Image Artifacts with Nettar

[distributed]

The following images were taken with a 6x6 Nettar 517/16. There are some issues with the images I can't quite explain. I have attached photographs of 2 of the negatives in question.

In isthisflare.jpg I am unsure about the source of the dense, blurry spot. At this point, there was no bright source of light. However, slightly to the right of it was a relatively bright lamp, just outside of the negative area. Am I seeing flare of this light somewhere in the camera, most likely the lens?

The second effect, in edgemarkings.jpg, is completely unclear to me. On the top of the negative image area there is a horizontal strip of slightly less dense areas. For instance, there is one directly below the 4 imprinted on the top. I have an Ikonta that produces similar artefacts. Does someone have an idea what could be the source?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

#1: It doesn't look like lens flare. Damned if I know, looks like it a brightly lit moth flew in front of the camera. If that's the only occurrence of this artifact I would chalk it up as one of the sweet mysteries of life.

#2: I would guess not enough developer in the tank, the top of the negative is getting developer just from the general splashing engendered by agitation.

 

[MattKing]

For #1, I would be concerned about a pinhole light leak.
For #2, it looks like the result of air bubbles sticking to the reel.
The bubbles can sometimes be related to:
a) using too little developer;
b) photo-flo or other residue on the reels;
c) too little abrupt agitation - particularly near the beginning; and
d) mysterious other causes that are never identified satisfactorily.
Thankfully, cause d) isn't often encountered.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

d) mysterious other causes that are never identified satisfactorily.
Thankfully, cause d) isn't often encountered.

Hmpf. I think, then, I must be blessed with everyone else's accumulation of d).

 

[takilmaboxer]

In the past I have had problems similar to "edgemarkings" and investigation showed them to be developer related. My current technique is to use a two reel 120 tank with one 120 reel, and more that enough developer to cover the film.With the single roll tanks,fluid flow around the film reel can be compromised. Agitation is by inversion.

 

[distributed]

Thanks for your feedback!

I am positive that the room I took the first picture in was rather moth free Going through my negatives, I have found a similar issue on another picture. I am inclined to taking my Nettar and a flashlight into the darkroom and check for pinholes, as Matt suggested.

I tried to find clues and evidence for the various proposed sources for the edge markings.

A couple of general findings:
- I have found the markings on some parts of the majority of films exposed in an Ikonta or Nettar.
- I have not found the markings on any film exposed in a Rolleiflex.
- The Ikonta and Nettar have a wider imaging area than the Rolleiflex. The middle of the edge markings are about 3.5 mm away from the film edge. At 3.5 mm, a Rolleiflex negative barely starts. If I lay one of the edge marked negatives over a Rolleiflex negative, only a small part of the marking lays within the image area.
- I use a Paterson Tank with space for 3 reels set to 35 mm film or 2 reels for 120 film. I always leave both reels in, even when just processing one film. The top empty reel helps stop the lower reel from sliding up. Mostly I develop with both reels loaded, most often I don't mix 120 and 135. I agitate by inversion, 30 sec at the beginning, then 4 times every full minute.

A specific note to the shot with edge markings. I used maybe 520 ml of developer - I overshot a bit with the water for dilution - and the stated necessary amount is 500 ml. I can check how much coverage I get with 500 ml.

So going through the developer related issues:
a.) (And also what Nicholas Lindan said) I will check with an open container how much coverage I get with 500 ml.
b.) Would you expect the markings to be where the film touches the plastic of the reel? I can load a negative strip into the reel to check where the markings wind up relative to the reel.
c.) I agitate as stated above. Is this considered to be on the low side of agitation? I also wonder whether I can't see the issue on my Rolleiflex films because the markings would be mostly outside the image area.
d.) At least we can rule out brightly illuminated moths - probably

 

[MattKing]

b.) Would you expect the markings to be where the film touches the plastic of the reel?

Yes - the bubbles cling to the reel.

c.) I agitate as stated above. Is this considered to be on the low side of agitation?

Add to your agitation regime a firm rap of the tank on to a surface protected by a cloth or a sponge. Enough to dislodge bubbles, but much less than what might end up in the tank breaking!
It is mort important to do this at the very beginning, plus before a couple of the early agitation sets.
When you do the agitation, there should be at least some rotary component to the movement. Using your wrists to do the agitation usually adds some. I like to be able to hear and sometimes feel the liquid gently tumbling through the film.

 

[takilmaboxer]

In my case, I found that too much agitation was also involved. I now use a single rotation-inversion once per minute, and adjust the developing time as needed. I also experimented with developing a single roll in a tall tank in the dark, and used a tool to move the entire roll directly up and down; worked fine as well. The objective is even exposure to well mixed developer. It's not our cameras, it's our technique.

 

[distributed]

I poured 500 ml of water into the tank with one reel but without film. This amount is enough to just cover the reel, as advertised. I'm pretty positive I don't fill too little.

I inserted a developed negative into the reel. The edge markings line up just below the plastic reel. That would point me towards air bubbles getting stuck in the narrow slits in the reel with the film restricting air movement even more.

I forgot to mention: I typically tap the tank onto a rag lying on the tile floor, 3 or 4 times after every agitation which is a pitching movement out of the wrist toward my body. I can always feel and hear the liquid sloshing around the tank.

I tapped the open tank, filled with water, onto the floor. Some bubbles wouldn't dislodge even after the third tap - and this is without any film loaded to restrict movement through the reel.

All things said I think it's safe to say that air bubbles are my prime suspect. I will try bumping the tank a bit harder and to also do it in between agitations. Thanks guys!

 

[grain elevator]

Use the twirly stick for the initial agitation, it's very good for dislodging bubbles.

 

[koraks]

In isthisflare.jpg I am unsure about the source of the dense, blurry spot. At this point, there was no bright source of light. However, slightly to the right of it was a relatively bright lamp, just outside of the negative area. Am I seeing flare of this light somewhere in the camera, most likely the lens?

I'd say that's likely, yes. Especially older lenses with their old coatings (or even none, but your Nettar is likely coated) may flare heavily if a bright light falls sideways onto the front element. The light source needn't even be in the actual picture; it's enough to have a line of sight between the front element and the light source.