Even development success stories?

[foc]

I need to make and keep at hand one of those examples of a negative strip for just this purpose!
I think I'll make one for 120, so we have variety!

Matt I have a selection of them on file.
A picture is worth..................................

 

[adamsalmond]

As has been already requested, can the OP please supply an image of the neg strip, something like this.

View attachment 281934

Here is a view of my negs. No artefacts visible outside of the frames, and no under-fixing or anything like that going on.

 

[adamsalmond]

The problem is in the negative scan.

The lighter pixels extend not only at the side but at the top. RGB values for the sky: Left side 175, right side 175, top 140, middle 110.

If this were an agitation problem the left an right sides would not have almost exactly the same degree of lightening and there wouldn't be lightening across the image at the top between the frames.

I can assure you the issue is not with the scan. I have suspected my scanning setup in the past and had a lab scan some of my 'problem' negatives - the scans came back with the exact same increased edge density. To further this, I scan all colour rolls developed by my lab at home once they are sent back to me, and never encounter anything like this.

The issue certainly lies in the realm of developing.

 

[MattKing]

Here is a view of my negs. No artefacts visible outside of the frames, and no under-fixing or anything like that going on.

Are these the problem negatives?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

What strikes me is that the density decrease is all around the 4 sides.
When it could be a developing issue, to my humble opinion, it could only occur on the sides near the perforations (the both sides in contact with the reel).
It looks like something happend during printing, a rather tight negative carrier mask, if this is a reproduction of a print of course.
It could also be due to the scanning of the negative, although I happen to have the right opposite effect: darker borders around in the image, but I scan the negative borders along. But apparently this is not a scanned negative?

I looked in all my AGFA handbooks, in the troubles sections, and couldn't find an acceptable answer...
I am open to all 'useful' suggestions too!

 

[Robert Maxey]

Here is a view of my negs. No artefacts visible outside of the frames, and no under-fixing or anything like that going on.

I'll be honest with you. I simply cannot see the issue. Take no offense, but are you referring to the DX marks or whatever they are called?

A Very Curious Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

After coffee and looking again, the frames seem to show increased density around each edge. Very hard to see, and perhaps I need stronger coffee.

Some of these areas of increased density (to me) do not run all the way around the frame. But I am simply trying to find a problem. I might guess that perhaps the film is not flat and there is a light leak. Not sure, not sure.

Frame 34 seems to not show any issue on the left side or bottom, and the first frame shows some apparent density increase that stops at the trees.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

I can assure you the issue is not with the scan. I have suspected my scanning setup in the past and had a lab scan some of my 'problem' negatives - the scans came back with the exact same increased edge density. To further this, I scan all colour rolls developed by my lab at home once they are sent back to me, and never encounter anything like this.

The issue certainly lies in the realm of developing.

Off the wall idea: try scanning a fixed out section of film or a subject against a white background. If it is the scanner, you might see a faint density increase around the essentially blank/clear frames. It could indeed be something wrong with the scanner, software, whatever. Again, just guessing.

Bob

 

[Philippe-Georges]

After coffee and looking again, the frames seem to show increased density around each edge. Very hard to see, and perhaps I need stronger coffee.

Some of these areas of increased density (to me) do not run all the way around the frame. But I am simply trying to find a problem. I might guess that perhaps the film is not flat and there is a light leak. Not sure, not sure.

Frame 34 seems to not show any issue on the left side or bottom, and the first frame shows some apparent density increase that stops at the trees.

Bob

Yes, I see it particularly n° 33a...

 

[Robert Maxey]

Yes, I see it particularly n° 33a...

#32A at the bottom shows no density at the frame edge. If it were a leak, you would see it at the perforations, I well imagine.

Here is a thought: it is just something that happens from time to time. Maybe I have some negs with the same issues?

Bob

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Here is a thought and don't shoot the pianist if you think it's silly...
I had that issue with my Hasselblad SW/C, not the 500CM, on the sides facing the other negatives, so not the outer sides. The SW/C's light rays are more oblique, due to the symmetric wide angle lens, than other lens/body combinations, and 'crawling' under these rolls.
What happend to me, and to my humble opinion of course, is light from the image was reflecting on the the tiny guiding rolls of the film holder. These rolls aren't matt black and and even a little shiny.
So, transferring this to a traditional 35mm still camera, it might be light reflecting on the camera's frame mask, which isn't really matt black anymore...
What do you think?

 

[adamsalmond]

Are these the problem negatives?

The issue is definitely present on these frames, but not visible from a distant phone picture.

I provided this as it was requested by some, perhaps to see if there were any light leaks etc.

 

[adamsalmond]

I'll be honest with you. I simply cannot see the issue. Take no offense, but are you referring to the DX marks or whatever they are called?

A Very Curious Bob

I provided this image to show the rebate of the film as requested. The issue is indeed not visible from this view.

 

[adamsalmond]

Off the wall idea: try scanning a fixed out section of film or a subject against a white background. If it is the scanner, you might see a faint density increase around the essentially blank/clear frames. It could indeed be something wrong with the scanner, software, whatever. Again, just guessing.

Bob

What strikes me is that the density decrease is all around the 4 sides.
When it could be a developing issue, to my humble opinion, it could only occur on the sides near the perforations (the both sides in contact with the reel).
It looks like something happend during printing, a rather tight negative carrier mask, if this is a reproduction of a print of course.
It could also be due to the scanning of the negative, although I happen to have the right opposite effect: darker borders around in the image, but I scan the negative borders along. But apparently this is not a scanned negative?

I looked in all my AGFA handbooks, in the troubles sections, and couldn't find an acceptable answer...
I am open to all 'useful' suggestions too!

I appreciate the suggestion of looking at possible reflections from the negative carrier. This however doesn't apply as I scan with a DSLR through anti-newton ring glass.

It's a pretty fool-proof setup which works wonders for my lab-developed colour rolls. But it does mean that my issue with B+W rolls isn't stemming from my scanning setup.

 

[adamsalmond]

#32A at the bottom shows no density at the frame edge. If it were a leak, you would see it at the perforations, I well imagine.

Here is a thought: it is just something that happens from time to time. Maybe I have some negs with the same issues?

Bob

You may be right.. Perhaps I am making the issue bigger than it is.

But developing film is about consistency -- and so there must be a knack to achieving even development.

#32A at the bottom shows no density at the frame edge. If it were a leak, you would see it at the perforations, I well imagine.

Here is a thought: it is just something that happens from time to time. Maybe I have some negs with the same issues?

Bob

Perhaps you are right.. maybe I am making the issue bigger than it is. Probably the perfectionist in me.

After all though, developing is about consistency. So if one can achieve even development once, then it should be a realistic goal to achieve it every time.

There must be a knack to it!

 

[Robert Maxey]

I provided this image to show the rebate of the film as requested. The issue is indeed not visible from this view.

If I am understanding you, you have a concern or issue and the negative strip you posted is NOT the problem negative? Define "the rebate of the film.'

I am sorry, but I am not sure I can help you.

Luck to you,

Bo9b

 

[Robert Maxey]

You may be right.. Perhaps I am making the issue bigger than it is.

But developing film is about consistency -- and so there must be a knack to achieving even development.


Perhaps you are right.. maybe I am making the issue bigger than it is. Probably the perfectionist in me.

After all though, developing is about consistency. So if one can achieve even development once, then it should be a realistic goal to achieve it every time.

There must be a knack to it!

Regardless of the tank you use (I have a particular fondness for Kodacraft tanks and aprons) As long as you follow standard processing procedures, you should never have uneven development. If your chemistry is fresh, you use the proper temperature and agitation recommendations, uneven development should never happen. UNLESS something comes at you out of left field.

I have not processed a roll of film in a dog's age and I can assure you of this: hand me a tank, chemistry and a roll of film and the negs will not be uneven.

So, can you post the actual negative scan as well as a line showing specifically where you think the problem is?

Cheers,

Bob

 

[MattKing]

his however doesn't apply as I scan with a DSLR through anti-newton ring glass.

It's a pretty fool-proof setup which works wonders for my lab-developed colour rolls. But it does mean that my issue with B+W rolls isn't stemming from my scanning setup.

Black and white negatives may interact differently with anti-newton glass than colour negatives.
Try re-doing the scan with the negatives turned over - if the emulsion was up before, try it with emulsion down.
Does any of the uneven appearance change in any way when you do that?
Can you try it without any glass?
In addition, do you have any way of showing us enlarged versions of just the negatives - no inversion, and no glass in between. We are trying to see how any variation of density manifests itself in the negative, not in what is effectively a scan of the negative. If there, I would use a loupe to examine the negative itself.

 

[adamsalmond]

If I am understanding you, you have a concern or issue and the negative strip you posted is NOT the problem negative? Define "the rebate of the film.'

I am sorry, but I am not sure I can help you.

Luck to you,

Bo9b

Hi Bob,

The rebate of the film is the area around the frames which have the Ilford lettering and numbering. Basically any area which isn't the frame is the rebate. I believe people wanted to see it to rule out light leaks or some other issue.

These are the problem negatives, but you cannot see the increased edge density is visible from such a distant perspective.

 

[adamsalmond]

Black and white negatives may interact differently with anti-newton glass than colour negatives.
Try re-doing the scan with the negatives turned over - if the emulsion was up before, try it with emulsion down.
Does any of the uneven appearance change in any way when you do that?
Can you try it without any glass?
In addition, do you have any way of showing us enlarged versions of just the negatives - no inversion, and no glass in between. We are trying to see how any variation of density manifests itself in the negative, not in what is effectively a scan of the negative. If there, I would use a loupe to examine the negative itself.

Hi Matt,

I'll get an unconverted view of a problem negative for you tomorrow.

 

[pentaxuser]

Basically the negs' edge lettering suggests that the film was developed properly with OK developer and as you say, Adam, this problem does not appear to show up on this view of the negs. I certainly can't see it. Short of suggesting that you try a neg under an enlarger and make a print I am at a loss to know what to suggest.

pentaxuser

 

[grain elevator]

I permitted myself to invert your snap of the film strip and increase the contrast, which would bring such an issue out more. No trace. It's not there. Either these frames are unaffected, or it's the scanning/post processing. My money is on sharpening/local contrast enhancements a.k.a. clarity.

 

[foc]

Hi Adam, thank you for posting the image of the negative strip.
I am a little confused (sometimes easily confused ) but when I inverted the neg strip you posted I can't see the image that you originally posted, in the strip.
Here is my quick inversion in Photoshop.


here is the original image posted


I have another question, please.
What is the black line around the outside of the original photo posted?

 

[Robert Maxey]

I permitted myself to invert your snap of the film strip and increase the contrast, which would bring such an issue out more. No trace. It's not there. Either these frames are unaffected, or it's the scanning/post processing. My money is on sharpening/local contrast enhancements a.k.a. clarity.

I have seen these artifacts in many sharpened digital images. Perhaps that is the issue here? Since we all cannot see it clearly and given it is such a small part of the image, perhaps the best thing to do is forget about it. Chalk it up to an odd anomaly.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

Hi Adam, thank you for posting the image of the negative strip.
I am a little confused (sometimes easily confused ) but when I inverted the neg strip you posted I can't see the image that you originally posted, in the strip.
Here is my quick inversion in Photoshop.
View attachment 282025

here is the original image posted
View attachment 282026

I have another question, please.
What is the black line around the outside of the original photo posted?

Odd, but I see slightly lighter area at the very edge of the strip and around the sprocket holes. These were added somewhere. Perhaps during the PS reversal? Perhaps I need more coffee? Better eyes? Over analyzing?

Bob