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

Bethe, Have you changed to Ilfosol from another developer? If so, did you have these problems before?

In rereading your O.P. I admit that I missed something important which spoke volumes to me. I (and others, I suppose) have been suggesting more vigorous agitation. I stick to my early statement that more vigorous agitation is needed. But that is not totally (or even at all) the problem. The problem is that your sixty second agitation point is not right for such a tank. This is compounded by the short developing time. ASA agitation calls for cycles on the half minute for small tanks. You are not effecting sufficient changes of developer on the full minute.

John;
I switched only from Ilfosol S to Ilfosol 3. I don't think they're radically different, but the newer one is likely more active since the times are shorter.

I switched to a much more vigorous agitation, but still 30 sec at the start and then 10 sec at each minute. In a single reel tank, is this really too little agitation? Would agitating every 30 sec be better than going to 1:14 and increasing the time?

I'm glad this thread didn't start before I ordered my first MF camera. You guys are making me nervous. I'm going to develop my HP5+ in a rotary tank, with ID-11 1+1, same as I do for 35mm then pray to the photo gods that I don't run into the same problems as Bethe.

Increased agitation will increase film density in the central areas thereby making the prints lighter, not darker in those areas. Are you certain you don't want to try doubling your fix time?? What's the loss??

Bethe, I use the same technique you have just described for 35mm inversion developing. Well near enough in that I invert four times every minute. However I do process for around 10½ minutes at a minimum, more or less.

With 120 film I invert three times every 30 seconds, the reason I do this was that I did have some unevenness of development with 120 film when I switched to the Jobo system of tanks around 30 years ago. I needed extra agitation with 120 film compared to 135 film.

I don't know for sure, but I can only assume that the extra width of the film and the obvious spread of the reel to accommodate the 120 roll, was part and parcel of my problem.

I must however admit, I mainly rotary process my films these days, with inversion development only happening for about 30 rolls a year, in both 135 and 120.

John, I use D76 1+1 almost exclusively, I also use HP5+ in 120, as well as 135 and 4x5", I don't think you will have many, if any, processing problems with that combination.

Obviously processing technique can have implications with various film formats, but by and large these are usually simple things, that can be rectified by simple, and/or, subtle changes in technique.

Mick.

winger said:

John;
I switched only from Ilfosol S to Ilfosol 3. I don't think they're radically different, but the newer one is likely more active since the times are shorter.

I switched to a much more vigorous agitation, but still 30 sec at the start and then 10 sec at each minute. In a single reel tank, is this really too little agitation? Would agitating every 30 sec be better than going to 1:14 and increasing the time?

Click to expand...

**********

ASA standard agitation for small tanks called for five seconds on each thirty.
My intestinal intelligence sez to me that you can get away with ten seconds on the minute with much longer development times. Eastman has always admonished about any developing times shorter than five minutes and your being on that bare threshold, coupled with only four agitation cycles, is your culprint. I would bet money on it.

winger said:

the chemist in me says to change just one variable at a time

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no... And here is why 'no' is sometimes the best answer:

First, it is impossible to change just one thing. There are always at least two things interacting -the sound of one hand clapping is dead silence: alone in a solitary vacuum the hand ceases to exist. Changing any one thing changes it's interaction with all the other things in the universe.

Really thorny problems are the result of the interaction of many independent causes and removing just one of the causes may not have any noticeable effect. As the causes are independent they tend to combine as the root-mean-square, and the removal of one item causes only a very small change in the final result - often the change is so small it can't be told from normal experimental variation.

As an example of a root-mean-square addition take a system with 5 equally contributing causes: fixing any one doesn't have the expected 20% effect on the outcome but only a 10% effect.

An experimental approach, starting from a non-working system, will not find the causes.

For an experimental approach to find out what is happening you have to start with a working system - as you can then see the effect of adding each possible cause. If you have the same system with 5 equally contributing causes, then a working system that has only one of the causes added to it will show 45% of the effect of the combination of the 5.

In the uneven development problem under consideration there seem to be many candidate causes:

• Agitation is too gentle
• Agitation isn't random enough
• Agitation isn't frequent enough
• The film is sensitive to agitation
• The developer is sensitive to agitation
• The development time is too short

If these all have an equal contribution, changing just one of them will only have an 8% reduction in the unevenness of development - the result of the change would be barely noticeable.

In this example you would start with a protocol that gives even negatives and then make the agitation gentler and gentler until the system fails. Then go back to adequate vigor in the agitation start to reduce the frequency until the system fails. And so on.

