Film development woes: edge overdevelopment?

[jasonhall]

How bright is the room when you are pooring chems into the tank? I always dim mine down just so I can see the timer clearly. Seems every thing else has been covered so I figured I would throw that one in.

Jason

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Wogster,

Thanks for trying to help, but I've already done everything you've suggested other than buying a new stock of fixer. The problem is that I have inexplicably produced one good roll (with the same fixer I have now, so I shouldn't need to change it). I just can't seem to repeat my success, no matter what variables I change. It's maddening!

Jason,

Good thought! The room is pretty bright, I'll try moving to a darker room. I've tried taping up the lid but obviously I can't tape up where I need to pour the chems. Thanks for the idea, hopefully it pans out!

 

[Bob-D659]

Yes, light traps aren't all that good sometimes. Beseler 11x14 drums will leak light if an overhead lamp is in just the right spot to be reflected onto the paper in the drum as it turns, making a reddish spot.

 

[clayne]

I doubt it's the tank. I also doubt it's any chemical residue.

Scruff, I just processed a roll of 400TX last night, this time shot with the F3, pushed to 1600, developed in D-76 1+1. The same developer I used for the previous 2 rolls from my M4, developed a week ago or so, (that was also 400TX, but @250). Some of the frames on this last roll were in bright conditions with heavy highlights (although not full sunlight) and there was a single blank frame. Guess what? No gradient edge density or other issues (even in the bright frames that were technically overdeveloped - which were probably more correct @ EI 400).

In my case, I still do believe the body is to blame, rather than other factors.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Tried developing in a darker room and I got even more density than I did last time in the sunlit room. So I'm guessing it's not the light trap in my tank.

Observing this increase in density over the past few rolls makes me pretty confident that some sort of chemical contaminant is at fault, but I am no expert so I am open to hearing other suggestions. Here is the list of everything I use repeatedly:

-Clean hands (obvious, but I'm trying not to leave anything out)
-Developer stock (I haven't been putting anything inside the bottle that could contaminate it, so this is not likely the culprit)
-Small, large plastic graduates for measuring, mixing developer (rinsing these in hot bleach solution had no effect, density increased in the roll after cleaning)
-SS Tank, PVC tank lid (There was a decrease in density after I cleaned these the first time, but not the second time)
-SS Reels (ditto above)
-Stop bath (there is no difference when I use water instead)
-Fixer (I used this fixer on the one good roll)

Looking at this list makes me suspect a chemical contaminant in my tank, lid, and/or reels. However, I can't think of any contaminant I could be introducing, much less how the contamination got better after the first cleaning but worse after the second. I do touch my reels and tank with clean hands, but others seem to do this with no issues.

 

[clayne]

Scruff, have you done a simple Rodinal stand-development test yet, btw? Just to remove agitation effects entirely from the equation.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Yes, I've tried stand development in Rodinal (1:100, one hour w/ some agitation halfway through) and the fogging was just as bad as always.

 

[clayne]

Okay what about an entirely separate roll of film? Have the films all been of disparate types? i.e. not from the same batch, same storage location, etc.?

 

[JPD]

Try another camera, and if the results are the same - try a Paterson tank.

 

[jasonhall]

Are you sticking your tongue out the right side of your mouth and jumping on one leg in a counter clock wise direction while you agitate. If not, that is your problem. I bet you are sticking your tongue out the left side.

 

[Anscojohn]

Are you sticking your tongue out the right side of your mouth and jumping on one leg in a counter clock wise direction while you agitate. If not, that is your problem. I bet you are sticking your tongue out the left side.

*****
Totally spurious suggestions. The key is keeping one's eyes closed whilst loading film in the darkroom or changing bag, dontcha know!?

 

[Scruff McGruff]

clayne,

Yes, I've used several different films, purchased from different vendors at different times.

JPD,

It's not a camera issue. I'm doing these tests on unexposed rolls, and lab-developed rolls from the same camera are fine.

Jason/John,

I'm open to anything right now... maybe I'll give those techniques a shot.

 

[jasonhall]

I have made my liveing diagnoseing problems for people. Not on film mind you, but heavy earth moving equipment. Regardless, the approach is the same. At this point the problem is most likely a simple one, or that is easy to fix. Those are often the hardest to find. Seems to me the water has been made muddy with inconsistant results. That is, the results are not exactly the same each and every time. You get bad results then a good one, then two bad one again. Density changes from one sample to the next and so on. So that means that what ever is causeing it is changeing from sample to sample.

