Dark band on half of a 120 roll

[JackV]

I just developed a roll of TMAX 100 and encountered something I've never seen before: running *lengthwise* along the entire roll is a darkish band on 1/2 of the roll. It does not obscure the images underneath, just darkens them somewhat, pretty much right down the (horizontal) middle. This band does not have a straight edge down the middle: it's a slightly wavy edge, and the 'wave' seems to repeat. This is an expired roll of film, I should note, part of a number of rolls given to me by a friend, yet other rolls which have the same expiration date (10/2004) have developed w/o any issues; I've used the same camera, same process and same developer on all of them. Perhaps of relevance is the fact this particular roll was, unlike the others I've developed so far, not in its original foil wrapper. Yet this doesn't seem like a light-leak issue, as the roll was still tight.

Wondering if anyone has seen this sort of thing before, and has any thoughts on what might have caused this.

Thanks.

 

[blee1996]

Maybe this troublesome roll has gone through a powerful airport security X-ray machine?

 

[retina_restoration]

I just developed a roll of TMAX 100 and encountered something I've never seen before: running *lengthwise* along the entire roll is a darkish band on 1/2 of the roll. It does not obscure the images underneath, just darkens them somewhat, pretty much right down the (horizontal) middle. This band does not have a straight edge down the middle: it's a slightly wavy edge, and the 'wave' seems to repeat. This is an expired roll of film, I should note, part of a number of rolls given to me by a friend, yet other rolls which have the same expiration date (10/2004) have developed w/o any issues; I've used the same camera, same process and same developer on all of them. Perhaps of relevance is the fact this particular roll was, unlike the others I've developed so far, not in its original foil wrapper. Yet this doesn't seem like a light-leak issue, as the roll was still tight.

Wondering if anyone has seen this sort of thing before, and has any thoughts on what might have caused this.

Thanks.

A photo of the negatives would be helpful.

 

[awty]

Only half filled the developer tank.

 

[250swb]

Roll film, so were you using a folding camera with a frame number window that has faded from red, or is missing, or wasn't covered between shots?

 

[koraks]

Maybe this troublesome roll has gone through a powerful airport security X-ray machine?

This doesn't sound like x-ray damage.

A photo of the negatives would be helpful.

Very much so.

Please post a photo of the phenomenon @JackV - and welcome aboard to Photrio!

 

[mpirie]

Sounds like fogging to me.

If the backing paper is loose or not tight enough, then light can creep around the edges of the spool/paper leading to a dense strip along the edge where the frame numbers or film ident are after development.

Mike

 

[Dr. no]

Only half filled the developer tank.

+1
Light leak of the rolled film would have light-piping of some type and the outer end would have more leak coverage, so I doubt a backing-paper problem. A camera leak could do this.

How do you agitate--twist or invert? Inversion would give some development but would only complete the fully covered portion (BTDT), however the uncovered part would be light (assuming B&W negative). Low fixer would have uncleared light areas, unless it has has time to fog on it's own.
Or is "dark" on prints or scans? We need images.

 

[JackV]

+1
Light leak of the rolled film would have light-piping of some type and the outer end would have more leak coverage, so I doubt a backing-paper problem. A camera leak could do this.

How do you agitate--twist or invert? Inversion would give some development but would only complete the fully covered portion (BTDT), however the uncovered part would be light (assuming B&W negative). Low fixer would have uncleared light areas, unless it has has time to fog on it's own.
Or is "dark" on prints or scans? We need images.

It is very likely this film went through airports - the friend who left it to me was a pro and most of the Tmax rolls were donated to her by Kodak for a shoot in Africa. Don't know the specifics of how she transported her film, but I would guess this is not x-ray damage, esp. since other rolls from the same batch of film haven't shown this issue.

This roll was developed in my usual way: steel tank w/ inversion every minute. Pretty sure I can mix 400ml of developer spot-on in my sleep so I don't think this is an issue of an inadequate amount of developer (or fixer). No light leaks evident on any of the other rolls I've recently shot w/ the same camera (Hasselblad 500 in excellent working order).

The wavy band is readily evident in the attached photo.

Thanks.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That looks like from not putting enough developer into the tank...

 

[djdister]

This roll was developed in my usual way: steel tank w/ inversion every minute. Pretty sure I can mix 400ml of developer spot-on in my sleep so I don't think this is an issue of an inadequate amount of developer (or fixer).

It looks like uneven development. 400ml is cutting things a bit close - I use 16oz/473ml of solution for 120 tank processing. Shoot another roll to see if it is a persistent problem.

 

[JackV]

400ml actually covers the top of the upper reel in my tank, and is what I always use, and I have never seen this issue before. I've shot 4 rolls of TMax from the same bag of film and with the same expiry date and they've all come out fine. This one, though, is a mystery!

 

[GregY]

400ml actually covers the top of the upper reel in my tank, and is what I always use, and I have never seen this issue before. I've shot 4 rolls of TMax from the same bag of film and with the same expiry date and they've all come out fine. This one, though, is a mystery!

I'm with you.... tanks have different sizes & volumes.... 400 ml fills my Kinderman tanks for 120 no problems....

 

[djdister]

400ml actually covers the top of the upper reel in my tank, and is what I always use, and I have never seen this issue before. I've shot 4 rolls of TMax from the same bag of film and with the same expiry date and they've all come out fine. This one, though, is a mystery!

Well, it if happens once then its an anomaly. If it keeps happening, then you should post a question.

 

[reddesert]

The boundary of the dark area isn't even, it has a waviness to it. If that goes back and forth throughout the roll, you may be able to use the peak-trough distances to figure out how tightly the film was curled when whatever happened, happened. It doesn't look like a tight curl (short period of peak to trough), which suggests not a light leak on the exposed rolled-up roll.

I would think that half-filling the tank would leave a larger underdeveloped effect in the lighter area, but I don't know for sure.

 

[koraks]

I would think that half-filling the tank would leave a larger underdeveloped effect in the lighter area, but I don't know for sure.

What you mostly see in cases where the tank wasn't sufficiently full so part of the film sticks out above the developer, is that the interface between the properly developed and the undeveloped part is (1) pretty much perfectly level and (2) has a distinct 'layered' quality to it with some closely separated, somewhat wavy lines that result from sloshing about of the developer especially after the first round of agitation. Neither is the case here.

What's conspicuous in this case is that the lighter half of the film looks pretty normal (for exposures against a dark/black background). This suggests that the darker part of the film was fogged, and not that the lighter part was underdeveloped. The question now becomes what fogged the film. This could be light, or the fogging could be of a chemical source. The seemingly sharply defined edge between both halves is kind of puzzling.

the attached photo.

Can we request some more examples? I'd like to see both ends of the film, so the very end up to and including the first and the last frame, if possible. I'd also like to see a close-up of the interface between the darker and the lighter part of the film. And if you can manage, try to photograph this against an even background. The texture of the fabric in the shot you posted is a bit of a problem.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

That looks fogged to me.

If the film was expired and all your other films were fine, I wouldn't worry about it. Who knows what your friend did to the film before he gave it to you.

 

[250swb]

Given a view of the negative and seeing the film name and numbers equally developed on each edge, and the edge of the band is wavy and defined which I think doesn't match too little developer, I'd now also go for fogged. How was it stored before use, half-in half-out of a pocket in the camera bag, etc?

 

[pentaxuser]

400ml actually covers the top of the upper reel in my tank, and is what I always use, and I have never seen this issue before. I've shot 4 rolls of TMax from the same bag of film and with the same expiry date and they've all come out fine. This one, though, is a mystery!

Which tank is this? I have a Durst tank for 120 film and I thought that was pretty economical at needing only 450ml. Jobo tanks need quite a bit less but only if one does continuous rotary processing rather than inversion agitation.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[AnselMortensen]

Was the LED light on a coffee machine on across the room when loading the film onto the reel?

 

[tezzasmall]

Something similar like this happened to me ONCE with a 120 b/w film, many moons ago now.

I loaded ONE roll of 120 into a Paterson spiral and put it into a tank that took either ONE 120 OR TWO 35mm films. I had no middle tube clip and never knew about one, which are made to hold spirals in place.

I processed the roll as usual and ended up with a roll similar to yours.

It turned out that during inversions the spiral had raised itself to a higher position on the middle tube, and so ONLY the bottom half of the film fully sat in developer in between inversions. This caused the bottom half to be darker and fully developed, whilst the top only developed partially. If I remember correctly, the line on my film was more gradual than the OP's, and a bit like a graduated ND filter.

Ever since this happening, I have put a twisted rubber band around the middle tube to hold either the one or two spirals in place and have had no problems since.

So, I'd strongly go with the above theory or secondly fogging of some kind.

Terry S