Yes, I agree. It's an assortment of problems. Backing paper issues, insufficient development als possibly also exposure, insufficient developer volume and badly fogged (probably outdated and poorly stored) film.Looks like a number of things to work on. Try these changes and report back:
1) Use more solution in your tank
2) Consider a more concentrated solution and/or longer development time; the negatives are severely under developed and have the look of either exhausted developer or too short a time for even development.
3) Dry the negatives in a dust free area. Consider PhotoFlo 200 rinse before hang drying.
4) Film looks expired. If these were supposed to be fresh rolls, try a different manufacturer.
Ah, that explains a lot. You're not the only one; this problem pops up from time to time.I used safelight for loading negatives into the tank
Yes but would it explain the grain that is as bad as anything I''ve seen and this puzzles me greatly especially as the OP has explained as I thought was going to be the case, that the film is fresh.Ah, that explains a lot. You're not the only one; this problem pops up from time to time.
Good luck on your next try; it'll surely be better.
Yes, it does, combined with the insufficient development. It results in a very low contrast image that is boosted in digital post processing, emphasing the grain. It's entirely plausible.Yes but would it explain the grain that is as bad as anything I''ve seen and this puzzles me greatly especially as the OP has explained as I thought was going to be the case, that the film is fresh.
pentaxuser
Thanks. So the grain is increased digitally by scanning and some of this grain would not appear under a grain focuser or on a print of darkroom paper exposed under an enlarger and processed in the normal developer, stop and fix process?Yes, it does, combined with the insufficient development. It results in a very low contrast image that is boosted in digital post processing, emphasing the grain. It's entirely plausible.
Indeed. But the print would either be extremely flat, or you'd have to use grade 5 and end up with the same emphasized grain as in the digital version. Look at it as a matter of signal-noise ratio. Whether you proceed working digitally on the image or in the darkroom, the s/n ratio of the negative still remains the same.Thanks. So the grain is increased digitally by scanning and some of this grain would not appear under a grain focuser or on a print of darkroom paper exposed under an enlarger and processed in the normal developer, stop and fix process?
Hey guys,Hey guys, thanks for all your help!
The film is fresh and I bought it directly from Ilford and other reputable company in UK.
Here's what I'm going to try now:
- I'm going to extend fixing time from 3 to 5 mins and use distilled water for all processes except rinsing at the end.
- I'm going to use 2 thermometers
- I didn't leave film to soak in water for 10 mins at the end of the process - I will do it now
- Also ... quite embarrassing but I used safelight for loading negatives into the tank. I've read yesterday that it HAS to be complete darkness and no safelights are allowed - hence where the fog is from?!
M
I am confused. Which film are you referring to? The first set of negs that was exposed to a red light or the positive scans the OP has given us when he switched off the red light?Guys, of course the grain is bigger: it got overexposed and overdeveloped. What else is to be expected?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?