Different quality of film development in for two films in the same tank.

andysig · Apr 26, 2011

Yesterday I developed a roll of HP5 (exposed at ISO 400) and a roll of TMax 3200 (exposed at 1600) together in a steel tank using Tetanal developer. I'd worked out from the Tetanal info sheet that a dev time of 12 mins should have been OK for both.

The HP5 reel was the lower of the two in the tank. The results were odd: the HP5 has formed uniformly decent negatives but some of the TMax negs have brown shading. The fact that the TMax was on the upper reel should have made no difference as I tend to put a bit too much dev into the tank (i.e. it nearly overflows). The only explanation I can tentatively offer is that perhaps the TMax loaded physically unevenly onto the reel perhaps leading to bits of film being in contact with neighbouring bits of film and so leading to an accumulation of chemicals. Any other suggestions? And what is it that causes the sandy brown shading?

johnielvis · Apr 26, 2011

SAME thing happened to me when mixing films--of course, when it happened, it was one of those times I did NOT pre-soak the film to get out the dyes---so, for now, that's what gets my vote.

andysig · Apr 26, 2011

John,

you may have something there as I completely forgot to presoak this time as well.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 26, 2011

I have not had problems developing different brand and type films in the same tank, but others report that it isn't recommended to do so. The reason being that different compounds make up different emulsions, and some of those are released into the developer during the developing stage, and can act as restrainers. What's OK for one film can be detrimental to another, basically.

I'm not convinced a pre-soak will help you. I would process one more TMZ roll on its own to see if you get the same problem or not.

andysig · Apr 26, 2011

I've also had a PM suggesting that the brown colour is known as dichroic fog. It may indeed have arisen as a result of chemical interactions between the two types of emulsions. One possible treatment appears to be to dunk the effected film in Farmer's Reducer, something which I shall try.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 26, 2011

Dichroic fog can occur if you don't get all of the developer washed off the film before putting it in the fixer. Modern films may be more sensitive to this.
I use an acid stop bath, so I never have that problem. If you use water as a stop bath, make sure that all of the film developer gets washed off before you fix.

I'm not aware of variances in emulsion deposits in the developer causing this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

Also remember that fabricated grain films take longer to fix properly. The HP5 can clear in as little as 30 seconds with fresh rapid fixer, while the TMZ can take much longer than that. Make sure that your entire process is bullet proof - both stop bath, and fixing. To be sure about fixing, you may employ a two-bath fixing cycle. First fix is used until a strip of film takes longer than 60 seconds to clear the emulsion (with rapid fixer), at which point it's discarded. The second fixer becomes the first fixer, and you mix fresh 2nd fixer. You keep rotating it like this perpetually, and ALWAYS insure proper fixing of the film.

- Thomas

johnielvis · Apr 27, 2011

hey..that's RIGHT...I forgot about these developer incorporated emulsions!!!!! Hmmmmm...yes...man...the more you look there more there is

jp498 · Apr 27, 2011

Wouldn't hurt to throw it back in the fixer in case the tmax isn't fully fixed.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 27, 2011

johnielvis said:
hey..that's RIGHT...I forgot about these developer incorporated emulsions!!!!! Hmmmmm...yes...man...the more you look there more there is

Actually, there isn't any developer incorporated in films. It has been used in some photo papers in the past, though.

wogster · Apr 27, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I have not had problems developing different brand and type films in the same tank, but others report that it isn't recommended to do so. The reason being that different compounds make up different emulsions, and some of those are released into the developer during the developing stage, and can act as restrainers. What's OK for one film can be detrimental to another, basically.

If this were the case then you wouldn't be able to do a roll of HP5 and a roll of TMax 3200 one after the other in the same batch of developer either. For most of the time I had a darkroom, I used one shot developer and processed each roll separately, if a roll got ruined, it meant a roll got ruined and not a bunch of rolls....

markbarendt · Apr 27, 2011

With all the various and sundry brands and speeds of films that went through any given liter of my replenished Xtol I never had a problem with mixed loads or straight.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 28, 2011

wogster said:
If this were the case then you wouldn't be able to do a roll of HP5 and a roll of TMax 3200 one after the other in the same batch of developer either.

Believe me, I have raised the same question a few times. I use replenished Xtol as my developer, and I use it for Fuji Acros, Kodak TMax 400, and the odd roll of TMax 100 for my own purposes. I also use it to develop other people's film, which have so far been Foma 100, Foma 200, Foma 400, Fuji Neopan SS, Kodak Plus-X, and Fuji Neopan 400.