The problem is that with out being there, noone is going to be able to figure this out for you I am afraid.

Are you useing distilled water?
How long does your fixer take to clear a piece of film? I use Ilford rapid fix and when fresh it takes about 35-40sec.
How long do you fix?
How do you agitate when you fix?
How close is your temp controled?

Did this problem all of a sudden show up after a history of good results or are you new to this and have had issues from nearly day one?

Forget about the results from a lab, that info is just clouding things up. Just worry about what you get.

Start fresh and start over with the process. I find this helps many times. Its hard but forget about the past results. Start over with a clean slate and fresh clean EVERTHING and be sure to use distilled water. Note every thing you do. Try a new tank maybe and all fresh chems. Be sure all your containers are flushed out well with water and clean and dry.


Jason

 

[Anscojohn]

Jasonhall has a point, up to a point. My suggestion is to begin a completely new thread. Begin anew. Use a single type film; a single type film developer. Obvious, to me, is all the suggestions, thus far, are nothing but bullwinkle. Were they not, your problem would have been solved already. When I think back about all the prints I made from negs souped in hotel rooms, in plastic dish pans, on reels and off, I cannot imagine anyone having so many problems getting a printable neg unless a person is so snake bit that they should take up di...al and just get on with making images. Developing film is not rocket engineering--even color developing. For @#$% I spent a summer in grad school souping bulk loaded Ektachrome in E-4 chemistry, six reels at a time strung on coat hangers, and using 2 quart orange juice fridge bottles as my developing tanks. I knew guys who soupled Ektachrome in tanks kept the proper temp in a kiddy swimming pool using an aquarium heater. Sheesh, Crime Dog, it AIN'T ALL THAT HARD!

 

[Scruff McGruff]

I have a few years of microbiology lab experience (doing sensitive assays like real-time quantitative PCR) under my belt as well, so this should be a walk in the park by comparison! It really is puzzling how I could have such bad results despite putting significantly more thought and effort into my development process than many others (I don't mean this in a negative way, I'm just thinking of people who get it right early on and don't have to fuss around like I do).

I hope I don't sound like I want someone to solve my problem for me, at least not anymore. At first that sounded like a reasonable request, but apparently things aren't so simple! At this point, I'm only asking for ideas about what could be going wrong (more specifically what technique and/or equipment errors cause film fogging), and you folks have been kind enough to oblige.

I've ordered all new graduates and bottles, just in case they have absorbed something clingy that doesn't want to be washed out. I even ordered new stop and fix, even though I've pretty much eliminated them as causes (then again, I seem to have eliminated everything, so clearly I've screwed up somewhere). I'll also give my tank and reels one hell of a cleaning. Hopefully this should give me a fresh start!

 

[Anscojohn]

Scruff,
Your statement about your lab experience speaks volumes. Obviously, as Jason stated, it's something simple. Based upon my experience, black and white chemistry is just not particularly sensitive to contamination--and, besides, contamination should (note should) not impact just the edges. Based upon my vast (grin)
experience developing film myself, I can assure one and all I do not know what is going on.
My suggestion is to begin anew with a minimum of variables. Shoot a roll of film of a brick wall at various apertures--may as well do a rough test of lens resolution whilst trying to solve your problem. Soup half the roll by see-sawing it through a soup bowl of film developer. Finish processing in additional bowls of chemistry. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Greg, thanks for your thorough and very logical post, I appreciate the help!

The fog is everywhere, and doesn't seem to discriminate between parts of the roll. By unexposed I do mean straight from can to tank.

At first, I thought it was a light leak in the changing bag, because for a brief period of time it seemed like loading my reel in the changing bag in a dark room was helping. I then got a new changing bag, which I use now. I regularly use this in an even darker room than I used on that initial gleam of hope, but I still have problems. And yes, I remove my watch before sticking my arms in the bag. It doesn't even have lights or glow paint, but just in case...

I also considered that it might be a problem with the tank, but despite a) taping the seams and any joints that may form cracks and b) developing my film in much more subdued light than usual, the film was just as bad (worse actually) than before. One lid was used, but the newer one is, well, new. I have no idea whether the light trap is attached upside down or not, but both lids look the same.

I also just received my new chemicals (which I mixed in dH2O), graduates, and bottles. Film is still foggy.

I don't have a light box, but I can try to take a photo of the film up against my monitor; I'll get that posted soon. I sure hope you don't determine that I am highly radioactive!

Thanks again, Greg!

 

[Scruff McGruff]

There seems to be a lot of interference and other funky behavior from my computer monitor, but maybe it will still be useful. The center film is the leader from the "fluke" good roll I developed, which I still can't explain. The other two are from recent film tests I did on direct cassette-to-development unexposed film strips. (Before you ask, "real" Tri-X has fogged the same way as AP 400 in my recent tests.)

I didn't bother editing the levels at all, but I can increase the contrast for you if it would help.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Different films have different base fogs. If you'd like, you can send me the strips you show above and I can check them with a densitometer and measure the base fog. PM me if you are interested.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

It's not the camera. Lab-developed rolls are fine, and the images on the same roll as that center (unfogged) film strip are perfect.

I've bought film from several different locations so I sort of doubt that they all had terrible storage, but I guess I'll try again.

To your point about general radiation, I've gotten consistent results in Atlanta, GA and Los Altos, CA (where I am now). I also developed that one good roll here in Los Altos, so I know it's possible.

My tank lid looks like it is oriented correctly. For a while I thought there might be some directional streaking, but the streaking changed after I tried new agitation techniques. I'm not particularly worried about the streaking right now, though, and I assume it is only visible because of the higher-than-normal fog.

I have tried different developers in the past, but I wonder if maybe my graduates and/or syringe were somehow contaminated, which then contaminated my developer stocks. It's a longshot, but it's worth a test. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable running my tank/reels through the dishwasher (I'm pretty oblivious to personal safety, but other people use my dishwasher too). I have washed and scrubbed them several times though; the first time I cleaned them it seemed to have a positive effect, but after a few more cleanings I wonder if that was just a coincidence.

At this point, I'm thinking developer stock contamination. It doesn't seem very likely, as I really can't think of any major sources of contamination, but the only other logical explanation right now is a light leak in my changing bag, which seems even less likely.

Thanks again Greg, I'll let you know how things turn out when I get my hands on some new developer.

Kirk- Thanks for the offer, I may take you up on that sometime in the future. Those strips I took a photo of are the same type film though, so I think I'm dealing with more than a little base fog right now!

 

[Kirk Keyes]

If you have a spot meter, you can do a quickie density check yourself. Meter your monitor or light table, don't move the position of the meter much, and then place the film in the same spot and meter again. Anything up to about 1 stop difference is probably OK.

It sounds to like you can forget about contamination from glassware. You really don't need to clean stuff that much - just a few rinses in clean water should suffice. Also, you keep thinking contamination - just what chemical or solution are you exposing these things to that are not normal photo chemicals. If you are exposing them to non-photo chemicals, then stop it. If you are not exposing them to non-photo stuff, you are OK. Developer, stop, fix, hypo clear, and photoflow wash off pretty easily.

You say the developer may be contaminated - with what do you think? And I'm sorry if I missed it, but have you gotten a fresh stock of developer?

 

[Chazzy]

There seems to be a lot of interference and other funky behavior from my computer monitor, but maybe it will still be useful. The center film is the leader from the "fluke" good roll I developed, which I still can't explain. The other two are from recent film tests I did on direct cassette-to-development unexposed film strips. (Before you ask, "real" Tri-X has fogged the same way as AP 400 in my recent tests.)

I didn't bother editing the levels at all, but I can increase the contrast for you if it would help.

My eyes aren't the greatest, but I don't see increased density along the edges here. Wasn't that the essence of your problem? I don't believe you were complaining about overall fog.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Kirk,

Thanks for the spot meter tip. 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. I have no idea what the contaminant could be. Like I said, it's a longshot, but I can't think of anything else other than a changing bag light leak, which seems even less likely. (It would be nice to have a real darkroom to check this! I'm still quite confident I am loading in sufficiently dark conditions, though.)

Chazzy,

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.]

 

[EASmithV]

It doesn't look that bad. How do they print?

 

[Scruff McGruff]

EASmith,

They don't print very well-- I have to use grades 4 and 5 all the time. That is still manageable I suppose, but the edge streaking that goes along with the fogging is not; it's hard to burn the streaks evenly, even on scans where I have the undo button.