Dev and TRANSPARENT Film

[GraBaluz]

Masters, after correctly making the 510 Pyro concentrate, I develop a test of 5 or 6 shots and fix with alkaline fixer, my negatives come out completely transparent, what could be the reason, I would appreciate your help.

 

[GraBaluz]

take 5 or 6 photos for testing and reveal semi stand 30 minutes dilution 1,300... completely transparent the result

 

[Scott J.]

Assuming your 510-pyro developer has been mixed correctly and that the film is in good shape, it's most likely that you've either underexposed or underdeveloped the film. Could you give us more details about what you did -- e.g., film type, camera, exposure settings, development time, development temperature, etc.?

 

[Scott J.]

Are there any edge markings on the film that show what type of film it is (e.g., "Ilford Delta 100," etc.)? If the film is completely transparent (with no edge markings), then it's pretty much got to be a development problem.

 

[GraBaluz]

Assuming your 510-pyro developer has been mixed correctly and that the film is in good shape, it's most likely that you've either underexposed or underdeveloped the film. Could you give us more details about what you did -- e.g., film type, camera, exposure settings, development time, development temperature, etc.?

510 Pyro ITS ok... I think... Film Ilford Pan 400 6 shots only, Dilute 1.300 20° 30 mints semi stand, Fix alcaline. Complet Transparent...

 

[GraBaluz]

Are there any edge markings on the film that show what type of film it is (e.g., "Ilford Delta 100," etc.)? If the film is completely transparent (with no edge markings), then it's pretty much got to be a development problem.

No, complet Transparent!
Camera YASHICA FX 3 Super 2000 with ZEISS Optics, never happen to me before

 

[Scott J.]

Yeah, sounds like it's a problem with the developer. How did you prepare the 510-pyro working solution?

My suggestion would be to take some more test shots (all identical and with the same camera). Develop half of them in the 510-pyro as before, and then develop the other half in another developer (if you have one available). That will help determine if the problem is with the 510-pyro.

 

[GraBaluz]

Yeah, sounds like it's a problem with the developer. How did you prepare the 510-pyro working solution?

My suggestion would be to take some more test shots (all identical and with the same camera). Develop half of them in the 510-pyro as before, and then develop the other half in another developer (if you have one available). That will help determine if the problem is with the 510-pyro.

Yes i have Others Devs. Beutler, hc110, d76, never happen me before...
TEA 75ML
ACIDO ASCORBICO. 5GRMS
PYROGALICO 10GRMS
FENIDONE 0.375GRMS
TEA A 100ML

 

[GraBaluz]

Yes i make the concentrad in order... Warming the Tea, not much... For Easy disolve

 

[GraBaluz]

Yeah, sounds like it's a problem with the developer. How did you prepare the 510-pyro working solution?

My suggestion would be to take some more test shots (all identical and with the same camera). Develop half of them in the 510-pyro as before, and then develop the other half in another developer (if you have one available). That will help determine if the problem is with the 510-pyro.

Camera AND lenses aré ok

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Have u done a clip test with your developer working solution?

 

[GraBaluz]

Have u done a clip test with your developer working solution?

No Raghu... I dont know how

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

No Raghu... I dont know how

 

[GraBaluz]

Thanks, im gonna try and inform. Thanks all of you

 

[koraks]

after correctly making the 510 Pyro concentrate

Assumptions are the mother of all f*ckups. The clip test will be essential.

semi stand 30 minutes dilution 1,300

For a first test with images (after the clip test) I'd suggest a normal agitation scheme to eliminate any issues related to semi-stand development. Especially pyrogallol and to a slightly lesser extent pyrocatechol developers are rather prone to uneven development issues. Moreover, 510 pyro oxidizes to the point of becoming unusable within a relatively short period of time. Although I'm aware that many people use it for semi-stand or stand development, I consider 510 pyro an exceptionally bad choice for this. Apart from the non-linear relationship between development time and density that results from the developer basically going dead during development, prolonged development results in (IMO) excessive dye formation / stain on the negatives. While this can be printed through when enlarging or scanning, it's a totally unnecessary addition of density that does present an additional hurdle when making alt. process prints (salted paper, carbon etc.) If you intend to experiment with minimal agitation schemes and staining developers, Pyrocat really is a far superior choice.

Warming the Tea, not much... For Easy disolve

I'm not sure about the nature of your triethanolamine, but one thing I would not associate making 510 pyro with is 'easy dissolve'. With a magnetic stirrer and TEA heated to around 75C, it takes me at least an hour to get everything in solution, with specks of phenidone still remaining afloat. It takes several more hours for these to clear. Before I had a magnetic stirrer I'd just shake the hell out of the bottle once in a while and be patient for a couple of days for everything to dissolve.

PS: I have a friend who at one point bought DEA instead of TEA (just an honest mistake). Not sure if he proceeded to make 510 pyro with it, but if he did, I'm sure it wouldn't have worked as intended. Just goes to show simple messups happen.

Once in a blue moon I mix up some 510 pyro because there must be something that makes it so appealing. Apparently I forget every time that it's just not all that great. It works, but it has drawbacks that don't really make it all that attractive in the light of the available alternatives that just work better in multiple ways. But that of course is just my own personal qualm with this type of toxic molasses. It's up to anyone to find out for themselves what is to like (or not to like) about 510. The only merit it has for me is the fact that I still have some pyrogallol that I cannot really use for anything else...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

For a first test with images (after the clip test) I'd suggest a normal agitation scheme to eliminate any issues related to semi-stand development.

Dilution 1:300 used by OP is probably unsuitable for normal agitation. He should try 1:100.

 

[GraBaluz]

Thanks!!!!!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I might have missed it scanning the thread -- but totally transparent film, without even a hint of edge markings, is the classic sign of pouring the fixer before the developer.

Edge markings on most B&W stocks are heavily exposed and will show faintly even if wildly underdeveloped -- but they won't show at all if the fixer removed the exposed halide before the developer could do anything to it.

 

[GraBaluz]

Ok, im going to Lab now, check all This, thanks

 

[pentaxuser]

I might have missed it scanning the thread -- but totally transparent film, without even a hint of edge markings, is the classic sign of pouring the fixer before the developer.

Edge markings on most B&W stocks are heavily exposed and will show faintly even if wildly underdeveloped -- but they won't show at all if the fixer removed the exposed halide before the developer could do anything to it.

OP are you absolutely sure that you did not do what Donald has said? If everything else was OK then I am also surprised that there was not even a hint of anything on the film

Have you done the snip test suggested by Raghu and was that also completely transparent?

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

I agree with Don -- if this is roll film with markings, and there are no markings, then there was no development. Either very badly mixed developer (something should show up even if badly made), or fix was used first.

 

[GraBaluz]

thanks to all. Assuming that the error was mine because the Laboratory and Formulas are very noble... I checked MY procedure and I realized that my measurement, the amount in the working mixture was wrong..., I did a test correcting it and everything was ok . thanks again to all members for your attention, keep on shacking