Dark smudges on skies in negatives and other marks

[Hatchetman]

Sky blobs may be from film touching itself in areas as it is wrapped around the reel.

 

[h.v.]

You need to tell us everything you do in your developing process. As others have suggested good random agitation for at least the first 30 seconds is key. I found I got uneven development when I used a water stop bath. I switched to a regular acid stop and it got the issue under control.

I've had mottled looking negatives when I went in and out of a warm house in winter into sub zero temperatures. I believe water condensed on the negative in the camera. There are all sorts of reasons you can have uneven skies that is why it is imperative you tell use everything you have done.

I wouldn't believe the hype about home developing. Yes it is the way to get the best negatives but commercial developed negatives can get you 90% of the way there providing you use a fairly conventional film and shoot it in a conventional manner. If you get some niche B&W film and shoot it at your own personal EI and then try and print it in the darkroom after commercial processing then yes this can be noticeably sub par.

There were three things that really improved my negatives, avoiding "stand" developing, figuring out a good agitation method (not too fast and not too slow), and using an acid stop bath.

The way I see it a good commercal lab will give you evenly developed, dirt and scratch free negatives. Developing at home gets you slightly better tonality and things like shadow detail once you've tweaked your process. Now tell me what would you have a bit better shadow detail or evenly developed skies? The problem with home developing is it deals in subtleties. Starting off with home developing is rough if you don't follow the manufactures instructions to the letter and are careful. It isn't rocket science but just about every corner I cut in the beginning I lived to regret.

The question you have to ask yourself is what are you going to notice more a lack of shadow detail because you didn't get to shoot and develop for your personal EI or a massive patch of unevenly developed sky. If I could go back in a time machine and send my first 30 home developed rolls out for commercial processing I would, but I wouldn't learn anything.

In the end once you get your process down you will save tons of money processing at home. It also expands the realm of films you can try out. And of course you can tweak your whole process to get prints that have an amazing amount of tonality. I shoot digital as well and it really is amazing what you can get from a properly exposed and developed roll of film.

Hmmm...I've explained all or almost all of my development process now. If there's anyhting else missing, then just point it out. The only benefits I feel I'm reaping with home processing right now are more affordability and quicker processing (sometimes). I don't notice a lack of shadow detail from my lab processed B&W. It is consistently good. But expensive (almost $6 for just develop and cut only). I'm pretty sure I've developed over 30 rolls by now (I go through a lot). I don't change ISO ratings or anything. I do the normal 9 mins in DD-X for HP5, too.

I use Ilford Rapid Fixer, if that helps.

I know this may sound a little far off, but I had trouble loading film onto a steel reel, originally learning on a plastic patterson... I found myself handling the film so much more with the steel reel, and switched to the patterson. I don't know, some people have a similar problem with the patterson, etc.

My point: the scratches seem to be a handling problem, and so therefore, maybe, so are the blobs/smudges, too much handling before the development process.


I personally like how the grain looks, it adds to the atmosphere of the photos and gives them a journalistic look.

Also, i guess i think you're using a metal tank, since you're not using the little stick to rotate the reel, which when you rotate it, it helps release any air bubbles that may be on the film, at which points no development occurs. If you are not presoaking, you may try slamming/hitting the tank, on a surface to release these air bubbles.

also, here's a link you'll really like

http://www.aregeebee.net/negs/eneg.htm

Nope. Plastic patterson tank. I rotate that plastic stick for the final rinse with distilled and Ilfotol (see below). I too like the grain in those photos, they aren't the issue. I agree, it adds a nice atmosphere. I'm not big on fine grain, personally.

I also can't quite tell from what you've said whether you agitate for the first 30 seconds or not. That's very important.

What I wrote on page one: I agitate 1x over 10 seconds every minute.

To be clear, my recent development I did 2x every 30 seconds spread out over 10 seconds. So from :20 to :30 and from :50 to :60 I would do two inversions. That is different from how I normally do it.

I'm not quite sure what you consider dark blobs in the shot with the sky. I see grain that could be in the pattern of light and dark areas of sky - clouds on a blue sky aren't hugely different in B&W. If you're printing with an enlarger, how does it look? If you're only scanning, it could be something from that.
In the shot with the guy sitting in front of the billboard, I also see a darker stripe running through the middle third that looks like a drying mark to me. Is your last rinse with distilled water and a few drops of photo-flo? That can help. The white spots by the guy's head on the billboard look like dust. That could be on the negative or on the scanner, tough to tell. Hanging film to dry in a very clean place is important, too.

