Kodak Double-X in D96 completely blank

[Philipp Grewenbach]

Hello together,

sorry for posting possibly yet another of many "blank roll" threads, but I really do not know why my problem occured.

I recently bought a new 120 roll of CineStills BWXX (which is re-spooled Kodak Double-X), shot it in my Bronica ETRS at EI 250. Today, I developed it. I used Bellini D96, Stock solution (no dilution) for 6 minutes 40 seconds with continous Agitation. After that thorough wash, fix, wash. However, to my great disapointment, the roll came out completely blank.

Now I know this sounds like it wasn't developed, but I am 100% sure that I put the developer in first, then Water, then fix.
The D96 was not completely new, I had the bottle since one year, and I have previously developed 4 rolls of Ferrania P30 in it, which all came out fine. The last good roll of P30 was November 2020. Could the developer have gone completely bad in this time? It was however stored in the full bottle... And I just tested its pH, which is about 10, which seems good to me...
And I'd expect to see at least something, perhaps underdeveloped, if the developer was too old... Or not?

Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated, as I am quite clueless what caused this issue.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Take a piece of undeveloped film and drop it in the developer. If it turns black within a reasonable amount of time, then you probably fixed it first.

Oh, and pH alone doesn't say much. If the development agent(s) are totally oxidised, then it won't matter.

 

[Jonno85uk]

Are you sure the Bronica lens shutter was working? I have a parts ETRS which sounds like it's working but if you view the shutter from the back 9/10 the shutter doesn't fire and if it does it goes off randomly.(Lens shutter works fine in another body).
Interestingly, its success rate increases if fired upside down.

 

[darkosaric]

Please post picture of the negative, so that we can see are there some perforation marks. And also +1 to what Anon wrote.

 

[Philipp Grewenbach]

Thanks Anon, I did the test with some undeveloped, but completely exposed film. Indeed, it didn't turn fully black even after 20 minutes... So I guess the developer went completely off. Still, I find it strange that Bellini claims "good shelf life", and after a few months since the last (very good!) roll, there is virtually nothing developed...

@Jonno85uk yes, I did Check the Bronica, it works fine...

 

[Philipp Grewenbach]

@darkosaric as I said, it's completely blank, no numbers, no markings...

 

[Danner]

It looks like it was fixed, but not developed?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Even if the developer had aged out, it shouldn't be completely inert; you should have faint image and more so edge markings. The only actual possibility here is that you poured the fixer first -- and if you reuse your solutions, there's every likelihood that you then poured fixer into the developer storage bottle, and developer into the fixer. Happens to everyone at least once. I poured color developer into my C-41 fixer bottle not long ago, despite having everything in correct order going into the tank (mixed up the graduates on the darkroom counter).

 

[cmacd123]

presumably the DXN 120 was slit from a wide roll so might not have edge printing.

 

[Jonno85uk]

presumably the DXN 120 was slit from a wide roll so might not have edge printing.

That was my thought so went looking for 120 BwXX images on the internet showing the edge markings. You can find them for 35mm, not for 120. Or at least I can't.

 

[Donald Qualls]

presumably the DXN 120 was slit from a wide roll so might not have edge printing.

Much more likely, as with the 120 size color stocks that start as Visions3 emulsion, Cinestill is buying large enough batches to have the film specially cut from a master roll for 120. There is no cine format that can be cut to 120 size without leaving perforations.

 

[cmacd123]

Much more likely, as with the 120 size color stocks that start as Visions3 emulsion, Cinestill is buying large enough batches to have the film specially cut from a master roll for 120. There is no cine format that can be cut to 120 size without leaving perforations.

exactly, what I meant donald. the stock being custom slit would proably not have any marking from Kodak, and so if their is any marking that would have to come from whoever is making up the rolls.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Edge marking is part of confectioning -- which is the process of going from a "pancake" of unperfed film (already cut to target width) to finished cassettes or pouched rolls.

It might well be that the reason it's feasible for Cinestill to do this lies in remjet application also being part of confectioning; otherwise, they'd have had to expend capital for at least a master roll of each emulsion in each format (since 120 is normally on a different base from 70/35/16 mm, at least some testing would be needed to be sure the emulsion works as designed with the coating changes required). For a small vendor like Cinestill, that's much more than a mere multi-year supply. If remjet is applied during confectioning, however, the this whole setup makes more sense, and if they found they can get away with the same base/thickness in their 120 vs. 35mm, they have at least cut their purchase in half (i.e. only one master roll in each emulsion) -- which would allow toll confectioning in less than master roll quantities, because all the custom work is at or after cutting to width.

All that said, I don't see how it could be practical to apply remjet to film that's already coated and fully dried without causing migration of sensitizers (just getting condensation on the emulsion can do that).

 

[cmacd123]

Edge marking is part of confectioning -- which is the process of going from a "pancake" of unperfed film (already cut to target width) to finished cassettes or pouched rolls. if they found they can get away with the same base/thickness in their 120 vs. 35mm, they have at least cut their purchase in half (i.e. only one master roll in each emulsion) -- which would allow toll confectioning in less than master roll quantities, because all the custom work is at or after cutting to width.
All that said, I don't see how it could be practical to apply remjet to film that's already coated and fully dried without causing migration of sensitizers (just getting condensation on the emulsion can do that).

My guess is that the REM-Jet for the MP colour films are likely applied before the film web is coated with the sensitive layers.. I cannot imagine keeping the 35mm perforations in spec with rem jet in liquid form attempting to line the cut edges. I have not seen the cinestill colour films to see if they have done their own perforating. (of course I cringe when thinking of someone removing the anti-halo layer BEFORE exposing the film except if one wanted a cloud like dream effect.

DXN just has a grey base, simalar to tri-x, so no special treatment is required. who knows how willing Kodak would be these days to providing 60 or 65 mm pancakes without perforations, tobe converted into 120 rolls. I have seen other film in the 5 mil base rolled as 120, so that is possible if not ideal.

 

[Donald Qualls]

My guess is that the REM-Jet for the MP colour films are likely applied before the film web is coated with the sensitive layers.. I cannot imagine keeping the 35mm perforations in spec with rem jet in liquid form attempting to line the cut edges. I have not seen the cinestill colour films to see if they have done their own perforating. (of course I cringe when thinking of someone removing the anti-halo layer BEFORE exposing the film except if one wanted a cloud like dream effect.

I haven't handled either Cinestill or Visions3 -- but I agree, that it would seem that coating (or not coating) remjet almost has to be done before all other coating steps. So, I think we can agree that Cinestill is buying in enough quantity to get the film coated with out the remjet, but is likely doing toll processing for width cutting, perforating, and confectioning. Possibly they might do their own perforation and 35mm cassette loading; that's equipment that's in range to own (cheaper than master roll quantity of film). Less likely they do their own 120 rolling and pouching.