Large undeveloped patches of film?

AveryMiller · Sep 20, 2021

The last 3 rolls I've developed have not gone well, and here's the most recent one:

Yikes. Let me give some background.
This started a couple days ago when I developed an old roll of Tri-X (R9 stand development, 1:100 for 60 minutes). It came out with some wavey lines throughout.

Posted it to Reddit and it seemed like the consensus was that I wasn't agitating properly (I had used the stick that came with my tank to rotate the film), and while I hadn't had this problem before, I decided to agitate by rotating the tank.
I tried to develop my next roll and it came out bad, but this time with a different problem.

You can see that a large bubble has prevented part of the film from developing. I was pretty baffled by this, I had tapped the tank to try and dislodge any possible bubbles a couple times, but it seems like it wasn't enough.
Next I thought I'd try a 35mm roll in order to see if I can prevent this, and this is what I got this time:

It looks like there are large areas of the film that weren't developed. I assume all of these issues are related, but I suppose I could have just had bad luck 3 times in a row? Any thoughts?

btaylor · Sep 20, 2021

Try a standard development time and technique, like 1:25 7 min, 68 degrees and agitate normally.

NB23 · Sep 20, 2021

Seems to me there are massive light leaks.

Also, definitely not fixed properly.

Also, why are you messing around with stand development? There is ZERO advantage with this non-techniqie.

grain elevator · Sep 20, 2021

Yes could be light leaking, do you have the hollow central axle piece that the reels sit on in your developing tank? Without it, light can leak in.
Or the film might be touching itself on the reel. Practice loading a reel in the light, you can use one of the screwed up films for that.
Proper agitation isn't rocket science. Three inversions in 10 seconds every minute or something like that and there won't be bubbles if you use the proper amount of developer to cover the reel.
And yes, looks underfixed too. Pay attention to proper agitation in the fixer.
Oh and the streaks on the second film look very odd. Was it x-rayed at an airport by any chance?

Down Under · Sep 20, 2021

NB23 said:
Seems to me there are massive light leaks.

Also, definitely not fixed properly.

Also, why are you messing around with stand development? There is ZERO advantage with this non-techniqie.

Down Under · Sep 20, 2021

NB23 said:
Seems to me there are massive light leaks.

Also, definitely not fixed properly.

Also, why are you messing around with stand development? There is ZERO advantage with this non-techniqie.

grain elevator said:
Yes could be light leaking, do you have the hollow central axle piece that the reels sit on in your developing tank? Without it, light can leak in.
Or the film might be touching itself on the reel. Practice loading a reel in the light, you can use one of the screwed up films for that.
Proper agitation isn't rocket science. Three inversions in 10 seconds every minute or something like that and there won't be bubbles if you use the proper amount of developer to cover the reel.
And yes, looks underfixed too. Pay attention to proper agitation in the fixer.
Oh and the streaks on the second film look very odd. Was it x-rayed at an airport by any chance?

These two posts (#3 and #4 in this thread) contain your answers.

How (or where) did you learn to process film? Consistency is an absolute must in the darkroom - as much so with the initial developing of your films as with the printing stage, in the latter case there may be a little more margin for errors as after all you usually work under safelighting and you can at least see where your technique is leading you. Not so with film.

Your film looks developed but fogged to me so I'll go with the light leaks theory, probably in the tank but also possibly in the camera, tho in the latter case you will have noticed this with other films. I also agree with the uselessness of stand development.

You can easily find some excellent instruction videos on film developing if you look online. Even YouTube will guide you to the right way to do it if you search selectively and avoid the more outrageous productions on things like (excuse me for saying it again) stand processing.

You did say you used an old (= expired) film, which may have caused some of your problem. Your film does look fogged. Maybe age-related. Old unprocessed TXP does not wear the years well.

Good-looking cat in your negatives, btw. From a lifelong dedicated felinophile!!

btaylor · Sep 20, 2021

All good advice- I have also noted with some people new to darkroom work that the idea of total darkness for film developing isn’t fully appreciated.

ic-racer · Sep 20, 2021

This guy's film came out OK. Try it his way

Of course that guy is Greg Davis from the forum here.

