Funky Dev Marks

[ssharp]

Hi All,

I'm teaching a group of refugee's in the UK and low and behold i've messed a film up for one of them.

I've not actually seen this before but even more strange is that this roll (from bulk roll) was one of 7 in a Jobo drum and the only one to have these marks all the way through. I cannot remember if it was first or last in the drum but there was plenty of chems in it.

The film is Fomapan 400 and the dev is Pyrocat HD 1+1+100, no pre wash. Ran for 14mins at 20D. I think the drum was running for a few seconds without clicking back round in the opposite direction.

Any info on what this could possibly be appreciated as i don't want to mess another film up for this lady as we all know how disheartening that can be !

Cheers,

S.

 

[MattKing]

That looks like a double exposure to me.

 

[koraks]

this roll (from bulk roll) was one of 7 in a Jobo drum and the only one to have these marks all the way through.

To clarify:
* All 7 rolls were developed in the same tank at the same time, i.e. in one single development run? If so, do you recall whether this film was at the bottom, top or somewhere in the middle?
* Other rolls were also affected, but not all across the film (some unaffected frames)? If so, how does the defect look on those rolls?

The vertical striations across the frames look like liquid run marks. If I were to guess, I'd suggest that developer was poured into the tank, the tank was then left to sit for a minute in upright position and only then tilted horizontally and placed onto the Jobo processor, starting agitation. However, that sounds like a mistake you surely would have noticed.

 

[ssharp]

That looks like a double exposure to me.

Hi Matt, the camera was a Cannon 1000F and i don't think it has that function but i'll check.

 

[ssharp]

To clarify:
* All 7 rolls were developed in the same tank at the same time, i.e. in one single development run? If so, do you recall whether this film was at the bottom, top or somewhere in the middle?
* Other rolls were also affected, but not all across the film (some unaffected frames)? If so, how does the defect look on those rolls?

The vertical striations across the frames look like liquid run marks. If I were to guess, I'd suggest that developer was poured into the tank, the tank was then left to sit for a minute in upright position and only then tilted horizontally and placed onto the Jobo processor, starting agitation. However, that sounds like a mistake you surely would have noticed.

Hi Koraks,

Yes all 7 rolls at once, i'm not too sure were the affected roll was in the spiral. Yes there are a couple of frames with a similar mark but not as bad and only in the very thinnest part of the neg.

My Jobo has a lift so the drum would have been horizontal and i'm 100% it was turning when i put in the dev. It was, however, only spinning one way for a few seconds.

S.

 

[koraks]

Ah, a 1000F. Fond memories.

Yes there are a couple of frames with a similar mark but not as bad and only in the very thinnest part of the neg.

The defect stands out the most in thin areas it seems, but I see the denser areas in the few negatives you posted also show the problem. Could you verify if other rolls you believe to be unaffected really are unaffected if you look closely?

It's odd; the only explanations for this kind of damage would involve fluid running across the film, affecting either the latent image, or affecting the already developed silver image. The latter case would have had to involve a bleaching compound (color blix, Farmer's reducer etc.) so seems rather unlikely.

You mention the film was bulk loaded. Can you tell us a bit more about how (which conditions) and how long the rolls were stored after bulk loading?

 

[ssharp]

Hi Koraks,

All the other rolls are fie save a frame or two i very thin areas showing a little similar problem but not as bad.

I bulk loaded fresh film in my darkroom using a standard loader for the good old days, i've it before quite a lot. The films were used just a coup of days later.

It really is weird.

 

[koraks]

Yeah, very weird for sure.
Did you store the film in the fridge before it was used? Any chance of moisture having collected on the film surface or something like that?

Given that the defect is perpendicular to the rotation direction, I don't see how this could be caused during rotary processing. And at the same time, I also don't see how it could be caused at any other stage than during development of the negatives, or immediately prior to it.

 

[MattKing]

Hi Matt, the camera was a Cannon 1000F and i don't think it has that function but i'll check.

Your student wouldn't be the first person to inadvertently run an already exposed and waiting for development film through a camera a second time.
To me, it just looks more like exposure to light than a development issue.

 

[ssharp]

I'm wondering if it could be a fault in the camera system ? BUT those look like dev streaks of some sort surely !?

 

[MattKing]

It could also be a problem with the cassette.

 

[lamerko]

There are distinct transport mechanism marks - perhaps the camera had a complex technical problem that also caused the vertical marks (perhaps a tight shutter?). The line spacing is too messed up to be from development - usually problems there follow some pattern...

 

[pentaxuser]

The vertical striations across the frames look like liquid run marks. If I were to guess, I'd suggest that developer was poured into the tank, the tank was then left to sit for a minute in upright position and only then tilted horizontally and placed onto the Jobo processor, starting agitation. However, that sounds like a mistake you surely would have noticed.