A good starting system would be one where the film, the developer and the development protocol are all from the same source (say Tri-X, D-76 and slavishly following Kodak's directions) - hopefully this will yield even negatives. Then change the film to Acros, see if the negatives are still even. Then go back to Tri-X and try Ilfosol. Then try the combination of Acros and Ilfosol - assuming there is some magic expected from this combination and getting it to work is the desired goal. If the results are still OK, then experiment with agitation. Somewhere between a bog-standard Tri-X/D-76 protocol and the present method things will break down.

The chances are the combination you are using is possibly the worst combination that can be had: either more or less agitation (stand developing) would improve things.

* * *

Problem solving is something they don't teach in schools. Professor's don't get enough real-world problem solving experience to be able to teach it. Which is OK by me, my firm has made a great deal of money from clients who have spent years trying to solve their problems with a self-congratulatory "we only change one thing at a time" approach.

If you aren't wedded to Ilfosol, I would try another developer and see if that clears it up. I have never seen uneven development with Acros and XTol 1+1, though my agitation is a bit more vigorous than you describe yours as.

from 'way back: >5 minutes is a very short dev time for B&W.

Perhaps the agitation regimen should be matched to the total developing time [an active developer depletes faster than diffusion can keep up with it]. I've had very similar uneven development in 120 film using stand development. The three frames on the outside of the roll were fine, and the others were about 2 stops underdeveloped on the side of the film that was at the tank's bottom [should have had an empty reel there, and above].

Typically, I use 1+100 Rodinal now, and my times are about 18-20 minutes. I suspect that with a "slow" developer [like mine], there's more time for diffusion, and agitation isn't so critical. I agitate once per 3 minutes after the initial minute.

Actually.. one correlation I might have is that I've probably done more filling to the brim of tanks in the recent past in efforts to reduce the effects of surge marks. Perhaps the issue here is that I need to allow more room for liquid movement as someone else mentioned. I'll develop a few rolls in a bit and see.

It's either that or photoflo because I don't have any light leak issues. This is specifically in scenes with bright light that it shows.

Problem solving is something they don't teach in schools. Professor's don't get enough real-world problem solving experience to be able to teach it. Which is OK by me, my firm has made a great deal of money from clients who have spent years trying to solve their problems with a self-congratulatory "we only change one thing at a time" approach.

Click to expand...

Well, in this situation, if I'd changed several things and had problems (especially different problems), there wouldn't be an easy way to know what variable had caused the new problem and what had fixed the old. In actuality, at least 2 variables were changed - randomness of agitation and vigorousness of agitation. Your example of starting with a working situation and changing something gradually to see where it fails is appropriate, but when the situation isn't working, changing too many things is likely to cause more confusion.
The agitation is likely the main culprit, with time/dilution being another factor.
I'm open to using other developers, but I have a fair amount of Ilfosol 3 and I like it with other films I use. At the moment, I don't want to increase the toxicity of what I use or change it too much. I also need to stay with ones that come as liquids.

Thanks all for the help! If I discover anything else, I'll post back.

winger said:

when the situation isn't working, changing too many things is likely to cause more confusion.

Click to expand...

Not exactly what I was recommending: My recommendation is to change one parameter at a time - but to start from a known working situation and proceed one parameter at a time to the present situation and see where on the path from working to non-working things go wrong. This approach also gives you the limits of each parameter.

The problem of going the other way, from busted to working is that the mathematics of it are against you if there are multiple causes.

Starting from a working system is guaranteed to isolate the cause or causes of the problem in a short amount of time. Going the other way may never isolate the causes.

It's not really a debatable point - it's simple mathematics.

I remember when i first started processing my own film, i would get so frustrated, my first roll had one image on it lol, half the film was stuck to the other half.

Dear Bethe;
the advice by mwdake and Anscojohn are the most useful in solving your development problem especially considering the short development times involved.
Denise libby

To me this is false economy. Cure the symptoms?

Why not cure the problem instead? You can get uneven development with almost any developer.

L Gebhardt said:

If you aren't wedded to Ilfosol, I would try another developer and see if that clears it up. I have never seen uneven development with Acros and XTol 1+1, though my agitation is a bit more vigorous than you describe yours as.

Click to expand...

Agitation is a tool to control contrast. You can use longer intervals between agitations to tame highlights in a scene of very high contrast.
Shorten time, someone says? That can result in very short development time. So, to me, development time is a function of how I agitate, which is the function of contrast and exposure.

You still need sufficient agitation to bring fresh developer to every square millimeter of the film - every time you agitate. That's the important part. That and to make sure that the initial agitation is sufficient. I agitate continuously by inverting the tank for the entire first half minute.

