Film development woes: edge overdevelopment?

srs5694 · May 15, 2009

trhull said:
Thanks for the info on this thread. I am also dealing with 10% voodoo, and maybe another 10% macumba) but my problem is the opposite. I get quite even darker edges on my prints, and if my understanding is correct I am under agitating?

It's not quite that simple; edge darkness doesn't vary linearly with amount of agitation. If only one edge is too dark in prints (too light in the negatives), it could be that you don't have enough solution volume. There might be other problems, too. Overall, I suggest you start a new thread so as not to get too completely different problem discussions mixed up in one thread. In your new thread, post more details, such as your film format, tank type, developer used, how much developer you're using, agitation technique, etc.

srs5694 · May 15, 2009

Scruff McGruff said:
Can anyone explain why there is a gap in the overdeveloped edges?

If you mean the dark areas that remain dark up to the edge (at the base of the cliffs, for instance), that's probably just because those areas of the film saw so little light that there was nothing to overdevelop.

Bertil said:
First, you say "I loaded my reel tightly"; I don't know exactly what you mean, but by looking at your earlier filmstrips you have marks at the edges that show not 100% proper fixing. The whole film should be totally transparent. Now, the emulsion seems to have been very tight attached to the reel rings, making it impossible, it seems, for the fix to reach the whole film surface.

I wouldn't worry about this. I see similar marks along the edges (near the sprocket holes) of my 35mm film developed in SS reels, but I do not see the sort of underdevelopment along the edges that Scruff is seeing. In other words, they're completely different effects. The sprocket hole marks don't seem to cause any problems for me, so I personally don't worry about them. Maybe I should, but I have yet to see any suggestion that they'll cause any long-term harm, and they certainly don't affect the image area, so I don't really care about them.

Scruff, you might want to check YouTube for some videos of film development. Perhaps you can emulate somebody else's agitation style and get better results that way. (Unfortunately, I don't have any URLs handy, although I know such videos are available on YouTube.)

If you buy another type of tank, a Paterson, AP, or similar tank may be a good choice, as Bertil suggests. In addition to his reasoning, these tanks include rods that can be used for rotary agitation -- you can agitate in either (or both) of two ways: using inversion or by rotating the rod. Most people seem to prefer inversion agitation, but a few prefer rotary agitation. It's conceivable you'll get better results with rotary agitation. Buying a tank that can do either type will give you more options, and therefore a greater chance of finding a method that works well for you.

Scruff McGruff · May 15, 2009

srs5694 said:
If you mean the dark areas that remain dark up to the edge (at the base of the cliffs, for instance), that's probably just because those areas of the film saw so little light that there was nothing to overdevelop.

Ah, but if you look at the corresponding top edge, you'll see this can't be the case. Also see the following image; this was a 1/4000s, f/22, lens-cap-on, completely black control shot. Obviously, it is not completely black! I think this probably shows my problem(s) better than a complex photo.

A friend pointed out that chemically-speaking, an unexposed emulsion shouldn't have any density when developed so there is probably a light leak somewhere in the system. It probably isn't in the camera, as I've gotten good results in lab-developed film shot with this camera, so I'm guessing the leak is in my changing bag or tank. Probably the tank, as there is such a defined pattern, but I'll set up some experiments to test where it is.

You can see that there does appear to be some sprocket-hole surge, so my problem may be partly agitation-related. Could the surge-like pattern be caused by the light leak in a tank too, though? Hmm...

Also, I have no idea what is causing those longitudinal lines, but one step at a time.

srs5694 said:
I wouldn't worry about this. I see similar marks along the edges (near the sprocket holes) of my 35mm film developed in SS reels, but I do not see the sort of underdevelopment along the edges that Scruff is seeing. In other words, they're completely different effects. The sprocket hole marks don't seem to cause any problems for me, so I personally don't worry about them. Maybe I should, but I have yet to see any suggestion that they'll cause any long-term harm, and they certainly don't affect the image area, so I don't really care about them.

On this test roll, I loaded the reel and agitated more doing the fix step to get rid of those marks. I was successful in getting rid of the marks but you are right-- these seem to be isolated phenomena.

srs5694 said:
Scruff, you might want to check YouTube for some videos of film development. Perhaps you can emulate somebody else's agitation style and get better results that way. (Unfortunately, I don't have any URLs handy, although I know such videos are available on YouTube.)

I've looked at quite a few videos and can't seem to find any major differences between my technique and that of others. I understand this is the likely cause, but I feel like I've tried everything. Hopefully my tank/bag leak tests should shed some light (couldn't resist!) on the problem.

srs5694 said:
If you buy another type of tank, a Paterson, AP, or similar tank may be a good choice, as Bertil suggests. In addition to his reasoning, these tanks include rods that can be used for rotary agitation -- you can agitate in either (or both) of two ways: using inversion or by rotating the rod. Most people seem to prefer inversion agitation, but a few prefer rotary agitation. It's conceivable you'll get better results with rotary agitation. Buying a tank that can do either type will give you more options, and therefore a greater chance of finding a method that works well for you.

Thanks for the tank advice. I just have a hard time accepting this as a solution because obviously others use the same equipment with great success. That said, if there is a problem with my particular tank I don't have any qualms about getting new equipment.

Anscojohn · May 15, 2009

Scruff,
This image shows why problems can be so perplexing if they have multiple causes. The sprocket surge is one thing; but I seriously doubt that is much of a problem. Your friend's comment that a totally unexposed segment of film should have no density (above film base/fog level) is true; but other things can make film "developable." Physical stress, for example.
All this being said, I just don't have any "aha" moments for you; and the more people suggest things to you, the more confusing it might become.
As far as Kodak's "ASA Standard" agitation is concerned, I can assure you that this dinosaur would never invert a SS tank that number of times in five seconds. For your interest and edification, I actually counted the number of agitations I did in a roll I souped this after noon. Three gentle inversions in five seconds. How gentle? A mild "click" of the reel in the tank each way. I did notice (amazing how routine things are notice when we look) a slight natural ca. 1/16 wrist turn.
I keep a darkroom rag on the SS cap, too; rarely have I found any that does not leak upon inversion and that might contribute to a slight wrist turn.
Oh, and yes, the good solid "thump" of the heel of other hand before putting the tank back down on the working surface.
With development as a cause, it has almost always been in those automated, roller processors running at too fast a rate--but you are not using one of them. What a conundrum!!

Scruff McGruff · May 15, 2009

I appreciate all the continued participation in this thread, it's very nice to get all your input and know that I'm not just talking to myself.

I've just begun the following experiment, which should determine if my tank is the problem:

1. Load several inches of completely unexposed (straight out of the box) film onto one reel, place in tank as normal, and allow tank to sit w/ cap (not the whole lid, just the smaller snap-on cap) off for two hours in the same place I normally develop film.

2. Load several inches of completely unexposed film onto the other reel, place in tank along with existing film, and allow tank to sit w/ lid on for two hours as before.

3. Develop film as before, though in a very dark room instead of the usual daylight, and look for differences between the two films and previous films.

I know I'm not accounting for all of the variables here (notably, I'm assuming the changing bag isn't the source of the leak) but it's enough to determine whether my tank is light-tight or not. I can always do more tests if this one is inconclusive.

Scruff McGruff · May 19, 2009

Here are the results of that test. Bubbles and streaks are probably due to lack of photoflo and not being too careful with the finished negs. The dust is because I don't really care.

Lid open for two hours, then lid closed for several hours (unexposed film, not run through camera):

Lid closed for several hours (unexposed film, not run through camera):

Previously posted negative (from test roll run through camera):

Lab-developed film base (from roll run through camera):

Any ideas? Note that some of the apparently overdeveloped edges are just bits of the negative carrier in my scanner. I don't think you can make any direct comparisons based on shades (meaning, the darkest spot on one scan may not represent the same density as the darkest spot on another scan) between the scans because of how my scanner software works, but you can obviously compare within each scan and compare the patterns between scans. Also note that the two test negatives were done in a two-reel tank-- the "closed" film on bottom, the "closed/open" film on top.

One thing I can say for certain is that the bulk of my problems are due to my processing, and not my camera. The lab-developed one is from before I changed the light seals too, and I'm quite certain they are better off now than they were before. Though I doubt it would satisfy you empiricists more than another lab-development test, I can assure you that there is no qualitative difference between my photos before and after the light seal change.

My best ideas are either a) there is a light leak in my tank that causes the apparent sprocket surge and the presence of silver density, or b) there is a light leak in my changing bag and I over-agitated, resulting in real sprocket-surge and uneven development. I'm sticking with my assertion that I am not agitating any more than others do in instructional videos, so I'm leaning toward option a.

On the other hand, I have also had this same problem with a previous SS tank. That one was a bit dodgy though, so I suppose it is possible (though I have to admit, unlikely) that both tanks were defective. Still, if the alternatives are not supported by the data...

Unless someone comes up with a different plausible explanation, I'll order a plastic tank and try that. I'd rather not until I know it is really the tank, though!

Scruff McGruff · May 19, 2009

The only problem is, as you can see from the scans, that the extra density occurs on both sides regardless of orientation. My friend thought this might have been due to reflections off the reels and interior surfaces of the tank.

I must admit though, that explanation doesn't quite satisfy me. I think I'll just bite the bullet and replace my equipment. :/

Thomas Bertilsson · May 19, 2009

Have you considered letting somebody else process a roll with your tank and reels?

Scruff McGruff · May 19, 2009

Sure I've thought about it, but I don't know anybody local who knows how to process film.

Oh well... at least plastic tanks are cheap! I'll probably pick up a new changing bag too, just in case.

jmcd · May 19, 2009

Still wondering, how much free play is there with your reel inside the tank? That is, when you invert the tank, the reel slides how much?

If it slides much at all, try shimming it on the top so that it slides just the tiniest bit if at all. Perhaps you have already tried this.

Scruff McGruff · May 19, 2009

FINALLY!!!! It was the changing bag after all; when loaded in the changing bag in a very dark (though not darkroom dark) room, my problems disappeared. My theory (I don't need any more help BTW, so only read on if you feel personally invested ) is that I was essentially pre-flashing my film in my changing bag, which then made it far easier for even moderate agitation to show surge effects. Today I purchased a larger, nicer changing bag, and got excellent results even in a moderately-dim room. Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh, what a relief!

Here is a scan of two unexposed films (both scanned in the same pass, so you can make absolute density comparisons between the two films); one where the changing bag was used in a bright room (left), and one where the same bag was used in a dark room (right):

Pretty amazing, eh? I imagine I will be far more pleased with my future negatives if I was losing that much contrast. I don't have any unexposed film tests of the new changing bag, but qualitatively, based on a roll I just developed, there is a monumental improvement.

jmcd- I just made a shim out of some balled-up electrical tape. It's hard to say if it's helping, but it is certainly more pleasing to agitate a tank that doesn't sound like a baby's rattle.

Thank you all so much for helping me with this! I'll do my best to return the favor where I can, despite being a newbie.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 20, 2009

I'm very pleased to hear of your success!

Bertil · May 20, 2009

Very nice and interesting to hear about the solution of your problems. GOOD! Never really thought about your worthless "darkroom" -- time when I hide with TRI-X in my parents potato cellar seems to be far away, but probably the cellar was better than your bag (burn it!), even if I saw a lot ( really a lot!) of light after loading some rolls in my JOBO plastic tank!!

I had no problems these days with uneven development (or overdeveloped edges) when I just rotated the reel in my JOBO tank. My problems started with 120 film, and when I thought it was more "professional" to use SS-reels, and when Kodak told me to invert (!) the tank 5 times during 5 seconds each 30 seconds – I never managed to get consistent even development with this instruction and a full tank, thus my earlier advise! It took me years to figure out a reliable procedure - but it was a time before site's like APUG!!!
Good Luck!
//Bertil

Scruff McGruff · May 30, 2009

False alarm.

Ugh, this is ridiculous. That good result I posted was apparently a fluke; ever since then it has either been more of the same or a slightly different version of the same thing. I've been loading my changing bag in a room that is *almost* darkroom dark, so I figured I eliminated my light leak problem, yet I still have uneven development. For the most part I have eliminated the sharp edge streaks (though they are still present to a lesser extent), but now this has been happening:

The image of the film is oriented the same way the film is oriented in the tank (top of frame = upper edge in tank). This has happened on several test rolls; one stand development, one "normal" to see if it was repeatable (it is), one w/ water instead of acid stop bath (no difference), one w/ increased initial agitation (this seems to have brought me back to my previous problem w/ both edges overdone), and one w/ ID-11 instead of rodinal.

Though the pattern of uneven development occasionally changes, whenever bits of unexposed film are scanned alongside the fluke unexposed film (the one with good results) there is a huge difference in density, just like I showed in my previous post. For whatever reason, the one good film I developed has a lot less fog (I assume it's fog, is there another word for unexplained density?) than any of my others. Scouring the internet has been fruitless, so far. I wish I had videotaped myself developing that film!

Summary of things I've tried (independently) since the fluke, with no success:

Re-fixing
Increased agitation (especially initial agitation)
Reduced agitation (stand development)
Using changing bag in near-pitch black room
Different developer (ID-11 instead of rodinal, also a new batch of rodinal)
Water instead of acid stop

How else could I be getting this extra fog/density on my negatives? I doubt it's contamination for multiple reasons: 1) I've had these problems since day one, 2) They have persisted despite changing equipment, bottles, etc., 3) Contamination by stop or fix should reduce development/fog rather than increase it.

