Inconsistent result with XTOL on Superpan

[koraks]

But I am kind of stumped as to what it could be...

Yup, it doesn't add up.

 

[Craig]

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.

 

[koraks]

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

But then the leader would at least show development.

My guess is that at least one bit of evidence that's being posted here is not correct.

 

[runswithsizzers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Daniel Stuefer]

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]

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]

Just developed 3 films, xtol 1+2, and when I poured out the xtol developer, it was yellow-orange. I know this is a bad sign for xtol, unfortunately I did not develop again with another developer. My suspicion was right, one of the films was blank - no edge markings. It was superpan, I believe this is the same as agfa aviphot and exist in many different brandings.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[geirtbr]

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:

XTOL Mishap

1. I mixed up 5 liters of XTOL. I've never used it before. 2. I put two rolls of Catlabs 320 MF film on reels and put them into a Patterson tank. 3. Following the Massive Dev Chart suggestion (I use their iPhone app), I poured 1:1 dilution of Xtol in and processed for 11 minutes. 4. Stop bath...

rangefinderforum.com

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[runswithsizzers]

[...]

Also, this thread seems close to my experiences:

XTOL Mishap

1. I mixed up 5 liters of XTOL. I've never used it before. 2. I put two rolls of Catlabs 320 MF film on reels and put them into a Patterson tank. 3. Following the Massive Dev Chart suggestion (I use their iPhone app), I poured 1:1 dilution of Xtol in and processed for 11 minutes. 4. Stop bath...

rangefinderforum.com

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]

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.

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

 

[geirtbr]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 ..