Can chemistry issues cause pinholes in modern Tri-X / Kodak recommends hardening fixer??

[phreon]

Hi, I'll first say "hello" I've been reading APUG/Photrio for years and finally joined. Thank you for existing.

I recently returned to the world of film and chemistry after a long hiatus. I shot a roll of fresh 120 roll of Tri-X, and developed it in Rodinal 1:50 as I have many times in the past. Instead of Kodak stop and fixer I would have used in the past, I used Ilford Ilfostop and Rapid fix at the specified film dilutions. All chemicals were at the same temperature as was the wash. The negatives were a bit dense for my liking @ 12m/20C, but they're reasonable enough.

Upon closer inspection however, there are pinholes in the emulsion that are causing black spots in the reversed images. Using a loupe and light table, it almost looks like the emulsion has simply flaked off. I didn't abuse the film while loading; I had no issue loading/using the same stainless Nikkor spirals and Kindermann tank I have for years. I've simply never seen anything like this.

In researching this, I found a 2016 Kodak publication indicating the use of *hardening fixer* with their B&W films.

"Agitate continuously for the first 30 seconds and at 30-second intervals after that with a hardening fixer such as:• KODAK PROFESSIONAL Rapid Fixer (liquid) • KODAFIX Solution (liquid) • KODAK PROFESSIONAL POLYMAX Fixer (liquid) • KODAK PROFESSIONAL Fixer (powder)". https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/edbwf.pdf

I was always of the understanding that "modern" B&W films do not require hardening fixer. Has Kodak cheapened out with "new" Tri-X similar to the funny business surrounding "New and Improved" HC-110 (which is/was my other favorite developer)? Or is my memory shot and they always specified hardening fixer? At no point in my life have I ever used hypo clear.

If I'm missing something basic, I apologize, but as mentioned above, I've never seen anything like this and I have spent a fair bit of time researching with no concrete answers.

Thanks,

 

[Rick A]

Nearly all modern films have a hardener included in the emulsion. The only time I've had pinholes in an emulsion was with the older Efke films, and was advised to use water for the stop instead of acid. The acid would cause a reaction with developer and create bubbles in the emulsion. Is there a possibility your stop was mixed too strong?

 

[DWThomas]

A copy of a May 2004 Kodak chart I have here makes the same statement. Don't think I have much from before that.

 

[kevs]

Hi Phreon and welcome to Photrio.

Pinholes, tiny clear spots on negatives, can be caused by small bubbles of air adhering to film during processing. This stops developer from reaching the film, leaving a spot of undeveloped film to be fixed away. To prevent this, Ilford recommend tapping the tank to dislodge any bubbles.

Another way to prevent it is to pre-soak the film before development in water the temperature of the developer; I do this and add a drop or two of wetting agent to the water, which seems to work. Other people don't pre-soak their film and don't get pinholes.

I've no idea what would cause the emulsion to flake off the base; that shouldn't happen with any modern filmstock, which don't need a hardener unless you're developing at high temps. It does sound odd and might be worthwhile posting an image of the problem here. It might be worthwhile contacting Kodak Alaris about the problem so they can investigate.

 

[phreon]

Nearly all modern films have a hardener included in the emulsion. The only time I've had pinholes in an emulsion was with the older Efke films, and was advised to use water for the stop instead of acid. The acid would cause a reaction with developer and create bubbles in the emulsion. Is there a possibility your stop was mixed too strong?

My stop was mixed 1:19, fixer 1:4 as specified. The Rodinal was mixed dead on 1:50 with a syringe. I tend to be persnickity about my chemistry and handling. I use separate mixing/decanting graduated containers for each chemistry. I used my city's excellent quality, if slightly hard charcoal filtered tap water stored in one of those folding cube water storage containers so it can reach equilibrium with room temp and outgas the air and residual chlorine. Only the wash comes straight from the tap, but I get it within a degree or two of the rest of my chemistry. All working solutions get stored in brown glass. I'll probably decant my faux (New Formula!) HC-110 into glass once I crack it.