The dark blobs are a bit more subdued as I tried to edit them out (sacrilege I know!). But they're still there if you look closely. The sky was overcast, by the way, and pretty flat. I don't do wet printing, but you're right it could be the scanner. I haven't had this issue with 35mm, but with 120, if the negatives are very curly and untamed, these random marks do appear in things like skies because of the varying distance from the scanner. 35mm may have a bit of variation if it is curlier, but it's generally pretty flat (or is made flat by the scanning holder).

My last rinse is always with distilled water ant a tablespoon of Ilfotol wetting agent (same thing as Photo-flo, I hear). I was recommended by an APUG member to do this in light of my constant water mark issues I would get upon looking at dried negs: rinse in regular tap water for about 7 mins at 20°C. Then I pour out the tap water, put in distilled water and Ilfotol, turn the little plastic stick a few times and let it sit for 5 mins. Then I let it sit in the tank for 5mins before taking it out, shaking off excess water, and hanging it. Then I use the chamois 1-2x.

There is relatively little dust in the bathroom I used to process the film.

Boy, is this a lot harder to describe then to show!

To induce rotation, add it as you invert.

Your wrist(s) can turn in two different ways. One will turn a tank in the same way as a turntable would, while the other will cause the tank to invert and then return to vertical. You need to combine the two types as you agitate, and you need to randomize the directions of the turn and the inversion.

If you use two hands to hold the tank for the agitation (one on top, and the other on the bottom) and invert the tank, most likely you will see the rotation happen automatically.

And as for contrast, increasing the time will increase the contrast, while decreasing the time will decrease the contrast.

If you need to experiment with adjusting the time, try adjusting it 10% at a time.

Basically, do random movements just short of violently shaking the tank around?

I do use two hands on my tank. I found holding the bottom with one hand and the top with the other kept me from maintaining the tank in an upright position. I hold it by the sides, with both hands, with two fingers on the bottom and one on the top.

Ok lots to respond to and correct. The film was developed last night but today was a bit crazy so I haven't been able to scan the negs yet. I will try to do some of that tonight and post back my results.

Most spots/blobs are uneven development and/or drying. A good pre-wash will help the development issue, and a good pre-dry squeegee can help reduce water spots. I find 35mm is especially problematic when drying. When I started doing colour processing, in which a pre-wash is a necessary step, I really started to notice the difference it can make.

Careful how you handle the film when loading it onto reels, and what it comes in contact with in the process, so as to reduce finger prints/dust. However, I find dust on the scanner is generally a bigger problem than on the film itself.

I agitate for the first 30, then once a minute. If you're not using a stock developer solution, make sure the working solution is mixed well or else the concentrate may be mostly sitting at the bottom of your graduated cylinder when you start to pour.

I have a squeegee but I've been told ad nauseum not to use it as it will scratch my negatives. That being said, I still got water residue marks, so now I use a chamois per request on apug (I think it was Matt who suggested it awhile back). Chamois can still scratch, I know, but I seem to have less issues with scratching.

The dust in the second photo is most certainly from the scanner or faint dust on the negatives. That one is just a straight scan, no dust removal.

 

[Noble]

Hmmm...I've explained all or almost all of my development process now.

Well I must have missed where you explained what you stopped with and how. Water stop for me was definitely a culprit in uneven development. I suppose I could have been more on the ball with agitation when I used the water stop. Some times I filled up the tank and shook and emptied it rather quickly and refilled it with water and shook some more. Sometimes I filled it with water and did minimal agitation for a few minutes. There are a lot of little details you don't think about in the beginning that have a profound effect on your negatives. What makes it worse is beginners tend to be inconsistent which makes tracking down problems even tougher.

I don't notice a lack of shadow detail from my lab processed B&W. It is consistently good.

You have to compare a negative shot at box speed and processed at a lab with a negative shot at your personal EI and home developed to tweaked specifications. For example I shoot TMAX 100 at ISO/EI 50. I shot a test roll and reduced the development and agitation a bit. I then used a Zonemaster II to analyze the negative. My target on my condensor enlarger was a negative shot in noon sunshine with white cloth (like a bride's dress) and black cloth (grooms tuxedo in open shade) that could be printed with a number 2 or 2.5 Ilford filter.

