Film processing problems

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I am getting some odd development on the edges of my 6x7 film. Please see lower left edge of attached image. This 120 roll was processed in Barry Thornton Two Bath, stainless steel reels, four in a tank. I give good solid agitation. Am I overdoing it? Maybe it's the extended fill time for this large tank? Thanks in advance.

 

[JW PHOTO]

You are developing four reels at a time? Does every reel have the same edge problem?

 

[bdial]

Was this roll at the top, or somewhere below?
To me it looks like it may have been at the top with incomplete coverage from the developer.

However, for a large multi-reel tank it's usually better to fill the tank first and drop the reels in in the dark, cover and proceed in the light. At the end of developing, it would also be better to take all the rolls out at once, refill the tank (or use another one, ideally) with stop then put the rolls back in. But you can probably get away with emptying through the lid.
For the rest of it, fill and empty times don't matter.
The extended fill times can certainly give you problems with uniformity during development.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Four separate reels or two reels of two rolls per reel [ala Jobo]?

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Four separate reels or two reels of two rolls per reel [ala Jobo]?

Four SS reels

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

You are developing four reels at a time? Does every reel have the same edge problem?

It's kind of hard to tell as the other rolls were more landscape/street so there is more "noise" to break up the pattern.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Was this roll at the top, or somewhere below?
To me it looks like it may have been at the top with incomplete coverage from the developer.

Not sure where it was in the stack. It's possible it wasn't fully covered although I have all my measuring cups marked for about 1" of coverage above the top reel. Maybe I will start running these in the darkroom instead of pouring in through the cap.

 

[ic-racer]

I spend years trying to get rid of those bubble marks. I eventually gave up and went 100% rotary.

 

[bvy]

However, for a large multi-reel tank it's usually better to fill the tank first and drop the reels in in the dark, cover and proceed in the light. At the end of developing, it would also be better to take all the rolls out at once, refill the tank (or use another one, ideally) with stop then put the rolls back in. But you can probably get away with emptying through the lid.
For the rest of it, fill and empty times don't matter.
The extended fill times can certainly give you problems with uniformity during development.

This statement has inspired me to discontinue using taller tanks. I bought a Paterson System 3 recently which holds about 1000ml of solution and develops 2 120 or 3 35mm. I realized it must be the long pour times that are giving me grief, not to mention that these taller tanks are not particularly suited to inversion agitation (HC-110 doesn't need any help producing foam). The goal was to save time developing an extra roll per session, but not at the cost of uneven development or inferior results. Working in the dark, for me, defeats the purpose of using a daylight tank. Time to get back to doing what works.

 

[bvy]

By the way, ParkerSmithPhoto, your picture is really nice. What kind of lens are you using? And how did you light it?

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

By the way, ParkerSmithPhoto, your picture is really nice. What kind of lens are you using? And how did you light it?

Thanks, that's the RZ67 with the 180mm lens, one small 20" soft box just to the left of the lens.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

This statement has inspired me to discontinue using taller tanks. I bought a Paterson System 3 recently which holds about 1000ml of solution and develops 2 120 or 3 35mm. I realized it must be the long pour times that are giving me grief, not to mention that these taller tanks are not particularly suited to inversion agitation (HC-110 doesn't need any help producing foam). The goal was to save time developing an extra roll per session, but not at the cost of uneven development or inferior results. Working in the dark, for me, defeats the purpose of using a daylight tank. Time to get back to doing what works.

So are you saying you were getting uneven results with SS reels or the Paterson? I remembered a few years back I was using Diafine in a Paterson system on a Unicolor base and managed to find a neg that had almost this exact same problem. Very faint, but there.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I see minus development very slight on the left side of the image, the only thing I can think of is lack of agitation in the very first part of the process, or its the top roll in the stack and the chemisty did not
get to it as fast as the right side of the image.

 

[RobC]

having fiddled with image to exagerate the problem it looks to me that this due to either some contamination from the film spool or bubbles/froth on the film which means it was probably the the top film of the four poking out of the developer.
Reel could have slipped up the column and not moved back after inversions.
I don't think its due to flow of chemical over neg edge.

Either use more dev in tank or make sure you rap tank hard enough on base after inverions to make all reels slip down on column as far as possible.

On the other hand the dark line at the edge of it suggests it might be film spool contamination. Not sure about this.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The contamination and/or bubbles at the top of the reel is plausible to me. I've seen lots of developing problems with foaming developers over the years, where one edge of the film gets lots of uneven density problems like this where air bubbles prevent developer from reaching the film in a uniform way. They move around when we agitate, which is why the patterns are so non-distinct.

I know people say it's safe to put Photo Flo / Edwal LFN etc into the tank, but the way I overcame my issues with the same problem was to avoid putting wetting agent in the tank, and have the film properly off the reels before I hold the film from each end and see-saw it through the wetting agent before I hang it to dry.
I even go so far as to make sure I thoroughly rinse my hands before I take the next reel out of the film wash so I don't contaminate the reels with wetting agent.

This system works for me, I'm not saying it's the only way or some holy grail to fixing this problem, but it might be worth a shot.

having fiddled with image to exagerate the problem it looks to me that this due to either some contamination from the film spool or bubbles/froth on the film which means it was probably the the top film of the four poking out of the developer.
Reel could have slipped up the column and not moved back after inversions.
I don't think its due to flow of chemical over neg edge.

Either use more dev in tank or make sure you rap tank hard enough on base after inverions to make all reels slip down on column as far as possible.

On the other hand the dark line at the edge of it suggests it might be film spool contamination. Not sure about this.

View attachment 150541

 

[bvy]

So are you saying you were getting uneven results with SS reels or the Paterson? I remembered a few years back I was using Diafine in a Paterson system on a Unicolor base and managed to find a neg that had almost this exact same problem. Very faint, but there.

I'm using a Paterson tank and reels, and I'm getting exactly what you're getting as shown in the contrast-modified image. My regular combination is Acros 100 and HC-110 (dil. E, 68F, 8 min.) using inversion agitation. I have more than enough developer in the tank, and tests in room light clearly show foam bubbles clinging to the film, just under the top of the reel, which is fully submerged. I can bang the tank till it breaks, and I'll still get that. The only thing I've found that consistently prevents it is lateral agitation -- specifically figure-8 agitation, wherein the tank is never turned on its side or over but moved in figure 8's along a plane parallel to the ground. Still, I'm not totally convinced that this type of agitation isn't causing uneven development in other ways. I'm still testing. Further still, agitation isn't going to do anything to compensate for slow fill times.

 

[MattKing]

This statement has inspired me to discontinue using taller tanks. I bought a Paterson System 3 recently which holds about 1000ml of solution and develops 2 120 or 3 35mm. I realized it must be the long pour times that are giving me grief, not to mention that these taller tanks are not particularly suited to inversion agitation (HC-110 doesn't need any help producing foam). The goal was to save time developing an extra roll per session, but not at the cost of uneven development or inferior results. Working in the dark, for me, defeats the purpose of using a daylight tank. Time to get back to doing what works.

I'm not sure that the Paterson Universal III tank was ever made in that size. If it was, it would be about 50 years old.

A Paterson System 4 tank would be at least 35 years old, but it was made in that size.

The current, Super System 4 tanks, which have been made since 1981, fill much more quickly and I have been very satisfied developing up to 4 rolls of 120 film (2 per reel) in tanks that size, using the 3rd party reels with wider flanges that are compatible..

 

[bvy]

It's the Paterson Multi-Reel 3 currently available at B&H and elsewhere.

 

[MattKing]

It's the Paterson Multi-Reel 3 currently available at B&H and elsewhere.

Ah - sorry about the confusion.

I guess its complete name is the "Paterson Super System 4, Multi-Reel 3 Developing Tank".

I wonder if my better results are due to the replacement reels.

These ones (in the version sold by Freestyle): http://www.freestylephoto.biz/55043-Arista-Premium-Plastic-Developing-Reel

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

On the other hand the dark line at the edge of it suggests it might be film spool contamination.

What is "film spool contamination?" That's a new one for me.

 

[RobC]

What is "film spool contamination?" That's a new one for me.

It means you have got residual chemicals on the spool from the last time it was used. And photoflo is a prime candidate but could be fixer or anything else which that reel has been used in. i.e you have NOT cleaned it properly. But could just be air bubbles.

 

[MattKing]

"Spool" = "Reel" in that reference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What is "film spool contamination?" That's a new one for me.

As in PhotoFlo et al that was not washed off.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

It means you have got residual chemicals on the spool from the last time it was used. And photoflo is a prime candidate but could be fixer or anything else which that reel has been used in. i.e you have NOT cleaned it properly. But could just be air bubbles.

Well, now that you mention it, I never rinse off my SS reels after PhotoFlo, I just leave them to dry. I guess that would explain it, although I always pre-soak.

 

[jeffreyg]

As mentioned don't use PhotoFlo with the reels. I use it very sparingly in a Tupperware container and only as a one shot. just hold the film on the ends and dunk. Clean the reels with alcohol on a Qtip to get in between the rails and rinse with water. I use a ss tank and reels and tip the tank when pouring the dev, water stop and fixer so the air can escape when filling. Put the reels in an empty tank and fill with water to cover the reels plus some extra and measure the amount to know how much chemistry is needed. Vigorous agitation is not necessary and a firm rap or two after agitating should dislodge bubbles. Do the same with stop and fix.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/