Emulsion Lifting off film!!!

[vpwphoto]

I have been doing film for nearly 30 years and NEVER have I had this happen.
My emulsion of TMY-2 is lifting....
... the rest of the story. The negatives were processed and fixed a couple months back. They are of my new Bishop. I was commissioned to make a B+W portrait "for the ages." Not shooting much film any-longer, and long story short the negatives are about a stop thin and the prints are not looking what they should.

I decided to intensify the negatives with Selenium.
Here is what I did (NEGATIVES LIFTED BEFORE SELENIUM STEP)
I washed the negatives on a reel.
Re-Fixed in NON HARDENING HYPO (Zone vi formula)
WASHED negatives for about an hour while I went to get my son to piano)
I found on the reel LIFTED emulsion!
NOT all the strips did this... and I think I am safe that the ones I need are mostly Unspoiled so-far. I did the 1:3 intensification bath, I think it did what I wanted... I'll post more once the negative are dry and printing in the enlarger.
HOW DID the Emulsion lift.... I have cooked negatives in old newspaper darkrooms but have NEVER seen Emulsion lift.:confused::confused:

 

[brucemuir]

My guess is the hour long wash but I'm not fully understanding this anyway.

Are you saying the negs started losing density BEFORE you did anything (ie in storage after intial processing)?
What were the original storage conditions and did the negs look good initially?

You sound like you've been around so I'm just throwing this out there.

 

[vpwphoto]

THe emulsion is Lifting RIght off the base... sort of like a polaroid emulsion transfer.
You are right brucemuir you are swinging at the air...
I am a proponent of short washes... that being said I have had film stay in a wash over the years for as little as 2 minutes and as LONG as 12 hours... that what happens when the phone rings while you are developing film at a newspaper.
So a one hour wash in lightly running water isn't out of the ordinary for me... when developing film at Purdue in the 1990's I would run film, put it in the wash, go shoot an assignment, get sidetracked and put the film up to dry after I returned from lunch... NEVER A HINT EVER of what I saw today.
PE said something to me about defective Coronal Bombardment back in Rochester...

 

[brucemuir]

Hmm,
could you briefly explain "coronal bombardment" or am I missing a joke?

I've heard digi people say sunspots can effect a hard drive but if coronal bombardment is some emulsion defect I'd love to hear the theory.

 

[vpwphoto]

I already GOOGLED it... it is a process in the manufacturing of polyester of all sorts... THANKS PE!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bruce;

In a private message I explained that emulsion is made to adhere to film support by either one of two methods. One is the application of a subbing layer and the other is the bombardment of the film with an electric discharge similar to that used in Xerography. Regardless of which method was used, if it were defective, the result would be that of the emulsion lifting off the film base intact during processing.

But, I also proposed that during the 1 hour wash the temperature may have spiked. We have no proof either way. Only Kodak can tell us the answer and that is what I suggested!

PE

 

[brucemuir]

PE
Thank you kindly once again.

 

[vpwphoto]

The temp was about 68* and I was the only one in the BLD and I am careful not to flush the toilet.. although the rise I worry about is only about 10*f at the water rates I use... that won't even reticulate film.

 

[vpwphoto]

You know IF I wanted to do an emulsion transfer... this is not how I would have went about it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

During the hour you were away, film at 70F should have been OK. You say above that it could only have gone up by 10 deg F. That makes it 80 F for up to 1 hour!!! Maybe that is your problem. IDK. IDK the entire original process either. Something there could have gone wrong. Photo Flo is not generally a culprit in this type of problem unless it is mixed at too high a concentration or used too long.

PE

 

[vpwphoto]

IDK??? No I doubt the film made it to 80* at all.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I once tried a suggested 'back of envelope' developer with salt in it. From curiosity I maxed some up but before going the whole hog I tested a piece of film in it first to get some idea at least of the time it took to blacken.
It did blacken but the emulsion lifted off the backing before I got very far. Initially I blamed the film as I'd just bought a substantial amount, cheap. It was Kodak Hawkeye Surveillance B&W.
I have used plenty since in normal developers but that has never happened again. I could only conclude the salt altered the gelatine somehow and shrunk it right off the base.
Some developers do have salt in them - maybe you were using one of those?

 

[Murray Kelly]

Michael, I agree wholeheartedly. I'd never heard of it either. Until I tried that one. It was indeed plain sodium chloride - I even went out and bought some cooking salt so's not to have any iodide in it.
First time I'd used any of that film and it scared the dickens out of me - I didn't know what I'd got myself into.
In the end - not a prob.

 

[vpwphoto]

Umm... Murray you conspiracy theorist. No I use off the shelf T-Max Developer with T-Max film... no need to reinvent the wheel.
D-76 HC-100 and Rodinol are the others I use with HP-5/4 and Tri-x

 

[hpulley]

Moral of the story is, and the sticky thread about film washing bears it out, with non-hardening fixer the Ilford 3x invert and dump will get your film washed quickly, no need to run the tap for an hour. Waste of water anyways IMO.