The problem I found with all this is if you don't have a dark room and either a good knowledge of how a negative/print is supposed to look or an electronic means of objectively quantifying contrast it's tough to know how good you negatives really are. I developed for a long time and just scanned in my negatives. They seemed okay because I didn't have anything to compare them to. Once I got a darkroom set up and got a piece of equipment that could tell me what I was dealing with in an unbiased fashion I dialed things in pretty quick and it made a big difference. I still scan a lot more than I wet print but my negatives still benefited from the tweaking. They scan like a dream. I can import scans into Photoshop and play with curves and there is tons of detail in the shadows and highlights are well behaved.

Honestly if I am shown a print made from 100 ISO film from Ilford/Fuji/Kodak shot at box speed and processed at a commercial lab I won't be able to tell how it was processed or who manufactured the film. But once you get a side by side comparison of carefully custom processed negatives you see the difference. That's why when people claim home processing results in "the most beautiful negatives you've seen" I say take that with a huge grain of salt. It is a long road to match the results from a good commercial lab and an even longer road to exceed them. It's not some instant process. I wish people wouldn't oversell the process. The switch makes sense from a financial point of view. It doesn't need to be oversold.

Anyway stick with it and let us know your results. I've learned a lot from my screw ups and even more from other people's mistakes.

 

[h.v.]

Ok, I'm almost through scanning the negatives I processed with the increased rate of agitation. The marks still seem to occur a bit, so I dunno. I will try the prewash and 30 seconds of pure agitation, with randomized twisting, though.

Noble:

I meant after my post, which explained things further, including stop bath and everything, that most everything should've been explained regarding my development process. But if I missed something you still need to know, then just ask. I always shoot at box speed, whether something is lab processed or not, so I think I'm able to compare fairly between home and lab processed film. I do have a darkroom. Well, ok, not a permanent room dedicated to film development, but a bathroom does work, does it not? Yes, I don't have "good knowledge" of how everything is supposed to look. I do lack the decades of experience that seems to be de rigueur on APUG. If I made things sound contrary to that, then I apologize. There isn't a feasible location for me to do wet printing, and based on how some of my electronic editing works, I don't know if I'd get the same results I want anyways. I figure I might as well try developing before wet printing, which will also be something I will likely become frustrated with. Scan like a dream -- I wish. Once they leave the bathroom, dust becomes a problem on my negatives.

Michael: I didn't really abandon their entire instructions. I just made edits to it for my own use based on my initial results with processing. My first negatives were very coarsely grained and flat. One of the things I was told I could try is to agitate less. I don't remember where I found that information, but nonetheless I used it. Tablespoon = 5mL of water. The spoon itself says 5mL and I use roughly 1L of distilled water each time, so I think I'm good there. I need to wipe them down still because otherwise I still get water marks on the negatives, so I use a chamois. Sometimes I will leave it and use the chamois after the initial drying.

I'll try the earlier suggestions and use it on some FP4 tonight or tomorrow, I guess...if this doesn't work, I might go back to lab processing until I can figure this out.

 

[winger]

Tablespoon = 5mL of water.

No, a TEASPOON is 5ml. A tablespoon is 15ml. If the spoon is labeled with the ml, make sure there isn't a faint 1. There looks to be a large watermark across the shot with the billboard.

Initial agitation of 30 seconds to 1 minute is usually standard. Make sure you start initial agitation as soon as possible. Assuming you are pouring the developer into the tank, do it quickly, and begin agitation right away.

Also quite important and I haven't seen you write that you do this.

 

[h.v.]

Winger,

Teaspoon, I meant yes. I mix the two up sometimes, but the measuring spoon says 5 mL (1 TSP in brackets), I double checked to be sure . Did you read the response I gave you? I haven't done that no, that would be why you haven't seen me write that I do it. I'll try it tomorrow, though, and post back my results. I tried agitating more a couple nights ago on my most recently processed film, but the markings still came up occasionally. I will try more rigorous agitation and the pre-wash, though. Hopefully that quells my development issues.

Water marks are a constant nuisance for me, which is why I explained I do use a chamois. Even that I sometimes have to twice over due to marks still showing up. On the roll I posted in the OP, though, I didn't see any water marks on any of the negatives. Yes, I do final rinse in distilled water, but it still seems to be an issue.

 

[250swb]

HV, looking at your pictures I can see the blob in the sky in the first one and the stain across the centre of the second. They don't look like drying marks to me, nor anything to do with agitation. I think these are red herrings and leading you the wrong way.