I have never had a problem with putting two films of different types and brands in the same tank. I have also never had any problems from developing ten rolls of TMax 400 in a row, and then develop a roll of Plus-X right after that. Results have always been absolutely predictable.

What I reported was that some claim that it can be a problem to put different films in the same tank and develop simultaneously. I have never seen proof of that, so I agree with you. But just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm skeptical of it, but can't prove it wrong either.

- Thomas

wogster · Apr 28, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Believe me, I have raised the same question a few times. I use replenished Xtol as my developer, and I use it for Fuji Acros, Kodak TMax 400, and the odd roll of TMax 100 for my own purposes. I also use it to develop other people's film, which have so far been Foma 100, Foma 200, Foma 400, Fuji Neopan SS, Kodak Plus-X, and Fuji Neopan 400.

I have never had a problem with putting two films of different types and brands in the same tank. I have also never had any problems from developing ten rolls of TMax 400 in a row, and then develop a roll of Plus-X right after that. Results have always been absolutely predictable.

What I reported was that some claim that it can be a problem to put different films in the same tank and develop simultaneously. I have never seen proof of that, so I agree with you. But just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm skeptical of it, but can't prove it wrong either.

- Thomas

I would think that people who have had problems, probably goofed something up, and were looking for something to blame and processing different films at the same time, seemed as good as anything else. Then had to come up with a theory as to what occurred. The only thing that is radically different processing wise between the two films they were using are fixing time, TMax needs a lot more.

Personally I always do a roll at a time, and do a fixer test on some scrap to make sure that the fix time is long enough. I did the most B&W work in the late 1970's and early 1980's and most of that was using developer 1 shot and fixer was reused until the clear time got too long, and then it was tossed and mixed fresh.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 28, 2011

wogster said:
I would think that people who have had problems, probably goofed something up, and were looking for something to blame and processing different films at the same time, seemed as good as anything else. Then had to come up with a theory as to what occurred.

You may be correct. There may also be some scientific evidence supporting their opinion. I don't have enough hard evidence to support either opinion.

But I'm not worried about it. Like you I mostly process one roll at a time too. Lighting conditions vary from roll to roll, and to get the most out of the film, adjustments in processing based on those differences become so much easier with just one film in the tank at a time.
I found one other advantage with processing one roll at a time:
- I don't have a completely light proof darkroom. It's light proof enough for paper, but not film. So I can't use lifters and three tanks each containing dev, stop, and fix, and then moving the reels from one tank to the next, which is the ideal way, since the entire surface area of the film gets exposed to the developer pretty much within a split second. It doesn't take 10-15 seconds (or more) like when we pour the developer into the tank.
So when we just process one roll at a time, at least the time required to pour the developer into the tank is as short as it can be.

I sometimes use single shot developers too. But I like the results I get with replenished developer more. The bromides and other byproducts that accumulate in the working solution help give me a tonality that is more pleasing to my eye, it gives me a sharper negative, and the grain is finer. I do a lot of fairly large prints from 35mm, so that helps me an awful lot. But sometimes I use Xtol as single shot as well, because I get more film speed that way when I shoot film a stop or two underexposed and have to push process.

- Thomas

wogster · Apr 28, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
You may be correct. There may also be some scientific evidence supporting their opinion. I don't have enough hard evidence to support either opinion.

But I'm not worried about it. Like you I mostly process one roll at a time too. Lighting conditions vary from roll to roll, and to get the most out of the film, adjustments in processing based on those differences become so much easier with just one film in the tank at a time.
I found one other advantage with processing one roll at a time:
- I don't have a completely light proof darkroom. It's light proof enough for paper, but not film. So I can't use lifters and three tanks each containing dev, stop, and fix, and then moving the reels from one tank to the next, which is the ideal way, since the entire surface area of the film gets exposed to the developer pretty much within a split second. It doesn't take 10-15 seconds (or more) like when we pour the developer into the tank.
So when we just process one roll at a time, at least the time required to pour the developer into the tank is as short as it can be.

I sometimes use single shot developers too. But I like the results I get with replenished developer more. The bromides and other byproducts that accumulate in the working solution help give me a tonality that is more pleasing to my eye, it gives me a sharper negative, and the grain is finer. I do a lot of fairly large prints from 35mm, so that helps me an awful lot. But sometimes I use Xtol as single shot as well, because I get more film speed that way when I shoot film a stop or two underexposed and have to push process.

- Thomas

When you want to figure out what went wrong, the place to start is the most obvious. Film processing it really comes down to 5 possibilities:

1) Improper technique
2) Not enough processing time
3) Using exhausted chemicals
4) Using improperly mixed chemicals
5) Using the wrong chemical.