Nicholas advice to go back to a development regimen that is known makes sense. Once 'normal' agitation works on 'normal' scenes, experimentation can start. There is nothing wrong with altering your agitation beyond the 'recommended' technique, but do it with testing to see where the limits are. Try every two minutes, every three minutes, etc, until you run into problems with uneven agitation, and back off a bit.

Photography is, to me, all about finding the limits. And sometimes it sucks when you reach the limit, but it is always an opportunity to learn something.

- Thomas

Larry.Manuel said:

from 'way back: >5 minutes is a very short dev time for B&W.

Perhaps the agitation regimen should be matched to the total developing time [an active developer depletes faster than diffusion can keep up with it]. I've had very similar uneven development in 120 film using stand development. The three frames on the outside of the roll were fine, and the others were about 2 stops underdeveloped on the side of the film that was at the tank's bottom [should have had an empty reel there, and above].

Typically, I use 1+100 Rodinal now, and my times are about 18-20 minutes. I suspect that with a "slow" developer [like mine], there's more time for diffusion, and agitation isn't so critical. I agitate once per 3 minutes after the initial minute.

Click to expand...

Thomas Bertilsson said:

To me this is false economy. Cure the symptoms?

Why not cure the problem instead? You can get uneven development with almost any developer.

Click to expand...

But developers may be more prone to the issue. If I was just trying out a developer and was getting uneven development with standard techniques, I would probably move on unless there was something really compelling about the developer. I would worry about the issue returning in the future and ruining some film I really care about. In the past I tried a new developer and for some reason or another I kept getting bromide drag issues. I tried more/less agitation, different dilutions, and finally found a different tank made it almost all gone. In the end I decided the risk just wasn't worth it as I could get as good of results from other developers, where I never saw this problem. So if switching to a standard agitation schedule doesn't clear up the issue 100% why waste time on trying to make the developer work? I would be very wary of putting any important film through the process for quite some time.

But you are curing symptoms by switching materials. No developer is designed to give uneven development.

If you get uneven development with a standard development regimen, it's not going to be a problem with the chemistry, if it's fresh, and you mixed it right. And that's a fact.

Perhaps to add a different perspective, films will behave differently.

Think about how different B&W papers develop, for say a standard 2 minutes. Some begin to appear very quickly then development becomes slower, other begin slowly then race to catch up, both reach the same point.

We don't see our films developing but they won't all behave exactly the same which Ilford allude to "Care must be taken with the choice of dilution and temperature as very short development times with some films may lead to uneven processing".
Apologies for quoting from the Ilford datasheet again.

Now Fuji Acros doesn't suffer from a thresh-hold effect with regards to reciprocity, and this may wellmean that it begins development faster too. It doesn't take much with a short overall development time to run into problems.

Thomas is right these are problems which can be overcome with a little thought and just slight changes in technique with regards to agitation or by changing dilution.

Ian

All well and good, but Winger, your not shaking and twirling the can enough.

clayne said:

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.

Click to expand...

The only time I've ever had surge marks, I was agitating really slowly. Not sure why...I think I was trying to reduce grain by being gentle or something I'd made up in my head. It looked awful--and was extra-grainy to boot.

I'd imagine you get surge marks along the perforation of your film if the rate at which developer is being replenished through the sprocket holes is higher than what's being replenished on the rest of the film surface. If you agitate too slowly this could happen, is the logical conclusion in my mind.
When I agitate my film, my standard pattern is to invert the tank a full 180 degrees, all while I twist the tank about a quarter turn. I do two or three of these inversions every interval depending on the size of the tank. My largest tank I can only manage two, and the smallest two I manage three in the period of ten seconds, including lightly shaking the tank and then rapping it firmly on the counter top twice at the end.
I have never had sprocket hole surge marks that way. But I have had it when I slow down agitation to much slower and gentler patterns.

I hope that helps.

I usually do about 3 per 8-10 seconds as well. I've had surge marks in the past from, what I remember to be, too violent of agitation - which is why I slowed it down more consistently. I'm beginning to wonder if the variables that might really be at play here are:

1. Developer volume in the tank (i.e. is it to the brim which makes displacement harder).
2. Photo-flo residue on reels.

Both seem like possibilities with the second one being somewhat of a silent killer. I'd have to test both independently using the same agitation style I've been using for the last couple of months to determine if either affect the outcome differently.

Regarding point 1. Yes, you have to leave enough room in the tank so that the developer stands a chance to move around freely. Always always use the same volume. Consistency with everything is key to success with film processing. For my tanks it's 90% full, no matter which tank I use (got 120 single roll, 120 double roll, and 120 four roll).

Thomas Bertilsson said:

No developer is designed to give uneven development.

Click to expand...

Thomas - that is a great comment.