Would the marks look as regular as this from what you describe above as a possible cause or indeed from any cause stemming from processing especially given that this roll was the only one with such regular and identical streaks throughout the whole film?

The OP has asked the same question on FADU and rightly so as that way he might get a bigger range of answers. However the reason why I mention this is that the vertical marks there look more prominent and that prominence reveals that it was almost as if they were placed there by a draughtsman with a ruler. That's how straight and regular they are

I post this simply as a question as I have never such regular lines before

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

That's how straight and regular they are

They don't appear to be in the illustration in the thread on Photrio, above. This is a snippet from the second example image, top right corner, with increased contrast to make the defect better visible:

The visual match I see is with the classic thick line of paint smeared onto a wall with runners of paint dripping down from it. Note also how they appear to join in some places near the top edge of the frame.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes blown up considerably that would seem to be the case whereas it wasn't at normal negative size from what I saw. So does this suggest anything that is likely to be connected to his processing or indicate that this is unlikely to be connected and the cause needs to be looked for elsewhere?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Well, my suggestion remains that due to the visual resemblance of something caused by fluids, it's likely to be related to processing.

 

[250swb]

Given the marks extend beyond the edge of the frame it looks to me like a liquid of some sort (a pre-soak maybe?) has been poured into the tank first and there wasn't enough of it. The tank has then been put onto the Jobo and the film developed but not for long enough to attain full density which may otherwise have gone some way in compensating for the problem.

 

[koraks]

Thinking about this a bit more - maybe this is one of the instances where remnants of a wetting agent on the tank and/or reels causes trouble. I've never run into this myself, but I can see how under certain circumstances this can present a problem - although I'd regard it as a contributing factor and not just the sole cause. @ssharp is there any chance that traces of photoflo etc. were left on the tank or reels from a previous session?

 

[xtol121]

If the rest of the film in the batch came out ok I think you're safe to rule out a processing error. In a jobo tank on a processor that is rotating it is very unlikely that only one roll has a defect. I can verify as I've had processing defects in a Jobo and sadly they don't just pick a roll at random--every roll in the tank will show a degree of error. As I understand it the other rolls came out just fine? If that's the case I'd assume the problematic roll had an incident prior to development that you are unaware of. Maybe it took a dip in some water a week or two before you processed it? Or maybe the person is a Lomo fanatic or "what happens if I put film in orange juice for a month" art school type... A quick google search of "dropped 35mm film in water" shows a number of similar results. Korak's wetting agent suggestion would make more sense to me if you saw bubbles/airbells since foaming is usually a side effect of a surfactant.

 

[lamerko]

Thinking about this a bit more - maybe this is one of the instances where remnants of a wetting agent on the tank and/or reels causes trouble. I've never run into this myself, but I can see how under certain circumstances this can present a problem - although I'd regard it as a contributing factor and not just the sole cause. @ssharp is there any chance that traces of photoflo etc. were left on the tank or reels from a previous session?

In fact, some sources RECOMMEND adding a wetting agent to the pre-bath, and some commercial chemistries put one in the developer. The goal is actually to avoid such incidents, not to cause them

 

[koraks]

In fact, some sources RECOMMEND adding a wetting agent to the pre-bath, and some commercial chemistries put one in the developer. The goal is actually to avoid such incidents, not to cause them

I know. Color developers have wetting agent in them, for instance. At the same time, hordes of people (not me though) have complained about wetting agent remnants causing problems. This is a very rare example of where I could actually see something along these lines causing a problem.

 

[250swb]

Thinking about this a bit more - maybe this is one of the instances where remnants of a wetting agent on the tank and/or reels causes trouble. I've never run into this myself, but I can see how under certain circumstances this can present a problem - although I'd regard it as a contributing factor and not just the sole cause. @ssharp is there any chance that traces of photoflo etc. were left on the tank or reels from a previous session?

Explain how that happens? If you've got a residue of wetting agent in the tank how does diluting it again result in alarming streaks running down the film?

 

[pentaxuser]

It will be interesting to heard back from the OP when he tries a second run with this film and same developer.

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Explain how that happens? If you've got a residue of wetting agent in the tank how does diluting it again result in alarming streaks running down the film?

Wetting agent takes only a tiny bit to influence the Walter's surface tension. I can imagine this plays a role in this specific case. I agree it's a long shot, but do you have any better ideas?

 

[pentaxuser]

Wetting agent takes only a tiny bit to influence the Walter's surface tension. I can imagine this plays a role in this specific case. I agree it's a long shot, but do you have any better ideas?

Well there remains the possibility that the problem stems from some fault in the camera used or some fault in the film, doesn't there. Is the OP developed some film for others then can we or the OP be sure that one lady who owns the film in question did not have a camera problem or was unlucky enough to buy a bad film?

We may hear more from the OP

pentaxuser