From small and medium to large; growing pains

[pstake]

Would anyone be willing to help me diagnose what went wrong here?

This is HP5+ stand developed 54 mins in homebrew FX-2, rinsed twice with water, fixed in TF5 for 10 minutes, using a Fedco tank.

I've used all the chemistry to successfully process other films tonight so I'm at a loss. The negative is still in the rinse as I write this.

Any help is appreciated.



ps. the problem is the pink remaining on one side.

 

[Regular Rod]

Was it in contact with other sheets during the processing?

RR

 

[Ian Grant]

Would anyone be willing to help me diagnose what went wrong here?

This is HP5+ stand developed 54 mins in homebrew FX-2, rinsed twice with water, fixed in TF5 for 10 minutes, using a Fedco tank.

I've used all the chemistry to successfully process other films tonight so I'm at a loss. The negative is still in the rinse as I write this.

Any help is appreciated.

View attachment 82066

ps. the problem is the pink remaining on one side.

Looks like the film hasn't been fully immersed in the developer and fixer, in some tanks the spiral rises up the column and then isn't fully submerged. Paterson and Jobo use locking rings to ensure this doesn't happen, often these don't get used.

It looks like something like that has occurred, you need to check your tank.

Ian

 

[Regular Rod]

Looks like the film hasn't been fully immersed in the developer and fixer, in some tanks the spiral rises up the column and then isn't fully submerged. Paterson and Jobo use locking rings to ensure this doesn't happen, often these don't get used.

It looks like something like that has occurred, you need to check your tank.

Ian

It's sheet film, unlikely to be in a spiral.

RR

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's sheet film, unlikely to be in a spiral.

RR

Even so, whether OP used a tank or not, it looks like the pink side of the film didn't see enough developer, and then not enough fixer, because some of the built-in dyes are still visible.

 

[pstake]

Looks like the film hasn't been fully immersed in the developer and fixer, in some tanks the spiral rises up the column and then isn't fully submerged. Paterson and Jobo use locking rings to ensure this doesn't happen, often these don't get used.

It looks like something like that has occurred, you need to check your tank.

Ian

Ian, I think you're correct that it's the tank but I can't deduce the why.

I've been stand developing using a daylight tank with hangers. After much practice and waste effort, this is a process that now works fine. But the daylight tank will not work fine for normal development because agitating causes surge marks through the hangers.

So I stand developed using this Fedco sheet-film tank which DOES use a sort of spiral, or what I think of as a spiral. The end goal is to get comfortable enough using this tank for normal development (a la agitation). It holds up to 12 sheets of film and is adjustable up to 4x5.

I've attached pictures to illustrate.

Prior to souping the film, I ran a few tests to determine 1) how much solution is needed to fill the tank to the top so that it covers the entire spiral but doesn't spill over (Answer: 1.5L); and 2) in which direction to place the film (Answer: emulsion side out; emulsion side in gives uneven development around the edges). I practiced loading and unloading several times in the light.

So the current problem is that I filled the tank with 1.5L of developer and 1.5L of fixer. So I don't understand how 1/4 of the frame could not have been submersed in one or both. Maybe I'm going crazy? It's such a clean line demarcating the problem area that this result would make sense if I had only added, say, 1L of developer instead of 1.5L.

But I did not! Unless I am in fact going mad and can't measure.


Spiral with one film loaded, next to tank.


Film loads into spiral from one end only. This is the slot the film was loaded into during this development.


Spiral with film loaded into tank, from above; with lid.


Tank loaded and ready for solution.

 

[Regular Rod]

I think Ian has probably got it right then. That slotted frame would indeed have the same effect as a spiral, but is there any possibility of the frame slipping upwards in the tanks and then staying up as the tank is put down to wait for the next period of agitation? Did you have the Kodak film that came out perfectly in at the same time as the HP5 plus? If you did then I would consider whether the film came out of one of its slots and ended up partially shielded during the processing.

RR

 

[pstake]

I think Ian has probably got it right then. That slotted frame would indeed have the same effect as a spiral, but is there any possibility of the frame slipping upwards in the tanks and then staying up as the tank is put down to wait for the next period of agitation? Did you have the Kodak film that came out perfectly in at the same time as the HP5 plus? If you did then I would consider whether the film came out of one of its slots and ended up partially shielded during the processing.

RR

Rod, thanks for the response.

There was zero agitation done. I set the tank down, poured in 500ml from one pitcher, 1,000ml from another pitcher and walked away for 54 minutes.

And as you can see in the photo, the spiral sits very near the top of the tank, so with the lid on there wouldn't have been enough space for it to slip upwards.

I didn't use any kodak film ... only HP5+ ... and the two negatives, which I processed last night and which came out fine, were stand processed using my other daylight tank with hangers.

On the spiral, once the film is slid into its slots, there is a lip, which holds it in place and it takes some moderate difficulty to remove the film intentionally, which makes me doubt it coming loose unintentionally.

 

[Regular Rod]

Rod, thanks for the response.

There was zero agitation done. I set the tank down, poured in 500ml from one pitcher, 1,000ml from another pitcher and walked away for 54 minutes.

And as you can see in the photo, the spiral sits very near the top of the tank, so with the lid on there wouldn't have been enough space for it to slip upwards.

I didn't use any kodak film ... only HP5+ ... and the two negatives, which I processed last night and which came out fine, were stand processed using my other daylight tank with hangers.

On the spiral, once the film is slid into its slots, there is a lip, which holds it in place and it takes some moderate difficulty to remove the film intentionally, which makes me doubt it coming loose unintentionally.

Ah well! If it had happened to me I have to say I would have diagnosed some finger trouble on my part.

RR

 

[pstake]

Ah well! If it had happened to me I have to say I would have diagnosed some finger trouble on my part.

RR

Ten four. I will give it another go tonight.

I'm quite certain I will have earned the ability to shoot / process / print 4x5 by the time I have this all figured out!

EDIT: here in Nebraska, US, "Ten four" is a radio reply for "affirmative" or "understood." Not sure if that expression means anything in UK.

 

[pbromaghin]

If it were my negative, I would think I had mis-measured my fluids and not used enough.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ten four. I will give it another go tonight.

I'm quite certain I will have earned the ability to shoot / process / print 4x5 by the time I have this all figured out!

EDIT: here in Nebraska, US, "Ten four" is a radio reply for "affirmative" or "understood." Not sure if that expression means anything in UK.

As in "roger" or "roger that"?

 

[pstake]

As in "roger" or "roger that"?

Ten four.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ten One Hundred

 

[pstake]

Hahahaha. Logically speaking, I guess that implies a very thorough understanding of the message received.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pstake]

For anyone interested, I solved the mystery. Ian, thomas, others, were all right. The fluid wasn't covering the film—but not because there wasn't enough in the tank.

I had placed the tank in the bathtub for the duration of development, near one side of the tub where it begins to slope.

The tank leaned enough to drag the fluid level down on one side of it (unfortunately, the side where my film was) ... hence the clean demarcation.

Processed another film tonight using the same amount of developer, with good results.

I'm feeling a bit like a detective...

 

[Ian Grant]

It's sheet film, unlikely to be in a spiral.

RR

My Jobo 2000 series tanks take 2 5x4 reels, perhaps spiral was the wrong word but that's what the 120 & 35mm versions are called. Paterson tanks take the MOd 54 which fits in place of the spiral reels.

So it's quite a common problem for these sheet holders to rise up a column and not drop back, I've seen it happen a few times when the locking collars aren't used.

Ian

 

[Regular Rod]

My Jobo 2000 series tanks take 2 5x4 reels, perhaps spiral was the wrong word but that's what the 120 & 35mm versions are called. Paterson tanks take the MOd 54 which fits in place of the spiral reels.

So it's quite a common problem for these sheet holders to rise up a column and not drop back, I've seen it happen a few times when the locking collars aren't used.

Ian

It has happened to me with the collar on! I now wrap a rubber band, cut from a bicycle inner tube, around mine to increase its grip for roll film development. For sheets I use a modified Paterson Orbital ( http://freepdfhosting.com/f640343f29.pdf ) as a tank cum tray and so now never have any of these problems...

RR