Can negatives "bleed"?

mooseontheloose · Nov 4, 2009

I've just started developing Fuji Acros (120) in Rodinal 1+50 and am really delighted with the way the negatives are coming out -- they're the most beautiful things I've seen in a long, long time. However, tonight I just finished processing a roll that was shot in late August in Japan -- all the images were taken at dusk, of a traditional Japanese geisha district with lamp lighting. The negs looks just as nice as all the others I've developed, except for one thing -- all the highlights (streetlamps and other lighting fixtures) "bleed" down to the bottom of the image, in some cases (but not all) crossing the rebate and into the next image. It is only from these light sources that they seem to do it. As far as I can tell (the roll is currently being hung to dry), it is not the result of double exposure, nor do they appear to be scratches (they tend to be longish, thin, squiggly black lines, but some are also bleeding 'halos' from larger round lamps). All the chemicals were at the standard 20 C (or slightly lower) and the water rinses in between (there was no pre-soak) were at that temperature (or slightly higher). This roll was developed with another roll which does not exhibit these problems at all (that roll is full of landscape scenics and has no 'hot' sources of light).

I'll try scanning the images once they are dry but I'm a little leary to develop any more of my nighttime photos without knowing what caused this to begin with.

Has anyone experienced this before, or knows what might of caused it?

Anscojohn · Nov 4, 2009

What you are seeing is called bromide drag (or the opposite) and results from insufficient agitation.

polyglot · Nov 5, 2009

It'd be nice to know how much agitation was insufficient. I've recently been doing Acros in Rodinal 1+100 using the MDC instructions (15s/min for 3, then 1 inversion/3-mins until 18) and haven't had this problem.

mooseontheloose · Nov 5, 2009

Hi John,

I don't want to disagree with you, but doesn't bromide drag cause differences in densities across the negative? That's not what this is -- it's very specific to the light sources, and are different in each frame, depending on those sources. And why would it affect one roll, but not the other, that were developed in the same tank with the same type of agitation? That's the main source of my confusion.

For what it's worth, at 1+50 I did an initial 30 seconds of agitation (rotating the tank as usual), with 5 seconds every minute thereafter. That's half what the massive dev chart recommends (1 minute initial/10 sec every minute) but so far all of my other negatives look great with this combination.

mooseontheloose · Nov 5, 2009

Polyglot,

When I first started using Rodinal, that's what I did as well (the 1+100 version from MDC). There's lots of detail in the negs, but they're quite grey with little contrast. When I tried the 1+50 combination I was blown away by how great the negs looked -- more contrasty with obvious blacks and whites, but with a lot of detail still within both ends of the spectrum, not to mention the mid-tones.

That being said, I have yet to do any enlargements from my Rodinal-processed negatives.

johnnywalker · Nov 5, 2009

Damn negatives! Seems a lot of people are having problems with them lately. One would think in this day and age they'd come up with something where you didn't need negatives!

MattKing · Nov 5, 2009

Rachelle:

I'm wondering if you are getting some light piping through the film base.

What camera were you using? Is there any chance this is the result of flare internal to the camera?

I've seen something vaguely similar with some of my shots with a 58mm lens on my Koni-Omega (6x7 format). In my case, it only occurs when I have a bright light source near the edge of the frame, and the bleed starts near the rebate between frames and goes across that rebate.

Matt

rphenning · Nov 5, 2009

it's happened to me before too. The sun blows out the negative so much that it goes outside of the margins of the rest of the frame. Right? I don't think that's bromide drag, that's just blowing highlights a lot.

kristopher_lawrence · Nov 5, 2009

Rodinal does not produce bromide, so it cannot be bromide drag.

dancqu · Nov 5, 2009

Bromide Drag? Not Likely

kristopher_lawrence said:
Rodinal does not produce bromide, so it cannot
be bromide drag.

Silver chloride, bromide, and iodide make up
the silver content of the emulsion. Those IDEs
are released into the solution on reduction of
those silver salts. Metol as a developing
agent is sensitive to bromide. Perhaps
also the agent in Rodinal.

Little agitation and long periods of still time
may produce bromide drag. Dan

pgomena · Nov 5, 2009

I see this effect every once in a while when there's a bright light source near the edge of the film. I think I've seen it with every kind of film I've ever used and in every camera I've owned. The light is just so intense that it bleeds under the edge of the film chamber. Aside from shielding the lens from the light, I don't know what you can do about it. In cases where you can't shield the lens without obscuring the shot, expect it to happen.

Peter Gomena

clayne · Nov 5, 2009

Pretty normal with high contrast light sources. Never seen it bleed bad enough to be in the next frame though. One would have to have really flaky shutter action for that happen. The bright light still has to pass the shutter and hit the film. It's not unreasonable to think that it could make it past the edge of whatever shutter one is using and extend past the edge of the film. There's no way every light source is exactly perpendicular to either the shutter or the film plane.