I think most obvious in this case is not enough time in the fixer for the TMAX film, since it takes more fixing for the cubic films, often 2 or 3 times as long. If your processing two different films together do a clearing test on both, use double the longer time. If your worried about it being too long in the fixer, either process the rolls separately or put the longer fixing film on the bottom, fix for the time you need for the shorter time, open the tank, take the shorter fix film out, and then finish fixing the longer film.

There is the aspect of adjusting processing, although I will admit, I don't do a lot of it, I know there are some people who would shoot at 325⅜ ISO and adjust their developing time by 47.3 seconds to compensate, but I never did. For 35mm there are too many images on a roll to play with it much, so compensation was usually done at shooting time. I use very few different films, camera bodies so I pretty much know what the negative is going to look like, when I look through the viewfinder, and if I think a negative is going to look thin, I'll compensate at shooting time, then leave processing time as is. If I am not sure what a negative will look like, then I'll bracket.....

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 28, 2011

wogster said:
When you want to figure out what went wrong, the place to start is the most obvious. Film processing it really comes down to 5 possibilities:

1) Improper technique
2) Not enough processing time
3) Using exhausted chemicals
4) Using improperly mixed chemicals
5) Using the wrong chemical.

I think most obvious in this case is not enough time in the fixer for the TMAX film, since it takes more fixing for the cubic films, often 2 or 3 times as long. If your processing two different films together do a clearing test on both, use double the longer time. If your worried about it being too long in the fixer, either process the rolls separately or put the longer fixing film on the bottom, fix for the time you need for the shorter time, open the tank, take the shorter fix film out, and then finish fixing the longer film.

There is the aspect of adjusting processing, although I will admit, I don't do a lot of it, I know there are some people who would shoot at 325⅜ ISO and adjust their developing time by 47.3 seconds to compensate, but I never did. For 35mm there are too many images on a roll to play with it much, so compensation was usually done at shooting time. I use very few different films, camera bodies so I pretty much know what the negative is going to look like, when I look through the viewfinder, and if I think a negative is going to look thin, I'll compensate at shooting time, then leave processing time as is. If I am not sure what a negative will look like, then I'll bracket.....

I agree with everything you said, and yes(!) - technique is everything.
Except I usually shoot an entire roll in similar lighting conditions, which makes it possible for me to adjust how I agitate the film, developing time, etc, to get the very best out of my materials. It is possible, and to me it's even essential, in order to get the print quality that I seek. I have set the bar extremely high for myself, and I always push the envelope, trying harder and harder to find the limits, exceed them, and in that way even reach farther in my quest and results. It's a never ending learning and exploration, with one single emulsion and developer, which allows me to get a lot of different looks in my prints. Knowledge = freedom. Every roll that I shoot I try to improve what I do.

wogster · Apr 28, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I agree with everything you said, and yes(!) - technique is everything.
Except I usually shoot an entire roll in similar lighting conditions, which makes it possible for me to adjust how I agitate the film, developing time, etc, to get the very best out of my materials. It is possible, and to me it's even essential, in order to get the print quality that I seek. I have set the bar extremely high for myself, and I always push the envelope, trying harder and harder to find the limits, exceed them, and in that way even reach farther in my quest and results. It's a never ending learning and exploration, with one single emulsion and developer, which allows me to get a lot of different looks in my prints. Knowledge = freedom. Every roll that I shoot I try to improve what I do.

Pick any 10 photographers using the same materials and you will get 12 different opinions as to the best way to work. I usually use one of 3 films, PanF , FP4 or HP5, depending on lighting and what I could get, the goal was to end up with a roll, where pretty much all the images had an exposure where if I processed, following the Ilford guide, all of the images would be well exposed and properly processed. I usually set the camera to box speed, meter the scene, then decide whether the camera and I agree, if we agree, then I'll leave the camera on automatic mode, if not I switch to manual settings. One of my cameras has a dead meter, and I used sunny 16 on it for a while, it was my colour film camera and is retired now, replaced with a d*****l camera.

I think the photography reached it's pinnacle in quality when you had a perfectly exposed and processed silver print from a perfectly exposed and processed silver negative. I closed my darkroom in 1983 when I moved to a place I couldn't do it anymore, and did a lot of colour stuff, returned to processing my own film about 5 years ago, using a hybrid process for printing (no space for the enlarger and trays and all that stuff), finally gave away the enlarger last fall, when I didn't feel like moving that box again. Unfortunately there isn't as much difference between film that gets scanned and d*****l capture as I would like, and since October, I have not shot any film.....