The idea of using a pre-soak is good. But the problems you have are seemingly both shown as areas of less development taking place, so the blob is dark on the print because the negative is thinner in that area. And the stain, while it does have a wavy edge, is again a darker area in the print, so less development has taken place. So firstly I thought that the film has been touching, unlikely though on a Paterson reel, or perhaps you are leaving too long a period before getting the stop bath into the tank.

But then I think, what if you are under fixing them, or using exhausted or incorrectly mixed fix, this can have a similar effect. As you pour the fix out there usually isn't a need for speed for getting the wash water in the tank, a cleared neg is a cleared neg and it can't clear anymore. But if your fix is exhausted you pour it out at the right time, yet where it remains on the neg in spots and runs it carries on working because the negative hasn't fully cleared. Hence some areas on the neg are fully cleared, and perhaps the rest of the negative area has the slight bloom that you see with an under fixed negative. So looking at your negatives can you see any slight traces of cloudiness, the clear edge where the marking are will have a colour to it, but can you see any areas that look cloudy, not clear? Are your negs as 'bright' and clear looking as the lab processed ones?

So I would suggest mixing up some fresh fix, leave it in the fix for a couple of minutes longer than the minimum time, and make sure you wash them properly using the Ilford 'economy' method, but 10 inversions, 20, then 40. Follow this with a solution with just a tiny drop of photoflo in it. Finally make sure all your chemicals and washing water is at the same temperature (changes can cause reticulation which can look like increased grain in mild cases), and with the wash in particular this is much easier to do with the Ilford method than simply putting them in running water.

Steve

 

[pentaxuser]

I sense real and understandable frustration from the OP but at the risk of making it worse all I can say is that I use HP5+ and DDX in very hard water in the U.K. and have never had the effects the OP has. I stick strictly to the Ilford instructions.

The scans look much more grainy than any neg I have produced and my prints up to 10x8 do not look grainy at all

What I am leading up to is that I feel that changing agitation regimes/ pre-soaking or not pre-soaking etc has very little, if anything, to do with the problems.

All I can suggest is that using fresh chemicals and sticking to the Ilford regime develop another film. Try and dry in a dust free area then and this is the most important bit, get your negs printed by a lab or someone who has a darkroom.

I have a terrible feeling that the devil in this whole situation is that of relying on a scanner and assuming that what you then see is what a darkroom print would be like.

Unless you get a neg printed we could go round in the proverbial circles for a long time to come

pentaxuser

 

[gmay]

+1

 

[h.v.]

Sorry guys. Still haven't been able to process that FP4. Some things came up, then some frustrations with scanned negs (including trying to digitally remove some of the blemish marks akin to photo #2 in the OP to try and salvage otherwise good photos - sacrilege I know). I will try my best to do it tomorrow and use some of the suggestions posed most recently. You guys are right, I am incredibly frustrated with this whole experience. Maybe I'm missing something, but while there may be hiccups here and there, for other people, developing just seemingly works and people are so happy to be processing their own film. I seem to be having more issues than usual. Maybe I'm being delusional .

I don't like relying on a lab for my B&W. They do a great job with the negatives (only issue is they are sometimes dusty, but that can be fixed). I just don't know how much longer they're going to be doing it and the cost keeps going up, so I don't want to rely on the lab for that. For the time being though, I may have to, as much as I dislike it. If I had better luck with Ilford XP2, I'd probably switch to that for B&W. But my HP5 and FP4 and Tri-X negs just come out better, with less coarse grain than XP2. I also contemplate just buying an X100S or M9 and using Silver Efex, but it just wouldn't be the same.

So I double checked the water. Apparently it is not distilled water! Rather, it's reverse osmosis water (whatever that means). It doesn't have any of the chemicals found in tap water (which leave the residue) so I would think that it'd work fine. But please do correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

For the FP4, I will re-mix my Ilford Rapid Fixer to ensure freshness and proper dilution (1+4 so 240mL of water and 60mL of Fixer for 2 rolls of film). Right now I have the current fixer stored in a jar because it hasn't been a week since the first mix (Wednesday will be a week).

