Film developing accident

[ronlamarsh]

Was developing a roll of 120 the other day, a roll I was very excited about, but during agitation the top came off the tank spilling the dev and roll of film into the sink! I quickly shoved the roll of film back in put in new dev and continued. I had only exposed four frames on the roll and after fixing I found the unexposed frames had varying degrees of fog as did the spaces between the exposed frames. But when measured with a densitometer the extra fog did not appear to be on the exposed frames? i.e. the spaces inbetween measured about 1.35 but on the lightest parts of the image in the exposed frames weren't even clsoe to that !!
So what happened? Is it that the exposed frames had already developed somewhat? I was about half way through the dev cycle. Thoughts?

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Do the negs look good? You must have been quick on the stick. Truth be told, the proof is in the printing.

 

[pentaxuser]

There is the famous "Ilford trick" recited by Roger Hicks where the reps from Ilford demonstrate film development and then either take off the top of the tank pour out the developer and fill with fix then put the top back on or was it pour out the dev then take the top off and fill with fix? Either way there was no damage to the negs.

Sounds as if you accident was a variation on that trick.

pentaxuser

 

[bdial]

A. You were lucky.
B. As the film is developed it loses a lot of sensitivity. There are videos around the net and discussions in here of using BTZ tubes for sheet film processing and removing the covers in the light to empty the dev and fill with stop then fix.

My practice when agitating is to pick up the tank with my hand over the lid so that it can't come off accidentally.

 

[ronlamarsh]

accident

Do the negs look good? You must have been quick on the stick. Truth be told, the proof is in the printing.

Actually they seem a bit fogged but not too bad and it seems very even so as you say the proof is in the printing. I almost cried though

 

[Robert Hall]

Welcome to the black and white school of hard knocks. Please prepare yourself for many new adventures and an occasional repeat of some old ones.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I'll bet. Yeah, I cup the lid in my hand as well during agitating.

 

[MattKing]

The really frustrating thing for you would be if it turned out that those negatives were the best, easiest to print negatives you've ever developed!

 

[Steve Roberts]

One of my nightmares! My favourite tank is an ancient bakelite Johnson's one. The top doesn't screw on, but the top tightens three lugs on the body on to three shallow eccentrics in the lid. Question is, how tight is tight enough to stop the lid coming off without being so tight that the bakelite might crack? One of the things I like about this dinosaur is that it's not an inversion/agitation tank, but has a twiddly spring-loaded up and down rod that engages in the film spiral, so there's less danger of the top coming off and also of the fixer/developer-running-down-the-arm phenomenon!
One of my other nightmares is loading a film in the tank, not developing it straight away, forgetting it's in there and taking the top off. That concern is addressed with a big rubber band!
Glad to hear the film wasn't a total write-off.
Steve

 

[cmacd123]

One of my other nightmares is loading a film in the tank, not developing it straight away, forgetting it's in there and taking the top off. That concern is addressed with a big rubber band!

That was one of my first mistakes when I was a kid. Had to load the tank at bedtime under the covers, next morning I opened my then new Tank to admire it and remembered that there was a nice roll of film I had carefully taken over the weekend with my 1.89 Diana Camera. (the 620 Version)

Even Now, when I load a tank, I put a strip of Masking tape over the gap between the body and the top. (pain with the newer style Paterson Tanks as you have to canteliver the tape)