Developing: What caused this?

I shot a sequence a couple of days ago, one at the incident setting, of f16 @200, one with the orange filter on, shot at the same exposure to get zone 3, and one for the heck of it with the red filter. Again at the same exposure which underexposed it by a stop, of course, but wanted to see what it did, .. and it revealed this... (w/red filter)

It looks like the developing was uneven on the right side, along the edge... that side was the high side in the tank.,
Now, although its an unsealed tank, I have developed enough with this tank to know the proper volume of developer in it, to cover the negs.

Now the question: Could this be caused by dry film in an the arid, low humidity southwest? Its starting to warm up here! An issue of the developing being uneven at this top section because the chemical is filling up from below, and wetting some of the film from above, as it flows through?
No.. I do not pre soak before I develop, and wondered if that is the cause.
Never had an issue like this before, but this film is new to me, as I've been getting my tests down in developing time, etc for Arista 400 film shot @200.

Background:
I'm using my two oldy but goody Fink-Roselieve daylight tanks.. love them as I can develop my 3x4, 9x12 or 4x5 film in them. They of course do not seal, and will hold 12 negatives any size to 4x5.

peter k. said:

It looks like the developing was uneven on the right side, along the edge... that side was the high side in the tank.,
Now, although its an unsealed tank, I have developed enough with this tank to know the proper volume of developer in it, to cover the negs.

Click to expand...

Thats what it looks like to me, uneven development. If you are using "just enough" developer to cover the film then perhaps you should add a little more.

peter k. said:

Could this be caused by dry film in an the arid, low humidity southwest? Its starting to warm up here! An issue of the developing being uneven at this top section because the chemical is filling up from below, and wetting some of the film from above, as it flows through?

Click to expand...

Unless your taking a really long time to add the chemicals and a little bit gets on top then no. I think you need to up the volume of your chemicals a bit.

Vell.. just went out, with the lid off, and just plain water put in 1560 da.. whatever the metric is into the tank and its almost brim full. So that's verified. That's not it..

Could it be a light leak?
Film Holders were purchased used.. and notice when sun is bright, as it was the day shot... get a little ..about 1/8" flare at the dark slide entrance... try to keep them out of direct light .. but its difficult.
Wonder if the whole film holder might be leaking.. maybe I could check them by using Ortho Litho film and let them hang out in the sun awhile, then develop.

It could be an agitation issue. You state the uneven developing is top edge, I don't know your method, but solution gets more movement at the top edge than any where else in this style tank.

Uneven development or moisture damaged film.

I would suggest this could be a humidity issue and in this instance (and I have never ever suggested this before) perhaps a pre-soak may help.

Hmm.. that could be... over agitation will cause higher contrast... and in these development tests, I still see some blown out sky.. in fact one from this sequence.. with Orange filter ...

Notice the light area on the left by the flag.. and on the other side where our question resides. could that be over agitation for a normal exposure?

Background:
The left side, cropped a little for the dark slide light leak area, top and bottom of image has also been cropped for composition... the right side is not, but as you can see the swirl marks whatever, are not seen here as they are in the red filtered one.
Same exposure as the red filter shot but not underexposed, which revealed the marks ..

For the heck of it here' s the full red filter one.. top was cropped as a scratch mark was there.. nothing else cropped .. its further to the right, because flag was blowing towards the center..

You need to scan the negative including rebates as a transparency, you don't need to print bad negatives.

Xmas .. I'm Hybrid.. no darkroom yet.. so this is a scanned image.. as a B&W transparency ..
but what where you referring to in

scan the negative including rebates

Click to expand...

Rebates??

peter k. said:

Xmas .. I'm Hybrid.. no darkroom yet.. so this is a scanned image.. as a B&W transparency ..
but what where you referring to in
Rebates??

Click to expand...

The edges of the film masked by the holder. Any thing in rebates is worrying, except perhaps some bleed over of silver from a high light...

I use a light table and jewelers loope.

Sorry about neg / positive thing my phone is so poor not easy to detect which I was looking at.

The hard edges between the normally and the underdeveloped region strongly suggest that this is not some sort of carryover, bleedover or whatever. Peter confirmed that his tanks are/were full to the brim when he filled the amount of fluid into them, but there is one thing that I have frequently noticed with my Jobo tanks: as you pour in the liquid through the top funnel, it runs down through the center tube until some air bubbles seem to build up in that tube, which prevent further liquid from running downwards. Shaking the tank usually gets rid of the air bubble very quickly if one knows about this issue.

So what could have happened is this: Peter poured in his developer, sometime near the end the air bubble prevented the remaining amount from going into the tank and the film stayed partially immersed for some time. The first shaking or inversion of the tank cleared out the air bubble and developing continued normally, except that in the top region the total dev time was shorter.

Since he uses a hybrid work flow anyway, he could try the following: if that region is indeed underdeveloped, it not only has smaller density, but also lower contrast. He could contrast stretch the region in some image editing software and check whether the tones suddenly line up. If so, we know it was underdevelopment, if not, we have to look for other possible culprits.

