Dense negatives - same film, same developer tank, same exposure .. different camera

As the title said. Went out shooting yesterday. Developed 4 rolls of HP5+ in XTOL 1+1 at 20 degrees celcius. 120 rolls with a Rolleiflex MX-evs. They came out PERFECT.

However both rolls of 135 are way denser then my Rolleiflex shots? It was a model shoot, same building, same lightmeter, same developer tank... and yet such a difference. They are hard to scan (didn't have time for darkroom).

The 135 were both shot with a Nikon F3P. I recently switched from HC110 to XTOL.. so I'm really hoping that XTOL isn't the problem here. Cause other rolls with XTOL look fine, as were the Rolleiflex shots.

So I'm thinking that the shutter speeds aren't accurate from the F3P and overexpose the negative. But... I've found pictures taken with the F3P that doesn't have this problem as big as yesterday (Only have shot 5 rolls with the F3P so far - 2 of them yesterday).

So what could be the problem? I'm going to shoot with another Nikon body tomorrow, which has correct shutter speeds, develop the same in XTOL and see how they turn out. Let's say the shutter speeds from the F3P are correct too. What else could be the problem? That I develop for too long and that my Rolleiflex just in a miraculous way underexpose the neg - making better negs? Rollei has been serviced 2 months ago.. so I don't think it as a suspect.

I've been breaking my head around this - can't sleep from it.

Sidenote: I switched to XTOL because I lacked shadow detail and also had to print at grade 3-4-5 constantly with HC110.. I could have increased the time yes. But I wanted to try XTOL. My negs got denser and I was able to print at grade 2. But now they are too dense... And don't know which one to suspect. XTOL or Nikon F3P. XTOL seems odd since the Rolleiflex shots are okay ...

Update: Did a second roll with another body. Again dense negatives. So it's not a faulty shutter. Click here to read about the second roll. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Thanks

Did you develop the 120 film separately from the 135, or was it all developed at the same time in the same tank?

If separately developed, the problem could be due to a dilution error. The differences in agitation that arise from the differences between the two formats can also have a slight effect.

Did you have a filter on the 120 camera, and no filter on the 135 camera?

MattKing said:

Did you develop the 120 film separately from the 135, or was it all developed at the same time in the same tank?

If separately developed, the problem could be due to a dilution error. The differences in agitation that arise from the differences between the two formats can also have a slight effect.

Did you have a filter on the 120 camera, and no filter on the 135 camera?

Click to expand...

Same tank!! All 4 rolls in a Jobo 1510+1530 tank.
Both unfiltered. The difference is really SO much. In scanner almost all contrast is lost and I have extreme shadow detail on the 135. 120 is fine...

Is there a difference in emulsion for 135 and 120? I also use bulk rolled hp5 (not fogged)

HP5+ at both cameras... Same ISO??? Exposure difference between both cameras. Maybe the type of exposure metering with the Nikon body? Just a guess,

Cheers,

Renato

RSalles said:

HP5+ at both cameras... Same ISO??? Exposure difference between both cameras. Maybe the type of exposure metering with the Nikon body? Just a guess,

Cheers,

Renato

Click to expand...

HP5+ both at ISO 400 - Metered with a external meter. So both camera's fully manual, adapted the SAME shutter speeds.

I take as granted that both emulsions are exactly the same, just its size are different. Or Ilford is not Ilford anymore,

Renato

Jessestr said:

HP5+ both at ISO 400 - Metered with a external meter. So both camera's fully manual, adapted the SAME shutter speeds.

Click to expand...

And the same apperture?

RSalles said:

And the same apperture?

Click to expand...

Yes and if not, changed shutter speed accordingly (not by head, but by meter). I'm the guy who always checks everything 2000x before doing it.

A guess: your Nikon body or lens is uncalibrated. Ilford will never deliver the same film emulsion with different ISO. Are both film the same age or close?

RSalles said:

A guess: your Nikon body or lens is uncalibrated. Ilford will never deliver the same film emulsion with different ISO. Are both film the same age or close?

Click to expand...

The lens has been used on two other Nikon body's (FE and FM2n and they seem to work fine - used them over a year without problems).
Film is bought about 2-3 months ago, stored in a fridge. Got out the fridge night before using them (without opening the package ofcourse).

If the 135 shots were taken after the 120, then your battery meter could have died between your shots.
When every single factor is the same, the results are also the same. This is logics. So, it's up to you to move some steps back to try to identify what was made different between both camera shots,

I wish you good look,

Cheers,

Renato

RSalles said:

If the 135 shots were taken after the 120, then your battery meter could have died between your shots.
When every single factor is the same, the results are also the same. This is logics. So, it's up to you to move some steps back to try to identify what was made different between both camera shots,

I wish you good look,

Cheers,

Renato

Click to expand...

Both shots were mixed while working. I also shot one Neopan 400 roll with the F3P. Also overexposed look. Maybe it's the shutter? I actually hope so, since it's a "new" camera. Warranty claim..

if it is the same film, same dilution, same iso setting, same shutter, same aperture ..
then it seems your shutter is a little slow. happens to the best of us.
do you have a shutter speed tester? they have some for "the phone" and
sometimes you can find a "calumet tester" to determine what your shutter is actually firing at.
you might consider getting a "cla" unless you can determine what it actually "is" and expose accordingly.

good luck !
john

It could also arise because of problems with the lens mount - in particular if the connection isn't causing the aperture to fully stop down at the time of exposure.

Do yourself a favor and buy Fred pickers zone vi manual....two different cameras..2 different lenses...test and ye shall be rewarded...I haven't tested in 20 years but all my equipment and procedures stay the same...
Good luck...it's not the end of the world

Don't forget - you could have a shutter problem in one of the cameras. Might be worth doing a gray card test, very controlled, artificial light, use the same cameras and glass, post-it notes on the card showing aperture and shutter speed. Dev and compare densities. Couple rolls and an hour and you'll know. If everything's the same (IE, camera/lens A and camera/lens B have the same density at the same stop/shutter speed) you'll know you missed something on set.

Did you verify the developing time for 135 and 120 HP5+ are identical? For 120 and 4x5 HP5+ (which is what I shoot), they're significantly different in the Massive Dev Chart and even more dissimilar once I adjust the timing to bring them to the same CI.

MattKing said:

It could also arise because of problems with the lens mount - in particular if the connection isn't causing the aperture to fully stop down at the time of exposure.

Click to expand...

Good guess! Checked but is okay!

williaty said:

Did you verify the developing time for 135 and 120 HP5+ are identical? For 120 and 4x5 HP5+ (which is what I shoot), they're significantly different in the Massive Dev Chart and even more dissimilar once I adjust the timing to bring them to the same CI.

Click to expand...

Yes!

I shot two rolls again. Cut 20cm of 1 rol to test with XTOL today. Used a DIFFERENT camera. SAME problem. So it's probably XTOL. OKAY if it's XTOL's fault.

But wait. If XTOL overdevelops my negatives, why are my Rolleiflex shots alright? If I put them side by side, 135 negs are much more dense than the 120 Rollei shots... Even with a different Nikon body (so it's not bad shutter speeds)!.

Edit: I took out a HC110 neg from the past, which printed well (could be that it was printed at grade 3-4 don't remember...)
See picture. You can clearly see the density of the neg is much darker of the XTOL thus overexposing everything. (Yes it's a different film stock but doesn't matter)

So is there such a difference between 135 and 120 emulsions? So that my 135 are overdeveloped and my 120 are developed perfectly? Or what else could there be wrong.

Always know your equipment and never change processes without running tests. Just because something is supposed to work does not mean it will.

You might have set the aperture wrong on the lens or it is not fully stopping down or the shutter speed dial moved. But sometimes a fault develops. However this is slow usually. Flash settings wrong.

Skipping around from one film and one developer is bad practice.

Skipping around from one film and one developer is bad
practice.

Click to expand...

there are no "Thou Shalt Not"s in photography

Ronald Moravec said:

Always know your equipment and never change processes without running tests. Just because something is supposed to work does not mean it will.

You might have set the aperture wrong on the lens or it is not fully stopping down or the shutter speed dial moved. But sometimes a fault develops. However this is slow usually. Flash settings wrong.

Skipping around from one film and one developer is bad practice.

Click to expand...

I change aperture constantly when shooting, as well as I do shutter speeds. Light is changing so I don't use flashes.

--

That being said.

What I feel is wrong that 12 minutes is correct for 120 film but way too long for 135 film. Compared to other shots it looks overdeveloped. Could it be that I have to change times for 135 and 120? I wish I had a densitometer...

I also mixed XTOL with tap water. Could that be a problem?

Jessestr said:

What I feel is wrong that 12 minutes is correct for 120 film but way too long for 135 film. Compared to other shots it looks overdeveloped. Could it be that I have to change times for 135 and 120? I wish I had a densitometer...

Click to expand...

It's entirely possible, even fairly likely, that 135 and 120 emulsions are actually fairly different from each other. This is why I pointed out to you that the developing times are likely to be different. Given that you're running both formats in the same tank at the same time, the developer is not a problem because you're getting properly developed film on at least one format. The options left are:

1) The developing times for 135 and 120 need to be significantly different
2) Your personal EI for the 135 and 120 format HP5+ is going to be significantly different
3) Either your 135 camera is overexposing or your 120 camera is underexposing

I also mixed XTOL with tap water. Could that be a problem?

Click to expand...

Yes, it could. However, many of us mix XTOL with tap water. As stated before, the fact that one of them is coming out properly developed and you're running them in the same tank at the same time, the developer MUST be fine.

williaty said:

It's entirely possible, even fairly likely, that 135 and 120 emulsions are actually fairly different from each other. This is why I pointed out to you that the developing times are likely to be different. Given that you're running both formats in the same tank at the same time, the developer is not a problem because you're getting properly developed film on at least one format. The options left are:

1) The developing times for 135 and 120 need to be significantly different
2) Your personal EI for the 135 and 120 format HP5+ is going to be significantly different
3) Either your 135 camera is overexposing or your 120 camera is underexposing


Yes, it could. However, many of us mix XTOL with tap water. As stated before, the fact that one of them is coming out properly developed and you're running them in the same tank at the same time, the developer MUST be fine.

Click to expand...

Okay! This is really useful info!! I already contacted my colour lab in Germany. They master darkroom work too. They told me there rating for HP5 on 135 is 10 minutes instead of 12 at iso 400! So I might do a little test soon with this. I'm just wondering why development times can be so different for every emulsion and why it's so different for every person on earth? Lab adviced me to figure out my EI of my working combo for every film I use.

Pretty sure it's the developing requirements are different for 135 and 120/220/4x5. Anchell's Film Developing Cookbook states that 120 film typically likes to be developed 20-30% longer than 135 in the same emulsion. Try 8.5 - 9.5 minutes for your 135 if you liked 12 min. for 120 and see how that turns out.

Ilford lists same dev times for 120 and 35mm, so that's not your problem. If I understood correctly, all film was developed in the same tank, so anything to do with processing is out as being the cause.

My guess is the aperture on the lens. It may be slow, and is not closing down properly during the exposure. I don't think it's a shutter problem, as you've had this one two different bodies. You don't say however if there were different lenses involved, or only one, so I'm guessing one lens.

If this is happening with different lenses, you need to do some tests to figure out what part of your equation is amiss. I'd shoot a roll of 120, and 2 rolls of 35mm, same scene, same controlled lighting, etc., then develop the 120 and one roll of 35mm together in your xtol. Develop the other 35mm in HC-110 as you have in the past. Now you can compare the 35mm/xtol to the 120/xtol and to the 35/HC-110. My guess, is that the 120/xtol will be fine, but both of your 35's will be over.