The last HP5 I got lab processed is dated January 12, 2013. The lab might be doing things a bit differently now, not sure. Only B&W I've recently given them is Acros and Tri-X, but that wouldn't exactly be apples to apples comparison wise. Anyways I did a side-by-side comparison and the only discernible difference I could find is that the lab processed negatives have more of a purple tinge to them that I'm used to seeing on Tri-X but not Ilford films. My home processed negatives have more of a muted tinge to them. I'm not fully sure of what you mean by clearness, but do you mean areas on the emulsion that should be see-through clear, but are instead cloudy? If you're asking if I do see the smudges and lines on the negatives, then I do, yes, faintly. If you want, I can post side-by-side photos of the negatives against a white screen for a better comparison for you guys. For what it's worth, they both seem about equal in brightness.

 

[250swb]

The base material of different films will have a different colour and appearance, so yes Tri-X is a bit purple-ish in the clear areas that surround the image. This doesn't matter. But how clear that base material is does matter, your negs should be as clear as the lab based negs all along the whole length of the film. If they have an even slightly milky appearance, like a pale fog, they haven't been fully fixed. Look particularly at difference to the emulsion and the clear edging between yours and the labs. If you want to check you can put a strip of your negs back into fresh fix and see if it comes out clearer compared with the rest of the film (but by now it won't rescue the image).

Look, it may not be the fix, but you do need to eliminate it as this can cause the same sorts of blotches as badly mixed or badly agitated developer. They way to test how fresh your fix is, is to take a discarded film leader (that you would normally throw in the bin), and put a drop of fixer on it. Leave it for six or seven minutes so there can be no doubt the spot has cleared as much as it can. Then drop the whole film leader into the fix and time how long it takes for the rest of the film to clear as much as the spot. If it takes longer than the recommended time your fix is exhausted.

Steve

 

[Salem]

I don't have a solution but rather a suggestion. The next time you have two films shot with the same camera and under similar conditions, take one of them to the lab and process the other at home. Then, scan images from both films and compare. This at least eliminates the camera, metering, and scanning as culprits. Also, inspect the negatives visually and compare them to the lab processed ones. Finally, look around you for a film photography club or society or something and ask a fellow photographer to watch you develop a film and see if he can spot the problem.

 

[pentaxuser]

If I had better luck with Ilford XP2, I'd probably switch to that for B&W. But my HP5 and FP4 and Tri-X negs just come out better, with less coarse grain than XP2.

This is all very strange. I don't think I have seen any other person here on APUG say that XP2+ has coarser grain than HP5+, FP4+ or Tri-X. XP2+ is dye based and whereas trad B&W film can be grainier with over development chromogenic film such as XP2+ doesn't react this way. In fact when overexposed it becomes even less grainier

Anyone else care to comment on the OP's finding and reasons why he finds this to be the case?

pentaxuser

 

[winger]

This is all very strange. I don't think I have seen any other person here on APUG say that XP2+ has coarser grain than HP5+, FP4+ or Tri-X. XP2+ is dye based and whereas trad B&W film can be grainier with over development chromogenic film such as XP2+ doesn't react this way. In fact when overexposed it becomes even less grainier

Anyone else care to comment on the OP's finding and reasons why he finds this to be the case?

pentaxuser

I'd say it's because he's scanning and not keeping the settings optimized for each type of film? I haven't tried scanning all of those with an eye towards comparison (and that's better discussed on dpug - yes you can get quick answers there, I have).

If h.v. is willing, maybe he can mail an apugger some frames in question and see what they think. It's a lot easier to diagnose some things with the object in hand rather than a scanned version on the web.

 

[h.v.]

Yeah, I think it's mostly due to the scanner. XP2 commonly will scan pretty grainy if the scanner isn't optimized for it. I will double check to make sure I am using 1L precisely of distilled (reverse osmosis) water and then 5mL of Ilfotol when I finally get around to processing that FP4 (still haven't had the time, unfortunately)! I will google this, but does anybody have any bookmarked links or anything to really good sites to figure out calibration for a scanner? If you don't that's fine, just want to make sure I get a good source for this.

 

[h.v.]

The base material of different films will have a different colour and appearance, so yes Tri-X is a bit purple-ish in the clear areas that surround the image. This doesn't matter. But how clear that base material is does matter, your negs should be as clear as the lab based negs all along the whole length of the film. If they have an even slightly milky appearance, like a pale fog, they haven't been fully fixed. Look particularly at difference to the emulsion and the clear edging between yours and the labs. If you want to check you can put a strip of your negs back into fresh fix and see if it comes out clearer compared with the rest of the film (but by now it won't rescue the image).

Look, it may not be the fix, but you do need to eliminate it as this can cause the same sorts of blotches as badly mixed or badly agitated developer. They way to test how fresh your fix is, is to take a discarded film leader (that you would normally throw in the bin), and put a drop of fixer on it. Leave it for six or seven minutes so there can be no doubt the spot has cleared as much as it can. Then drop the whole film leader into the fix and time how long it takes for the rest of the film to clear as much as the spot. If it takes longer than the recommended time your fix is exhausted.

Steve

The HP5 from the lab has the same purplish tint that Tri-X normally does. Weird. Beyond that, though, no I don't really notice any 'milkiness'. The only thing is some black marks near the sprocket holes from light exposure. This happens on both the lab processed and home processed HP5. I honestly can't detect anything beyond that. I will try that fixer on the leader idea, that's a good one. Thanks!

Oh, and that idea about sending one into the lab and one to process at home is also pretty good. I may just have to try that!

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

If you wash a bit longer you can get rid of the purple tint in the films. Lots of dark sprockets or edges is not a good sign either. Could be a problem somewhere either in camera or with the developing reels/tank letting in light.

 

[h.v.]

There isn't that much of it. Just sprinkled here and there and it happens on my lab processed negatives too, and from different cameras as well. Well I was at 20°C for 7 mins with tap water after the fix is poured out, then I let it soak in distilled water and Ilfotol for 5 mins, before letting it air dry for 5 mins and then hanging it up to dry.

 

[h.v.]

Alright, I finally processed the FP4 I'd been meaning to do since this past weekend. I won't know till tomorrow if any of the suggestions listed here and elsewhere worked, but here is what I did differently...

- 2 mins of pre-wash using tap water at 20°C
- 30 seconds of continuous agitation (including the twisting mentioned here) for developer and fixer at beginning
- 2 cycles of agitation every 30 seconds after that spread over 10 seconds
- Instead of tapping the bottom of the tank with my fingers after each inversion, I clunked it against the countertop firmly
- Made sure I was using exactly 1L of reverse osmosis water and exactly 5mL of Ilfotol wetting agent
- Tried to ensure that each chemical was exactly 21°C prior to putting it in the tank (I couldn't get it down to 20)
- Used fresh chemicals instead of re-using stop and fix
- Properly stirred chemicals in with water in measuring cylinders after initial pour (I wasn't doing that before, just letting it naturally mix)
- Haven't used a chamois on the drying negs yet, will wait to inspect tomorrow and see if I find any water marks after air drying

 

[pentaxuser]

I can see nothing you have overlooked but then again I never felt that your original processing was the cause anyway.

if this doesn't cure the problems especially the graininess then either Ilford has lost the plot at Mobberley in terms of its film production or you need to throw your scanner into the waste bin

pentaxuser

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear all,

XP2 Super has virtually no grain, certainly considerably less than a conventional emulsion such as FP4 + or HP5+ it also is the ILFORD film that actually scans the best ( so the experts say ) when the scanner is optimised for it.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited :

 

[h.v.]

Yeah, I think my comments about XP2 were with regards to my old scanner. I just bought a new scanner a couple weeks ago (so I certainly hope it isn't bound for the trash can ) and recently decided to give XP2 a second go and yeah, it does scan pretty well. It's not grainless, but I don't want grainless anyways. It's less coarse and more graceful. I guess the Epson V600 comes optimized for XP2 out of the box (previous scanner was V500). There's still the issue that I for whatever reason have generally poor results with the images I make on that emulsion except in one neighbourhood of Edmonton.

 

[h.v.]

Update:

I've only managed to scan one of the rolls of FP4 I processed most recently. From what I can tell, there are no marks of uneven development anywhere, so that's a plus. On the other hand, I am still dealing with water splotches on my negatives after the initial air dry (no chamois or squeegee). Are you guys sure reverse osmosis water is fine? That's the only thing I can think of. I made sure I had exactly 1L of it and 5mL of Ilfotol (even made sure the Ilfotol wasn't it's usual bubbley-ness).

 

[pentaxuser]

Some will say that you shouldn't touch your film with anything but if you still have water splotches then the question is: what are you now supposed to do?

You could try putting some isopropyl alchohol( its needs to be pure) into the water and wetting agent but unless your hands have callouses and very hard skin between each finger then you might want to try running the film between the two middle fingers before hanging it up to dry.

pentaxuser