As for the film, it was Tri-X. Formerly, I regarded Tri-X as an unchanging rock of consistency. Perhaps my memories of Kodak as a trustworthy, responsive company are no longer apropos.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
You definitely should reach out to Kodak Alaris with details: profilm@kodakalaris.com
That being said, there are a lot of Tri-X users here, and we haven't been hearing of problems like this.
For a fairly long period of time Kodak was having a lot of problems with the backing paper after they stopped manufacturing it themselves. I truly hope that this isn't related to new problems with the newly revised backing paper.

 

[phreon]

Hi Phreon and welcome to Photrio.

Pinholes, tiny clear spots on negatives, can be caused by small bubbles of air adhering to film during processing. This stops developer from reaching the film, leaving a spot of undeveloped film to be fixed away. To prevent this, Ilford recommend tapping the tank to dislodge any bubbles.

Another way to prevent it is to pre-soak the film before development in water the temperature of the developer; I do this and add a drop or two of wetting agent to the water, which seems to work. Other people don't pre-soak their film and don't get pinholes.

I've no idea what would cause the emulsion to flake off the base; that shouldn't happen with any modern filmstock. You shouldn't need to use a hardener with film either; it slows down post-fix washing. It does sound odd and might be worthwhile posting an image of the problem here. If you believe the film is at fault, it would be good to contact Kodak Alaris about the problem so they can investigate.

These weren't air bells, but tiny pin-holes. Also, I ritualistically rap my tank on the counter 4 times after every agitation cycle. I learned the hard way what air bells look like as a kid. I never presoaked Tri-X in the past and never had issues. I presoak Fomapan, but only to get the festive blue/green anti-halation dye out of it.

Don't mind the halos; I had a NASA Mars mission moment and range focused a Russian Moskva-4 marked in meters with my imperial minded brain; the unsharp mask is cranked way up.

 

[kevs]

These weren't air bells, but tiny pin-holes. Also, I ritualistically rap my tank on the counter 4 times after every agitation cycle. I learned the hard way what air bells look like as a kid. I never presoaked Tri-X in the past and never had issues. I presoak Fomapan, but only to get the festive blue/green anti-halation dye out of it.

Don't mind the halos; I had a NASA Mars mission moment and range focused a Russian Moskva-4 marked in meters with my imperial minded brain; the unsharp mask is cranked way up.

View attachment 242158

Then I think you should contact Kodak Alaris about the problem. The shape of the spots discounts dust on the film at exposure time and the only other cause I can think of is tiny droplets of fixer or some other chemical reaching the film before development, which seems unlikely to me. I hope you find the cause, good luck.

 

[phreon]

Then I think you should contact Kodak Alaris about the problem. The shape of the spots discounts dust on the film at exposure time and the only other cause I can think of is tiny droplets of fixer or some other chemical reaching the film before development, which seems unlikely to me. I hope you find the cause, good luck.

I just completed an email to Kodalaris with details about where the film was purchased from, the lot number, my process and the above image attached. . You're correct, the film was not subject to any chemistry out of order; it was loaded into the clean, dry tank before I decanted or in the case of the Rodinal, mixed any chemistry. Do I have a true mystery on my hands? I'll keep the thread up to date with their reply.

--The future's past. Film is digital

 

[Lachlan Young]

For whatever reason, 90+% of processing 'issues' I've seen in person were from people using Rodinal. Bad agitation technique, leaving the working strength solution mixed and unused for over 20 mins, letting the developer bottle sit around in certain conditions until the thing crystallised, etc, etc . Oh, and particulates dissolved in water supply can be another major cause of strange artifacts, especially from the final wash.

 

[phreon]

My apologies, this has been an incredibly hectic week.

After explaining the issue, providing images, detailing my process, (liquid) chemistry, Kodak provided the following causes/observations
.

• There's a halo around the pinholes (I explained that's from heavy USM)
• The film came in contact with a contaminant (I explained the film was literally handled with a glove, put in a clean stainless tank, fresh, tested chemicals were used)
• A chemical wasn't completely dissolved ( I explained I used well mixed, liquid chemistry)
• Strange tracks that leads them to believe it was "some kind of process related issue"...

I provided a full resolution 18 MB JPEG of the scan. They sent an extreme zoom showing "tracks" they claimed were associated with some of the pinholes. I need to look more closely at the TIFF files to see if what they're seeing aren't odd compression artifacts. I lack a microscope with which to examine the negative itself that closely.