If all else fails, hopefully I can get an instructor at the local community college to help me out when I sign up for a photo class there (mostly so I can use their darkroom). Still, any new ideas from you folks are appreciated!

Thomas Bertilsson · May 30, 2009

Do you ever print these negatives? Or do you scan only?
The reason I'm asking is that when I scan negatives, especially 35mm, my film holders don't hold the film flat. This leads to brighter edges (after the image has been reversed from negative to positive). If you make a print from the same negative, or a contact sheet (with pressure on the negatives to firmly push them against the paper) - does it still show up?

Scruff McGruff · May 30, 2009

Thomas,

Though I don't have access to a darkroom right now, I have printed negatives affected like this in the past and they still showed the same signs of uneven development. I've also been having good luck (seems like the only thing going my way lately!) with Fomapan drying flat as a board, and those negatives also show the same patterns when scanned. Good idea though!

stevew · May 31, 2009

Edge Density variation.

Your negs have development density build up. This is a problem that is difficult to completely elimate but can be moderated. Many say they have no problems, but looking at the negs it is evident.

Any fluid that flows through a restriction experiences a pressure/flow change. That is how a carburetor venturi works, high pressure>low pressure=velocity change. Fluid flowing through the film reel spirals increases velocity and causes increased development in the film edges. Very short development times increase the effect, the percentage of time spent filling and draining causes more development on the edges. The streaking/density build up will happen on sheet film holders also.

Longer times help. Random agitation helps. Rotary agitation helps but can generate problems with linear density streaks unless the motion is radomized. I don't prefer rotary processing but the Jobo expert sheet film tanks are supposed to be excellent. Many have great results with the BTZS tubes floating in a tray of water, bobbing and rotating gives random agitation.

My results aren't absolutely perfect but pretty good. For reel tanks: Minimun time 10-15min, contiuous first 1 min (inverting in torus motion alternating with rolling the tank-"tape the lid") then 2 minute interval of agitation-7 sec gentle inversion with torus motion, next 2 min interval-roll tank for 7 sec. Works pretty good.

I was testing a developer with rollei atp recently. The correct contrast time was 4.5min but pretty bad edge swirl and streaking. I will have to dilute to extend the time. This film has a reputation for mottling/streaking.

Scruff McGruff · Jun 5, 2009

Steve, thanks for contributing; sorry I didn't reply sooner. I guess I have a hard time believing it is agitation causing the overall density buildup because on my "good roll" (where for whatever reason I had lower base density and much better negatives) I don't remember agitating differently than I usually do. I do think it is causing the pattern though; I just developed a strip of unexposed film where I agitated more thoroughly at the beginning and that gradient pattern I had been seeing is not there. There is still a different pattern, though I imagine it is only visible because there is still a lot of density from something else.

I think I've also eliminated a light leak from my tank as the reason for the increased density, as I taped the hell out of it with electrical tape (taped the tank/lid seam in the dark after film was loaded, of course) and dev'ed a test strip with no improvement.

So, unless I'm skipping over a variable I don't know about, the only logical explanation would be that some sort of chemical contamination is increasing the base density (or maybe even the opacity of the film base, not related to silver density?) of my film. Does anyone know what kind of contamination could cause this? If it is a density issue I assume it occurs in the development step, but is it possible that later contamination (in the stop or fix steps) could do this?

Scruff McGruff · Jun 5, 2009

Well, I've had some moderate success. I think the density increase is due to some sort of chemical contamination. I discarded my old working dilutions of stop and fix (they were a couple months old, but still working fine; the stop hadn't become too basic and the fix was still clearing film in ~1 minute), rinsed out the bottles/graduates several times with hot water, and soaked my tank and reels in a hot bleach solution-- I'd guess ~10mL laundry bleach in the 500mL tank. I then dev'ed a test strip of unexposed film and compared it to my typical results and my fluke/good results, and found its density to be somewhere in between.

I guess I've made progress, but I'm still puzzled by and unsatisfied with this result (I've used all the same equipment with the one good roll as I have with the countless wonky rolls). Still, I'm thinking I should go ahead and bleach the rest of my equipment as it did seem to help. I'll probably also grab some dH2O for mixing my developer, just to be on the safe side.

