Help identify black marks running across the top of 35mm negatives

[O HanraHanrahan]

What camera? It could be the result of a defect in a vertical travel shutter. The phenomena is only occurring within the image frame. The edge markings are not impacted.

The camera was a Konica Hexar AF

 

[O HanraHanrahan]

In my experience, light getting onto tightly wound spools of film does produce marks that line up with the sprocket holes, but soft-edged streaks, not discrete round blobs. My money is on something preventing development, like air bubbles.

I'm thinking it could be along the lines of air bubbles. I just poured in the developer and didn't invert the tank.

 

[ic-racer]

Your example is pretty unnusual. Frequently sprocket-hole turbulence causess a more subtle effect with less defined edges and alternating light/dark bands (see example of horizontal rotary processing with exhausted developer).
Let us know if you find out your issue.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

It's the James Bond developer problem; stirred , not shaken!!
OK, not so funny.
The lesson should be ; KISS, keep it simple stupid!
Adding too many variables to the process invites failure.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

FWIW, This worked for me..

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rotary/rotary.html

i use an old Uncicolour Uni roller and a Patterson tank., Heath Robinson but it works with predictable results.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

It is surge, I assure you!

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

It is surge, I assure you!

Wow, must be a mixer or blender attachment.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

(snippage)



Except that the agitation was in a longitudinal direction from the film's perspective, so surge marks would never have ended up this way. So no, that's not it.

A light leak problem seems most likely to me given the extent of the defect.

A light leak would affect the area outside the frame edge. Thus, it cannot be that. Surge would increase density in the exposed area, without necessarily affecting the unexposed area. Thus, it is surge and cannot be anything else.

 

[koraks]

I'm thinking it could be along the lines of air bubbles.

Certainly not. Those would show up as minus density. You've got excess density, and a whole lot of it, too. It's not impeded development - it's the opposite.

For starters, fix one strip of negatives again and see if it makes a difference.

and cannot be anything else.

You're wrong.

 

[snusmumriken]

Apart from the order in which the 3 rolls were stacked in the tank, we also don’t know which way each one was facing: ie whether rotation would force chemical through the spiral, or spin it past. Either way, I’m puzzled how the dark blobs line up vertically behind the bits of film between the sprocket holes. With such vigorous rotation one might expect the marks to be slanted.

Please let us know what happens if you re-fix a strip as @koraks suggests.

 

[O HanraHanrahan]

For starters, fix one strip of negatives again and see if it makes a difference.

I'll refix one of the strips tonight

 

[koraks]

With such vigorous rotation one might expect the marks to be slanted.

Well, the agitation doesn't seem very vigorous at all - quite the opposite. It's really, really slow in fact.

Thinking about it some more, the cause is more likely to be insufficient agitation than too much of it. So not surge marks due to too vigorous agitation, but 'bromide drag' (which is a misnomer, really) due to too little of it.

 

[Don_ih]

Given the camera has a leaf shutter, there's nothing that could make that a result of the camera.

This doesn't look like air bubbles - it looks like bubbles of concentrated developer. Any chance some developer got on the reel?

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm 100% certain that it's the mechanical agitation used here. Like many others I've used Paterson tanks for decades, in my case over 5, and processed many thousands of films, B&W, as well as colour.

There was a similar thread with a virtually identical example last year. It has nothing to do with fixing or bromide drag, which is caused by insufficient agitation, clearly not the case here.

Quoting from a post by Stoo Batchelor from 2007

In the book 'The Darkroom Handbook' on page74, under Black and white negative errors, it reads;

Surge marks,
If your negatives have patches of uneven density adjacent to the sprocket holes, you have agitated the film tank too much. The developer solution has surged through the sprocket holes and created extra development in nearby areas.

I'm assuming Stoo meant the Michael Langford book, I no longer have a copy. Langford was head of Birmingham School of Photography before moving to The Royal College of Art. I would take his word as Gospel on this issue.

Note that in another thread on surge marks Matt King points out it is 35mm film issue because of the sprocket holes.

Ian

 

[john_s]

Well, the agitation doesn't seem very vigorous at all - quite the opposite. It's really, really slow in fact.

Thinking about it some more, the cause is more likely to be insufficient agitation than too much of it. So not surge marks due to too vigorous agitation, but 'bromide drag' (which is a misnomer, really) due to too little of it.

What sets the OP's arrangement from almost all others is the uniformity of agitation. Without wanting to trigger a debate about how much agitation is "correct" it's clear to me that not much is needed as long as it has a random effect. The OP's arrangement is exactly the opposite.

 

[cliveh]

Yes that was just an example to show the speed and process. I had the light tight funnel on. I poured in the developer while the reels were spinning.

But did you include the black light-tight black tube that fits through the three spirals?

 

[O HanraHanrahan]

But did you include the black light-tight black tube that fits through the three spirals?

I did, yes.

 

[snusmumriken]

I found a copy of Anchell & Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook on my phone today when bored waiting for an eye exam, and spotted the following (the bold formatting is my doing). It concurs with what @Ian Grant has been suggesting all along.

<<...continuous agitation reduces development time by 15 to 20%. It also increases the rate of development in the highlights, suppresses the adjacency effects which enhance film sharpness, and can cause bromide streaking. We do not usually recommend continuous agitation for black and white films. For exceptions see the section below, on JOBO Rotary Processors.
Most defects due to uneven development appear within the first 30 to 60 seconds, and are magnified as the development process continues. Clearly, then, agitation should be continuous for the first 30 to 60 seconds. But it must be intelligent. The goal is to break up standing waves and prevent laminar effects which prevent the developer from actually moving over the film even when agitation is intense. The only way to achieve this is to change direction frequently.>>

I'll refix one of the strips tonight

Did you do this?

 

[O HanraHanrahan]

I found a copy of Anchell & Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook on my phone today when bored waiting for an eye exam, and spotted the following (the bold formatting is my doing). It concurs with what @Ian Grant has been suggesting all along.

<<...continuous agitation reduces development time by 15 to 20%. It also increases the rate of development in the highlights, suppresses the adjacency effects which enhance film sharpness, and can cause bromide streaking. We do not usually recommend continuous agitation for black and white films. For exceptions see the section below, on JOBO Rotary Processors.
Most defects due to uneven development appear within the first 30 to 60 seconds, and are magnified as the development process continues. Clearly, then, agitation should be continuous for the first 30 to 60 seconds. But it must be intelligent. The goal is to break up standing waves and prevent laminar effects which prevent the developer from actually moving over the film even when agitation is intense. The only way to achieve this is to change direction frequently.>>


Did you do this?

I refixed the nagatives but it didn't make any difference, the marks are still there.

 

[O HanraHanrahan]

I have a bit of an update.

I developed another three rolls using the same method with the "automatic agitaor/ pot stirrer" but changed the process slightly and the negatives came out perfect.

• So this time I made sure the all three reels were facing the same way ( See photo below )
• I poured in the developer and agitated the tank by hand inverting it for 1 minute and tapping the tank.
• Then I put on the "automatic agitaor/ pot stirrer" and set it to the slower speed and let it stir for 6mins 40 secs. (It rotates clockwise)
• I did the same for stop and fix.
• The negatives came out perfectly developed.

So the first time I developed the film using the "automatic agitaor/ pot stirrer" I do not know what way the reels were facing.
I attached the "automatic agitaor/ pot stirrer", turned it on and then poured in the developer while the reels were being rotated / agitated.
I did not invert the tank or tap it.

So I'm thinking it had something to do with the direction the reels were facing.
Also the fact that I did not invert the tank.

 

[cliveh]

What do you mean by the direction the reels are facing?

 

[snusmumriken]

What do you mean by the direction the reels are facing?

The spirals either face the direction of rotation, or face away from it. So if rotation is always in one direction, chemicals are consistently either forced in or sucked out. That’s why I always start with the twizzle stick, and then do inversions. But I guess if the OP’s system can be made to work, it will help with very long development times.

 

[cliveh]

The spirals either face the direction of rotation, or face away from it. So if rotation is always in one direction, chemicals are consistently either forced in or sucked out. That’s why I always start with the twizzle stick, and then do inversions. But I guess if the OP’s system can be made to work, it will help with very long development times.

That should not make any difference.

 

[Don_ih]

That should not make any difference.

I think it's well established that absolutely anything can make a difference.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Hello everyone,

I have recently developed 3 rolls of Ilford HP5 35mm film and on two of rolls have these black marks running across the top of 35mm negatives.

The marks only show on around 10 frames from one roll and around 13 frames on the other roll. The 3rd roll is perfect, no marks.

All 3 films were shot in the same camera.

I would greatly appreciate if anyone can identify what the issue is? Please see attached photos of the negatives.

Some information on my development process:
Developer Ilfotec DD-X 1:4
1000ml
9min @ 20° (-15% for continuous agitation)
7:39 min (Actual Development time)

Processed in a Paterson Multi-Reel 3 Tanks with Paterson Reels using continuous agitation in just one direction. (See attached video for the agitation process)

This was my first time experimenting with continuous agitation in just one rotation.


Kind regards,

Tadhg.

View attachment 371482

View attachment 371483

The Paterson System 4 tank is not meant to be agitated by twisting motion only.
The twisting motion is to be used only just after having poured the chemicals in.
Then you have to manually agitate the tank, by inverting it energically.
Please don't waste any more films on agitating unproperly.