Attached is the image fragment they returned to me. Do any of you have an idea what those "lines" are? The responses I've received from Kodak Professional have been unsatisfying, to say the least. Maybe it's time to give HP5 and Fomapan 400 another shot.

Thanks

 

[logan2z]

I recently started a thread about similar pinholes in 120 Tri-X:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tiny-clear-spots-on-latest-roll-of-film.173481/

My film was lab developed so a bit difficult to compare with your situation. I have two more rolls of Tri-X from the same 5-roll package ready to be developed so I don't yet know if this was an isolated incident or a consistent issue with the film (or possibly an issue with my camera). I suppose we could compare lot numbers and see if there is any correlation.

 

[MattKing]

My apologies, this has been an incredibly hectic week.

After explaining the issue, providing images, detailing my process, (liquid) chemistry, Kodak provided the following causes/observations
.

• There's a halo around the pinholes (I explained that's from heavy USM)
• The film came in contact with a contaminant (I explained the film was literally handled with a glove, put in a clean stainless tank, fresh, tested chemicals were used)
• A chemical wasn't completely dissolved ( I explained I used well mixed, liquid chemistry)
• Strange tracks that leads them to believe it was "some kind of process related issue"...

I provided a full resolution 18 MB JPEG of the scan. They sent an extreme zoom showing "tracks" they claimed were associated with some of the pinholes. I need to look more closely at the TIFF files to see if what they're seeing aren't odd compression artifacts. I lack a microscope with which to examine the negative itself that closely.

Attached is the image fragment they returned to me. Do any of you have an idea what those "lines" are? The responses I've received from Kodak Professional have been unsatisfying, to say the least. Maybe it's time to give HP5 and Fomapan 400 another shot.

View attachment 242417

Thanks

Sending them scans will probably leave the issue un-resolved.
They need to evaluate the negatives themselves.

 

[phreon]

I recently started a thread about similar pinholes in 120 Tri-X:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tiny-clear-spots-on-latest-roll-of-film.173481/

My film was lab developed so a bit difficult to compare with your situation. I have two more rolls of Tri-X from the same 5-roll package ready to be developed so I don't yet know if this was an isolated incident or a consistent issue with the film (or possibly an issue with my camera). I suppose we could compare lot numbers and see if there is any correlation.

What was the lot number on your box? Also, look at your negatives very closely. Some of the spots look like the emulsion flaked, i.e. the holes aren't round, but jagged on mine.

I suggest you hound Kodak about this and also send them an email with representative images if you can.

 

[BrianShaw]

Attached is the image fragment they returned to me. Do any of you have an idea what those "lines" are? The responses I've received from Kodak Professional have been unsatisfying, to say the least. Maybe it's time to give HP5 and Fomapan 400 another shot.

Not intending to be offensive but knowing this comment may be taken as such; my profound apology in advance: I’m totally impressed with their response. I would have expected much less. They seem to have given a full range of potential causes. Clearly not all might be correct but since you can eliminate all of their possibilities... what hypothesis did/do you have?

BTW, I’ve never seen this kind of issue with HP-5 or FP-4... so you could be right that it would be worth a try.

 

[phreon]

Not intending to be offensive but knowing this comment may be taken as such; my profound apology in advance: I’m totally impressed with their response. I would have expected much less. They seem to have given a full range of potential causes. Clearly not all might be correct but since you can eliminate all of their possibilities... what hypothesis did/do you have?

BTW, I’ve never seen this kind of issue with HP-5 or FP-4... so you could be right that it would be worth a try.

No offense taken. I should elaborate that most of their responses were (pre)answered in my very 1st email. I mentioned I used clean equipment, how I handled the film, my exact process, liquid chemistry, inspected the camera, etc. For example, they blamed incompletely dissolved chemistry after I specifically mentioned I used freshly mixed from liquid in the 1st email. I detailed each type and brand. Every time I reiterated a point, I got another email blaming something else. That's what's a bit irritating; seems more like deflection than actual analysis.

If it's an issue in my process, what? That's what I'd like to know. I have no hypothesis at this time, but to my eye, it looks like the emulsion simply flaked off. There's another person with a thread having the exact same issue with Tri-X now. Given the cost of Tri-X and its pedigree, I have high expectations.