Andrew O'Neill · Jun 5, 2009

I don't think it's a light leak if he says that the only time his negs are okay is when they are processed by a lab.

clayne · Jun 6, 2009

Scruff, I know how frustrating these problems can be. I had/have a similar problem: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

However, I believe mine to be entirely related to the body (M4) as it *never* occurs with film from my other main body (F3). The disturbing part is that I too had even a blank frame where the fogging was evident. The part that agitates me (hah!) is that if it were an issue with my bag and/or tank I would expect to see it in all manner of rolls - but it only appears in rolls I've shot with the Leica (and mainly in brightly lit conditions).

I guess another variable to consider is purchasing a few rolls of brand new film and immediately shooting them without storing them (if your storage area is questionable and/or has any amount of bright light - although I seriously doubt this to be the issue).

I can also see it in the negs as well. Along the long edges, *always*, a gradient density increase towards the edge of the frames. With the majority of each frame I also see tell-tale light bleed in some areas. It's difficult to tell if this is an in-camera issue or a development issue - but my agitation is quite average and ~1 cycle / 2 sec. I check temp/measurements accurately as well.

Scruff McGruff · Jun 6, 2009

Thanks for the response, clayne! Yes, your problem does look similar to mine! I have eliminated my camera as a variable though, as I've gotten fogging when if I process film (even brand new film) straight out of the box.

Re: how you normally find the problem on shots that were brightly lit. Are you sure that it isn't present on all frames and you just notice it more on the brightly lit shots because it blows out highlights? That's how it was for me, anyway.

If you still haven't found a solution, you might try cleaning your equipment and making up new working dilutions of stop and fix. That seemed to help a bit.

Also, once you get the fog down to a low enough level the gradient should go away on its own (my theory is that it's like pre-flashing photo paper; fogged film is more sensitive to things like agitation that normally wouldn't matter), but something that worked for me was doing my initial agitations more vigorously. Of course, YMMV, I have no idea whether your problem is caused by the same things as mine.

Scruff McGruff · Jun 6, 2009

Greg, yes I have, but thanks for the good tip. I even taped it up, but no dice.

I'm pretty confident that I'm dealing with chemical fogging at this point.

Scruff McGruff · Jun 7, 2009

@#%$@%#$%@$#%@.

I just cleaned all my equipment in a hot bleach solution (and thoroughly rinsed it out of course) and used distilled water to dilute the developer concentrate. Somehow, I got *significantly more* density on this test strip than the last one.

I'm really at my wit's end here; this should be so easy. Is it possible that a slightly higher developer temperature (Say, 72F instead of 68F) is causing a noticeable amount of fog? I find that pretty unlikely. Other than that though, I really have no more ideas about what could be going on.

This thread has been dragging on for a long time, and I apologize if it's getting annoying to read my repeated pleas for help, but if you have any ideas about how I could be fogging my film, please share, otherwise my film equipment is going to go on display.

wogster · Jun 7, 2009

Scruff McGruff said:
@#%$@%#$%@$#%@.

I just cleaned all my equipment in a hot bleach solution (and thoroughly rinsed it out of course) and used distilled water to dilute the developer concentrate. Somehow, I got *significantly more* density on this test strip than the last one.

I'm really at my wit's end here; this should be so easy. Is it possible that a slightly higher developer temperature (Say, 72F instead of 68F) is causing a noticeable amount of fog? I find that pretty unlikely. Other than that though, I really have no more ideas about what could be going on.

This thread has been dragging on for a long time, and I apologize if it's getting annoying to read my repeated pleas for help, but if you have any ideas about how I could be fogging my film, please share, otherwise my film equipment is going to go on display.

There are many possible causes, first get a roll of XP2 (if available in the right size) or find a lab that does B&W, and run it through your camera and get it lab processed. This will tell you if it's a camera issue, once you have eliminated the camera as a problem. You can move to your dark room.

First question, is it dark enough. Sit in your darkroom with the lights off, wait 15 minutes, if you can see your hand in front of your face, it's definitely not dark enough. Look around and using some electrical tape, start plugging the holes where you see light coming through. If you use a changing bag, go into a dark room with your changing bag and load a roll of film. Changing bags can get damaged over time and can leak light, this will test your changing bag.

if you still have trouble, try a different developing tank, plastic ones can get cracked and leak light. Metal ones can get dented and leak light.

Buy a new container of developer and fixer, mix fresh chemistries, and process a roll of film. Make sure equipment is clean and use fresh bottles for your new chemistries.

Somewhere along the line you should get a good roll.

Film development woes: edge overdevelopment?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency