Film development woes: edge overdevelopment?

[Kirk Keyes]

Re: chemical contamination, I'm not exposing my chemistry to anything on purpose, I just can't be certain that they aren't picking anything up in a non-sterile environment.

It doesn't have to be a sterile environment... No where near that clean. Just regular rinsing for a minute in running water will suffice.

If you're having to print on grade 4 or grade 5, you most likely need to give more development time to boost the contrast index of the negative, i.e. you are underdeveloping. Then when you print on the grade 5 paper, that will exaggerate any uneveness in the negative.

Assuming you're giving enough exposure to your negs, I'd say to try a roll at twice the development time you are currently using. And then try printing it and see if they look more even.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Kirk,

I know it doesn't have to be sterile, but that's how I'm used to doing lab work so I'm still suspicious.

I hope I don't sound rude, but the problem has nothing to do with exposure or development time. First, these recent tests were done on unexposed film, so the severe fogging (even if it doesn't look so bad in that image, which I still think it does, IRL it is very bad) simply cannot be related to in-camera exposures.

Second, I developed one roll of the same film successfully (very little fog) with my standard exposure and development practices. I didn't underdevelop that roll, so I don't see how using the same parameters for other rolls would underdevelop them. I haven't tried to print that roll, but the negatives are far more punchy, even to the naked eye, thanks to the normal fog level.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

I fixed a film leader to make that very same comparison not long ago, here it is compared to the good roll and a heavily fogged test strip. The fixed-only leader is purple; usually my developer washes out a lot of the color.

Regarding the flare, it isn't. I understand you probably haven't read all nine pages of this thread (yikes, it's already up to nine?), and I certainly don't blame you, but that was eliminated as a variable. Once again: lab-developed films are perfectly fine; no fog, no edge defects. Thus, it is something in development. Also: the edge defects only appear when the film is heavily fogged, like this. Of course they are not one and the same problem, but I do not think they are conflicting results at all. I suspect that the fog makes the inherent imperfection of roll-film tank agitation more noticeable, which results in edge defects like those you would find on over-agitated film. (Just a hypothesis, of course.)

Also, if you scan those unexposed test strips (like I have on previous pages), you will notice edge defects that aren't readily apparent to the naked eye because of the low contrast that comes along with a fogged negative.

I'm not sure how it could be radiation, unless it varies significantly from day to day, as I did have one successful role in this exact same location.

I believe I explained my reasoning with regards to underdevelopment in my previous post; is something wrong with my argument? Anyway, I use Rodinal 1:50 @68F for 11 minutes with Tri-X rated at 250-320.

[I apologize if I am coming across as a bit harsh. I am extremely frustrated by this problem, and nothing seems to make a difference. I really do appreciate you all trying to help.]

 

[Anscojohn]

There is a tremendous amount of experience and expertise on the newsgroup; yet the problems remain unsolved. This isn't some kind of a put-on, is it??? Sorry, had to ask.

Overall fog, in my experience, has been either from heat damage; low light exposure; fog from aromatic environmental chemicals; or x-ray radiation. You have thought everything through so you can eliminate those potential causes, I assume.
Off the wall--are you wearing a radiant dial wrist watch in your changing bag?

 

[Scruff McGruff]

John, this certainly would be a monumental con, wouldn't it? Don't worry, I don't have the energy to put this much effort into something like that, haha.

No radiant dial wrist watch. Perhaps I should remove the kerosene lamp and stop developing in the dentist's office, though?

A more serious question: could it be something silly like the soap or shampoo I use? I don't think I did anything different in terms of hygiene on the day I had a good roll, but I didn't take note of it so I can't be sure.

I also wonder whether I'm just doing something horribly wrong when I use my changing bag, even though it should still be fine in the very low light I do the work in. I unzip both compartments; put my tank, reels, scissors, can opener, and film cassette in there; zip up both compartments; insert arms past my elbows (maybe I need bigger biceps!); and go to town on the film. Nothing too complicated, but you never know!

 

[clayne]

Kirk,
The edge density on my negatives (only noticeable with images present) was my original problem, but then I discovered that it seems to be caused by the overall fog, so that is what I'm working on now. The problems go hand-in-hand, anyway; when my rolls don't have excess fog (lab-developed or when I got lucky), there are no edge defects. Maybe I should have started a new thread.

[Edit: Quick thought... could humidity in my changing bag be causing this much fog? It does get sweaty in there sometimes.]

Scruff, from the pictures of your negatives that you just recently put up (3 strips) I really don't see anything that looks noticeable or remarkable in them at all. Even if the base fog is slightly higher - a gradated density on the long edges means it is a separate issue. If the fog were higher one would actually be less able to perceive a gradation of density.

As far as sanitation goes - you also don't really need that clean an environment either. While I don't develop my film in an outhouse - I have no doubts believing that film would still develop properly. Heck, you could probably throw sand and dirt into your dev mix and it would still come out (albeit with crap on the film) developed evenly.

I'm in the bay area and work in south bay if you need a person to see your process and possibly sanity-check anything you might be forgetting. I'm plenty sure this issue is solvable but it has to be something that's overlooked or otherwise not being thought of. Additionally I could even shoot a roll of film, give it to you and vice-versa and see what the development looks like on my end and your end.

Honestly I still wouldn't rule out the camera.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

I swear I can see a significant difference in density by just looking at these strips of film; does the right film really look *that* similar to the one on the left? The difference is night and day to my eyes, and is even more apparent when I scan them next to each other-- the cleared leader shows up as black, the left strip above as dark grey, and the right strip above as a very light grey. Of course, the scanner is probably adjusting the contrast so the differences may not be quite so severe, but the various strips I observe to be denser are always lighter on scans than those I observe to be less dense, so I'm pretty confident that I can at least see which are more or less dense.

It's good to know that sanitation isn't much of an issue. Comforting, but frustrating, as now I'm back to the drawing board.

I remember finding a blog article by someone who was having a very similar problem with edge streaking. He tried everything, like I have, and what eventually solved his problem was getting a new changing bag. So there seems to be at least some precedent for this relationship between fog and edge streaking.

Clayne, I appreciate the offer, though I'm really not sure what there is to see in terms of technique. There are still a few things I could try out first, but I'll PM you if I think a second pair of eyes might help.

 

[Anscojohn]

John, this certainly would be a monumental con, wouldn't it? Don't worry, I don't have the energy to put this much effort into something like that, haha.
*******
Glad you did not take offense. I dealt, sometimes, with some rather bizarre folks in my extended time in the retail camera business.

No radiant dial wrist watch.
*****
So, it's not that.

A more serious question: could it be something silly like the soap or shampoo I use?
*******
I would not think so, but PE would be the person to answer that. I encountered a roll of film (color) which had been in a purse wherein some perfume had spilled. It was the only reasonable explanation for the fog.

I don't think I did anything different in terms of hygiene on the day I had a good roll, but I didn't take note of it so I can't be sure.
*******
Considering some of the old, cigar-chewing darkroom rats with whom I worked, I cannot think of any personal hygience issues that would not have cropped up with them. Their film was fine. And I met a guy who knew Arthur Fellig--"Weegee" who lived out of his car for days at a time and was offensive. And he even souped his film in the trunk of the car and had no problems like you are having. Black and white film processing is not all that difficult nor demanding.

I also wonder whether I'm just doing something horribly wrong when I use my changing bag, even though it should still be fine in the very low light I do the work in. I unzip both compartments; put my tank, reels, scissors, can opener, and film cassette in there; zip up both compartments; insert arms past my elbows (maybe I need bigger biceps!); and go to town on the film. Nothing too complicated, but you never know!

*******
I've used a heavy coat, doubled over at the top and bottom; with my arms through the coat's arms; in daylight--and did not have your problems. Dorothea Lange loaded holders under blankets; your changing bag should not be a problem--unless it is heat or some kind of solvent.

 

[canuhead]

Not sure if it's been covered in earlier posts but is your thermometer accurate ? Looks like the negs might be a bit poached. That would be my drop out of college educated guess, dev too warm.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Canu- that's an excellent point, I haven't tried using a different thermometer (yet another example of mistaking the moon for the finger that points to it!). I'll have to check on that. Thanks.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

I just checked it against another thermometer. If it is inaccurate, it only reads a few degrees F below what it should. I have read that Rodinal is pretty insensitive to temperature, but I'll still try chilling it to the low side of 68.

Regardless of thermometer accuracy, temperature is probably the variable I pay least attention to. That may explain why I am getting erratic results, but we'll see.

 

[Anscojohn]

Regardless of thermometer accuracy, temperature is probably the variable I pay least attention to. That may explain why I am getting erratic results, but we'll see.[/QUOTE]

*******
Good darkroom technique requires constant temperature of your solutions, not a casual approach.

 

[clayne]

Regardless of thermometer accuracy, temperature is probably the variable I pay least attention to. That may explain why I am getting erratic results, but we'll see.

*******
Good darkroom technique requires constant temperature of your solutions, not a casual approach.[/QUOTE]

While I measure my developer solution - I surely don't measure or equalize the temperature of all my other solutions. I highly doubt my fixer being 24C and my developer being 20C is going to make a difference; but for developer itself, yes.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

It's not like I just throw my developer in there regardless of temperature, I do try to keep it within a few degrees of 68F (which certainly seems within reason, based on things I've read here on APUG). That said, I tend to err on the high side, which may not have been the best practice in retrospect.

I'm not 100% sure, but lowering the temperature to 66-68F-- depends which thermometer you believe-- may have helped a bit. Still not great though. I say I'm not completely sure because I happened to have developed a test roll from a new-to-me TLR that I'm working on (lens and frame spacing needed serious work), so I can't rule out that switching to the 120 film had an effect even though it was still Tri-X, or that the lower temperature really did help and I'm just having a bit of a light leak. I'll try a test with unexposed 35mm film and the lower temperature-- tomorrow, probably.

 

[Anscojohn]

*******
Good darkroom technique requires constant temperature of your solutions, not a casual approach.

While I measure my developer solution - I surely don't measure or equalize the temperature of all my other solutions. I highly doubt my fixer being 24C and my developer being 20C is going to make a difference; but for developer itself, yes.[/QUOTE]

*********
Catastrophes will not happen with a few degrees F difference. Probably not even with such a wide spread spread as you have indicated. Good technique should aim at keeping solution variances at a bare minimum, however.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I hope I don't sound rude, but the problem has nothing to do with exposure or development time.

If you're having to print on grade 5, how can you say that? THat shows your negs are too thin and probably underdeveloped and possibly underexposed.

"Anyway, I use Rodinal 1:50 @68F for 11 minutes with Tri-X rated at 250-320."

That does seems reasonable, so why are you printing on grade 4 or 5 then?

 

[Kirk Keyes]

A more serious question: could it be something silly like the soap or shampoo I use?

Very unlikely. The concentration of any soaps on your hands are just not going to be enough to have any effect. Afterall, fingerprints only weigh about 0.0001 grams or so.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I swear I can see a significant difference in density by just looking at these strips of film; does the right film really look *that* similar to the one on the left?

There is certainly a difference between the base+fog density between those two film strips.

BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT FILMS. The one of the left says "Kodak 400TX" and the one on the right says "ARISTA PREMIUM 400". There is no reason that these two films, from two different manufacturers are supposed to have the same base+fog density.

Basically, there are differences are because of the emulsion chemistry of the two films, the thickness of the coating of the emulsion on the base, and even the optical density of the film base.

You are wasting your time trying to get these two films to have the same base+fog level.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

It's not like I just throw my developer in there regardless of temperature, I do try to keep it within a few degrees of 68F (which certainly seems within reason, based on things I've read here on APUG).

There's nothing magic about 68F. You can process at most any temp within a certain range. I would not go much cooler than 65F, but you can go up into the 80F range if you wanted. I process all my B&W film at 24C (77F) and it works fine. You can adjust to higher temps by using shorter development times.

Thermometer errors - if you do some testing to find "your" proper development time so that you print you "your" normal grade of paper (usually grade 2 or 3), then it really doesn't matter what your thermometer reads. (Within reason...a few degrees off will not be that important.) The development time will then be adjusted to whatever temp you have done your testing for.

It's much more important to have a thermometer that is repeatable (precise) then it is for it to be accurate.

