Humidity & unprocessed film

[ilona]

Hi!

I'd like to know if it's bad for unprocessed film to stay in a somewhat humid environment.

I don't have a darkroom and I usually load film to be developed in the tank at night and process it the next day. That's what I did on Thursday last week, as usual, with a roll of Ilford FP4. The tank was still a little bit humid, with a few water drops I dried (more or less). Then I was unable to process the film on Friday and it had to wait until Monday evening in the tank which I left with the cap half-opened. Once developed, I could notice that the film was quite clear with very very few details expect for 2-3 pictures.

I'm wondering if I screwed up the exposure (could be because I took the pictures with a camera without lightmetering system) or if some reaction took place before processing in the humid tank.

Any clue/tip?

 

[firecracker]

Hi!

I'd like to know if it's bad for unprocessed film to stay in a somewhat humid environment.

I don't have a darkroom and I usually load film to be developed in the tank at night and process it the next day. That's what I did on Thursday last week, as usual, with a roll of Ilford FP4. The tank was still a little bit humid, with a few water drops I dried (more or less). Then I was unable to process the film on Friday and it had to wait until Monday evening in the tank which I left with the cap half-opened. Once developed, I could notice that the film was quite clear with very very few details expect for 2-3 pictures.

I'm wondering if I screwed up the exposure (could be because I took the pictures with a camera without lightmetering system) or if some reaction took place before processing in the humid tank.

Any clue/tip?

I'm not sure if the humidity inside the tank was the cause of the problem(s). But a couple of things that might be worth checking to nail down the problem(s):

First, check the film numbers on the developed roll near the sprocket holes. If the numbers are bold black and clearly shown, it means the film was developed for at least a normal processing time. If this is the case, your exposures were way off for the ones that didn't come out when you were taking those pictures.

If you don't see the numbers or they appear to be very thin, then, that's the result of the under-development of the film, which means you needed a longer developing time.

And the reason you didn't have most of the images on the roll could've been caused by the combination of both: Under-exposure and under-development.

Secondly, when you developed the film, did you pre-soak the tank at the right temperature? Whatever the temperature you use for developing, make sure that you pre-warm or pre-cool the tank with the water at the same temperature for 30 seconds or so. This is a necessary step.

That will stabilize the temperature of your developer and keep your developing chart right for your film. If not, you'll go either, over or under.

 

[ilona]

Hi!

I'll check the numbers this evening.

About pre-soaking, I don't do it (I don't even know what that is actually...). Is it possible to do that with the film already inside the tank? Because not having a darkroom, I usually have to load the film in advance (I didn't find a changing bag yet). Do you just have to hold the tank under running water at 20°C? Or does it also involve getting water in the tank?

On the other hand, I keep all chemicals, together with the tank and loaded film in the same room. Yesterday I was quite lucky because everything was already at the right temperature (20°C). So, I guess the tank was already at the right temperature too.

 

[George Papantoniou]

If the cause of the non-appearing images was chemical (fixer fumes or some other unlikely to happen thing) it would affect ALL the frames. You state that there were 2-3 frames that appear on the film, untouched by the cause of the phenomenon... More than that, if the supposed phenomenon WAS chemical but did not (for some obscure reason) affect all the frames, there would be marks and uneven results (some frames should he half-affected).

Your case sounds just like the normal result of underexposing most of the film's frames...

 

[firecracker]

Hi!

I'll check the numbers this evening.

About pre-soaking, I don't do it (I don't even know what that is actually...). Is it possible to do that with the film already inside the tank? Because not having a darkroom, I usually have to load the film in advance (I didn't find a changing bag yet). Do you just have to hold the tank under running water at 20°C? Or does it also involve getting water in the tank?

On the other hand, I keep all chemicals, together with the tank and loaded film in the same room. Yesterday I was quite lucky because everything was already at the right temperature (20°C). So, I guess the tank was already at the right temperature too.

Pre-soaking is done right before you pour your developer into the tank. You just fill up the tank with the water at the temperature you use for the developer (if you're deveoping at 20°C, then it's 20°C), agitate the tank for the first 5 seconds or so, put it down, and dump the water after 30 seconds. That's all.

It's just like warming up a tea cup before serving. I believe that will help clean up the unwanted moisture, too.

But always load the film in a clean dry tank. And you can leave it for a couple of days as long as it's kept light-tight.

I was just thinking if your tank had been kept in a room that was cold and dark for days, that might have affected your developing chart.

But you said you had 20°C with your running water, and it doesn't seem like keeping the right kind of temperature was a problem at all. So I don't think that was the issue.

 

[Gerald Koch]

You will hear a lot about pre-soaking but the thing to remember is that the film manufacturers do not recommend it. Unless you are using a Jobo rotary processor presoaking is unnecessary.

 

[donbga]

Hi!

I'd like to know if it's bad for unprocessed film to stay in a somewhat humid environment.

I don't have a darkroom and I usually load film to be developed in the tank at night and process it the next day. That's what I did on Thursday last week, as usual, with a roll of Ilford FP4. The tank was still a little bit humid, with a few water drops I dried (more or less). Then I was unable to process the film on Friday and it had to wait until Monday evening in the tank which I left with the cap half-opened. Once developed, I could notice that the film was quite clear with very very few details expect for 2-3 pictures.

I'm wondering if I screwed up the exposure (could be because I took the pictures with a camera without lightmetering system) or if some reaction took place before processing in the humid tank.

Any clue/tip?

Under exposure!

 

[srs5694]

You will hear a lot about pre-soaking but the thing to remember is that the film manufacturers do not recommend it. Unless you are using a Jobo rotary processor presoaking is unnecessary.

I've seen claims that some of the Eastern European manufacturers do recommend a pre-soak, but I've not bothered to look it up to verify that claim. FWIW, I've never bothered to pre-soak my films, whether they're of Western, Japanese, or Eastern European origin.

 

[firecracker]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This is where the debate came from on pre-soaking. I'm one of those who do, and it always works for me, but I understand that it's not a mandate for everyone and/or every film.

But since the thread here is on the concerns of humidity in the tank and not about the pre-soaking issue, can we discuss more on that instead?

 

[ilona]

Hi!

I checked the frame numbers on my film in the meantine: they are OK, black and clearly visible. So I guess I screwed up the exposure in camera.
Thanks for the tips!

 

[Peter Schrager]

presoak

I don't think it's a question of presoak or not. I've certainly used both but the real point is to stick to one method that works for you. Getting consistant results is all that counts for me....
Best, Peter