Could you help me diagnose my mistakes?

[cptrios]

Hi all,

I recently posted a thread here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/did-the-reel-do-this.179746/, but I figured I'd make a more general one now since my issues seem...well, more general. Hopefully, that's alright. I'm new here! I know this is going to be a long one, but I figure why not be thorough.

Basically, I'm having problems with inconsistent density, sometimes manifesting as streaking and sometimes as overexposure around the borders of the frame. (There are also some edge effects that I'm sort of surprised to see.) I read the Ilford guide, along with this long thread, but I'm not sure they're really helping me. Hopefully I can get it right, because at some point I'd like to stop shooting boring test rolls!

A few thoughts:
- All of these were done with a Paterson tank
- I presoaked every time, and the first few were all probably for too long (5 minutes)
- Developer was typically at 68f or 69f, but the stop bath might have been a give-or-take 3 degrees situation.
- All of these apart from the stand developed one were in HC-110 dilution H, and the 35mm rolls were done with 384ml of total liquid, which I suppose might be too much (I followed the "minimum 6ml developer" rule).
- I used a tap water stop bath without really paying attention to agitation or time. I can't imagine that's ideal!
- I might have overfixed everything, since even though the fixer cleared the test strips in 30-40s I still fixed for 2 minutes
- I also did none of these processes in anything close to darkness, so light leaks in the tank and changing bag are possible. I don't really think that's the issue, though. Neither are camera light leaks, since these were all done with different bodies.
- I haven't scrubbed my reels very well after using photo-flo with them.
- In each roll, some frames show no issues whatsoever.

OK, without further ado, here are some samples, spoilered for convenience:

Roll 1:

Spoiler

Kentmere 100 (135)
HC-110 at 1+119, 55 minute stand development with 1 minute of inversions to start. I only banged the tank on the counter once, and not very hard. Biggest issue was streaking, but everything looks pretty muddy.

Roll 2:

Spoiler

Arista EDU 100 (120)
HC-110 at 1+63, 10 minutes, with 45s of initial inversions and 5 inversions every minute. These wound up with bubbles along one edge. Some in the other thread suggested adding more liquid to the tank, which I did the next time.

Roll 3:

Spoiler

Arista EDU 200 (135)
HC-110 at 1+63, 9 minutes, with 45s of initial agitation using the swizzle stick and 5 inversions every minute. Main issue here is streaking again, with more noticeable edge effects in some shots.

Roll 4:

Spoiler

Arista EDU 100 (120)
HC-110 at 1+63, 10 minutes, with 45s of initial agitation using the swizzle stick and 5 inversions every minute, with stronger table-banging than the previous try. Bubble issue was better, but there were still some. (Note: this film is put away enough that I didn't bother taking a photo.)

Roll 5:

Spoiler

TMAX 100 (135)
HC-110 at 1+63, 10:30, 45s of initial figure 8 agitation with 10s of figure 8 agitation every minute. Presoaked only 1 minute this time. Timing might have been off on this one, since there's a bit of conflicting info out there and my water temps were at 68.9f. Streaks either gone or much less pronounced this time, but heavy overexposure on long edges of frame (mostly the top, but sometimes the bottom too) occasionally visible on short edges as well. I think this one might have been underfixed, or under-somethinged, since some of the purple tint is still on the film. If under-fixing is the case, it might indicate that the change in inversion helped some... Interestingly, the problem is frequently worst in the top left corner of the frame. It'd make me think there might be a light leak if a) some frames weren't totally fine and b) I recently shot another roll with the same camera with no issues.

Ok, this is getting unwieldy now, so here goes.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

First mistake: stand development yields much inferior results, leading to bromide drags.
Second mistake: last roll is incompletely fixed / developed. This has to do with air bubbles trapped in the reel grooves. Paterson tank reel is awful about this. You have to agitate more frequently and tap the tank to dislodge air bubbles. A very little wetting agent helps, or alternatively DON'T presoak the film.
As a last step: when the fixing time is almost done, open the tank and flip the reel on the center coloumn upside down. Let it in the fixer for a couple of minutes more. Then wash as usually.

 

[Konical]

Good Afternoon, Cptrios,

I doubt that your somewhat extended pre-soak is a factor. Likewise, the temperature variation is too minor to be a factor. You haven't specified your fixer, but even with a rapid fix, the time is very short. Just because film appears clear doesn't mean that fixing is complete.

