I think my negatives might be underdeveloped

[logan2z]

I've recently started developing my own film at home and I'm trying to hone in on a good combination of developer dilution and development time. I've developed a couple of rolls of 35mm Tri-X 400 and I think they appear underdeveloped but wanted to see what others thought.

Developer was HC-110 at Dilution E (1:47) @ 68 degrees F for 6.5 minutes, agitated once every 30 seconds throughout the development time. I rate Tri-X at 200 so I generally get somewhat dense negatives back when I have them developed at a lab. My home-developed negatives definitely don't look as dense as the lab developed negatives - pretty thin overall, although I think shadow detail looks reasonably good so I don't think the problem is underexposure.

I've attached a photo of the negatives on my lightpad, and a close up photo of the edge markings on one of the frames. I think the edge markings look a bit light, although I'm using a Hewes reel so the markings may not be fully developed as the edge of the film comes into contact with the reel. Ignore the bands in the photos, that's a side effect of my cell phone camera struggling with the frequency of the light source in the lightpad.

Note: The amount of developer concentrate in the tank was just under 5ml (for a total of about 230ml of working solution) so, based on a discussion in another thread I started about minimum developer amounts in a single tank, I guess this issue could be caused by developer exhaustion. Not sure how likely that is, however.

Curious to hear what others think about the quality of these negatives and whether they appear underdeveloped, or possible underexposed.

 

[logan2z]

Is this accurate? That's a few drops.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the amount of developer added to the 47 parts of water was 5ml. In total there was about 230ml of working solution in the tank.

 

[logan2z]

I should also mention that I did a snip test to check the developer before I developed the roll, and left the film in the developer for the full 6.5 mins. At the end, the film was pretty black, so maybe underdevelopment isn't the issue, but somehow underexposure is

 

[grat]

I'm no expert-- far from it in fact-- but shouldn't the edge markings be closer to black? Yours look, whether because of scanning or other, more gray than black.

 

[logan2z]

I'm no expert-- far from it in fact-- but shouldn't the edge markings be closer to black? Yours look, whether because of scanning or other, more gray than black.

I think so, which is why I showed the edge markings. But I wasn't sure if they were underdeveloped from being in contact with the reel. The lab-developed negatives (which are done using a dip-and-dunk machine) have darker edge markings.

 

[MattKing]

I find edge markings to be somewhat unreliable indicators of correct development.
With a bit of digital jiggery pokery, I get this result from 4 of the relatively low density negatives:

This tells me that what you have is at least workable.
Personally, I also see some likely under-exposure.
But I also tend to prefer thinner negatives than some others may.
I would test the issue by darkroom printing the results. That option may or may not be open to you.

 

[grat]

But I wasn't sure if they were underdeveloped from being in contact with the reel.

I also use reels (Originally Paterson, then later, the AP/Samigon style).

I find edge markings to be somewhat unreliable indicators of correct development.

/me makes a note.

 

[logan2z]

I find edge markings to be somewhat unreliable indicators of correct development.
With a bit of digital jiggery pokery, I get this result from 4 of the relatively low density negatives:
View attachment 295338
This tells me that what you have is at least workable.
Personally, I also see some likely under-exposure.
But I also tend to prefer thinner negatives than some others may.
I would test the issue by darkroom printing the results. That option may or may not be open to you.

Thanks Matt. I can certainly print some of the negatives in my darkroom and see what I get.

I think you are right that some of these frames appear a bit underexposed. This is actually the first roll I shot with my new-to-me Pentax KX so perhaps the shutter speeds are a bit off. In general, my negatives are usually over rather than underexposed which is why these caught me a bit off guard. But I did shoot another roll with another camera and felt that those negatives looked a bit underdeveloped as well, so I didn't want to lay the blame at the foot of the camera. I'll take a shot of those negatives later and post them to this thread as well for comparison.

I've got another couple of test rolls that I shot that I was planning to develop as well. I'm trying to decide if I should develop those using the same dilution/time as these or if I should up the development time a bit. I also found that I did have a larger development tank at home (forgot I'd bought it on eBay a long time back) which takes two 35mm reels. So, I can use more developer when I make up some working solution to avoid any possible exhaustion during development.

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, if you have a number of rolls that were purchased together and are the same film and have the same batch number, and are using the same developer and same technique, than consistency of edge markings is a useful indicator.
Two questions for the OP:
1) how confident are you in the accuracy of your thermometer; and
2) what is the provenance of your film?

 

[mshchem]

Are you confident in the 5mL measurement, and same question regarding your thermometer?

Definitely workable negatives, IMHO

 

[logan2z]

For clarity, if you have a number of rolls that were purchased together and are the same film and have the same batch number, and are using the same developer and same technique, than consistency of edge markings is a useful indicator.
Two questions for the OP:
1) how confident are you in the accuracy of your thermometer; and
2) what is the provenance of your film?

1) Good question. I use it when mixing up paper developer/stop bath/fixer and seem to get consistent results across sessions, but I can't say for sure if it's entirely accurate.

2) The film was purchased from BH, was stored in the fridge until the time I loaded it into my camera and was not expired.

 

[logan2z]

Are you confident in the 5mL measurement, and same question regarding your thermometer?

Definitely workable negatives, IMHO

As I mentioned to Matt above, I use the same thermometer when mixing paper developer/stop bath/fixer and haven't noticed any issues with consistency across printing sessions. But I don't really know if it is truly accurate.

Re: the 5ml measurement, it's certainly possible that there was a small error in the measurement and that some of the thick developer remained in the measuring cylinder, although I was as careful as I could be to get it all out. I'm going to use a two-reel tank the next time I develop a roll and fill it with working solution, which will require more developer concentrate and hopefully minimize the effects of any measuring error.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Add 10% to 15% time to the 68 degree F [20 degree C] time and convert that to the development temperature. See what the difference in results are.

 

[MattKing]

1) Good question. I use it when mixing up paper developer/stop bath/fixer and seem to get consistent results across sessions, but I can't say for sure if it's entirely accurate.

2) The film was purchased from BH, was stored in the fridge until the time I loaded it into my camera and was not expired.

If your thermometer is reading too high but is otherwise consistent, its inaccuracy can be compensated for by increasing time. You may end up with a result that is linked to your use of that particular thermometer.
As the provenance of the film seems "normal", it may be that that type of edge printing actually is your "normal", and that your lab developed negatives were developed to a contrast that is more than ideal for you.

 

[markbau]

Use a 1:7 dilution for 7 minutes. I don't think you have enough syrup in your working strength.

 

[mshchem]

As I mentioned to Matt above, I use the same thermometer when mixing paper developer/stop bath/fixer and haven't noticed any issues with consistency across printing sessions. But I don't really know if it is truly accurate.

Re: the 5ml measurement, it's certainly possible that there was a small error in the measurement and that some of the thick developer remained in the measuring cylinder, although I was as careful as I could be to get it all out. I'm going to use a two-reel tank the next time I develop a roll and fill it with working solution, which will require more developer concentrate and hopefully minimize the effects of any measuring error.

I use a 10 mL Nalgene graduated cylinder when I use Rodinal, with viscous stuff, anything that clings I rinse the graduated and add that to my developer. I'm a bit of a thermometer nerd, I bet I have 20 thermometers. I have two that I use most of the time. I've calibrated these maybe 3 times over the years.

I bought a couple Chinese aquarium thermometers, digital, has a sensor on the end of a wire. These take forever to equilibrate but are darn near the same reading as a Kodak process thermometer or an old school mercury lab thermometer.

It really doesn't matter as long as you are consistent and adjust your procedure to get negatives you like.

Your negatives look pretty normal to me.

Best Regards Mike

 

[BradS]

The negatives look very printable to me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For my taste I would like the negatives a bit thicker.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The thermometer hypothesis is one to investigate. Recently, I was finding my negs overdeveloped and way too contrasty. Couldn't figure it out until, quite accidentally, I found out my thermometer was off by 2 degrees Celcius. In other words, I was developing for 20 degrees times in 22 degrees chemistry.

Got a digital cooking thermometer. Much more accurate, but I still have doubts - it's 1 degree off from sous vide machine when I do e6 - the so I'm looking for another, just to make sure.

 

[MattKing]

As for measuring the syrup, I use a narrow and tall 45 ml Paterson measuring graduate. I partly fill it with water - up to something like the 30 ml mark, adjacent to the bottom of the meniscus. If I am measuring out 6 ml of the syrup, I slowly pour the syrup into the centre of the graduate - not the edges - and watch the meniscus rise. I stop when the bottom reaches 36 ml (6 ml more than the water only). I then dump the contents of the 45ml graduate into a larger graduate, being sure to fully rinse out the contents of the smaller graduate several times into the larger graduate. I then top up the larger graduate to the target final volume.
In my case, I need to put on my close distance glasses to do this. Perhaps you don't need the vision assistance!

 

[MattKing]

Got a digital cooking thermometer.

I bought a calibratable version of one of these and put it through the calibration process. I'm fortunate to have a Kodak Process thermometer as well, which I regularly use to check the consistency and accuracy of the digital thermometer, as well as a dial thermometer that I use to monitor the temperature of rinse and wash water.

 

[otto.f]

For a TriX at 400Asa and 6,5’ development time solution B is most common, what doesn’t mean you couldn’t manage these negatives with variable contrast papers, especially wit high contrast scenes. What you did fits more with a 200ASA exposure

 

[Huss]

I'll chime in with those who say the negatives look good..

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've recently started developing my own film at home and I'm trying to hone in on a good combination of developer dilution and development time. I've developed a couple of rolls of 35mm Tri-X 400 and I think they appear underdeveloped but wanted to see what others thought.

Developer was HC-110 at Dilution E (1:47) @ 68 degrees F for 6.5 minutes, agitated once every 30 seconds throughout the development time. I rate Tri-X at 200 so I generally get somewhat dense negatives back when I have them developed at a lab. My home-developed negatives definitely don't look as dense as the lab developed negatives - pretty thin overall, although I think shadow detail looks reasonably good so I don't think the problem is underexposure.

I've attached a photo of the negatives on my lightpad, and a close up photo of the edge markings on one of the frames. I think the edge markings look a bit light, although I'm using a Hewes reel so the markings may not be fully developed as the edge of the film comes into contact with the reel. Ignore the bands in the photos, that's a side effect of my cell phone camera struggling with the frequency of the light source in the lightpad.

Note: The amount of developer concentrate in the tank was just under 5ml (for a total of about 230ml of working solution) so, based on a discussion in another thread I started about minimum developer amounts in a single tank, I guess this issue could be caused by developer exhaustion. Not sure how likely that is, however.

Curious to hear what others think about the quality of these negatives and whether they appear underdeveloped, or possible underexposed.

these negatives look indeed lightly underdeveloped. the highlights could be denser. try to increase development time by 20-25%.

 

[logan2z]

Thanks to everyone for chiming in, really helpful responses.

Perhaps I've become used to seeing the heavier negatives from the lab I've been using so these looked thin by comparison. I think I will try a bit more development time for the next roll to bump up the density just a bit. But I'll also take @MattKing's suggestion and make a few darkroom prints from these negatives and see how that goes. Maybe thinner is better after all...