AveryMiller · Sep 30, 2021

Appreciate the help everyone!
As I'm sure is obvious, I'm quite new to developing film and I've been figuring stuff out as I go. I didn't realize "stand development" was such a controversial practice, but it makes a lot of sense that such a small amount of developer could cause uneven development.
Lucky for me my university still has working darkrooms, so I've been taking advantage of those (free chemicals! at least, free with tuition ) and that's seemed to fix my issues. Thanks for your help and patience!

drmoss_ca · Oct 3, 2021

Stand, or semi-stand, development isn't really controversial, so don't worry about it. You'll find many people in the film world hold on to their beliefs rather strongly....
I happen to have used the semi-stand technique a couple of times with some utility. Just yesterday I continued my recent explorations into Delta 3200, exposed at 3200, and developed for an hour in Rodinal 1+100. The grain was remarkably restrained.

gone · Oct 4, 2021

I don't think that stand development is controversial, it just seems unnecessary 90% of the time. W/ your type of problem, it helps to not assume anything. True, it may be fogging from a light leak, it could be bad film or chemicals, it could be a lot of things, so the best thing to do is get back to basics.

Assuming you have checked the tank/camera for light leaks, what I would do is start w/ fresh everything. New film (maybe something bullet proof like Tri-X), new chemicals, and practice loading the film in total darkness or in a change bag. Getting rid of that twirley stick was a good idea, and there's plenty of youtube videos showing proper tank agitation methods.

Andrew O'Neill · Oct 4, 2021

For the life of me, I'll never understand why some people here get their nickers in a not when stand development is brought up. Really? There is nothing wrong with it if the person does it correctly and is happy with the results he or she gets.
To me it really looks like the problem stems from the camera.

koraks · Oct 5, 2021

momus said:
I don't think that stand development is controversial, it just seems unnecessary 100% of the time.

Agree with small correction.

The disadvantages of course are:
* Risk of unevenness due to absence of proper agitation
* Risk of unevenness due to bubbles
* Risk of insufficient development / low gamma due to insufficient agitation and/or insufficiently available and active developer
* Takes way longer than necessary

So take your pick from these two options:
1: Proper agitation which has been proven to work for over a century for literally millions of photographers.
2: Stand development which, for years, has given rise to at least one thread a week on this forum with problems directly attributable to it.
It's a tough choice, but if you analyze it very deeply, I'm sure it's possible to determine the most suitable option for a given situation.

drmoss_ca said:
Stand, or semi-stand, development isn't really controversial

Semi-stand and stand are totally different animals. I would NEVER bunch the two together, EVER. Semi-stand is essentially reduced agitation, and is known to work, but it's balancing on the edge of what works.

The only thing controversial about stand development is the fact that it remains controversial in the face of all the problems associated with it.

Patrick Robert James · Oct 5, 2021

Andrew O'Neill said:
For the life of me, I'll never understand why some people here get their nickers in a not when stand development is brought up. Really? There is nothing wrong with it if the person does it correctly and is happy with the results he or she gets.
To me it really looks like the problem stems from the camera.

The problem Andrew is the false belief that stand development is some magic tonic, and the result of that is a long, long list of people who have been burned by it. They are usually newcomers and it is genuinely disheartening to see them be so disappointed. Time and time again there is a new thread about a problem developing and it is almost always related to stand developing. It isn't controversial. It is just wrong to encourage people to do it. Comments like "if it is done right" don't help much to be honest. I don't think people here get their "knickers in a knot", they are tired of having to explain something so basic.

Craig75 · Oct 5, 2021

There looks more at play in first roll than just bromide drag, and light leaks as it looks like there are sprocket hole imprints going at an angle through centre of film - how that happened no idea - but the whole film doesnt look like it was loaded onto reel properly

Large undeveloped patches of film?

AveryMiller

btaylor

NB23

grain elevator

Down Under

Down Under

btaylor

ic-racer

AveryMiller

drmoss_ca

gone

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

koraks

Moderator

Patrick Robert James

Craig75

Large undeveloped patches of film?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency