Development Adjustments

[toejam]

Need some help understanding a few things.
1. Why there's a thin black line on the right side of the last three frames?
2. I did semi-stand development for 50 minutes and agitated every 10 minutes for 5 seconds. Then i did a normal stop, and fix. I did a washaid and wetting agent to finish the process. That helped a ton, but I would like to know if I can get the negatives even cleaner.
3. Are the white halo on the sides of the image caused by stand development? The background was white but had some distance from the light used.

 

[MattKing]

Can you see the line in the negatives?
If so, it will most likely be a scratch in the non-emulsion emulsion side. {thanks for the catch Augustus}
However, I would bet that it is a scanning artifact instead.
Scans don't help us much when evaluating these sorts of issues. We can usually tell more from a backlit image of the negatives themselves, with the film edges and the space between the frames visible.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Can you see the line in the negatives?
If so, it will most likely be a scratch in the non-emulsion side.
However, I would bet that it is a scanning artifact instead.
Scans don't help us much when evaluating these sorts of issues. We can usually tell more from a backlit image of the negatives themselves, with the film edges and the space between the frames visible.

You have it backwards: a white line in a positive is caused by a scratch in the base. A dark line is caused by a scratch in the emulsion side.

 

[grain elevator]

I would like to know if I can get the negatives even cleaner

Are you talking about dust or water specks?
Your negatives may be underfixed (hard to tell from the scans).
Also washaid is used at the beginning of the washing process; reads like you use it at the end. And it's not generally necessary for film.

 

[Milpool]

Uniformity looks terrible - characteristic of stand/semi-stand whatever choose to call it (ie too long between agitation cycles).

 

[toejam]

Can you see the line in the negatives?
If so, it will most likely be a scratch in the non-emulsion emulsion side. {thanks for the catch Augustus}
However, I would bet that it is a scanning artifact instead.
Scans don't help us much when evaluating these sorts of issues. We can usually tell more from a backlit image of the negatives themselves, with the film edges and the space between the frames visible.

Here are the negatives. I don’t see that line so it’s clearly coming from my scanner. I also don’t see the dust spots.

 

[toejam]

Are you talking about dust or water specks?
Your negatives may be underfixed (hard to tell from the scans).
Also washaid is used at the beginning of the washing process; reads like you use it at the end. And it's not generally necessary for film.

The dust. But this might be a problem from my scanner that another person pointed out. Looking at the negatives I don’t see the dust marks that are showing up after I scan. how can I tell if my film is underfixed? Here are the negatives for reference.

i use the washaid to reduce the final rinse time. So to correct what I originally mentioned for my steps: washaid, final rinse, wetting agent.

 

[markbau]

Just curious, but why did you do semi-stand development? The subject looks like something that would do fine with more normal methods of development. Stand development is normally done for subjects of very high contrast.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just curious, but why did you do semi-stand development? The subject looks like something that would do fine with more normal methods of development. Stand development is normally done for subjects of very high contrast.

A matter for another discussion. We don't want this to turn into a stand vs conventional development technique.

 

[koraks]

A matter for another discussion.

Yeah; I assume this experiment spawned from this thread here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/stand-development.205802

Uniformity looks terrible

It does, but the added photograph of the negative doesn't show the same severe density variations, so I wonder if they are maybe also scanner-related.

 

[albireo]

3. Are the white halo on the sides of the image caused by stand development? The background was white but had some distance from the light used.
View attachment 367395

The image in the centre (1600), aside from showing density variation artefacts like the other ones, shows bromide drag artefacts on the left border: you can see a repetitive pattern of uneven density whose spacing is compatible with the sprocket holes of 35mm film.

Bromide drag is a by-product of reduced or insufficient agitation techniques. Bromide forming during the development process slows down the development where bromide collects. Bromide will collect in or around sprocket holes and run down the surface of the film causing the streaks that you see in the middle frame.

The above is not the effect of scanning: I know of no scanner sensor that can produce the patterns in the centre image. It's the effect of your development decisions. You didn't say what you're using to develop. If you're using Rodinal, my personal experience is that it works much better for 99% of the scenes I photograph diluted 1:50 and correctly, and regularly inverted once per minute. You only have to do it for 7-10 minutes, it is not a lot of work, and you'll be rewarded by negatives free of bromide drag and nasty (IMO) border density gradients like the above.

--

EDIT - I have now seen your negatives: the density effects you experience are being exacerbated by the fact that your negatives are overdeveloped for scanning. Your dynamic range is extremely low, and the scanner software will (unless you defeat it) try to expand that compressed signal and stretch it to utilise as much of the available bit space as possible. This means that existing density differences in uniform regions of the negative will be more noticeable in the scanned positive.

So - if you plan on avoiding the above - on top of moving away from stand/semistand and using 1:50 dilution and regular gentle inversions, also work on optimising your development time to achieve lower highlight density than you see here: all that density is not needed and it's in fact holding you back, if your purpose is scanning

 

[Don_ih]

We don't want this to turn into a stand vs conventional development technique.

That's difficult when the main cause of the problems is the development.

I don’t see the dust marks that are showing up after I scan.

If you're using an Epson V600 or similar, the dust is probably on the glass. Also, the irritating lines seem to be caused by dust at the top end of the glass. The cleaner that area is, the less likely you get lines - at least in my experience.

 

[koraks]

The above is not the effect of scanning: I know of no scanner sensor that can produce the patterns in the centre image.

Light bleed along sprocket holes in a poorly designed (or missing) film holder & mask could very well produce similar results. Indeed, the density variations along the edges are so pronounced, and also present on both sides of the 200 & 100 EI samples, that I find it hard to believe the agitation scheme is the only factor responsible for these defects.

Note furthermore that the density variations seem to be less pronounced in the negative film strip if you invert it. Resolution and bit depth are a bit limited, but the problem seems less pronounced even if you adjust contrast for individual frames.

I don't rule out mode of development as a contributing factor, but it does not appear to be the sole factor responsible for the density variations.

 

[Alan Johnson]

@chuckroast mentions improving results from stand development in his tundra attachment here:

Trying Out EMA

'Not even wrong' describes so much of this waste of time. Once you know that the effect is essentially targeting negatives of normal contrast scenes to higher grades/ shorter neg DR's, you can get there without special developers (that ain't nothing but fuddled D-76 derivatives) or...

www.photrio.com

Following this I have adapted my 2 reel stainless steel tank using 1 reel and pushing small plastic funnels into the top and bottom to improve the even-ness of flow. It's still not always completely even for stand development but is a notable improvement on my Paterson tanks with plastic reels.

 

[albireo]

I don't rule out mode of development as a contributing factor, but it does not appear to be the sole factor responsible for the density variations.

I'm talking about this pattern, present on one side only of the 1600EI sample, and definitely not present on both sides of the 200 and 100 EI shots.

I have scanned film for more than 20 years as my sole film film photography output, using a large variety of holders, whether custom-made, 3D printed, original, and I have never seen a holder produce the above. But there's always opportunities to learn something new, who knows.

Still, I maintain this is textbook bromide drag, caused by insufficient agitation, and exacerbated by suboptimal development time (overdevelopment) for scanning.

 

[koraks]

I'm talking about this pattern

I know. Look at the other illustration; despite its low resolution, it's clear that the density variations in several frames are different. This suggests that whatever scanning method was used, did in fact affect the outcome. This isn't to say that bromide drag did not play a role, but we'd have to exclude the measurement errors first.

And having looked at the film strips some more, I suspect that lighting conditions also played a role; see e.g. here:

Note how higher negative density on the right side of frame #6 suddenly disappears in #7. Had this been due to a development problem related to stand development, it would (1) be limited to one edge of the film (which seems to be the case, along the left edge) and (2) it wouldn't have cut out suddenly from one frame to the next.

Again, I'm not saying agitation wasn't a factor. But there's so much going on with these scans that you'd have to clean up the methodology some more before it becomes clear which problem is caused by which factor.

 

[albireo]

I know. Look at the other illustration; despite its low resolution, it's clear that the density variations in several frames are different. This suggests that whatever scanning method was used, did in fact affect the outcome. This isn't to say that bromide drag did not play a role, but we'd have to exclude the measurement errors first.

