Help needed for identifying problem in developing

[ghwilliam1903]

Hi everyone,

I’m hoping someone can help me understand a phenomenon I’ve noticed in my scanned negatives.

These examples were shot on Fomapan 400 and Lucky SHD 400 (rated at ISO 200) using a Zorki 2C.

They were developed in Ilford DDX (1:4), stopped with Bellinifoto ECO Stop Bath (1:19), fixed using Bellini Eco Range Universal Fixer FX100 (1:4), washed with tap water, and finished with Kodak Photo-Flo 200 (1:200). Processing was done via rotary development in a temperature-controlled bath.

The negatives were scanned on a copy stand with a lamp source using a Sony A9. Reversal was done in Adobe Lightroom.

After reversing the images, I noticed consistent white dots across all frames and more grain than I usually get with the same film stocks. While I’m aware that some shots are slightly out of focus, show camera shake, or are underexposed, the uniform appearance of the white dots makes me suspect a problem in the process.

Could this be caused by overdevelopment, insufficient stopping, incomplete fixing, or might it be related to the scanning method?

I’d be grateful for any suggestions or insights into what might be causing this issue.

Thanks very much for your help!

 

[mshchem]

I'm not seeing anything?

 

[F4U]

I've seen a few minor imperfections. but nothing I would call a problem, were it mine. Considering second tier films and unconventional processing, everything look nominal or better to me.

 

[koraks]

, I noticed consistent white dots across all frames and more grain than I usually get with the same film stocks.

Sorry, I don't see it. What you've shown looks perfectly normal for Fomapan 400. I'm not familiar with the Lucky film. There are a few spots of dust on one or two of the frames, but this, too doesn't look particularly worrying.

As to grain - note that this is a very complex subject. The grain as it appears in the final image or print is a function of the characteristics of the film, exposure, contrast adjustments in post processing/printing, and development/film processing. Nothing in your images suggests a problem with the latter.

 

[250swb]

I'm not seeing a problem either and even in the cleanest darkroom dust can appear on negatives, for example even Ansel Adams used Spotone on his prints. I'd just spot it out in Lightroom if that's what you're using.

 

[ghwilliam1903]

Thank you all for your helpful posts and suggestions. Based on your advice, I’ll continue with my current film developing and scanning approach.

 

[koraks]

Sounds like a plan. There are always things to be optimized of course, depending on how your priorities and preferences are. For instance, I notice that you like your final images quite punchy at the cost of shadow detail. Take East Putney - this negative evidently contains some shadow detail that you could leverage in your final images:

I'm not showing this as a final edit (it's evidently overall much flatter than your versions and you may not prefer this), just to illustrate that there's contrast in areas that bleed into solid black in your images. Again, it's a matter of taste etc. Btw, don't let the flatter overall look of my quick & dirty example trick you into thinking that only a flat inversion will show the shadow detail. You can really have your cake and eat it - just do localized edits, a.k.a. burning & dodging.

There's also a possibility that in your digitization you're skirting on the side of lopping off information in the highlights (in the inverted final image), but IDK what the camera raw files contain. The jpg's you posted are a bit restricted in this sense. There may be more differentiation in the highlights that you could also benefit from.

Sorry if none of this really addresses the issues you mentioned initially, but as said before, I really don't think they're issues to begin with. You seem to be doing just fine as it is.

 

[Rick A]

The only thing I'm seeing is slightly hard contrast in the inverted photos. This is caused by not reducing developing time enough when using rotary processing. If these were scans of prints I would recommend just using a softer contrast filter. When using rotary processing a 15% reduction of recommended time is a starting point and you need to experiment to get to your desired results. Subject matter plays an important part as bright contrasty scenes need less time than flatly lit subjects. This is very hard to accomplish with roll film as there's normally a wide range of lighting conditions on one roll.

 

[koraks]

This is caused by not reducing developing time enough when using rotary processing

That's one possibility out of several, and we have no way of determining whether this is the main contributing cause. Well, I guess we do - and it's not. But let's cut your hypothesis some slack.

Hint: the answer, as so often, is in the digital part of the process.

 

[pentaxuser]

All I can see that may be improved is the foliage in Thurloe Street and East Putney. Assuming the scan is a faithful reproduction of the actual negative the foliage in both lacks some detail but had you not drawn my attention to these as potential problem negatives but just as a set of prints I am unsure that my attention would even have gone to the foliage.

pentaxuser

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The negatives seem a touch underexposed.Try using the next lower ISO/ASA number for your next film.

 

[Ian Grant]

As the camera is a Zorki C, I'd suggest having a look at how you are metering for your exposures, as you have consistently poor shadow details in the negatives 1,2, & 4.

Get hold of a copy of Ansel Adams The Negative, he does suggest how to use a hand held meter, and when shooting roll film. I used a Weston Euromaster to measure shadow levels as he suggested, until buying a Spot meter. Even a Phone app can be used to measure the shadow levels.

Ian