Can anyone help me track down this wierd shadow?

[Ian Leake]

I recently bought a second hand / diy 11x14. I really love the size of the prints, but I'm getting some really annoying radial shadows on my prints when I use it. Can anyone help me cure this? I've attached a couple of scans, a Polaroid that shows roughly what the print should look like, and a scanned/stitched 11x14 print (sorry, it's not very well printed).

The Polaroid is a 5x4 (Type 53) which was shot a few minutes before the 11x14 neg which I used for the pt/pd scan (I've highlighted the shadows in red but you don't really need that because they're so obvious). Nothing changed between the shots (model, background, lighting, etc.) except the cameras. The 5x4 was about 2 feet closer to the model and light, and had a different lens. But it shows what "correct" exposure looks like.

These shadows appear to a greater or lesser extent on every negative I've exposed on the 11x14. The obvious things I've checked:

• Film Fog? It happens on BPF 200 and HP5+
• Film Holder? It happens with different holders
• Light Leaks? There were some orginally when I received the camera but these are now taped over and I've checked everything under a very bright light. There's now no visible leak either looking through the lens panel (with an empty film holder in place with its dark slide out) or looking in the other direction with lens cap on and the ground glass removed. The bellows are new and in really good condition
• Flare? I've tried to shield the lens (but I'm using a powerful strobe in a white room so there's tons of light bouncing around). But if it was flare then wouldn't it show up as general lack of contrast or bright ghosting rather than clearly defined shadows? And it's also pretty much exactly the same pattern whether I use an old Schneider G-Claron or a Cooke XVa Triple Convertible, or if the light's on the right or left of the camera, or if the back's horizontal or vertical (and lens unchanged). So I'm pretty sure it's not flare. I've also used the Cooke on a 10x8 in the same place and same conditions and had no trouble at all
• Developing? Apart from bigger trays, I'm using the same developing method in the same darkroom that I've used for 6 months. I've never seen this problem on 10x8, and if it was in the darkroom then wouldn't it be a more general fog?
• Printing? Definitely not the case as I can see it on the neg. If I really work on the print I can almost eliminate the shadow but that's hiding the problem not fixing it

I think I'm going to have to work on some tests to really prove it's not flare, but I'm getting close to stumped on this.

What do you think?

All the best and many thanks in advance for your help and ideas.

 

[Ole]

Developing? Apart from bigger trays, I'm using the same developing method in the same darkroom that I've used for 6 months. I've never seen this problem on 10x8, and if it was in the darkroom then wouldn't it be a more general fog?

That would be my guess. Surge marks, or bromide drag, or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I saw something vaguely like that with a leaf shutter that hung for a fraction of a second, halfway through the cycle and then completed the cycle. Yours is much more distinct than what I remember seeing, so I prefer Ole's suggestion better, but I thought I would mention my one time experience from long ago just in case.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Do your trays have an "X" pattern on the bottom? If they do, then I like Ole's suggestion. Develop emulsion up if you're developing emulsion down.

 

[darinwc]

Light leaks would make lighter areas on the print.. so rather than dark streaks the lighter blotches on the top and left of the image. but light leaks have a distinctive look to them so i dont think this is the case.

My guess is would be lens flare or uneven development.

 

[raucousimages]

It looks like the shutter is out of sync with the flash. With some older shutters the flash fires just prior to the shutter opening. This allowed the old flash bulbs to be at full brightness (burn) when the the shutter opened. When using that shutter with a strobe which is much faster than a bulb the shutter is not open all the way when the strobe fires.

To rule out any sort of light leak in the camera insert a film holder, remove darkslide, with lenscap on fire strobes several times. Then develop film. You could have some light leaking through the bellows material not just pinholes.

 

[Ian Leake]

Thanks everyone, and interesting ideas...

Surge marks? They're something I hadn't considered (and have never knowingly seen before). I shall try to change the way I agitate the developer and see what happens. Any suggestions for avoiding these with 12x16 trays?

I'd say it's definitely not the shutter as it happens the same with two different shutters, one of which is new and works fine in my 10x8 and the same light. I'll try a final light leak test once I've tested the surge mark theory.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Thanks everyone, and interesting ideas...

Surge marks? They're something I hadn't considered (and have never knowingly seen before). I shall try to change the way I agitate the developer and see what happens. Any suggestions for avoiding these with 12x16 trays?

I'd say it's definitely not the shutter as it happens the same with two different shutters, one of which is new and works fine in my 10x8 and the same light. I'll try a final light leak test once I've tested the surge mark theory.

Thanks again everyone.

Keep your shutter open , stopped down, and pop the flash in a dark room.....I think it is in the development process however.

 

[Ian Leake]

Just to clarify things, I develop a single sheet at a time emulsion side up using Paterson trays with grooves in the bottom and a little lump in the middle (I've always assumed that that makes no difference as it's on the wrong side of the film). My agitation method is to lift and drop the left side then the bottom edge of the tray about every second, and turn the tray through 90 degrees every minute (to try to keep things even). I use Rodinal at about 1+25 (actually 45cc in 1000cc because it's easier to measure) with a 2 minute pre-soak before. Dev time for HP5+ is 9 minutes if I've shot at EI400 (as this one was) or 13 minutes if I've shot at EI800 (remember it's for Pt/Pd so they need to be dense).

Thinking about it though, yesterday I tried creating some internegs on 11x14 film. I used exactly the same developing method as I've described above, and both the negative and positive came out beautifully. Wouldn't that suggest that it's not the way I develop? Or are surge marks more complex - e.g. more apparent with high key images?

 

[Robert Hall]

Has anyone suggested it could be bad film?

 

[Ian Leake]

Hi Robert. When I saw it the first time I thought it was bad film. But I've had identical marks on both BPF 200 and HP5+. Maybe I'm damaging the film when I load the holder. I'm very careful when I do this so I don't think it's likely to be poor film handling, but 11x14 is a lot more floppy than 10x8 so maybe I'm bending it somehow - I'll have a think about that next time I'm loading a holder.

 

[Ole]

... Or are surge marks more complex - e.g. more apparent with high key images?

I think they would be, and I'm certain they are more obvious in large areas of smooth tone. Lots of little details can hide a lot of "gruff"!

 

[kirkfry]

Ian,
I think I agree with the development theory. I had lots of trouble with uneven development on 4 X 5 until I switched to HC110 and trays. You probably hate HC110 but it would give you a clue to what is going on. Also don't slosh it so much. Once a minute should be fine. More is not always better. Maybe try drum development. How much developer is in the tray, try more. K

 

[Ian Leake]

It looks like it was development. After a bit of experimenting I developed the B negative and bingo, everything was as I expected (see the attached, and rather poor quality, scan). I had thought I had my developing sorted out pretty well, but obviously I was wide of the mark there. Thanks so much for your help everyone.