Indeed, measurement errors are a big issue in science. They play a big role in the (edited) example you've brought to support your theory, too, so I'd leave them aside and I'd do the best thing we can do with the data at hand: use a blank slate approach. Are you familiar with the concept of 'Occam's Razor'?

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Given several competing hypotheses, and given the available (limited) data, we start with the most parsimonious explanation. The most parsimonious explanation, lacking any data on a) scanners used b) holders used c) issues with the scanning technique, and while we do have data, instead, on a) development procedures used and b) prior data on the impact of similar development techniques on the negative, is that the above is chiefly a development issue.

 

[koraks]

Are you familiar with the concept of 'Occam's Razor'?

Yes.

I'm also familiar with clusterf*cks. I think we're looking at one. Point in fact - the dust and black lines that surely aren't in the negative. That makes it at least two problem factors if you include stand development (which I indeed think is one of the other factors at work here).

Finally, having worked in academia, especially the field of methodology, I'm also quite aware of the risks of jumping to conclusions.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Now that you have worked out the black line issue, you can improve on your development technique. What developer did you use?

 

[albireo]

Finally, having worked in academia, especially the field of methodology, I'm also quite aware of the risks of jumping to conclusions.

Great! Then, colleague, I think we can agree that it's fine to hold a working hypothesis based on what's there for us to see, and until more data comes in to fine-tune it or refute it completely. Let's see what OP has in store for us!

 

[retina_restoration]

Stand development = bromide drag = overdevelopment on the bottom edges, which is the brighter band you see in those images.

 

[pentaxuser]

Now that you have worked out the black line issue, you can improve on your development technique. What developer did you use?

What a spoil-sport post, Andrew. Do you want to stop us having any fun with the good old stand development discussion It goes a bit like this


pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

What a spoil-sport post, Andrew. Do you want to stop us having any fun with the good old stand development discussion It goes a bit like this


pentaxuser

 

[toejam]

Now that you have worked out the black line issue, you can improve on your development technique. What developer did you use?

I used Ilfosol 3. There isn't a lot of info about using this for stand development, so I was curious. Once I tried it out, the results were new so I need some help understanding what's going on.

 

[toejam]

The image in the centre (1600), aside from showing density variation artefacts like the other ones, shows bromide drag artefacts on the left border: you can see a repetitive pattern of uneven density whose spacing is compatible with the sprocket holes of 35mm film.

Bromide drag is a by-product of reduced or insufficient agitation techniques. Bromide forming during the development process slows down the development where bromide collects. Bromide will collect in or around sprocket holes and run down the surface of the film causing the streaks that you see in the middle frame.

The above is not the effect of scanning: I know of no scanner sensor that can produce the patterns in the centre image. It's the effect of your development decisions. You didn't say what you're using to develop. If you're using Rodinal, my personal experience is that it works much better for 99% of the scenes I photograph diluted 1:50 and correctly, and regularly inverted once per minute. You only have to do it for 7-10 minutes, it is not a lot of work, and you'll be rewarded by negatives free of bromide drag and nasty (IMO) border density gradients like the above.

--

EDIT - I have now seen your negatives: the density effects you experience are being exacerbated by the fact that your negatives are overdeveloped for scanning. Your dynamic range is extremely low, and the scanner software will (unless you defeat it) try to expand that compressed signal and stretch it to utilise as much of the available bit space as possible. This means that existing density differences in uniform regions of the negative will be more noticeable in the scanned positive.

So - if you plan on avoiding the above - on top of moving away from stand/semistand and using 1:50 dilution and regular gentle inversions, also work on optimising your development time to achieve lower highlight density than you see here: all that density is not needed and it's in fact holding you back, if your purpose is scanning

I'm drawn to stand development because it's interesting how I can under or over-develop a photo but still somewhat save it in development. I wouldn't only use this method, but it does seem like a great use for corner cases. Not ignoring the drawbacks, exploring the benefits.

Also open to learning new things. Is there another method I can explore that would let me shoot different ISOs on the same roll?

When you do a normal development with Rodinal (1:50), are the scenes you've captured generally in the same lighting conditions?