If you have a dial type thermometer, you might want to change it for an alcohol or a digital one. The dial types are notorious for being both inaccurate and imprecise.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

There's nothing magic about 68F. You can process at most any temp within a certain range. I would not go much cooler than 65F, but you can go up into the 80F range if you wanted. I process all my B&W film at 24C (77F) and it works fine. You can adjust to higher temps by using shorter development times.

It might be worth mentioning that some developers produce higher granularity negatives when used at higher temperatures. An example would be Tetenal Ultrafin.

Tom.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Kirk,

Lab-developed negatives print fine around grade 3, so it's not likely an exposure issue. Also, when I print the foggy negs on 4/5, I do it to achieve a pretty standard amount of contrast; I rarely aim for that high-contrast street look.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "underdevelopment"-- I am certainly not giving these negatives any less development than the lab-developed rolls or the one good roll I had. Since the contrast range is narrowed by the increased base fog, I suppose you could say I should give the negatives more development to compensate, but then I would just lose lots of highlight data and probably increase the amount of grain-- not really the reasons I got into film.

It is good to know my soap and shampoo aren't an issue. I didn't expect they would be... but it can't hurt to ask when it seems like everything else has been accounted for.

Kodak Tri-X and Arista Premium 400 are the exact same film, just different markings-- Kodak sells rolls of Tri-X to Freestyle under a different name so they can sell some film at a lower price point, to target the budget-conscious market, without having to drop the price on their name-brand film (basic economics, really). It's quite well documented here on APUG and elsewhere; all Arista films are just re-branded. More importantly, I did clearly state that I get equally dense results processing "real" Tri-X as AP400. I can take a photo of some foggy "real" Tri-X if you like, but there wouldn't be any difference.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

The lower temperature didn't seem to have an effect. For whatever reason though, the 120 roll looks far different (not as dark) than my previous 35mm tests. I don't want to make an apples-to-oranges comparison though-- are the emulsions/film bases significantly different between Tri-X in 135 and 120?

I'm starting to consider another line of thinking. It is possible that I may have had multiple sources of error that are confounding my attempts to find a solution, leading me to eliminate variables prematurely. This could explain why my edge streaking does seem to be slightly better now (though still not within acceptable limits) than it was at the beginning of this thread, and why I appear to only have hopelessly improbable sources of error remaining.

I'm going to go over my list of possible causes again and see if there are any I should re-examine.

 

[Anscojohn]

I'm going to go over my list of possible causes again and see if there are any I should re-examine.[/QUOTE]

******
Buy a roll of fresh film. Take a roll of pictures of a brick wall. (You may as well get a rough idea of your lens sharpness). Soup your film using standard "ASA" agitation, with chemicals at or very near 68 F. Preferably use D76 as a film developer.

AND START A NEW THREAD!

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Kodak Tri-X and Arista Premium 400 are the exact same film, just different markings

OK - if that's the case, just stick with one emulsion to minimze variables. Personally, I trust Kodak more than Freestyle, so I would test with one batch of Kodak.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Lab-developed negatives print fine around grade 3, so it's not likely an exposure issue. Also, when I print the foggy negs on 4/5, I do it to achieve a pretty standard amount of contrast; I rarely aim for that high-contrast street look.

By printing on grade 4/5 to achieve a stantard amount of print contrast, that tells me that you are not developing enough in the first place. If you give more time to development, the fog+base will increase just a little, while the highlights will increase more. If you give enough development, you will get the overall contrast range up to where you can print at grade 3 or ideally grade 2.

Grade 5 paper is designed for negs that have a contrast range of 0.50 to about 0.60 optical density (OD). Grade 2 paper is designed for negs that have a contrast range of 1.0 to about 1.1 OD. Thats a big difference in contrast range - a grade 5 neg has about 1/2 the contrast range of a grade 2 neg.

If you have a neg with a base+fog of 0.25 OD (not that high, especially in the large format world) and it has a contrast range of 0.50 OD, the overall density of the highlights will be about 0.75 OD. If you increase development to give a contrast range for grade 2, the base+fog will increase some, perhaps to 0.35 OD, and the highlights will be about 1.35 OD. Your base+fog density will not increase that much but your contrast range will expand to where you can print it on a paper that will work a little better. And then lets work on getting more even development.