Issues developing Ferrania P30 in HC-110 (or possible light leak?)

I'm pretty new to film photography and even newer to developing film at home. This is the 4th roll I've developed and the first Ferrania, and I noticed that the edges of the negatives look "burnt". It's right where the perforations are and in some cases it seems to get into the frame itself. I'm attaching two photos to show that, both were taken with my phone with the negatives laid on a light table. The "contact print" photo just the same pic with the colors inverted digitally.

I developed the roll for 12 minutes in dilution H (7ml:443ml) with inversions the first minute, and then 10 seconds inversions every minute (per Ferrania's website). Then a minute in the stop bath (Ilfostop), then five minutes in the fixer (Kodak Rapidfix).

Could this be due to an issue with the developing?

The other possible culprit is that I shot this roll with a Canon A-1 and its AT dial guard fell off and I replaced it with one I 3d printed. It's not a perfect fit like the original and it does have a couple small gaps in the side. I find it hard to believe that's what's causing this, but like I said earlier. I'm very new to the whole thing and wouldn't know any better!

Thanks!
-Eliya

Welcome to Photrio.
What is the "colour" of the edges that look "burnt"?
If they are milky, I'd suspect incomplete fixing. In which case re-fixing in fresh fix might solve the problem.

MattKing said:

Welcome to Photrio.
What is the "colour" of the edges that look "burnt"?
If they are milky, I'd suspect incomplete fixing. In which case re-fixing in fresh fix might solve the problem.

Click to expand...

It's not all looking milky. Some of it, around frame 26, looks milky. Some of it looks darker. It's pretty inconsistent and one edge of the film looks different than the other. I attached a couple of pictures to my original post (I believe they came through) and maybe they can give more detail.

I do reuse my fixer but this was only the 4th time it was used, which is why I kept the film in the fixer for 5 minutes and not 4, and I actually even kept it there a little longer.

Try a clip test to check the health of your fixer: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...ixing-procedure-for-black-white-negatives.75/

Thanks! I just ran this test and the piece of leader was completely clear within 1:30. I also, between our last two replies, put a milky strip of the film I already developed in the fixer for a few minutes with some agitation and the strip of film remained exactly the same as it was before.

From the test you ran, it sounds like your fixer is okay. It might still be worth re-fixing one of the strips in the problematic roll, just to be sure.

I'll echo what Matt said -- the bluish spots in the top two strips are curious. I'm inclined to think they're the result of a completely different problem than the general "fogging" seen along the film edges. I've seen these kinds of discolorations happen when the film emulsion comes into contact with another surface (usually other film) during development, but in your case, the areas are at least "clear," which implies that they were contacted by fixing. Was the film still slightly wet along these edges when you sleeved it? If so, perhaps the discoloration is an optical illusion due to refraction?

Regarding the "fogging" (i.e., high density areas along film edges), it could either be a light leak or over-development. It's worth noting that the high density sometimes exhibits as a continuous band (e.g., top of strips 2, 3, and 4), and sometimes as halos concentrated around individual sprocket holes (e.g., top of strip 6). I'd be inclined to speculate that it was an over-development problem, which can happen with certain types of continuous rotational development, but you seem to imply intermittent agitation via inversion (presumably a tank). Could you give us more info about what kind of development method you're using (e.g., tank type, agitation type, etc.)?

A light leak is still possible. Does the 3-D printed part you mention replacing permit light to reach inside the camera when not present?

Scott J. said:

I'll echo what Matt said -- the bluish spots in the top two strips are curious.

Click to expand...

These are reflection from a window onto the liner. So that's not an issue with the negative - at least that!

Scott J. said:

It's worth noting that the high density sometimes exhibits as a continuous band (e.g., top of strips 2, 3, and 4), and sometimes as halos concentrated around individual sprocket holes (e.g., top of strip 6).

Click to expand...

I too thought that was curious. Also strip 6 exhibit one little white dot over the last frame. I can't imagine how a light leak would be so symmetric and concentrated.

Scott J. said:

Could you give us more info about what kind of development method you're using (e.g., tank type, agitation type, etc.)?

Click to expand...

I mixed HC-110 dilution H with a ratio of 7ml concentrate to 443ml water (this was mixed fresh this morning before I did the developing). Per Ferrania's recommendation I developed for a total of 12 minutes at 20C. I did inversions for the first minute, then ten seconds of inversions every minute. I dumped the developer and pour in the stop bath for a minute. Agitated (inversions) for half of it. The for the fix I put it in for 5 minutes, agitated the first 30 seconds, then 10 seconds every 30 seconds. It was all done in a Patterson tank (with room for two reels, but only one present).

Scott J. said:

A light leak is still possible. Does the 3-D printed part you mention replacing permit light to reach inside the camera when not present?

Click to expand...

I can't test that right now with that camera because it has a roll of film. I also don't know I would test that. However, I have another A-1 and I looked inside, and it would be very unlikely for light to get to the film from the front of the camera where that 3D part is located. The 3D printed part is a guard that slides over the shutter speed dial. It's not a precision engineered part (though the original is a better fit than the 3d print), and when the guard is down it doesn't make a perfect seal anyway against the shutter dial, so I doubt this part is so vulnerable to light! But I could very well be wrong! I wonder if other A-1 users experienced light leaks because of that part.

Thank you!

There doesn't seem to be anything obviously wrong with your technique as you've described it, so don't let these weird results scare you away from film photography! If you do this hobby long enough, you'll find that there are just certain combinations that don't play well together -- e.g., film + developer, developer + agitation method, etc. The reasons why can be hard to understand, and we have a tendency to blame ourselves first, but resist that urge! My guess is that none of this is probably your fault.

In this specific case, the only things that stick out to me as mildly unusual are the use of Dilution H (1+63) and the somewhat longish initial agitation period (continuously for the first minute). Again, you've followed Ferrania's instructions perfectly, so you've done nothing wrong in that regard. My misgivings arise because: 1) developers get a little unpredictable at higher dilutions; and 2) the first 1 to 2 minutes of development typically produce the bulk of the density on the negative, so too much agitation at the beginning has the potential with some film and developer combinations to produce surge marks along the film edges (especially near sprocket holes). Admittedly, Dilution H isn't too out of the ordinary, but it may just be that it doesn't work well with P30, despite Ferrania giving their official blessing to it. I'd suggest shooting another roll if you have one and trying either a different dilution (e.g., Dilution B, 1+31) or a different developer (e.g., Xtol/XT-3, D76, Rodinal, etc.).

Please let us know how things go!

Thanks, Scott!

I did shoot another roll of P30 that I'm going to develop in the next couple of days. I shot these in Italy, and this next roll to develop has some photos I really look forward to seeing developed, so I want to make sure I get that one looking right. Ferrania recommends 5 minutes in the B dilution with 30 seconds initial agitation, and then one inversion per minute. I don't know much but I've never seen another film that is processed with one inversion per minute after the initial agitation. Moreover, most films seem to need more than 5 minutes in dilution B (though not all). Curious if you have any thoughts on that. I'm also interested in hearing from others who might have developed P30 in HC-110.

Thanks again!

Ferrania's recommendation to develop for five minutes with 30 seconds of continuous, initial agitation for Dilution B is on par with most other films, which typically call for development times of between four and seven minutes at 20 degrees C (see, for example, the HC-110 data sheet, especially Page 4: https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j24.pdf). The recommendation of 30 seconds of initial agitation (as opposed to, say, only 10 seconds of initial agitation) is a good approach for shorter development times (i.e., <6:00), as it ensures you get even distribution of the developer into the film emulsion and adequate development during those very critical, first 60 seconds.

Regarding agitation frequency once you get past the first minute, one inversion per minute is perfectly reasonable. The HC-110 data sheet recommends inverting at either 30-second intervals or one-minute intervals (notice that total development time must be increased slightly when using one-minute agitation intervals). Now, just what Kodak means by "agitation" isn't clarified in the data sheet. For example, do they mean *one agitation only*, or do they mean *one period of agitations* lasting, say, five seconds? My instinct here is that they simply mean one inversion each 30 or 60 seconds, so I'd go with that.

On the broader question of agitation frequency, you'll discover as you get more into developing that infrequent agitation is a common technique employed by some photographers because of the small improvements in acutance (i.e., sharpness) that it can produce. The bog-standard approach of "10 seconds of agitation per minute" is generally very reliable and produces good results, which is why manufacturers often suggest it and why schools usually teach it. But for photographers trying to eek every last bit of detail out of their film, they'll often begin experimenting with more exotic developers that benefit from less frequent agitation. Pyrocat-HD, a developer that I use for most of my work on T-Max 100 and Delta 100, is often used with an agitation method involving continuous agitation for the first 1-2 minutes, followed by only one agitation every 3-5 minutes, for a total development time of around 15-20 minutes (everybody has their own secret recipe!). There are also "semi-stand" and "stand" development methods that use even less frequent agitation.

The principle of diminishing returns can really apply here, however, so caveat emptor: It's easy to end up spending a lot of time and money chasing after only marginal gains by experimenting with exotic developers and agitation methods. When you're first getting into developing your own film, it's best to stick to the tried-and-true stuff, or else you risk getting demoralized and frustrated with unsatisfactory results. HC-110 is a great developer, but it can be finicky and unpredictable because of the short development times (Dilution B) or the high dilutions that give unpredictable behavior. If you continue having trouble with it, I'd suggest something easier to manage like Adox XT-3 (a modernized version of Kodak Xtol), which is arguably one of the greatest B&W developers ever made.

eliya said:

fFerrania recommends 5 minutes in the B dilution with 30 seconds initial agitation, and then one inversion per minute.

Click to expand...

Sounds pretty common. I'd interpret 'one inversion' as 'one inversion cycle' with this 'cycle' being defined as however you do your agitation. This will depend a bit on the equipment and habits you use.

There won't be much of a difference between 30 or 60 seconds initial agitation. 30 seconds suffices amply in my experience. 60 seconds won't offer a benefit and will only have a minor (likely insignificant) effect on final contrast.

Don't make too much of the whole agitation issue.

The question remains what the actual cause of the initial problem is/was. I'd like to see some good photographs of the film strips, at a more oblique angle, and not necessarily backlit, so as to be able to judge the color of the fogging.

What kind of development tank do you use, and is the center column properly fitted? Keep in mind the center column is part of the light trap. Leaving it out will result in severe fogging problems that very much resemble what I see in these negatives.

On a side note: I'd warn against labeling an image a 'contact print' if it's really an inverted digital photo of negatives on a light table. It's confusing to those of us who are familiar with actual contact prints; for instance, what turned out to be a window reflection also got me second-guessing, just like @MattKing. A real contact print wouldn't have shown this artefact.

Thanks everyone! Right now I'm inclined to keep developing with HC-110. I read here before that it's a good idea to become accustomed to one developer and get consistently good results with it before trying others. I do, however, considered getting CineStill D-96 because it is supposedly the developer most suited for this film stock.

koraks said:

I'd like to see some good photographs of the film strips, at a more oblique angle, and not necessarily backlit, so as to be able to judge the color of the fogging.

Click to expand...

Attaching some pics which hopefully help. A couple of them are backlit because otherwise the fogging barely comes through.

koraks said:

What kind of development tank do you use, and is the center column properly fitted? Keep in mind the center column is part of the light trap. Leaving it out will result in severe fogging problems that very much resemble what I see in these negatives

Click to expand...

I use a Patterson double tank. The center column was properly fitted, I believe. One thing I do remember now is that I put the light trap on, and I thought it clicked into place when I turned it clockwise. However, after turning on the light I realized that it didn't fully click into place. Once I figured that out, I did make sure it properly clicked. So that could be a source of the light leak.

Another thing I noticed is that the cassette's "lip" (what's the actual proper name for it?) where the film comes out of isn't like that of other film stock. it's slightly agape and doesn't fully close on the film. I would assume, however, that it would only affect the very start of the roll if it's an issue at all.

koraks said:

On a side note: I'd warn against labeling an image a 'contact print' if it's really an inverted digital photo of negatives on a light table.

Click to expand...

Got it! Won't happen again.

Tsubasa said:

Light leak plus the film was loaded wrong onto the spiral.

Click to expand...

I won't be surprised if I loaded it wrong. But this roll went on the reel very easily. I did just get a stainless steel tank with steel reels. I might try using that combo next.

eliya said:

One thing I do remember now is that I put the light trap on, and I thought it clicked into place when I turned it clockwise. However, after turning on the light I realized that it didn't fully click into place. Once I figured that out, I did make sure it properly clicked. So that could be a source of the light leak.

Click to expand...

Ah. Yes, that could very well be the explanation of your fogging issue.

Thanks for posting the additional photos; they pretty much rule out a fixer problem. Together with the issue you explained above, I'd suggest to do a trial run with perhaps half a roll of film, ensuring the tank is closed properly before turning on the lights, and then seeing how that comes out. I'm fairly sure it'll be just fine.

I agree on the comment about the cassette that an issue along the felt light trap would affect only part of the film. The fogging pattern is very consistent with an improperly closed development tank.

Anyway Ferrania P30 is one of the toughtest film to develop; it tends to build up contrast very quickly and its true sensitivity is around 25 ISO.
HC110 is a very strong and active developer at traditional dil B (1+31 from syroup); your choice to use dil H is wise. Very active developer (dil B) + very contrasty film (Ferrania) = unprintable negatives.
It's better to start with a more foregiving, reliable and tested film (Ilford Fp4) souped in a forgiving developer as ID-11 (my favourite is Kodak XTOL, but now it's discontinued)

I can hardly imagine a chemical issue will create such localised problems with so much density, unless something "mechanical" is going on: film touching itself (it will go blind!), some other sort of obstruction, not enough chems to cover the whole film. This looks like light leaks. With a remote second possiblity of incomplete fixing due to too little fixer and no agitation while fixing, but usually that would be less dense.

Thanks, I'll be more diligent about the tank. I guess you learn some things the hard way.

Everything I read about P30 makes it seem like it's difficult to develop and a lot of people get unprintable negatives at first. But I was drawn to it because I really like how contrasty it is, and also that it's supposedly the film stock Fellini and other Italian filmmakers liked.

I did start my dive into developing with 400TX, and so far it's been good. Maybe I'll do a few more rolls of that before I go back to the P30.

Lastly, several of you comment on how this could be the result of how the film was loaded to the reel. Any tips on how to ensure it's loaded properly? I've definitely had to roll back film onto the cassette and reload it onto the reel because I could tell that it's binding, but other than physically (or audibly) noticing that the film is binding, I have no way of knowing if it's going well or not.

I'm inclined to believe the incorrectly seated funnel/light-trap is the culprit. That looks like a serious light leak, consistent with that.

FWIW, I had a brick of P30 from way back when they let us take that in lieu of the promised reward. (What was that reward supposed to be anyway?) I shot a few rolls and gave some away and haven't bought any more until a week or two ago when I got five rolls of the 120 stuff. But I dug into my notes and it seems I also developed in HC-110 dil. H for twelve minutes. My usual regimen is one minute of continuous agitation followed by three inversions every one minute, and I would have followed it. The results were very good. So I wouldn't discourage you from shooting it again if you like what it does. If your upcoming shoot is really important to you, maybe it's worth a test roll just to rule out any problems.

Lake 2 by terry, on Flickr

eliya said:

Lastly, several of you comment on how this could be the result of how the film was loaded to the reel.

Click to expand...

Personally I see no signs of such.
You can always sacrifice a roll of cheap/expired/junk film to practice on in daylight. But again, there's no sign of a problem in this area.