BTW it would be quite helpful if you stated which developer and procedure you used.

Hmm .. yes ..

hard edges between the normally and the underdeveloped region strongly suggest that this is not some sort of carryover, bleedover

Click to expand...

Used Hc110 dilution H @ 68* for eleven minutes with single, slight shake, figure 8 agitation, every 20 sec, that lasts about 2-3 sec.
It takes about 30 ~ 35 sec to load the tank with 1560 of developer, and then first agitate to 40 sec with a 'snap' down to clear any bubbles.
You have to understand these are olde but goody square tanks. Has the center fill zone, and then a perimeter light tight edge that goes around the outside that the air and escape from.. so I doubt that the air is getting caught. I love them because they can take the three sizes of large format I'm shooting. (3x4-9x12-4x5) That 'stand' vertical in the tank, making the right side 'up'

This morning I'm going to to an experiment and load it with 12, 4x5 exposed negatives, put the correct volume of clear water and process as I would normally. Checking in the process how much volume I am loosing in the agitation, and see if the 'top' of the negatives are perhaps exposed after 11 minutes. With these old tanks developer can escape, but doubt if this has been the case,, as very little comes out. But this will prove or disprove loss of developer being the cause of the hard edge.

Those tanks are slow fillers. The length of timeit takes for the developer to get to t he top can cause the problem. ry filling the tank and then lowering the film into it and secure it.

Jim Noel said:

Those tanks are slow fillers. The length of timeit takes for the developer to get to t he top can cause the problem. ry filling the tank and then lowering the film into it and secure it.

Click to expand...

This might work, but requires that one works with caustic chemicals in the open and in complete darkness ... no everybody's thing IMHO. Alternatively, if that "slow filling" theory holds up, Peter could swirl the tank while filling it, or use a slower developer (e.g. even higher HC-110 dilution) where the difference in immersion time doesn't matter as much.

I'm curious what his suggested experiment brings to light.

The image shows IMO lack of agitation in the first 15 seconds of development.. This seems to be a very common issue here on APUG

Experiment completed...
Actually developed two 9x12, in the same manner and time.. then poured the developer into a second daylight tank that is identical. (Have two of them) May have lost an 1/8" of an inch of volume, but well above the top of exposed 4x5, that I placed into the filled tank to double check level.
So its not loss of developer.
(Ah an no.. I didn't perhaps mistakenly shorten the volume (1560) on the first development. Quantity is marked on develop pitcher)
Will take a look at the images when they dry. But alas couldn't see anything amiss on the others, except the one image that was shot with the red filter and underexposed. They were all developed together.

**

1. If it takes long to fill the tank (large tank, or small tank with slow-filling lid). Photo Engineer makes the point that unless the film is uniformly/quickly immersed in the developer, you can potentially get uneven development from splashes etc as you fill the tank if the film is dry. Problems with uneven development tend to occur at the beginning of development.

Click to expand...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Sooooooo... will shoot some more 4x5 tomorrow.. and underexpose again with the red filter.. and pre wash for a minute and see what this does with development.
Redeofus, Bob: this may help with the

The image shows IMO lack of agitation in the first 15 seconds of development..

Click to expand...

Jim: It would be very difficult for me, as I have no dark room, just a dark bag. If I had a darkroom I would use the old open clip developing tanks I have, but cannot use at this time. The daylight tank I have, has twelve separate, curved inserts that the film has to be loaded into, one at a time, as it is sheet film. Difficult enough without chemicals in the tank!! I have the original bakelight slot loader for this, but found twelve individual manila folder inserts cut to film size and much longer, so they stick up above the tanks rim, work the best. I insert these in the slots before placing tank and film holders in the dark bag.
Thanks for all the replies.. the quest goes on...

Looks like bad flow to me, Photo Flo. I couldn't see whether you said you were using it or not.

Now to the real reason I'm posting. Please stop using orange and red filtration unless you have specific artistic visualization and printing skills to do so. Darkening skies alone is not a valid reason. You're harshing the buds man.

ROL .. thanks for the laugh... that's great..

To me it looks like you have a couple of issues here.

First, there seem to be water marks or the like along one side of the negative. Be sure you are using distilled water and a wetting agent for the final rinse. Plus, the first strip almost looks as if it has been damaged. Perhaps kinking during loading?

120 film is very susceptible to agitation differences. I found (back when I was shooting a lot of 120) that a brim-full tank would almost always give me dense edges. Using a bit less developer (just enough to cover) and then agitating more vigorously solved the problem for me. That said, I exposed 10 or 12 rolls under the enlarger and tried out different agitation/filling schemes till I hit on one that worked for me. You may need to experiment too.

A pre-soak will help a bit with evenness problems, but your challenge is to get the full amount of developer into the tank as quickly as possible. Tilting the tank when pouring often helps, as does swirling it a bit during the pour. (There's a reason why I like tray developing...)

Hope this helps some,

Doremus

If all fails, turn your tank sideways and roll it.