Help please! What am I doing wrong?

[pentaxuser]

There is no way any of us can guarantee we have hit upon the answer to your problem but I strongly suspect that if the film remained in the camera for two years then the potential for damage of the kind mentioned will depend on there being unusual conditions in which the camera was stored and then used. Most of the U.K has similar relative humidity and is not of the kind, in my experience which will affect film if the camera was used in "normal" U.K conditions. I was given a camera by a friend which had been his late brother's. The film from the ensuing negatives that I processed had lain in the camera in a house at normal ambient temperature and the negatives which were fine had clearly been taken in reasonable weather conditions. The film had lain in the camera for nearly 40 years!

OK that length of time is stretching things a bit and I am not recommending leaving film in a camera for 40 years but it's an example of how long film can remain OK in a camera if the conditions are right. If the film was fresh when loaded and had been stored at ambient temperature prior to loading and the cameras then was kept in normal U.K. relative humidity and at ambient temperature then I scratch my head to explain the reason for your problem.

Essex water is hard but so is mine in the South Midlands. I get scale forming on the spouts of my taps and have to descale my kettle frequently but I have never experienced processing problems using tap water.

If your new HP5+ film meets the conditions mentioned in my second paragraph then I think you can safely process it in the way you describe and feel relatively confident that the negatives will turn out fine.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Pre-soak the film? I've not come across this before, just water at 20deg? How long? Agitation or no agitation?

The debate on pre-soak vs. no pre-soak has a tendency to become almost religious in nature.
I happen to be on the "yes" side of the schism, but I'm going to suggest that if your past experience didn't include one, it might be best not to add one now unless and until you have settled on a procedure that, when used with fresh film, gives you good, dependable results.
Then, if you want to experiment, try adding a pre-soak to see if its potential advantages both outweigh its potential dis-advantages and appeal to you.

 

[Rashed]

There is no way any of us can guarantee we have hit upon the answer to your problem but I strongly suspect that if the film remained in the camera for two years then the potential for damage of the kind mentioned will depend on there being unusual conditions in which the camera was stored and then used. Most of the U.K has similar relative humidity and is not of the kind, in my experience which will affect film if the camera was used in "normal" U.K conditions. I was given a camera by a friend which had been his late brother's. The film from the ensuing negatives that I processed had lain in the camera in a house at normal ambient temperature and the negatives which were fine had clearly been taken in reasonable weather conditions. The film had lain in the camera for nearly 40 years!

OK that length of time is stretching things a bit and I am not recommending leaving film in a camera for 40 years but it's an example of how long film can remain OK in a camera if the conditions are right. If the film was fresh when loaded and had been stored at ambient temperature prior to loading and the cameras then was kept in normal U.K. relative humidity and at ambient temperature then I scratch my head to explain the reason for your problem.

Essex water is hard but so is mine in the South Midlands. I get scale forming on the spouts of my taps and have to descale my kettle frequently but I have never experienced processing problems using tap water.

If your new HP5+ film meets the conditions mentioned in my second paragraph then I think you can safely process it in the way you describe and feel relatively confident that the negatives will turn out fine.

pentaxuser

Yes the camera and film had been left around at normal ambient room temperatures, nothing too crazy in terms of humidity as far as I can remember. Interestingly the older roll of film from 8 years ago, which I shot with the Yashicamat, came out better then the Fuji 645 which was only a few years old.

Ok well I'll try with my fresh roll of HP5 and see what happens..... fingers crossed!

 

[pdeeh]

It might not always work that's why. Do the research, if you're not short of water or time just go for the standard wash.

That's frankly not much of an answer.

I have indeed 'done the research', (I've read the Endless Film Washing Thread here at APUG - and many other washing threads, including most of PE's comments on the Ilford method - , I've read The Mysteries of The Vortex (Parts One and Two), and I've even read LFA Mason's book on Photographic Chemistry, including everything he says therein about washing film.)

'It might not always work' is peculiarly unhelpful, though, especially to a new user. If you're going to say that, it pretty much behoves you to explain the circumstances under which it won't work so that the new user can avoid or mitigate them.

The variables that might affect the efficiency of a wash are really the rate at which water is replaced, temperature, and the pH of the water . All of these bear on both the Ilford and a running-water wash. There's nothing inherently odd about the Ilford method that makes it more prone to inefficient washing other running-water washes.

If you don't fill and dump sufficient times, you won't get an effective wash, but then if you only ran your water for 5 minutes you wouldn't either. And yes, there are Mason's later remarks to consider, and of course those of our resident photochemistry guru, Mr. Engineer )). The latter young man has also mentioned more than once that the way to do things is to test after whatever washing regime is used and modify the regime until you get the test results that show your regime is sufficient.

However, bearing in mind that amateurs have been using the Ilford method for decades already, in their hundreds of thousands, and that we haven't thus far heard that everybody's negatives are dying a death ... well, it's empirical evidence innit?

Water is expensive stuff in Essex, as it is everywhere else in the UK; It's also an inexhaustible resource in increasingly less plentiful supply. Reducing one's water usage is economically and environmentally A Good Thing. Saying 'it doesn't always work' is Not A Good Thing.

We now return you to your regular programming​

So, about Kodachrome ...

 

[Cholentpot]

That's frankly not much of an answer.

I have indeed 'done the research', (I've read the Endless Film Washing Thread here at APUG - and many other washing threads, including most of PE's comments on the Ilford method - , I've read The Mysteries of The Vortex (Parts One and Two), and I've even read LFA Mason's book on Photographic Chemistry, including everything he says therein about washing film.)

'It might not always work' is peculiarly unhelpful, though, especially to a new user. If you're going to say that, it pretty much behoves you to explain the circumstances under which it won't work so that the new user can avoid or mitigate them.

The variables that might affect the efficiency of a wash are really the rate at which water is replaced, temperature, and the pH of the water . All of these bear on both the Ilford and a running-water wash. There's nothing inherently odd about the Ilford method that makes it more prone to inefficient washing other running-water washes.

If you don't fill and dump sufficient times, you won't get an effective wash, but then if you only ran your water for 5 minutes you wouldn't either. And yes, there are Mason's later remarks to consider, and of course those of our resident photochemistry guru, Mr. Engineer )). The latter young man has also mentioned more than once that the way to do things is to test after whatever washing regime is used and modify the regime until you get the test results that show your regime is sufficient.

However, bearing in mind that amateurs have been using the Ilford method for decades already, in their hundreds of thousands, and that we haven't thus far heard that everybody's negatives are dying a death ... well, it's empirical evidence innit?

Water is expensive stuff in Essex, as it is everywhere else in the UK; It's also an inexhaustible resource in increasingly less plentiful supply. Reducing one's water usage is economically and environmentally A Good Thing. Saying 'it doesn't always work' is Not A Good Thing.

We now return you to your regular programming​

So, about Kodachrome ...

Well bruv,

The water goes back into...the water. But that's besides the point.

Ilford method all you'd like, but it's another potential misstep if done wrong. If using a Patterson style tank the water gets some nice circulation and warshes out nice and clean-a-doodly. It's simpler and less prone to making a mess.

 

[eddie]

I think it’s a film issue, as others have written. The rebate areas of the negatives show the mottling as well as considerable fogging.
I suggest using fresh film, using the same development technique you’ve used in the past. Don’t get discouraged. You’ll get this solved quickly.

 

[tezzasmall]

The rebate areas of the negatives show the mottling as well as considerable fogging.

A good point made there. I never noticed this first time around but for me it does push the answer further into the 'old film' camp.

Looking forward to see how your new and latest developed film comes out.

I must say, it is also kind of weird (in a good way) of seeing pictures of places I recognise (in London). I say that as most are from other places in this big wide world of ours.

Terry S

 

[John Wiegerink]

I jump into the film camp on this one since I have seen the same results with old film that received higher than normal temps and humidity. No film developer can eliminate aging, but a new roll of film can. If anything, HC-110 is about the king when it comes to processing aged film. I'm sure your problem is solved and have fun. JohnW

 

[Rashed]

Hello everyone,

Here are a few frames of a fresh roll of HP5, taken on a Fuji 645, a couple of frames cropped to square, and it was an especially grey overcast day in London.....

But they appear to have come out ok!!!

Strangely the negatives themselves appear fine but they scanned quite dark.

So what did I change? Well I made up my developer with de-ionised water, increased my Stop time to 1min and Fixer time to 5mins and modified my wash as follows - 5 fill and dump, then Ilford 5, 10 and 20 inversions, then final Ilfotol rinse with 5 inversions then left to sit for 5-10mins before hanging up.

Thank you to everyone who has commented and given advice, I really appreciate it.

Now to shoot some more and see what happens.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Hello everyone,

Here are a few frames of a fresh roll of HP5, taken on a Fuji 645, a couple of frames cropped to square, and it was an especially grey overcast day in London.....

But they appear to have come out ok!!!

Strangely the negatives themselves appear fine but they scanned quite dark.

So what did I change? Well I made up my developer with de-ionised water, increased my Stop time to 1min and Fixer time to 5mins and modified my wash as follows - 5 fill and dump, then Ilford 5, 10 and 20 inversions, then final Ilfotol rinse with 5 inversions then left to sit for 5-10mins before hanging up.

Thank you to everyone who has commented and given advice, I really appreciate it.

Now to shoot some more and see what happens.

You will only really know by "wet" printing. If you use a scanner it throws another thing into the equation. You might have to do a little tweaking with curves to get exactly what you want. JohnW

 

[pentaxuser]

You may have changed the most important thing which you mention but not under changes, namely a fresh roll of HP5+

pentaxuser

 

[Pentode]

Glad to see your main problem was just old film. The easiest fix is always the best!
Nice looking shot of the Tower Bridge!

 

[winger]

You may have changed the most important thing which you mention but not under changes, namely a fresh roll of HP5+

pentaxuser

Ditto. Yes, old film can be cheap and fun to play with, but there is a cost. Fresh film is the best way to start.