour out time of up to 30 seconds should not adversely affect the results.

 

[ic-racer]

Developer is exhausted. Film away from the edges is under-developed. Try processing with a more concentrated solution of developer and report back.

 

[shutterfinger]

Developer is exhausted. Film away from the edges is under-developed. Try processing with a more concentrated solution of developer and report back.

Download and read J-109 http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/J-109_Feb_2018.pdf
For 1:1 a minimum of 100ml/3.5 fluid ounces of developer is needed for each 135-36 or 120 roll of film or 80 square inches of sheet film.
Xtol only last 4 to 6 months depending on storage conditions. Weak/exhausted developer produces thin negatives.

 

[Tim Stapp]

I store my XTOL in recycled wine bladders. My current batch was mixed in September 2017. Activity is still right where it should be. Given it's age, I do a clip test. I sacrificed a roll of film just for this purpose.

 

[MattKing]

F I do inversion it's very gentle, figure 8, but I have been using the swizzle stick for a while now, generally slowly.

Your uneven development is the reason that the Paterson instruction sheet advises that the "swizzle stick" should only be used for the first few seconds of development, with the rest of the agitation being either from inversion or rotation of the entire tank.
Just spinning the reel results in more agitation and activity at the edges.
The problem is worse for 120 than 135.

 

[Meow7]

The Xtol is fairly new and stored in a floating lid container. If that is true of the swizzle stick then technically shouldn't all of my negatives look like that? Because they are 99% fine. This was a one off and when I thought more of my negs from the GSW690 it happened on color as well, not developed by me... 250ml of Xtol, 250ml of distilled water. We'll see what the next roll reveals.. Thanks!

 

[Rick A]

Your uneven development is the reason that the Paterson instruction sheet advises that the "swizzle stick" should only be used for the first few seconds of development, with the rest of the agitation being either from inversion or rotation of the entire tank.
Just spinning the reel results in more agitation and activity at the edges.
The problem is worse for 120 than 135.

I agree with this statement, it's exactly why I stopped using the old Yankee tanks and similar back in the 60's.

 

[Meow7]

I'm going to do the next dev with the stick, if not the experiment would be flawed and i would never know, but perhaps i'll go back to inversion after this.