Anscojohn · Nov 5, 2009

kristopher_lawrence said:
Rodinal does not produce bromide, so it cannot be bromide drag.

******
Please explain.

Anscojohn · Nov 5, 2009

polyglot said:
It'd be nice to know how much agitation was insufficient. I've recently been doing Acros in Rodinal 1+100 using the MDC instructions (15s/min for 3, then 1 inversion/3-mins until 18) and haven't had this problem.

*******
It's the briight light source which is exhausting the developer in those areas quickly. The by-product of the reaction is bromide, which inhibits the highlights--which is why Rodinal is a compensating developer. If those bromide-laden byproducts are not moved away, they , being heavier than the surrounding developer, start running down away from the over exposed area and slowing down the development of the emulsion they touch. You can see them flowing right down from the heavy areas. What is sufficient agitation??

The official Agfa data sheets I have in my notebook are very specific with Rodinal.

Quote On:

For development in a daylight tank, to a Gamma of .65 to .70...agitation is continous for the first 30 seconds and then for 5 seconds out of every thirty.Quote off.

I know there are lots of APUG experts who know all about this, but I just rely on the AGA instructions I have on my data sheet; it is what I use; and have used that since the late 1960s. But what do I know? Gosh, I even sometimes added sodium sulfite for my Tri-X. Heaven forefend!

Jerevan · Nov 5, 2009

I don't think Rodinal is exempt from producing bromide drag. If so, please prove it with some substantial evidence. Enquiring minds want to know.

Otherwise, I'd chalk it up as one of those mythical beasts roaming the world.

mcgrattan · Nov 5, 2009

I've certainly had bromide drag doing stand development with Rodinal.

The original poster's described phenomenon sounds like light-piping, to me. I've had this with any number of films in which there is a really bright point light source in an otherwise fairly dark subject. I've had it bad enough in some recent 35mm shots that it had nearly, but not quite, bled into the next frame. I can remember it recently with Ilford Delta, and Fuji Acros films.

Steve Roberts · Nov 5, 2009

I was trying to work out whether what I was about to suggest was refraction or diffraction through the film base but then read the expression "light piping" in a couple of the posts which summed up my thoughts exactly! It seems to me that the film is behaving on a localised basis in the way that a fibre optic does. I see this on my negs where I've opened up for a generally poorly lit scene but better lit areas near the edge bleed beyond the normal image area. Energetic highlights well inside the frame behave in the same way but aren't as apparent when viewing the negative as they don't break the natural line of the strip of frames.

Steve

markbarendt · Nov 5, 2009

johnnywalker said:
Damn negatives! Seems a lot of people are having problems with them lately. One would think in this day and age they'd come up with something where you didn't need negatives!

They already did, Tintypes and ...

Mike1234 · Nov 5, 2009

This seems to be developing into another arguement for using more dilution rather than less frequent agitation to control contrast.

nickstreme · Nov 5, 2009

GHOSTS

Andrew Moxom · Nov 5, 2009

How about those neg scans so we can make a more accurate guess than what's been speculatedi so far???

fschifano · Nov 5, 2009

It's not bromide drag. I've seen the same thing using Acros to photograph a scene of lower Manhattan from the Brooklyn waterfront at night. It's not as bad as the situation you describe, but then the bright light sources perhaps were not as strong. I shot the same scene on TMY-2 and Acros (got to love the interchangeable backs on the 'blads) and the Acros definitely show more bleeding from the highlights. There's nothing you did wrong. It is the nature of the material. Based on what I've seen with my film, it is clearly apparent that TMY-2 has better anti-halation characteristics than Acros.

lns · Nov 5, 2009

rphenning said:
it's happened to me before too. The sun blows out the negative so much that it goes outside of the margins of the rest of the frame. Right? I don't think that's bromide drag, that's just blowing highlights a lot.

I've seen it occasionally too. Kind of funky. I too have assumed it's just from a very strong highlight on the edge of the negative that kind of bleeds over the edge.

-Laura

Photo Engineer · Nov 5, 2009

The very bright light creates a dark image on the negative which produces lots of halide. This halide "drags" and causes light areas to appear in the direction of the dragged halide which appear as streaks. So, any dark area with a light streak emanating from it in a uniform direction over several frames is usually due to bromide drag. This can be eliminated by increasing the agitation.

Dilute developers such as Rodinal can also give bromide drag but due to the dilution effects, the drag is often minimal.

PE

Mike1234 · Nov 5, 2009

Dilute more and agitate more. If you're having that kind of problem maybe you should agitate every 30 sec and/or try a different type of developer. Maybe one of the stand type developers that don't seem to suffer this problem?

Can negatives "bleed"?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency