Developing or camera?

[campy51]

I took this shot with a Rolleiflex 2.8C and if you look in the sky you can see shading streaks. Would this most likely be development than camera?

 

[Ian Grant]

Development or insufficient fixing, it's not the camera.

Ian

 

[abruzzi]

I got very similar streaks in the sky when I experimented with stand developing recently.

 

[shutterfinger]

Processing. Adjust levels in PS then compare the darkest parts to the slots in the development reel, they likely align. Adjust your agitation technique to eliminate them.
Refixing may improve the previously developed negatives.

 

[Pentode]

Just curious: how old is the film and how has it been stored?

I agree with the others that it’s most likely a processing error, but old or poorly stored roll film can also give streaks such as those or, more commonly, a mottled appearance. Just another possibility to consider.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have had similar signs when developing B&W from a Mamiya 645 and it was down to the film tank spirals tilting the film slightly so that the developer had less room to circulate. I realised this when I saw the streaks on my film shown as uncleared emulsion. I washed the spirals in the family dishwasher and the problem never happened again. (PS Don't tell the wife.)

 

[shutterfinger]

Ones agitation technique should be based on what it takes to get even development with that tank and reel combination not what's posted on the web that others do.
1st inversion cycle end 2 turns to the right, next inversion cycle end 2 turns to the left. Repeat the 1st , 2nd rotations throughout the development with equal rotations in each direction to smooth the grain and reduce streaks.
I always fill the tank to the top limit unless doing rotary processing. The reel should be covered by 1/4 inch of solution minimum for best inversion results.
Test for yourself to confirm.

 

[cooltouch]

I agree that it was most likely developing technique. I got banding in some photos once -- worse than yours -- when I used a tank with a spinner for the agitation. I got too aggressive with the spinner. After that, I went easy does it with the spinner and the banding disappeared. Now, however, I favor the good old wrist-twist style of agitation using a sealed tank, and I also fill the tank. I believe it does a better job.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I took this shot with a Rolleiflex 2.8C and if you look in the sky you can see shading streaks. Would this most likely be development than camera?
View attachment 206685

definitely a processing issue and not the camera; not enough agitation during development is my guess.

 

[Dan Daniel]

If you are doing hand agitation with metal reels, slow down the motion. Or the time between each flip, might be a better way to describe it. You are getting too little developer movement into the center of the film, leading to exhausted developer and underdevelopment in the center. The mottling is from the exhausted developer sort of moving from wave action and such.

There is a lot of surface area between the top and bottom of the reel. It takes time for the developer to flow through this space. Flip the tank, count to 2, flip again, repeat as needed (you decide how much total agitation, I can't tell what your technique is of course). I found that I needed to have an air space at the top of my tank in order to get enough motion over the full width of the film; obviously from comments here others have found this not needed. Either way, you need to get more true motion. Remember, water will transmit energy through wave action without actually moving much if allowed.

 

[DWThomas]

I found that I needed to have an air space at the top of my tank in order to get enough motion over the full width of the film; obviously from comments here others have found this not needed. Either way, you need to get more true motion. Remember, water will transmit energy through wave action without actually moving much if allowed.

I will second that. I use enough to cover the reel by a few mm, but leaving some air space to allow the developer to actually slosh around more easily.

 

[pentaxuser]

I will second that. I use enough to cover the reel by a few mm, but leaving some air space to allow the developer to actually slosh around more easily.

Good point, Dave. As far as agitation regime is concerned I do wonder if more isn't made of this as a problem that is warranted. If you follow the agitation regime specified by the developer's maker then you really can't go wrong. The makers such as Kodak Ilford etc have tested their films exhaustively with developers and get it right in my opinion. I use the Kodak regime when using Xtol and the Ilford regime when using such as ID11 and DDX. Nothing very complicated about either agitation regime and so far (15 years) it has worked every time for me

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Development, most likely from not enough agitation.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm guessing a lack of complete fixing.

 

[mshchem]

Being a Rolleiflex adjoining frames should be "above and below" this shot. If it was inadequate fixing wouldn't that lead to increased density on the negative thus yielding lighter streaks? ???
My guess is developer but as noted you would really need to have inadequate agitation.

All these posting are scans, I would look there 1st . People who shoot film need to contact print a proof sheet, that's the only way you will know what's going on.

My recommendation is if you don't know how to make a contact sheet ,start there. Then follow Kodak and Ilford's instructions to the letter on developing film.

Damn nice camera, nice shot !

 

[Dan Daniel]

All these posting are scans, I would look there 1st . People who shoot film need to contact print a proof sheet, that's the only way you will know what's going on.

Not sure what you mean here. Scanning is a recording of the negative density. I bet I could see the mottling and density changes in the OP's negative simply viewing on a light table. What is the process which makes a silver contact print show information about density- the issue here- that other imaging methods that cannot show?

 

[mshchem]

Not sure what you mean here. Scanning is a recording of the negative density. I bet I could see the mottling and density changes in the OP's negative simply viewing on a light table. What is the process which makes a silver contact print show information about density- the issue here- that other imaging methods that cannot show?

My point is that if there's crud on the scanner glass that's IMHO a more likely culprit than some agitation issue. And yes you should be able to see on a light table. A real proof sheet will teach you how to properly expose film. I'm old school not looking for a debate . What ever works for you .

 

[shutterfinger]

My point is that if there's crud on the scanner glass that's IMHO a more likely culprit than some agitation issue.

A freshly cleaned scanner and one that is kept clean will show minor variances in negative densities that do not show on a properly exposed and developed negative contact printed at paper black. Those variances on contact prints that do not show well are in the deep shadows and occasionally bright highlights.
A negative exposed and developed to print at paper black will scan with the deepest black between 0 and 10 and the brightest highlights between 240 and 255 (image histogram) without any modifications in scanner software (scanner raw).

 

[Dan Daniel]

My point is that if there's crud on the scanner glass that's IMHO a more likely culprit than some agitation issue. And yes you should be able to see on a light table. A real proof sheet will teach you how to properly expose film. I'm old school not looking for a debate . What ever works for you .

Not looking to argue, either. Was wondering if there was something about scanning that was known to increase any mottling, for example. I've seen light tables with mottling, although usually at a larger scale than the OP's negative. Sometimes wonder if the lighting system in a scanner is up to the task of giving even illumination. I've seen cold head enlargers that gave an obviously uneven illumination but you'd never see it in prints. So many variables.

A negative exposed and developed to print at paper black will scan with the deepest black between 0 and 10 and the brightest highlights between 240 and 255 (image histogram) without any modifications in scanner software (scanner raw).

Not sure I agree that there is a simple correlation between paper black and white points and scanner black and white points. I know that when I switched to a better scanner I needed to change my development times, increase to get more density because the new scanner had more dynamic range. Just as I needed to adjust for wet printing when I changed film developer or paper. I don't think that there are many absolute points in the process, whatever the mix of wet and digital.

 

[MattKing]

Scanners have light paths and light systems of their own, so it isn't possible to say anything definitive that applies to all scanners equally.
Just as different enlargers (diffusion vs. condensor as an example) will tend to reveal slightly different things in a negative, different combinations of scanners and scanning software will tend to reveal different things in a negative.
In my relatively incomplete experience with scanning, it has seemed to me that the output of scanners tends to either include or emphasize things that are frequently unwanted and often not apparent in an optical print.
I would point to dust as a perfect example - scanners and scanning software reveal way more dust on a negative than my enlarger does.
Scanners sample the information in and on a negative, and the result you obtain is a product of that sampling and how it is processed by the software. If there is any recurring pattern in the negative, that sampling and processing seems to accentuate that pattern.

 

[shutterfinger]

I have B&W negatives that I've wet printed and scanned. The scans always showed minor variances in densities that were visible in the negative under very close scrutiny that did not show in wet prints.

Not sure I agree that there is a simple correlation between paper black and white points and scanner black and white points.

I had been taught to make a step tablet for each negative to determine the correct exposure for that negative. When I took such negatives to The Darkroom, San Carlos for printing they came back awful. The lab said they printed at paper black.
For those not familiar with the term paper black is the point where no additional light will result in a darker tone in the paper. I have used different papers in the past and have never had to adjust my development from one paper to the other.
Exposure/development for paper black printing results in a negative whose tones will be close to the scene and all tones will be distinguishable in the contact print so that the amount of dogging or burning can be easily determined and all but very high contrast scenes will require little or no burning/dodging to make a very good to excellent print.

I find this type negative scans well also with little post processing needed.

 

[blockend]

The marks look like bromide drag. It sometimes happens with short or long development cycles. Most commonly with low or medium speed films in developers with brief times. Pre-washing helps, as does the avoidance of developer surges. It also occurs in stand development, which is why people adopt a semi-stand method.

 

[Europan]

How could the camera cause that, definitely processing. Agitate constantly and reduce times by about a quarter.

 

[mshchem]

The marks look like bromide drag. It sometimes happens with short or long development cycles. Most commonly with low or medium speed films in developers with brief times. Pre-washing helps, as does the avoidance of developer surges. It also occurs in stand development, which is why people adopt a semi-stand method.

That makes sense. !

 

[Mozg31337]

I had similar look on a few of the expired Delta 400 film, which were 20 years old. As I don not have any idea how the film was actually stored, I think it could be the film issue.Mine was not a dev issue as other rolls in the same tank turned out pretty good.