Is this caused by development?

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

I developed my first roll of 120 a few days ago. I noticed a vertical "band" in 4 of the 12 exposures (exposures #4, 6, 9, and 10).

I can't be sure, but I don't think it's caused by the camera because the shots used different apertures and shutter speeds. On the other hand, I'm not convinced it's caused by the developer either because the exposures would either have this "band" or not have it entirely.

So could this have been caused by the developing process?

fschifano · Mar 20, 2009

Despite the commonly heard "wisdom" about gentle agitation, that advice can be taken too far. This is a classic example of what happens when you don't agitate sufficiently. Medium format film developed in small tanks is more prone to exhibiting these problems than 35 mm stocks. If you're using a SS tank, try to get at least 5 to 7 good snappy inversion in 5 seconds every 1/2 minute. If plastic tanks are your thing and you like to use the agitation stick instead of inversion, go for at least 5 to 7 complete back and forth motions in 5 seconds every 1/2 minute.

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

Great, thanks!

I just find it weird that it appears in specific exposures and not at all in adjacent ones.

ntenny · Mar 20, 2009

fschifano said:
This is a classic example of what happens when you don't agitate sufficiently.

Why would it be confined to certain frames (and non-contiguous ones at that), though? General uneven development, especially the "more developed at the edges" pattern, would make sense---edge effects could cause the agitation to be more effective near the edges of the film, leaving the middle underdeveloped---but a single asymmetric band that doesn't span frames? To me it looks more likely to be something in-camera, perhaps a very faint light leak that only has a visible effect when the light is from a certain angle.

What's the camera? Specifically, is the band parallel to the film edge (as it would be with a TLR) or perpendicular (as with most other designs)?

-NT

Arvee · Mar 20, 2009

Agree with ntenny. I recently had the exact same problem (looked identical to your anomaly) with a Leica R4S that only fogged when the light was at a particular angle, and only a handful of frames on a roll. Replaced the light seals and seal around the film canister window and problem disappeared.

-F.

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

It's a Kiev 88. The band is parallel to the film edge.

Looking at the four exposures that are affected, the light (sun) is at very different angles in all four.

Edit:
If it's a light leak problem, wouldn't the band be lighter than the rest of the frame?

Bob Carnie · Mar 20, 2009

I absolutely agree with this . These are road ruts that are minus density across nuetral areas that are not agitated or better put, the developer has not reached the film surface evenly and fast enough that produce dark bands in a positive image of the negative.

fschifano said:
Despite the commonly heard "wisdom" about gentle agitation, that advice can be taken too far. This is a classic example of what happens when you don't agitate sufficiently. Medium format film developed in small tanks is more prone to exhibiting these problems than 35 mm stocks. If you're using a SS tank, try to get at least 5 to 7 good snappy inversion in 5 seconds every 1/2 minute. If plastic tanks are your thing and you like to use the agitation stick instead of inversion, go for at least 5 to 7 complete back and forth motions in 5 seconds every 1/2 minute.

ntenny · Mar 20, 2009

CanuckBassist said:
If it's a light leak problem, wouldn't the band be lighter than the rest of the frame?

Oh. Um, yeah. Well, obviously it's a *dark* leak problem!

I still think it looks weird for an agitation issue, though. My next guess would be that it has something to do with the shutter travel---the Kiev 88 has a horizontal shutter, right?---but I can't easily explain that either. Something slowing down the first curtain briefly at that point?

-NT

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

Bob Carnie said:
I absolutely agree with this . These are road ruts that are minus density across nuetral areas that are not agitated or better put, the developer has not reached the film surface evenly and fast enough that produce dark bands in a positive image of the negative.

This roll was developed in HC-110 B for 16 minutes. Would what you're suggesting be possible? Given that the developer was working for so long, any difference in contact between various areas of the film surface would be very small relatively. No?

Bob Carnie · Mar 20, 2009

Hi there

Its not the length of time that is most critical, It is the first 10-20 seconds in the developer which is extremely important to have an even flow of developer to the whole film.
Specifically like the image you show which has lots of nuetral tones.
the dark areas we see are basically dev not getting on these areas fast enough therefore not *setting* equally across the film surface, that when printed create dark mess that you are getting.
This problem shut down my lab for a period of time until we figured the problem.
Now with all film we agitate the first 10-30 seconds by hand with a twisting inversion. one hand at top one at bottom as if you were grasping the steering wheel of your car. then turn the canister 180degrees, by holding the container this way it is impossible not to invert and twist the chem onto the film, with a firm tap on the bottom after each inversion to dislodge andy air bubbles.
hope this makes sense and helps you with your problem.
Also I do not skimp on chem in the process stage.
QUOTE=CanuckBassist;771199]This roll was developed in HC-110 B for 16 minutes. Would what you're suggesting be possible? Given that the developer was working for so long, any difference in contact between various areas of the film surface would be very small relatively. No?[/QUOTE]

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

Let me make sure I understand what you're describing correctly. You have one hand on the lid and one the bottom. You turn the tank 180 degrees so it's upside down, and then back rightside up, repeating multiple times. I did this exactly for the first 30 seconds. I also tapped the bottom on my table to dislodge air bubbles.

I also wasn't trying to skimp on chem. I pushed the film to 1600, and 16minutes in B is the only way I found posted, so I figured I'd start from there.

Anscojohn · Mar 20, 2009

CanuckBassist said:
I developed my first roll of 120 a few days ago. I noticed a vertical "band" in 4 of the 12 exposures (exposures #4, 6, 9, and 10).

I can't be sure, but I don't think it's caused by the camera because the shots used different apertures and shutter speeds. On the other hand, I'm not convinced it's caused by the developer either because the exposures would either have this "band" or not have it entirely.

So could this have been caused by the developing process?

*********
Sacrifice another roll of film. Take junk exposures. Outdoor lighting.

The frame numbering is suspicious to me: it has something to do with where the film is at a certain time. This COULD be where the frames are in the developing reel and hence be an agitation problem, as Frank suggests. Or not.
On the other hand, the fact that the problem is intermittent; and runs parallel to the film edges, might indicate some kind of a flare problem caused by the shutter. Do you have the bronzed metal shutter curtains or the dark cloth curtains?

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

I have the bronzed metal shutter curtains.

I plan to sacrifice a roll to experiment. I just don't know when I can get around to it.

Bob Carnie · Mar 20, 2009

If this is how you are doing it , then it stumps me as these look exactly like road ruts I have experienced in the past ..... and that was definately uneven development problem.

CanuckBassist said:
Let me make sure I understand what you're describing correctly. You have one hand on the lid and one the bottom. You turn the tank 180 degrees so it's upside down, and then back rightside up, repeating multiple times. I did this exactly for the first 30 seconds. I also tapped the bottom on my table to dislodge air bubbles.

I also wasn't trying to skimp on chem. I pushed the film to 1600, and 16minutes in B is the only way I found posted, so I figured I'd start from there.

Anscojohn · Mar 20, 2009

I forgot to ask: do these areas of different density cross over slightly to the next frame; or so they stop at the frame lines? If the latter, I think we can throw out something that happens in the developing tank.

Anscojohn · Mar 20, 2009

CanuckBassist said:
I have the bronzed metal shutter curtains.

I plan to sacrifice a roll to experiment. I just don't know when I can get around to it.

*****
The cloth curtains would have indicated a retrofit and lead me to discount a shutter flare problem.

The metal curtains are, I am told, prone to flare problems. That being said, I have the original bronze curtains and have never (touch wood) had a flare problem from the shutter blades.

And as I stated in my last question, if the "flare" lines stop at the between frame edges, and the areas between frames are clear, we must begin to think it is something happening in the camera; rather than through a leak in the magazine or something in the developing tank.

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

They don't cross over to the adjacent frames, which I brought up in the original post. There're only two affected frames that are next to each other, and now that I'm looking at the negatives, the "band" on the two adjacent affected frames don't line up perfectly, they're at a slight angle in each affected frame.

I was hoping this would be a developing problem because I don't see a pattern in aperture or shutter speed in the affected frames. It's also odd that the "bands" are darker rather than lighter.

Since the "bands" are not perfectly vertical, can we rule out a shutter curtain problem?

Anscojohn · Mar 20, 2009

CanuckBassist said:
They don't cross over to the adjacent frames, which I brought up in the original post. There're only two affected frames that are next to each other, and now that I'm looking at the negatives, the "band" on the two adjacent affected frames don't line up perfectly, they're at a slight angle in each affected frame.
*******
So the areas of differing density do not carry into the clear area between frames. Thus, I would think, this is coming from the lens side of the camera only.

I was hoping this would be a developing problem because I don't see a pattern in aperture or shutter speed in the affected frames.
*****
Yes. That would be easy to fix.

It's also odd that the "bands" are darker rather than lighter.
******
Darker on the negative--meaning they are getting more light? That is, flare light in addition to the exposure.

Since the "bands" are not perfectly vertical, can we rule out a shutter curtain problem?

******
Not necessarily. The shutter is moving the whole time across the frame. But, in any case, it is a real conundrum; and I wish I could come up with something definite for you. The key, it seems to me, is if the density differential is at all to be seen in the clear area specifically above or below one of the affected frames.

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

The bands are lighter on the negative, darker in the reversed picture.

At this point, I think I'll just have to wait until I go through an experimental roll to see if it happens again.

Anscojohn · Mar 20, 2009

CanuckBassist said:
The bands are lighter on the negative, darker in the reversed picture.
*******
Being the dinosaur I am, I do not know if scanning works the same way as printing a neg would. Still, we've got differential density. That's either a problem with exposure or development (or heaven forefend, both) It does not carry into the clear film beyond the frame. That leads to rule out exposure outside of the camera--like a faulty tank. Development still remains; but it is on intermittens frame--so that tends to rule out faulty development. This leads to something happening in the camera. Since it does not go beyond the exposed area of the film, we discount faulty light seals. What remains is the shutter. And the varying density could conceivably be caused by an erratic shutter moving too quickly (crud in the retarding-escapement mechanism of the mechanical shutter) resulting in underexposure (neg too light) coupled with a shutter flare problem giving excess anomolous density in other areas (neg too dark.). What a conundrum.

At this point, I think I'll just have to wait until I go through an experimental roll to see if it happens again.

*****
Yes. But wait a while--see if the gremlins will get bored through inactivity and go someplace else--like your neighbor's sound system!!!

trexx · Mar 20, 2009

I'd bet on shutter. Looks just like the bands on a widelux when the shutter is sticky.

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

trexx said:
I'd bet on shutter. Looks just like the bands on a widelux when the shutter is sticky.

Wouldn't that affect every exposure though? And there seems to be no relationship between shutter speed and the effect.

Anscojohn · Mar 20, 2009

CanuckBassist said:
Wouldn't that affect every exposure though?
***********
Not necessarilly.

And there seems to be no relationship between shutter speed and the effect

*******
Erratic problems are the ones most difficult to solve.

And if a shutter is due for a CLA, it can be erratic. Works one time fine; not the next. Depends upon many, many variables; state of the lubrication; temperature. humidity; even the angle the camera is being held; how long between shots. I have seen it all.

What a vexation!

trexx · Mar 20, 2009

With a focal plane shutter, particularly when it is faster then sync speed the leading curtain travles at a different speed then the trailing curtain. Or one of the two stutter as it travels. In the expermental roll not the appeture and shutter speed for all frames. If the sutter is to be blamed anything ove the X sync speed is likly to have bands of different exposure.

CanuckBassist · Mar 20, 2009

The band appears at the exact same place in all 4 of the affected frames. Every single frame of the roll was shot at above the sync speed.

I'll do the experimental roll tomorrow and see what happens.

Is this caused by development?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency