Film development woes: edge overdevelopment?

[Kirk Keyes]

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 can't speak to the precise differences in those two films, but I would expect the 120 film to have more base density than the same emulsion in 35mm.

 

[Anscojohn]

I can't speak to the precise differences in those two films, but I would expect the 120 film to have more base density than the same emulsion in 35mm.

******
Yes, that has been my experience.

I truly think that Crime Dog McGruff is sniffing around in too many places, looking for too many causes for erratic results, when he should, at his neophyte stage, begin by controlling variables--as a result he is looking, also, at too many variations.
One roll of Tri-X, exposed at box speed, souped for 8 minutes at 68 F with standard ASA agitation in straight D76 is will give him a baseline for all other comparisons and judgments--and will give him good rationale to START ANOTHER THREAD.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

In post #29, you have a scan of a neg. It looks like there was no exposure to that neg. Your scan does shows evidence of developer surge marks. But if there is no exposure in the neg, why is it nearly black in the top-center of the neg? Is it really fogged that much, or are you not paying attention to the settings on your scanner. If it's due to funky scanner setting boosting the contrast up, then try scanning it at a reasonable setting and see what it looks like - or even better, print on grade 2 and see what it looks like. If can be causing yourself a whole lot of headache by jacking up the contrast to where artifacts that may be trival become artifically bad.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

******
One roll of Tri-X, exposed at box speed, souped for 8 minutes at 68 F with standard ASA agitation in straight D76 is will give him a baseline for all other comparisons and judgments--and will give him good rationale to START ANOTHER THREAD.

I think that is also a good idea. And print them on grade 2 paper, and see what they look like and let's take it from there. No neg scanning, no grade 4 or 5 prints.

Scruff, you probably want to target your negs to "normal" grade papers, so lets print on that and forget the rest. We'll be able to help a lot better if we are working towards "normal" and not futzing around with the rest of the stuff.

 

[Anscojohn]

We'll be able to help a lot better if we are working towards "normal" and not futzing around with the rest of the stuff.[/QUOTE]

Amen, brother Keyes.

 

[clayne]

1: What's the point of starting another thread? That's stupid. All of the documentation is here in *one place*. Spreading it around to other threads without significant progress or a solution is pointless. If you have a problem clicking to the last page - I don't know what to tell you. But keeping it here in one place is good for this thread and good for the future other people who WILL have similar problems.

2: Forget about the whole paper grade thing. This has nothing to do with that. The guy is trying to figure out why his negatives are not being *developed* properly. A scanner is a useful tool here to show us relative differences (just as an inaccurate thermometer is a useful tool to show us relative differences). Having him make prints is not going to do squat for anyone in solving the root issue of edge over-development (but it may increase your comfort level).

3: There is nothing substantial about the shot of the unexposed negatives because they show NO GRADIENT EDGE DENSITY. That's the problem that's trying to be solved. Overall base fog across the entire negative was never the original issue in the first place!

4: The test shots shown here still lead me to believe the film is being fogged by stray light somehow: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

5: Virgin roll loaded in changing bag done in *total* darkness?

6: Standard D-76 1+1 used anywhere?

7: Where is the film stored?

 

[jasonhall]

1: What's the point of starting another thread? That's stupid. All of the documentation is here in *one place*. Spreading it around to other threads without significant progress or a solution is pointless. If you have a problem clicking to the last page - I don't know what to tell you. But keeping it here in one place is good for this thread and good for the future other people who WILL have similar problems.

Because as when John and I both suggest that he start over with the whole process, it is clear to me that something simple is being missed. The water has been so clouded up that it is nearly impossible to find your way around. Looking at things like the difference between the base of two different brand films. Yep, everything has been documented here but I think all of it needs to be forgotten and start all over fresh with as many good known variables as you can. Its hard to set a side all that has been done already, but its the only way to clear all this up.

With my years experience with diagnosing and troubleshooting problems, that is exactly what I would do if this was my problem. One tank, one developer, one brand and type of film and so on.

Jason

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Look guys, I really think you are finding problems where there are none.

Regarding the scanner: Yes, I know the scanner is increasing contrast. If the problem were that severe you would see it on the photos of negatives I took. If you were to scan a piece of well-developed film (either unexposed or with images) as a control for the scanner settings, at the same time right next to the poorly-developed film, you will see a dramatic difference that is obviously not trivial. These observations are also backed up by clear defects in exposed negatives. I'm not stupid-- I wouldn't be wasting your time with this if it really weren't a problem in the first place.

I also don't see the point in printing (thank you, clayne). Not only would it be a great expense right now for me to either a) find a darkroom or b) build my own, but it really wouldn't provide that much data that my scanner doesn't (considering I have controlled for proper contrast as described above). I also don't see the point in further deviating from proper technique by overdeveloping. That is addressing the symptom, not the illness.

Clayne, regarding your point #3, both of those things are problems I am trying to solve. Overall base fog has always been a problem, I just didn't know enough about film to notice it back when I started this thread.

I appreciate the ideal of settling on one consistent setup. In fact, that is exactly what I have done by only using tri-x and rodinal 1:50 for the past few weeks. Of course I have deviated at times to experiment, but this is an obvious necessity. Indeed, it seems to have paid off with trying out 120 film (though my results are not yet conclusive).

ANYWAY. I have now developed two rolls of 120 Tri-X which, for whatever reason, both seem to have significantly lower fog levels than my 35mm tests-- despite the observations mentioned here that 120 generally has higher base density than 35mm. This leads me to believe that it is now (I say "now" because it may have been something different/more previously) either a storage issue or a problem with my 35mm reels. I honestly can't perceive how either is possible though, considering all the results that indicate these were not problems. Regardless, I'll shoot another roll of 120 Tri-X and have the lab develop it as a control. If that works, I'll buy and immediately shoot another roll of 35mm Tri-X from a different source to test for storage problems (though the problems are probably on my end). In the mean time, can we all chill out a bit?

 

[clayne]

The only faint thing I remember about reels contributing to this was someone who had photoflo residue on their reels from improper cleaning. The residual photoflo acted as some kind of accelerant resulting in edge overdevelopment. I believe after they scrubbed them down with a toothbrush the problem went away.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Clayne,

Yeah I remember the same thing. I think it was mentioned here in this thread too, however many pages back, haha. I do agree that it's pretty unlikely, though.

I have considered starting a new thread, but I'm really not sure there is much more help I can gleam from you all. I don't mean that in a negative way-- I am extremely fortunate for the contributions to this thread and the forum in general-- it's just that after 12 pages I'm pretty sure every topic in the film developing process has been covered at least twice, so clearly I am just missing something on my end.

 

[Anscojohn]

I have considered starting a new thread, but I'm really not sure there is much more help I can gleam from you all.
*****
Buy a roll of fresh Tri-X. Shoot it at box speed. Develop it for 8 minutes in D76 at 68 F. Unless you enjoy jerking people around, give us a set of known parameters. Start over.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Why the hostility all of a sudden? I have given you a set of known parameters (Rodinal 1:50, 11 minutes, 68F, Tri-X; all of which I have been using for weeks now except when a parameter was changed as part of an experiment) and I just said I would go out and purchase a new roll of Tri-X. I also mentioned that I shot/developed some fresh 120 Tri-X (I failed to mention that I did shoot it at box speed) using those parameters and had good results. Would you like me to post the images?

I don't see how I am "jerking people around," much less how I appear to be enjoying this situation. I appreciate your help John, and I have tried to be courteous (though I admit my frustration has peeked through lately) and provide as much relevant data as possible to make it easier for you and others to understand what is going on. I certainly do not want to make your life any more difficult, as you are helping me of your own accord in your free time.

 

[Anscojohn]

Why the hostility all of a sudden? I have given you a set of known parameters (Rodinal 1:50, 11 minutes, 68F, Tri-X; all of which I have been using for weeks now except when a parameter was changed as part of an experiment) and I just said I would go out and purchase a new roll of Tri-X. I also mentioned that I shot/developed some fresh 120 Tri-X (I failed to mention that I did shoot it at box speed) using those parameters and had good results. Would you like me to post the images?

I don't see how I am "jerking people around," much less how I appear to be enjoying this situation. I appreciate your help John, and I have tried to be courteous (though I admit my frustration has peeked through lately) and provide as much relevant data as possible to make it easier for you and others to understand what is going on. I certainly do not want to make your life any more difficult, as you are helping me of your own accord in your free time.

*****
You are using different types of film; a film developer with possibile measurement variabilities in your measured dilutions; you are being cavalier about the need for proper temperature. If you do not see that, perhaps you had best do a bit of reading and study before trying more film development.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Scruff, if you can't print, what scanning software are you using. If it is Vuescan, then use the densitometer function in Vuescan and let's find out what the actual density readings of your film is. If it is not, then download it (it's free as a trial) and then figure out what the density is.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Kirk,

I do use Vuescan-- I didn't know there was a densitometer function though! Thanks for pointing this out, I'll take some readings sometime in the next couple days.

You are using different types of film; a film developer with possibile measurement variabilities in your measured dilutions; you are being cavalier about the need for proper temperature. If you do not see that, perhaps you had best do a bit of reading and study before trying more film development.

John,

Perhaps you should read what I have written more closely before you rushed to judgment.

I am not using different types of film, how many times do I have to say this? Yes, occasionally I use Arista Premium 400 (quite commonly understood to be the exact same film as Tri-X) instead of name-brand Tri-X to save some cash; these experiments have proven to be quite expensive with all the film, chemicals, and equipment I have gone through on these tests. I apologize that I have, before these tests, used different films-- perhaps if I had forseen several months in advance that this would upset you, I would not have done so.

All developers can be mixed incorrectly. The stock dilution of D-76 you recommend could easily be mixed incorrectly if the powder is incompletely evacuated from the packet, the temperature of the solute is incorrect, or if the solution is mixed improperly. I am frankly insulted that you don't think I could be precise enough to make a comparatively simple 1:50 dilution with liquids; if it were as difficult as you claim, one would expect to see micropipets for sale in photography stores.

I am not being cavalier with my temperature, unless you consider +/- 3F to be so extraordinarily cavalier. I know many, many film users are more imprecise than I am and produce good negatives; I am only looking for acceptable results at this point, not perfectly consistent results. You must have misinterpreted my casual use of language when I said temperature is the variable I pay the least attention to-- this is obviously a relative statement, not an admission that I am horribly imprecise with temperature.

Indeed, perhaps you are more cavalier than I. After all, you have admitted to loading reels inside a jacket when you must have known there was the possibility of a light leak; there is certainly more risk involved in this than there is in being a few degrees fahrenheit from the ideal development temperature.

I do not enjoy being confrontational, but I will not simply stand by while you patronize me for poorly thought-out reasons. I regret that we could not have had a more amicable relationship, I certainly felt indebted to you for the assistance you had provided prior to your hostility.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Fellas, sorry about the rant. I feel the need to call myself out!

 

[clayne]

Like I said Scruff - if you want a sanity check, I work M-F in Cupertino.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Scruff - it seems you work in a lab? What kind? I'm an analytical chemist in an environmental lab myself. Just curious being a labrat myself. (Sorry if you stated this earlier.)

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Kirk,

I've been out of the lab game for about a year actually, but I spent many a waking hour during my college career doing quantitative PCR and cell culture (so tedious!) in a neuro-oncology lab. I know, working in a lab as a student is a bit different than as a paid job, but my PI was unusually supportive and let me do a lot of interesting stuff. My independent project was comparing the level of PTEN (a cell cycle regulation gene) expression to the overall stem-cell "character" of glioblastoma multiforme. I can give you more details if you like-- it is pretty cool stuff-- but for brevity's sake I won't go into it now.

The experimental design aspect was a lot of fun, but I'm sure you know not everyone is made to work in a lab. Something about the fluorescent lights, probably.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

So I seem to be having some trouble figuring out how to use Vuescan's densitometer function; I have tried googling, but the only tip I could find-- pressing the cntl key-- doesn't seem to work. I've tried all sorts of keys, but all I get is an RGB number b/t 0 and 255.

When I adjusted exposure, this number would change, so I tried to control for that by including pure white (the opaque negative holder) and pure black (empty space in negative holder) in the crop and locking the exposure. The opaque parts read as 255, and the empty parts read as 0. I have my brightness setting (corresponds to midpoint gamma, AFAIK) at 1, the default setting. I don't know if this is a good enough control, but here are my results. To get these value ranges, I took several readings at random points on the film pieces.

Cleared film leader of 135 size Tri-X: ~51-54
Unexposed but developed section of 120 size Tri-X: ~50-53
Unexposed but developed section of crappy 135 size Tri-X (two samples from two separate rolls): ~63-65, ~68-70

You'll notice that the cleared film leader had a slightly (perhaps insignificant) higher range of readings than the developed 120 Tri-X. My thoughts are that, if there is a real difference (especially as one would expect the base density+fog of the developed sample to push it higher than the base density alone of the cleared sample), this a result of the 120 size having a different film base than 135 (though you had mentioned you thought 120 had a higher base density... curious) and/or it has something to do with the purple tint that is pretty well removed in the developer step, which is obviously absent on the fixed-only cleared sample.

Are these numbers significant? In my searching I don't think I saw any methods of inputting these 0-255 numbers into the density equation transmission density=-log(2^(meas/reference)), so I'm really not sure how to interpret my results.

Regardless of all this work, the fact that 120 film does not suffer the same problems 35mm does is a huge help in narrowing down possible causes. I have since removed my 120 film from the place I normally store my film, just in case. I haven't gotten around to buying a new roll of 35mm Tri-X (hey, it's Sunday, gimme a break!), but I'll do that soon to control for my storage issues.

If it is a matter of storage, I assume it is my fault. Even after the other unidentified cause, which I highly suspect existed (as my development problems existed long before I started storing film the way I do now) but never really pinned down was eliminated, film purchased at different times and from different vendors has all shown the same behavior. [Sorry for that freakishly ugly sentence.]

It's not like I store my film in a particularly strange way; I keep it in boxes/canisters in a dark, relatively cool wooden cabinet. Perhaps some other item I have in there is putting out low levels of radiation. It is also possible that something was releasing aromatic compounds (varnish in the wood cabinet, etc.), but I have my doubts that such contaminants could work their way through 35mm containers so easily.

FYI, I have had similar symptoms on rolls that have been purchased from multiple different vendors and have never gone near that cabinet (different cities), hence why I am so suspicious that I had another source of error and that storage was not always the problem. I admit that it is very ugly science, but I didn't have the sense to write down all these variables at the time.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

PTEN (a cell cycle regulation gene) expression to the overall stem-cell "character" of glioblastoma multiforme. I can give you more details if you like-- it is pretty cool stuff-- but for brevity's sake I won't go into it now.

I was able to follow you until you got to that! Thanks for the reply.

I do a variety of inorganic and organic analysis. Typically I've done all wet chem stuff, but lately, cyanide, COD, TOC, pesticides/pcbs and a bunch of other chlorinated compounds in water and solids. Recently, I've moved into volatile compounds in air.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Vuescan - I think you want to clear all adjustments from the software. Then preview scan the image and on either the 'preview' view or the 'scan' view, hold the CTRL key down and click the cursor over an image point. Optical density is displayed in the status bar at the bottom of the screen.

I hope that helps.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

I was able to follow you until you got to that! Thanks for the reply.

I do a variety of inorganic and organic analysis. Typically I've done all wet chem stuff, but lately, cyanide, COD, TOC, pesticides/pcbs and a bunch of other chlorinated compounds in water and solids. Recently, I've moved into volatile compounds in air.

It wasn't a cake walk, but I'm sure it sounds a lot more complicated than it really is, at least as far as my work was concerned. You lost me pretty quickly too-- Cash On Delivery? Table of Contents? I should have paid more attention in my chemistry courses, apparently.

I'll take another crack at the Vuescan densitometer; I did most of what you described, but I didn't clear my settings so maybe that's the issue (Vuescan is so finicky sometimes). Either that, or maybe it isn't supported by all scanners. Thanks for the tips, though.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

You lost me pretty quickly too-- Cash On Delivery? Table of Contents?

Sorry - Chemical Oxygen Demand and Total Organic Carbon - both tests used to predict how much oxygen will be consumed by waste water when released into natural waters, i.e. rivers or lakes...

 

[stevew]

You're getting real hung up with a difference in base density between 35mm and 120. There is a difference in base density, I'm at work and don't have access to my readings, but 35mm base stock is dyed for anti-halation properties

So I seem to be having some trouble figuring out how to use Vuescan's densitometer function; I have tried googling, but the only tip I could find-- pressing the cntl key-- doesn't seem to work. I've tried all sorts of keys, but all I get is an RGB number b/t 0 and 255.

When I adjusted exposure, this number would change, so I tried to control for that by including pure white (the opaque negative holder) and pure black (empty space in negative holder) in the crop and locking the exposure. The opaque parts read as 255, and the empty parts read as 0. I have my brightness setting (corresponds to midpoint gamma, AFAIK) at 1, the default setting. I don't know if this is a good enough control, but here are my results. To get these value ranges, I took several readings at random points on the film pieces.

Cleared film leader of 135 size Tri-X: ~51-54
Unexposed but developed section of 120 size Tri-X: ~50-53
Unexposed but developed section of crappy 135 size Tri-X (two samples from two separate rolls): ~63-65, ~68-70

You'll notice that the cleared film leader had a slightly (perhaps insignificant) higher range of readings than the developed 120 Tri-X. My thoughts are that, if there is a real difference (especially as one would expect the base density+fog of the developed sample to push it higher than the base density alone of the cleared sample), this a result of the 120 size having a different film base than 135 (though you had mentioned you thought 120 had a higher base density... curious) and/or it has something to do with the purple tint that is pretty well removed in the developer step, which is obviously absent on the fixed-only cleared sample.

Are these numbers significant? In my searching I don't think I saw any methods of inputting these 0-255 numbers into the density equation transmission density=-log(2^(meas/reference)), so I'm really not sure how to interpret my results.

Regardless of all this work, the fact that 120 film does not suffer the same problems 35mm does is a huge help in narrowing down possible causes. I have since removed my 120 film from the place I normally store my film, just in case. I haven't gotten around to buying a new roll of 35mm Tri-X (hey, it's Sunday, gimme a break!), but I'll do that soon to control for my storage issues.

If it is a matter of storage, I assume it is my fault. Even after the other unidentified cause, which I highly suspect existed (as my development problems existed long before I started storing film the way I do now) but never really pinned down was eliminated, film purchased at different times and from different vendors has all shown the same behavior. [Sorry for that freakishly ugly sentence.]

It's not like I store my film in a particularly strange way; I keep it in boxes/canisters in a dark, relatively cool wooden cabinet. Perhaps some other item I have in there is putting out low levels of radiation. It is also possible that something was releasing aromatic compounds (varnish in the wood cabinet, etc.), but I have my doubts that such contaminants could work their way through 35mm containers so easily.

FYI, I have had similar symptoms on rolls that have been purchased from multiple different vendors and have never gone near that cabinet (different cities), hence why I am so suspicious that I had another source of error and that storage was not always the problem. I admit that it is very ugly science, but I didn't have the sense to write down all these variables at the time.