Inconsistent result with XTOL on Superpan

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,265
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
I had originally though that it was fixed before developing, but since all 3 films were developed in the same tank, and 2 came out, that can't be the case.

I think the most likely explanation was that an unexposed roll was accidentally developed.
 

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,714
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
I have developed from the bulk roll previously successfully, and I believe they had edge markings, but i dont remember, its been a while ago. Leading edge was blank.
1. When you say, "Leading edge was blank," can I assume by "blank" you mean "clear" - that is, matching the density of the rest of the roll -- and not "black"?
2. Do you not have any previously processed negatives from this same bulk roll on hand, so you can confirm or deny if edge markings are present?
3. You mention, "We had workshop yesterday developing several different films, and none of them showed any problem." -- but I assume none of them were from the bulk roll of Superpan, right?

I think the next troubleshooting step is to develop another segment of Superpan film from the bulk roll. Don't even need to put it in a camera.

In the dark, pull out about two feet (or half of a meter) and cover up half of that with something to prevent exposure to the light. Turn on the room lights for a few seconds, then turn them off again. Load on a reel and process it normally.

If the processed segment of film shows one-half black, and the other half clear with edge markings, then that will be very instructive. If it shows something else, then maybe that will also be helpful?
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,487
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
In the dark, pull out about two feet (or half of a meter) and cover up half of that with something to prevent exposure to the light. Turn on the room lights for a few seconds, then turn them off again. Load on a reel and process it normally.

Or just use two inches.

Frankly, the whole issue here sounds like a fantasy. There's pretty much no way you could get nothing on a developed roll of Aviphot 200 unless you (1) didn't expose it or (2) didn't develop it before you fixed it.
 

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,714
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
There's pretty much no way you could get nothing on a developed roll of Aviphot 200 unless you (1) didn't expose it or (2) didn't develop it before you fixed it.
Yes, but in the case of #1, there is still a bit of a mystery concerning: a. the edge markings, and b. the leader, which would have been exposed no matter what, right?

The fixed-before-developed theory does fit the observed result, but only @geirtbr can explain how this might have happened.

@geirtbr, were the three films developed in Xtol the only three rolls you developed in that session? Was there any other film laying about in the darkroom that might have accidently got mixed up with your intended film before developing? I know most darkrooms used by students have some "practice" film available so they can practice loading film on reels to get the feel for it.
 

npl

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2021
Messages
185
Location
France
Format
35mm
If not enough developer was used to cover the film on top and the stick was used instead of inversions, that would explain why the roll on top was not developed.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
21,631
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
If not enough developer was used to cover the film on top and the stick was used instead of inversions, that would explain why the roll on top was not developed.
Certainly not; agitation would have resulted in at least some developer getting to the film and visible development taking place.
 

npl

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2021
Messages
185
Location
France
Format
35mm
Certainly not; agitation would have resulted in at least some developer getting to the film and visible development taking place.

Tank on a flat surface, only gentle half-turns with the stick, no inversions at any moment, I don't see how any liquid would get to a roll that is not immerged in the developer.
Exluding when the dev was poured in, poured out. But that's not much contact
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
16
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
If not enough developer was used to cover the film on top and the stick was used instead of inversions, that would explain why the roll on top was not developed.

But, supposedly, 900mL total volume was used, which covers all three reels in a paterson, so this cannot be it either.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,722
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Given it is not a general problem but one presented by geirtbr who has not responded to all requests for more information or participated further in this thread despite visiting the site regularly, might it be reasonable to conclude that he may have just written off the possibility of a solution or decided that it is not worth the effort?

This is not to say that a discussion between the rest is not worthwhile nor to aim any criticism towards the OP but simply to make the point that the original aim of a solution for the reasons stated above may not be possible.

pentaxuser
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,333
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format

Just seen this. I can perhaps help. I have developed a few Rollei superpan 200 35mm rolls and a lot of Rollei Retro 400S 120 rolls.

For all of them, the anti-halation layer that washes out after development is red or dark orange, regardless of developer used.

So my first guess would be that OP's issue has nothing to do with Xtol.
 

IMoL

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
77
Location
Sweden
Format
Multi Format
For all of them, the anti-halation layer that washes out after development is red or dark orange

I developed a roll of Superpan 200 (35mm) last week and the AH dye that came out in pre-wash was almost black.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,333
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I developed a roll of Superpan 200 (35mm) last week and the AH dye that came out in pre-wash was almost black.

hmm interesting. I never prewashed it, though, I'm talking of the colour that pours out after development.
 

Prest_400

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,418
Location
Sweden
Format
Med. Format RF
I recently developed a 120 roll of Rollei IR 400, which is reported to be one of the Maco given names from Aviphot film. Anyways, if it is roughly similar or the same as Superpan I just noted that my developer poured Orange as well. So perhaps dye washing out.
Have some unexposed rolls from the same 2023 batch. Btw, in 120 it sadly develops mottling from backing paper contact despite having been refrigerated.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,487
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
The dye on the back of aviphot pours out black when you soak the film before dev. if you develop without a soak, it tends to be orange. It's more yellow if you soak then dev.
 

IMoL

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
77
Location
Sweden
Format
Multi Format
The dye on the back of aviphot pours out black when you soak the film before dev. if you develop without a soak, it tends to be orange. It's more yellow if you soak then dev.

Interesting - I didn't know that - the few times I have developed Superpan I have always prewashed.
 
OP
OP

geirtbr

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
51
Format
35mm
Maybe the halation layer contains some type of acid that neutralize the developer when the developer is only a slight base? Xtol is ph 8.2 only.


Also, this thread seems close to my experiences:
 
Last edited:

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,714
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
I filpped through that thread, but if the OP ever did a clip test (as recommended multiple times), I did not see the result.

It is a little bit frustrating when people ask for help, but then don't follow through with additional information, so the issue remains unresolved, and we learn nothing. It's looking like this thread will end that way, too.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,562
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format

Or maybe it was solved by the OP, but we'll never know with no follow up.
 
OP
OP

geirtbr

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
51
Format
35mm
No. Besides, that one is out because your other rolls in the same tank developed fine, remember? So the film didn't kill the developer.

They did not develop fine, the successful one was thinner than i would have expected. It might be due to underexposure, however.

To make an experiment to replicate the result again would mean sacrificing one or two rolls, and I am not sure it is worth the hassle. For me it is more easy to make a rule for myself not to develop agfa aviphot derived films in xtol, but to use rodinal or a traditional pq/mq developer instead.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
21,631
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
They did not develop fine, the successful one was thinner than i would have expected. It might be due to underexposure, however.
It developed at all, so the developer wasn't killed. There's no way one film in the same tank would quasi-kill the developer so that it only developed the other film in the same tank, partially, but not the film that supposedly 'killed' it.

I'd suggest doing the strip tests I suggested in #8. I bet your Aviphot develops fine in XTOL and that some other cause resulted in your blank film.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,562
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
And I bet koraks is 100% right. How do I know? Because I use XT-3(Xtol clone) with those films and I have never had a blank frame unless it was my fault. I repeat, my fault!
 

npl

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2021
Messages
185
Location
France
Format
35mm
But, supposedly, 900mL total volume was used, which covers all three reels in a paterson, so this cannot be it either.

Yes, supposedly

I also think as some others said here that at least one piece of information is incorrect. If 600ml was usted instead of 900ml ..
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…