Grey stain on Tri-X film...

[antielectrons]

Hi,

Have just developed a roll of 120 Trix-X 400 in ID-11 1+1 10 mins @ 20ºC, Ilfostop, and Ilford Rapid fixer, followed by the Ilford wash and some Ilfotol and have got a grey stain on the side of the negative running about half a centimeter wide - looks like someone has come along with some grey paint and painted the negative on the emulsion side. Stain affects both the exposed image area and the unexposed area between frames.... is about 3cm long.

I had a bit of trouble loading this one onto a Paterson reel, could it be the result of the emulsion on that part of the film touching the somewhere. Also there is a brownish watermark about 2mm out from the edge of the stain.

 

[Donald Qualls]

This could be, as you suspect, due to the film touching, or due to the reel migrating up the core in the Paterson tank (I've had trouble with this lately). Either way, refix immediately to minimize printing-out; if the problem occurred after development, the negatives may still be okay, but if earlier, they'll have a clear or low-density stripe where you now see gray -- too late to save 'em.

My plan for my Paterson is to try wrapping a couple turns of masking tape on the core so the little spring tension nubs in the inner reel have to slide over the tape going on or off -- this should (I hope) provide a little extra resistance to the reel sliding up the core. If that doesn't work, there's always using a little more liquid (say, 600 ml instead of 500 for 120 film), or some folks have used a rubber band wrapped on the core several times to hold the reel down. I could just as easily use my stainless tanks, but I like the Paterson because I and load two 120 rolls consecutively and get more film in the same amount of developer...

 

[Bill Mobbs]

Donald, I'm using an "O" ring used to seal pipe conections to hold the reel down. I use a #15 O-ring sized 1"OD X 3/4" ID X 1/8". Its a tight fit, but holds things in place.

 

[antielectrons]

Thanks.

If the reel where moving up the central column wouldn't the effect be visible on the whole neg and not just a 3cm length (between frames 4 and 5)?

There is a tiny (2mm) area on the outer edge of the film that is OK - i.e. transparent. The bit that slides in the reel, so my guess is that this is something that has happened during processing...

Perhaps the stop bath did not reach that bit of the neg? and it continued to develop?

I don't know. Very annoying as it affected the best image in the group.

By the way, how do you load two 120 films consecutively on a reel?

 

[Huub S]

Thanks.

If the reel where moving up the central column wouldn't the effect be visible on the whole neg and not just a 3cm length (between frames 4 and 5)?

There is a tiny (2mm) area on the outer edge of the film that is OK - i.e. transparent. The bit that slides in the reel, so my guess is that this is something that has happened during processing...

Perhaps the stop bath did not reach that bit of the neg? and it continued to develop?

I don't know. Very annoying as it affected the best image in the group.

By the way, how do you load two 120 films consecutively on a reel?

You are right. When the reel would have slipped up, it would have affected the whole film, not just a 3cm length. It's comparable with not using enough liquid.
I haven't got a clue what could have caused your problem. Perhaps the film got out of the reel over that 3cm stretch?? It's probably not a stop bath problem, because the whole process can do without a stop bath. The stop bath is there to a halt the developing process immidiatly and to protect the pH of your fix. Leaving it out just spoils your fix a little faster.

Paterson used to make a special clip to hold the reel down. Sometimes you find them with older tanks. It's worth having one of these things.

When i want to load two 120-films on one reel, i put in the first one the normal way. When it's past the loading clips i gently rotate it with my hand until it doesn't move anymore. Then i put the second one in. Never went wrong, untill now...

Huub

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yes, correct -- what you have is film contact from the film slipping out of the spiral for a short length. Nothing that can be done except to refix; the gray you see is undeveloped, unfixed halide and the images it intrudes into are permanently damaged.

 

[antielectrons]

Yes, correct -- what you have is film contact from the film slipping out of the spiral for a short length. Nothing that can be done except to refix; the gray you see is undeveloped, unfixed halide and the images it intrudes into are permanently damaged.

Thanks Donald - yes, I think that was the cause. As I was having problems loading the film onto the reel, part of the emulsion must have been in contact with the film on an inner loop.

Will be getting a CPE 2 soon - I hope those reels are easier to load.

 

[Jim Noel]

That part of the film which is gray did not come in contact with the chemistry.

You said that you had trouble loading this roll. The film did not get into the grooves of the reel correctly allowing it to touch film in the next groove.

 

[Papa Tango]

Another solution for Paterson is 600ml in the Super 4 two roll tank, and 1000ml in the three. Multi-batch developers work well in this scenario, as there is less depletion during processing due to more developer available during agitation. Of course this tactic does little for single shot development. One could simply drop another empty reel on top and not have to worry about O rings and such...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Pragmatist, adding a reel doesn't help much when you have a 120/220 reel in the 2x135 or 1x120/220 tank, as is my usual case and that of the original poster. Adding some additional liquid, of course, does help, but then there's the question of *how high* will the reel climb on the core. I'd prefer a means of keeping the reel at the bottom where it belongs, and an O-ring seems like a good way to do that (I can get a package of 10 of the things for a couple bucks at Lowe's, too).

 

[Papa Tango]

Donald, do you bang your tank a few times after agitation? I do to dislodge bubbles and have never had a reel creep.

 

[fschifano]

Even more pragmatic. Wrap a rubber band around the core above the reel. Guaranteed, the reel won't move.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Pragmatist, I do in fact bang the tank on the (paper towel padded) counter after each inversion series. No help. What I suspect is happening (since it started when I changed my loading) is that loading 2x120 films on the 220 length reel is increasing the resistance of the loaded reel to the liquid flow as the tank fills from the bottom after each inversion cycle; that allowed the reel to climb up the core and there isn't enough density difference between loaded reel and developer solution for the slam on the counter to have much effect toward bringing it back down.

If yours doesn't slip, it's just that little bit tighter than mine.

I need to remember to put some rubber bands in my darkroom and install the reel the other way up on the core (inside end up instead of inside end down, which I've been doing to ensure complete drainage when pouring out) so the rubber bands or o-rings can hold. Or just tape the core to provide a diameter increase for the spring bows in the reel to grip on, as I suggested originally. Got some film to process tomorrow, I'll try that first (because I know where the tape is, and can apply it in the light).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I always fill the tank with developer, stop, and fixer. No such problems. I also rap the tank pretty hard on my sink top to dislodge air bubbles that might be trapped in the reel. In my mind, that's what happened.

I've had problems with having those opaque undeveloped, unfixed areas on the film as well, but only where the film edge might touch the film reel. If that occurs, then back in the fixer it goes, off the reel. When the affected areas clear, I start the wasing procedure.

To me, adding extra chemistry to completely fill the tank takes all the guess work out of it. If you use one-shot developers, they're cheap. It'll be cents more. If you're using replenished developers, you're still just putting one roll through, if you fill the tank, it's not going to use more developer capacity.

For loading 2 rolls of 120 films on to one spool, I use the tape at the end of one film strip. Careful to get the film edges parallel, but with some practice, it works great.

My 2 cents.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, since I had some film to process today, I tried my own idea from above -- I wrapped two turns of 1/2 inch wide masking tape onto my Paterson Super System 4 tank core (I arrived at two turns because 4 and 3 wouldn't fit into the center of the reel), positioned so the nubs on the friction spring bits would be just below the tape when the reel was on the core. Loaded two rolls and processed as normal, and when I opened the tank, was gratified to see the reel still at the bottom of the core.

Huggy, you're right about the relative economy of filling the tank, but I like to leave the empty space at the top to ensure good agitation when I invert -- this goes double with my reduced agitation process (every 3rd minute); the agitation I do give needs to be thorough. I haven't used the head tape from the film, in part because some of the films I use don't have head tape that can be cleanly removed from either backing or film, and it's on the emulsion side even on the ones that do -- which makes it much harder to smooth on effectively over the join with the second roll started into the spiral, since it's underneath the film at that point (and prone to stick where it isn't wanted, too).