I agree with Alessandro about the Patterson equipment, although the edge effects usually show up much more on 120 film instead of 35mm. Agitation by inversion is much preferable to using the swizzle stick. Sharply banging the tank can help, but be careful: I was a bit too vigorous with my Patterson tank once and ended up cracking it--when it was full of developer. It was repairable, but has since been long retired. Best solution: Go to SS equipment. Smaller solution volumes, easier cleaning, lifetime investment--if you don't drop a reel and distort it.

Konical

 

[cptrios]

First mistake: stand development yields much inferior results, leading to bromide drags.
Second mistake: last roll is incompletely fixed / developed. This has to do with air bubbles trapped in the reel grooves. Paterson tank reel is awful about this. You have to agitate more frequently and tap the tank to dislodge air bubbles. A very little wetting agent helps, or alternatively DON'T presoak the film.
As a last step: when the fixing time is almost done, open the tank and flip the reel on the center coloumn upside down. Let it in the fixer for a couple of minutes more. Then wash as usually.

Yeah, the stand development was just because I was curious. Don't think I'll do it again.

Good Afternoon, Cptrios,

I doubt that your somewhat extended pre-soak is a factor. Likewise, the temperature variation is too minor to be a factor. You haven't specified your fixer, but even with a rapid fix, the time is very short. Just because film appears clear doesn't mean that fixing is complete.

I agree with Alessandro about the Patterson equipment, although the edge effects usually show up much more on 120 film instead of 35mm. Agitation by inversion is much preferable to using the swizzle stick. Sharply banging the tank can help, but be careful: I was a bit too vigorous with my Patterson tank once and ended up cracking it--when it was full of developer. It was repairable, but has since been long retired. Best solution: Go to SS equipment. Smaller solution volumes, easier cleaning, lifetime investment--if you don't drop a reel and distort it.

Konical

It seems both of you think I'm underfixing, so maybe I'll try re-fixing a strip or two. I'm using Ilford Rapid Fix, for what it's worth.

So far I've only used the swizzle stick for the first agitation, and then inversion or figure-eight for the rest. I didn't bang the drum at all on the last one, but I think the second 120 roll seemed to indicate that I should do it a bit more. With inversion, I kind of worry that it's going to introduce bubbles...and it also gave me those streaks in Roll 3. I keep reading that they're caused by either too much or too little agitation, which isn't the most helpful info!

Anyway, I appreciate the responses!

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Yeah, the stand development was just because I was curious. Don't think I'll do it again.



It seems both of you think I'm underfixing, so maybe I'll try re-fixing a strip or two. I'm using Ilford Rapid Fix, for what it's worth.

So far I've only used the swizzle stick for the first agitation, and then inversion or figure-eight for the rest. I didn't bang the drum at all on the last one, but I think the second 120 roll seemed to indicate that I should do it a bit more. With inversion, I kind of worry that it's going to introduce bubbles...and it also gave me those streaks in Roll 3. I keep reading that they're caused by either too much or too little agitation, which isn't the most helpful info!

Anyway, I appreciate the responses!

I guarantee you that if you refix the pink spots on the last film will go away 100%!
Another important factor is to use 300ml (290ml is too bothersome to make diluition calculations) for a single reel developing. The Paterson tank is designed to take that amount of liquid. If you fill the tank to the brim you'll risk to leave too little air space for the liquid to mix well.
If you use 2 reels then follow the required liquid amount engraved underneath the tank.
The sizzle agitation is supposed to be used only just after you pour the developer in and before you close the tank with the lid.
Agitate carefully but also firmly, the wetting agent built in the film will take care of bubble formation. Don't worry!

 

[bdial]

The usual practice is to fix for double the clearing time for most films. So your 2 minute time for fixing is about right, though T-grain films like T-Max and Delta need additional time.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The usual practice is to fix for double the clearing time for most films. So your 2 minute time for fixing is about right, though T-grain films like T-Max and Delta need additional time.

Non rapid fixers need a minimum of five minute for traditional and up to ten minutes for tabular grain film.

 

[voceumana]

FWIW, I have trouble loading 120 onto SS reels, but no trouble at all with 35mm--the additional stiffness of 35mm, and the small width makes SS loading with 35mm easy. Try going to SS and you'll solve some of your problems.

But, I have never had trouble with Paterson tanks, but never use a wetting agent with the film on the reel--I always do a see-saw in a separate container of very dilute wetting agent in distilled water.

 

[pbromaghin]

Instead of guessing how much liquid to use, put the reels in the tank and enough water to just cover them, leaving space for the liquid to move when you agitate. Dump it into a graduated cylinder. Then write down whatever quantity you dumped out and use that in the future. Stay to the longer end of the recommended fix time.

 

[Scott Micciche]

The swivel stick doesn't create a random enough flow of the chemistry. I've had this issue in a Rondinax as well, as it's essentially the same motion aside from unidirectional.

 

[cptrios]

Ok...I think this worked. This time, with Kentmere 100, I used the same amount of liquid (384ml total to get the required developer to 1:63), and did nothing but inversion. A small change was making sure to bang the tank right after putting the developer in, which I hadn't tried before. The biggest change though was inversions every 30 seconds rather than every minute. I initially thought I could still see faint streaking, but I'm pretty sure it was confirmation bias! Now, I just have to work on my DSLR scanning, because my choices with this old film scanner are clipping shadows and highlights or reducing everything to grey mush.

I don't know that I feel particularly confident yet, but I think I might finally be ready to start taking some actual photos!

 

[cptrios]

And, last post, since I'm pretty sure I've got it settled. Maybe there's just something about the Paterson tank that makes it like frequent agitation? Who knows. Here are a couple from a 120 roll of TMAX 400. Unfortunately, I missed just a tiny bit of the tape when I clipped the end of the roll, and of course it jammed in the reel, eventually resulting in various stages of disaster and a bunch of creases in the film. Still seemed well-developed, though!

 

[jimjm]

Your development process looks pretty good now, except for the film creases which we've all encountered at one time or another. With practice, you'll get comfortable loading on the reels and clearing jams without damaging the film.
This is about as good as you want from B/W film. Good range of tones with no blocked-up shadows and no overexposed highlights. Often there's nothing to be done with an overcast or clear sky, but many times I've been able to pull out cloud detail in the sky when printing in the darkroom. TMax100 and 400 are probably my favorite films now. Both are sharp with nice tonality.
With Paterson tanks I agitate for 5 sec every 30 for some films, or 10 sec every min for other films. Depends on the manufacturer recommendation. I do each gentle, full inversion with a half-twist, then tap the bottom of the tank firmly on the counter when setting it down. No need to shake it like a martini. I have a towel on the counter to tap the tank on, to avoid damaging the tank or the counter. Also to avoid waking my wife upstairs. The inversions with a twist provide a good random developer flow.
You're getting it - keep going!

 

[pentaxuser]

I am glad it has all worked out now but I'd be wary of correlating Paterson tanks and every 30 secs as opposed to 1 min agitation. Many years ago on a night school course we used Paterson reels and the instructor had written a summary of his instructions for agitation where we did the processing. It was one min intervals and as new students we all did this. I had no problem and I feel sure if others had they would have mentioned it

In most matters concerning b&w processing a lot seldom turns on a little such as variations in agitation

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I am glad it has all worked out now but I'd be wary of correlating Paterson tanks and every 30 secs as opposed to 1 min agitation. Many years ago on a night school course we used Paterson reels and the instructor had written a summary of his instructions for agitation where we did the processing. It was one min intervals and as new students we all did this. I had no problem and I feel sure if others had they would have mentioned it

In most matters concerning b&w processing a lot seldom turns on a little such as variations in agitation

pentaxuser

Or more simply - 5 seconds every 30 seconds will give the same results as ten seconds every minute, provided you have a decent amount of continuous agitation (30 seconds to a minute) at the very beginning.
There is probably a slight advantage to using the 5 seconds every 30 seconds approach for really short development times, like 3:15.

 

[Scott Micciche]

One thing I've noticed and learned with the Patterson or any roll tank is that you need to have some space for the inverted fluid to collect. I've learned to listen and feel for the rush of fluid to the inverted side before I rotate right-side up. If you invert too fast with a nearly full tank, uneven development is the result. Your images look nice and even now.

 

[pbromaghin]

Now, I just have to work on my DSLR scanning, because my choices with this old film scanner are clipping shadows and highlights or reducing everything to grey mush.

That grey mush may not really be all that bad. Taking advice from APUGgers who know a whole lot more than I do, I have lately been scanning flat, with all adjustments turned off. That way, everything is in the data. From there you decide your own levels and contrast in Photoshop (or whatever you are using). My results have gotten better from doing this.

 

[grat]

If you dig down into what's actually happening in the Paterson (or any development, really), the point of agitation is ensure that you keep the developer that's actually in contact with the film as "active" as possible. As the developer works, it's depleted by the reaction.

Agitation redistributes the used/unused developer so development can continue. Too aggressive, you're going to get bubbles, and as they're full of air instead of developer, that's bad. Too little agitation, and not enough active developer can reach the film.

Agitating at the beginning ensures that all the film gets some developer acting on it, and that the solution is reasonably well mixed

So how often you agitate should depend on how long your development cycle is. For color, which is only three and a half minutes, agitating every 30 seconds makes sense. For slower development like B&W that can run 10+ minutes, agitating once a minute makes more sense.

And then there's stand development (no agitation) where you're counting on concentration gradients to do the re-distribution for you, and you're basically trying to use exactly the right amount of developer for the amount of negative you have so that the film is properly developed when the developer is totally exhausted.

... I'm not an expert on film, but I'm pretty good with chemistry.

 

[relistan]

Excellent @cptrios looks like you are ready to go! The whole thing with development is to figure out what works for you. You are now getting good results, so if you are happy with agitation every 30s and that's what works, then great!

 

[DWThomas]

One thing I've noticed and learned with the Patterson or any roll tank is that you need to have some space for the inverted fluid to collect. I've learned to listen and feel for the rush of fluid to the inverted side before I rotate right-side up. If you invert too fast with a nearly full tank, uneven development is the result. Your images look nice and even now.

+1!

Years back after some uneven results I made measurements for my stainless tanks as to how much liquid it took to rise 5 or 6 mm above the reel and use that for developer volume.

I use 250ml for one 35mm and 425ml for one 120 roll in a stainless tank. I generally use HC110 at 1+63 and ignore the 6ml of HC-110 per roll without seeing any noticeable problems. (Years ago the Covington HC110 site said 3ml -- I reckon 6 is for worst case of shooting frames of white walls in full sun. }

 

[cptrios]

Yeah the grey mush is ok in DSLR scans, but out of my old Pacific Image film scanner it certainly isn't! It does well with frames that don't have deep shadows/highlights but throw either of those in and it's death. Camera scans look good so far though. Here's another one from that same 120 roll, which I think has finally started to give me some of that tonality I was looking forward to in medium format:

 

[cptrios]

Welp, I managed a grand total of 2 good rolls of 135 and one good roll of 120, and now the vertical streaks have returned. HP5 @400, 40s inversions then 2 every 30s, Kentmere 100 @100, 40s swizzle then 2 inversions every 30s. Both have streaks. Sigh.

 

[radiant]

Welp, I managed a grand total of 2 good rolls of 135 and one good roll of 120, and now the vertical streaks have returned. HP5 @400, 40s inversions then 2 every 30s, Kentmere 100 @100, 40s swizzle then 2 inversions every 30s. Both have streaks. Sigh.

Probably nothing to do with inversion frequency. Could you try another developer? For example rodinal, xtol, D76, ID11?

 

[cptrios]

Aaaaand in what is hopefully the actual final word in this thread, I invite you to behold my stupidity. Well, I wouldn't exactly call it stupidity...and it's balanced out by the fact that I no longer have to worry about the stupid streaks!

Scanned with my $15 Pacific Image scanner, which I used for everything until I recently got the camera-scanning thing down:

Scanned with a NEX-7 and old Macro Takumar:

I do wonder why the scanner did this on certain shots and not others...but I don't wonder that much.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Almost every time I read a post about film streaks or bromide drag: "Hi. I was stand developing my film in a Paterson tank, and I can't figure out what went wrong..."

The fluid AND the film need to move in a totally random fashion.

• Stainless tanks.
• 400mL per 120 roll. DO NOT fill the tank to the top, only to cover the roll.
• Agitate first 60 seconds.
• Totally invert the tank and then reset 5x per minute. (one cycle should be about one second)
• Quick tap on the sink.
• Never any streaks.