 

[logan2z]

What was the lot number on your box? Also, look at your negatives very closely. Some of the spots look like the emulsion flaked, i.e. the holes aren't round, but jagged on mine.

I suggest you hound Kodak about this and also send them an email with representative images if you can.

The lot number (assuming I've got the right number from the box) is "1021 014". The film's expiration date is 07/2022.

I've looked at the negatives but I don't have a loupe powerful enough to really tell if the emulsion has flaked. I'll see if I can find a way to take a closer look and I'll report back.

 

[phreon]

The lot number (assuming I've got the right number from the box) is "1021 014". The film's expiration date is 07/2022.

I've looked at the negatives but I don't have a loupe powerful enough to really tell if the emulsion has flaked. I'll see if I can find a way to take a closer look and I'll report back.

Mine's 1021 011

 

[logan2z]

Mine's 1021 011

The lot numbers seem fairly close but I don't know the numbering scheme used by Kodak so I can't say for sure. Maybe someone who knows more about Kodak's lot numbers will chime in.

 

[kevs]

My apologies, this has been an incredibly hectic week.

After explaining the issue, providing images, detailing my process, (liquid) chemistry, Kodak provided the following causes/observations
.

• 
  <snipped>
• Strange tracks that leads them to believe it was "some kind of process related issue"...

I provided a full resolution 18 MB JPEG of the scan. They sent an extreme zoom showing "tracks" they claimed were associated with some of the pinholes. I need to look more closely at the TIFF files to see if what they're seeing aren't odd compression artifacts. I lack a microscope with which to examine the negative itself that closely.

Attached is the image fragment they returned to me. Do any of you have an idea what those "lines" are? The responses I've received from Kodak Professional have been unsatisfying, to say the least. Maybe it's time to give HP5 and Fomapan 400 another shot.

View attachment 242417

Thanks

They could be micro-reticulation, very small wrinkles in the gelatin. It might also explain the odd spots on your negs. Reticulation is generally caused by a temperature change during processing. Modern filmstocks aren't as vulnerable to this as older types like Tr-X. The link below (Ephotozine) shows a couple of examples of regular reticulation used as a creative technique.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/create-reticulation-when-film-processing-4639

I found a really old forum post that seems to describe your problems; sadly the linked image is long gone but a visit to the Wayback machine might help there.

https://www.tundraware.com/pipermail/pure-silver/2001-January/035424.html

 

[phreon]

They could be micro-reticulation, very small wrinkles in the gelatin. It might also explain the odd spots on your negs. Reticulation is generally caused by a temperature change during processing. Modern filmstocks aren't as vulnerable to this as older types like Tr-X. The link below (Ephotozine) shows a couple of examples of regular reticulation used as a creative technique.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/create-reticulation-when-film-processing-4639

I found a really old forum post that seems to describe your problems; sadly the linked image is long gone but a visit to the Wayback machine might help there.

https://www.tundraware.com/pipermail/pure-silver/2001-January/035424.html

Hi,

This isn't' reticulation. The negatives and images are otherwise perfect except for the missing emulsion spots. I took care to ensure all my chemistry was at room temp (68F by happy accident) and got the wash water within a couple degrees of that. However, I am starting to suspect, as anachronistic as it sounds, that Tri-X needs a hardening fixer. That's the only remotely plausible thought that comes to mind.

Thanks

 

[Lachlan Young]

Only the wash comes straight from the tap, but I get it within a degree or two of the rest of my chemistry.

Is this filtered at all? This is one of the most consistent causes of problems of the sort you are experiencing. Especially in hard water areas. It also looks like you have streaks consistent with interlayer drying marks (excessively fast drying/ too low an RH in drying environment). Or it's damage/ scratches on the film from particulates in the final rinse water and subsequent squeegeeing.

 

[Louis Nargi]

If you use a acid stop if your stop is to strong this could cause pin holes. The developer when on your fingers is slippery when you add maybe 1/2 tsp of acid in about 16 oz of water that slipperiness should disappear then your stop is right and should not damage your film.

 

[Bill Burk]

Does the crud appear on all frames or just the first few? Dust/flakes from a folding camera’s disintegrating bellows can cause that. Solution depends on condition but you could wind just before taking pictures.

 

[Bill Burk]

And you don’t have to ask how I know....