developing film: ggrrrr, errgh, and $#@%^

[Mike1234]

Just try re-fixing the film. At least you can rule that out with an existing roll of film... no harm done to new pics.

 

[winger]

You mention "tipping 90 degrees", this sounds rather gentle. The usual manufacture (er, Kodak) specified agitation for SS is to invert the tank 180 degrees, 1-2 inversions/second, for 5 seconds every thirty seconds, rotating the tank slightly so it is not always inverted in the same direction. I notice Ilford specifies 4 inversions/for 10seconds/every minute.

The 5 minute developing time is rather short and may be contributing to the unevenness.

I do the agitations similar to Jason's video, but definitely not as vigorously as he in the first 30 sec (just watched the video again - thanks Jason). So this is what I'll change first (the chemist in me says to change just one variable at a time).
The scheme above is what I do, just maybe not rough enough.
Yes, the 5 minutes seems short, but I've had other good negs from it. It is shorter than the Ilfosol S time. I limit myself to liquid developers as I hate mixing from powders (and have asthma).

Once I get myself off the couch and away from the computer, I'm going to go shoot some gourds with a white background outside (it's a sunny day here). If it works, I'll at least have some shots I can use for handcoloring.

 

[Leighgion]

I'm inclined to agree the problem is that the agitation routine is too gentle.

Only shot two rolls of Acros myself, but using 30 second initial agitation and ~10 seconds every minute thereafter in D76 with full, sometimes pretty rough, inversions and taps yielded me negatives as perfect as I could ask for.

 

[Mike1234]

I still suggest you try re-fixing first. It can't hurt.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Remember that rotory processors like a Jobo have very vigourous agitation and they are known for even processing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use XTOL full strength, Hewes reels in a steel tank. I usually develop two rolls of 120 at a time. When I develop one roll I tend to use the two roll tank, rather than the single roll take [no real reason here] and put an empty reel in to take of the space.

I give one to three quick thumps on a pad and then five 180º inversions. Then five inversions every 30 seconds. I orginally only did three inversions each time, but five works better for me. These are not violent inverstions and it takes about 6 or 7 seconds to do each set.

When I tried more than five inversions or added at 90º rotation between each inversioin I got very dark edges on the negative which of course produced very light sides on the prints.

I do not use rapid fix, but I do not have a reason not to use it. The fixing time at 1:4 is 5 to 10 minutes. I usually go a minute or two over to be sure that I get the film tint out of the negative.

winger, I am not sure that I have given you any information to help you with your problems. I hope I did.

Steve

 

[ic-racer]

I also agree 4 min seems short for the fix. I use 6 min based on the experience of underfixing with shorter times.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Here is a trick I learned for doing agitation.

Place your hands on the tank as if you were driving a car with one hand at the 12 position and another at the 6 position.
Now move them to the other position like turning the wheel of a car.
You will notice not only is there a complete inversion but also a twist .
This method with a good tap on the table top after each complete cycle will move the chemicals around quite well.
Also the first 15 seconds of development are most critical for even development and you must be decisive and quick when pouring the dev in and starting your cycle with a very good series of inversions.

 

[George Collier]

Bethe - I had this surge problem for a long time, only with 120 film, and only with certain developers (Pyrocat and Rodinal). For some reason HC110 was really forgiving. I originally used an agitation scheme as you describe. I finally figured out that the exchange of chems at the edge of the roll (usually the top edge as it sat in the tank) was receiving more exchange of chems when agitating. I tried everything: double tank with a 35mm reel under and on top of the 120 reel, presoak, no presoak, no agitation, gentle agitation, rolling, inverting, even dunking the reel into an open 4x5 tank in the dark.
The eventual solution was much more violent agitation whenever I agitate, much more than I would with 35mm, a combination of rotating (twirling) and inverting every agitation cycle. I am doing mostly semi stand now with Rodinal, agitating once for a minute at the beginning, then 8 twist/inversions every 4 minutes. I also measure just enough developer to comfortably cover the reel (425cc in my single roll tank) to allow for chem movement.
I really didn't know it was solved until I could expose the whole roll on a blank wall (out of focus) and expose every frame for Zone 7 (the effect is worse in highlights - it's a real sky killer)
If it was me, I would also dilute to extend the dev time to at least 7 - 8 minutes, so the initial soaking into the emulsion isn't as critical.
Best of luck - stick with it.

 

[ricksplace]

If the different shots with the Hassie and the different agitation works, make sure the results still work with your 645. (I smell an intermittent light leak). I had an intermittent light leak once that drove me nuts -short drive... I finally traced it to a loose seal that would sometimes seal OK, and sometimes fold over and allow light to leak in.

 

[winger]

If the different shots with the Hassie and the different agitation works, make sure the results still work with your 645. (I smell an intermittent light leak). I had an intermittent light leak once that drove me nuts -short drive... I finally traced it to a loose seal that would sometimes seal OK, and sometimes fold over and allow light to leak in.

I thought of this, but the Pentax 645N is one that you can't change the film mid-roll because it goes into the back and not on it like the Hassie. I've had a couple of rolls through the Hassie do this, too, as well. Of course, not as blatently and on a shot that I really liked. I currently have a roll in the 645 or I would be using it for the test. But the roll in the 645 is a different film and one with shots I don't want to screw up. I'm being impatient, but I will try a roll in the Pentax once I finish the one in it now.

Thanks all for the ideas! The test roll has been shot. Since there's nothing on TV tonight, I should be able to dev it later.

 

[Vaughn]

Having had similar looking negatives, I would guess that what we are seeing is under-fixing due to insufficient agitation. Especially use to happen to me with the TMax films. The edges of the film get insufficient fixing, thus have more over-all density.

To cure this, I used constant agitation during fixing with 120 films...especially the TMax films...and Acos might be similar.

Over-all, I am a fan of much more aggressive agitation than your present method. Four sharp not-gentle full inversions every 30 seconds -- I want that developer (or fix) to shoot thru the reel and between the film -- not just sort of slosh between the windings of the spool.

Vaughn

 

[mts]

Ten seconds agitation to start followed by 5 seconds every 30 seconds thereafter. Each agitation is a sequence of inversion and rotation, about a quarter turn, for a total of three or four sequences in the five second interval. The tank should be full. If you have a two reel tank then process using either two full reels or an empty reel as a spacer above. If you are using tanks that hold more reels--some tall ones take four or more--then you should be processing in the dark using a lifting rod for agitation.

As far as fixing goes, following development and start of fixer it is best to fix by inspection to ensure your fixer is working properly. If you don't see evidence of fixing by ~1/3 the suggested time, then you know that you have to extend the fix time (to double the time it takes to see activity), and then discard the fixer. If you are using TMax film you can expect longer fix times, even for rapid fixer.

 

[PhotoJim]

I use Paterson plastic tanks, but I don't have any issues with uneven agitation. My technique:

- invert fully (i.e. 180 degrees) fairly quickly (not at all gently) for about 20 seconds, once a second
- invert similarly for five seconds every thirty seconds (I'm changing to ten seconds every minute to see if this affects the results; so far, I see no difference and this is slightly more convenient)

The only exception I make to this routine is when I use PMK, which is prone to aerial oxidation. To compensate, per Gordon Hutchings' recommendations, I agitate very violently and abruptly for about 3 seconds every 15 seconds. Again, very consistent negatives.

I don't treat 35mm any differently from 120 (and in fact, when I hand process sheet film in a Jobo tank, I use the same technique again).

 

[dancqu]

Tip the tank 90 degrees?
Be sure you've the reel covered. Invert and
swirl for agitation. Adjust the dilution for a
ten or more minute development. Three
inversions every other minute.

At least in part I believe your problem is one of
laminar sheer. In effect there is greater agitation
at the developer's entry and exit where it's flow
is constricted. There is no correcting the
problem 100%. So minimize. Dan

 

[mwdake]

For agitation I was told and learned it is all in the wrist.
I invert mank tnak fully and roll it a 1/4 turn as I invert it.
In other words the tank rotates around it's center as I invert it.
I do this quite vigoursly then rap the tank on the counter after agitation.

 

[Mike1234]

I'm still betting it's underfixed....

 

[winger]

I'm still betting it's underfixed....

Believe me, it's not.

 

[Mike1234]

Okay

 

[winger]

Alright, here's a scan of old and new, head to head (scanned together). I'm not sure if it's solved, but it's better, I think. Also another frame from the new roll (not the same as the other frame). Since I did the new ones outside (to have enough even light), the wind was blowing the edges of the cloth, too. I didn't have any white foam core so the next roll (in the P 645) will use some.

 

[clayne]

I also doubt this is underfixed. I've been getting this more recently as well. Over the last 6 months or so it shows up in sequences of rolls and is a real problem to deal with after the fact (i'm not into being forced to utlity burn every print due to developing mis-haps).

Just recently for instance:



Over time I think I've reduced the violence of my agitation and I'm beginning to wonder if I should up the ante again. This was mainly out of fear of surge marks on the edges.

So if we're not doing enough agitation - what specifically in one's agitation style is the cause of edge surge marks? If uneven development is linked to insufficient agitation I don't have a problem agitating more - but I'd like to reduce the chance of sprocket holes ghosting on the edges - which is a much harder problem to fix after the fact.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Bethe, I re-sized and rotated the Hasselblad neg to the same size and orientation as the 645 and other hasselblad neg, put them alongside each other to have a look.

It's a bit hard to judge, but it does look as though there is uneven illumination or development in the 6x6 negs, but it could be a lighting situation only.

Your original shot was in low contrast lighting (at least it looks like it is). Processing problems, or even or uneven illumination from the lens onto the film, will be easier to see if the contrast or reflection, off the object, is even.

If you could run your next test with a fairly flat subject in a fairly flat lighting environment, I believe you will be able to see with greater clarity, any processing or lens coverage problems, if you have any that is.

I'm not much of a processing expert, but over the years I have found longer development times will ensure consistent and even development, with the caveat being that one does reasonable agitation.

I partially quote this from Developing by Jacobson & Jacobson, a Focal publication 18th edition, pages 78/79. Which I purchased about 28 years ago.

The Influence of Agitation. The last paragraph in this section:-
"As an example of the effect of agitation on the progress of development, it may be taken that where intermittant agitation is used about 50% longer development time should be given than would be considered necessary with constant movement."

Basically, the chapter on Agitation and it's influence, puts forward the consideration, that one should have a well -mixed process. Not necessarily meaning constant agitation, but steady movement is advisable.

Consider also that deep tank processing baths I have monitored and used many years ago, used bursts of nitrogen for agitation, every 10 seconds to ensure even development occurred. This was with C41 which is approximately 3'15" development and E6 which is approximately 6'30" development. Our B&W developer bath did the same thing with the 10 second intervals of gas bursts for agitation.

I've just had a quick squizz in my Ilford Manual of Photography, 5th edition, 8th reprint March 1968. Page 428-9 under:-

"Obtaining very uniform development

(3) When more normal methods of agitation are employed, i.e., rocking in a dish or intermittent agitation in a tank, uniform development is assisted if the dilution of the developer is so arranged that the development time required is not less than 5 minutes in a dish or 10 minutes in a tank."

I do realise that both of these books are not up to date, but I think processing requirements have changed very little over the years, so I thought I would include these for your thoughts.

If what I'm seeing is uneven development, which I have a tendency to think it is, then I feel more agitation may be a possible cure for some, or all of your woes.

Mick.

 

[Ian Grant]

Both those books are still very relevant today, particularly Jacobson & Jacobson, (I have the same editions), and highlight the fact that the Ilfosol 3/Acros development time is really on the short side at 1+9 by Ilford's own recommendations.

Interesting in the Ilfools 3 data-sheet Ilford say "Care must be taken with the choice of dilution and temperature as very short development times with some films may lead to uneven processing".

Ian

 

[winger]

Thanks, Mick and Ian. I did realize that my subject choice wasn't optimal once I started shooting and the wind started blowing the background around. Where I live, it's tough to find something that will be evenly lit like my original problem scene. But they don't seem to have gotten worse and might be slightly improved (trying to be optimistic). I think I'll get some white foam core board and do some shots of it outside at the start and end of a roll and do some non-crucial ones in between.
I'm also going to try using the Ilfosol 3 at 1:14 and increasing the time. I used to use Ilfosol S and most of the times got shorter with the new version. I've had great results with 35mm and 4x5, but those were Ilford films, too.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

I think its lack of agitation during the development stage.

I once had problems with insufficient agitation during dev – and my negs looked very similar.

Lack of agitation can be due to inadequate room in the tank for the developer to “slosh” into – as well as inadequate twirling of the tank.

The OP mentions that the tank was perhaps overfilled.

There needs to be a sufficient air pocket in the tank for the developer to move freely. If the tank is over full then the developer (which is a non compressible fluid) remains more or less static inside the tank, even if the tank itself is moved quite vigorously. The tank needs to have a sufficient air volume to allow the developer to move sufficiently to generate turbulent flow – so allowing the exhausted surface developer to thoroughly remix with the remaining fresh chemicals.

The tank agitation/twirling has been covered sufficiently by others

Martin