Interesting Surge Pattern

P3200TMZ@3200, Rodinal 1+25, 8@20C, 60sec + 3agi/30s. Hewes reels, 500ml tank.

This was a random roll I had laying around. What's interesting here is that specifically the underexposed shots had been sitting in the camera for probably 6 months or so, room temperature, etc. Frame 11 and onwards were shot a couple hours before I developed the roll (I was trying to burn the roll so I could process it with some others). Nothing violent or abnormal about the agitation process and I don't usually have a lot of issues with surge marks. You'll notice that the surge issues pretty much disappear almost exactly with the arrival of dense frames.

Is it reasonable to think that this is a result of locally increased developer activity due to lack of density not fully exhausting the developer? I've considered that it might be related to latent image + time and sitting around, but you'll notice that the surge marks end where they hit high density but continue under low density conditions.

However, I do find the decreasing surge from frames 9 to 11 and onwards to be quite interesting.

I can`t see any, but I have always and still do believe there is no such thing a surge marks. You can get underdeveloped areas from lack of vigorous and randomised agitation, ie some areas get replenished some don`t.

Over replenishenishment thru agitation does not exist. It is a process that you do to completion 1 or 2 times a minute.

gentile agitation can give marks and underdeveloped /underreplenished areas.
Constant agitation works in a Jobo Expert drum, hand agitation of sheet film and in countless other applications.

Kodak and Ilford both have a vigorous agitation scheme as their recommendation.

Looks like a case of improper agitation pure and simple. i agree with Ronald on the non-existance of 'surge' marks. Under, or improper agitation will show up as areas of underdeveloped with supposed surge marks where the developer is replenished around them. I am a beliver in the twist, spin, and invert all at once method, either 5 sec/30sec, or 10 sec/1 min. Consistancy is key to good development.

Rick

Guys, not trying to have an argument about agitation, but let me say this: I definitely agitated these negatives as I do all my rolls. Every single agitation is a full invert-spin. The point I'm trying to make here is that the distinctive sprocket hole artifacts are *gone* by the time I get to the full density frames and it stays that way (clean) until the last frame of the roll.

What I'm throwing out there is two things:

1. Effect only visible in low density frames.
2. Effect *clearly* subsides on the last low density frame and is nearly gone entirely past that point. Look at the transition from 10->11, on the top edge of the sprocket holes.

Had it been clearly inconsistent or not enough agitation one would expect to see more of this across the roll. I find it interesting that it only affected the low-density portions in the way it did - although I can understand why. What I do find odd though is the transition.

It seems too coincidental to me that the inhomogenities appear only on those frames that were on the take-up spool inside your camera for a longer time (or at least outside the cartridge). My *guess* is that the part of the film that was outside the cartridge until just before development was 'curled' differently than that inside the cartridge, resulting in a different flow of the developer during agitation.

It is a well-known (to me at least) phenomenon that film left in the camera for a long time tends to 'buckle-up', thus creating a bulge where the film leaves the cartridge (and giving less than optimal focus if you don't first transport to the next frame, but that's beside the point here). This bulging is one inhomogenity in the shape of the film. Another might stem from the already exposed film being wound onto the take-up spool and therefore having a different curl than the unexposed film still inside the cartridge.

This may sound far-fetched but I have seen cases of properly agitated yet not properly (i.e. not homogenously) developed film, where the inhomogeneities coincided with mechanical irregularities of the film in the developing reel.

Not saying this is what happened here for sure, just a suggestion!

sandermarijn said:

This may sound far-fetched but I have seen cases of properly agitated yet not properly (i.e. not homogenously) developed film, where the inhomogeneities coincided with mechanical irregularities of the film in the developing reel.

Not saying this is what happened here for sure, just a suggestion!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments sander. It does give an interesting spin on how it might have occurred. On this roll it doesn't really bother me as it's just a burn roll, but it does give some food for thought. I do think I pre-soaked this roll for about 5 minutes or so as well. One would think that would minimize any mechanical irregularities but who knows.