DWThomas · Apr 28, 2011

Stumbling through this thread, this caught my eye:

The fact that the TMax was on the upper reel should have made no difference as I tend to put a bit too much dev into the tank (i.e. it nearly overflows).

Some people, including me, recommend leaving some air space in the tank to get proper agitation. You want enough to submerge the reels, but not a whole lot more. Of course it may have nothing to do with the current problem (but it's free information ).

Kirk Keyes · Apr 28, 2011

I've developed Tri-X TXT320, Acros, FP4+, Bergger 200, and TMax100 in the same tank at once. Completely predicatable and not issues at all.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 29, 2011

wogster said:
Pick any 10 photographers using the same materials and you will get 12 different opinions as to the best way to work. I usually use one of 3 films, PanF , FP4 or HP5, depending on lighting and what I could get, the goal was to end up with a roll, where pretty much all the images had an exposure where if I processed, following the Ilford guide, all of the images would be well exposed and properly processed. I usually set the camera to box speed, meter the scene, then decide whether the camera and I agree, if we agree, then I'll leave the camera on automatic mode, if not I switch to manual settings. One of my cameras has a dead meter, and I used sunny 16 on it for a while, it was my colour film camera and is retired now, replaced with a d*****l camera.

I think the photography reached it's pinnacle in quality when you had a perfectly exposed and processed silver print from a perfectly exposed and processed silver negative. I closed my darkroom in 1983 when I moved to a place I couldn't do it anymore, and did a lot of colour stuff, returned to processing my own film about 5 years ago, using a hybrid process for printing (no space for the enlarger and trays and all that stuff), finally gave away the enlarger last fall, when I didn't feel like moving that box again. Unfortunately there isn't as much difference between film that gets scanned and d*****l capture as I would like, and since October, I have not shot any film.....

I hope you can come back to the dark side, Paul. I really do.

wogster · Apr 30, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I hope you can come back to the dark side, Paul. I really do.

I hope I can, these days though, it's getting harder and harder, the nearest place to buy chemicals is 2½ hours by car away, and there is no guarantee that they will have what you want in stock when you get there. The last time I was there, they had very little, the web site lists a lot more, but getting stuff shipped might be hard.... I can order from another place, but I am afraid of ordering $50 worth of chemistries, and paying $100 to get them shipped, because they need special handling....

nworth · Apr 30, 2011

It's probably just not wise to mix film types in the developer. Various things wash out of the emulsion during development (a notable example is the sensitizing dyes in TMax). There is no telling how they might affect the other film. I don't know of any specific incompatibilities, but it could happen.

wogster · May 1, 2011

nworth said:
It's probably just not wise to mix film types in the developer. Various things wash out of the emulsion during development (a notable example is the sensitizing dyes in TMax). There is no telling how they might affect the other film. I don't know of any specific incompatibilities, but it could happen.

What becomes a question then, if there is stuff that washes out of the emulsion into the developer, once the film is done, that stuff is still in the developer, so if the sensitizing dyes in TMax could affect a roll of say HP5 at the same time, then it could affect a roll of HP5, processed in the same developer after, just as easily, even if it's a few weeks later.

I would think that film design engineers would make sure that the stuff they put into their film, isn't going to affect other film, processed in the same developer. If it did cause issues, then instructions from film and developer manufacturers would have big warnings about mixing certain films in developer. Just like it's published that cubic grain films need a lot longer in the fixer, which is probably the OP's problem....

markbarendt · May 1, 2011

nworth said:
It's probably just not wise to mix film types in the developer. Various things wash out of the emulsion during development (a notable example is the sensitizing dyes in TMax). There is no telling how they might affect the other film. I don't know of any specific incompatibilities, but it could happen.

The norm in pro-labs is the use of replenished chemicals where every brand goes through the same set of chemicals.

The legendary "777" wasn't even viewed as worthwhile until there has been a bunch of film run through it.

It is much more likely that the problem is somewhere else.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 1, 2011

markbarendt said:
It is much more likely that the problem is somewhere else.

I completely agree, Mark. In the past I worked for a pro-lab with a dip and dunk machine, using replenished Xtol to process all films. There was a fair amount of black and white traffic, and there were all kind of films being run through the chemistry, with very consistent results.
If there was actually any evidence - anywhere to be found - that mixing films in the same tank is detrimental to processing, it would have been evident in such a process.
It makes me even more suspicious that I have used a replenished Xtol process myself for over two years now without a single problem, mixing films like nobody's business.

I have never seen PROOF that it's bad to do this. And I have never experienced it either.

It is indeed a good idea to examine the rest of the process for answers.

Different quality of film development in for two films in the same tank.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency