Light leak or development issue?

[John Louis]

Camera: Mamiya C330
Tank: Single 120 Patterson
Agitation: 3-4 inversions every minute. Healthy dose of tapping.

As shown in the image, I am getting this band along the left edge of random frames (as the film is oriented in camera). Sometimes it breaks further into the image than this. I have two exposures of this scene and it is visible in both, but much more significant in one. This leads me to think possible bellows light leak, as I adjusted focus between the exposures - though we're talking miniscule movement.

I've shot in bright daylight and not had the problem, very subdued light and it's there. It will also affect random frames on a single roll where light conditions are the same across all frames. This makes me wonder if it is actually a development/tank/reel issue. I put just enough solution in the tank to cover the film by maybe a cm or little less, so know it isn't that, but maybe a result of surge around lip of the reel/film edge - yet for random frames?

I'm a bit baffled.

 

[koraks]

Are you sure it's not a scanning artifact? Does it show up on the negatives?

 

[foc]

Can you upload a photo showing the negative strip, please?

Something like this.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

May not hurt to include exposure and processing info if you have it. I am leaning towards the shutter curtain hanging up a wee bit at a certain speed. More information will help.

 

[mnemosyne]

I see two problems here. One is the area of reduced density along the left edge of the picture. This one does remind me of scanning artifacts I get with a certain scanner with certain films. But there is also some dark banding in the sky area visible, running parallel to the left edge. This reminds me more of a type development artifact that can sometimes be found in rotary processing. I wouldn't rule out a bellows light leak, but it just doesn't look very typical to me.

As others have said, it would be good to have all the details on the type of camera and processing and a picture of the whole negative.

 

[John Louis]

I haven't actually printed any with the issue, but will do this week and let you know. I've never seen this scanning any other film mind nor this film in another camera. HP5, 9mins. I've also seen very similar reports online but no answers.

Most convincing thing I have read is that there is a bigger image area/less rebate from this camera and the lip of the plastic patterson reel is breaking into the image area more?

I don't want to upload full neg strip sorry. The image I have uploaded is showing the left of the neg strip if you could see through the back of the camera. Which is to say you are looking at the non-emulsion side. The Mamiya then advances the film vertically. The edge shown is then at the top of the reel in the tank.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You've got an increased density in that light stripe (assuming this posted image is in the positive), then a shadow at the very edge (blank film, reads as black in the positive). The shadow is too sharp and too black (clear film) to be a development issue. The increased density on only that narrow strip of the film seems like a light leak, however. Seeing the two together isn't really possible to call without seeing the entire strip -- at least enough to know if this continues between frames overlays the edge rebate.

 

[John Louis]

I see two problems here. One is the area of reduced density along the left edge of the picture. This one does remind me of scanning artifacts I get with a certain scanner with certain films. But there is also some dark banding in the sky area visible, running parallel to the left edge. This reminds me more of a type development artifact that can sometimes be found in rotary processing. I wouldn't rule out a bellows light leak, but it just doesn't look very typical to me.

As others have said, it would be good to have all the details on the type of camera and processing and a picture of the whole negative.

Thanks for suggestions. I checked bellows and back thoroughly today and no problems I can see. I must say I've never seen this scanning anything but this camera/film combo so far and been through a fair few cameras and films over the years.

 

[Kino]

Thanks for suggestions. I checked bellows and back thoroughly today and no problems I can see. I must say I've never seen this scanning anything but this camera/film combo so far and been through a fair few cameras and films over the years.

You say you checked the bellows; did you fully extend the bellows and check the seam where it attaches to the camera body? Perhaps a seam might be opening up upon certain amount of extension of the bellows.

 

[John Louis]

You've got an increased density in that light stripe (assuming this posted image is in the positive), then a shadow at the very edge (blank film, reads as black in the positive). The shadow is too sharp and too black (clear film) to be a development issue. The increased density on only that narrow strip of the film seems like a light leak, however. Seeing the two together isn't really possible to call without seeing the entire strip -- at least enough to know if this continues between frames overlays the edge rebate.

It is high density at very edge against rebate, then strip of normal density (same as rest of sky), followed by a wider band of higher density again. No shadow I can see here. I feel like it all has to be the same cause as they come together or not at all.

 

[John Louis]

You say you checked the bellows; did you fully extend the bellows and check the seam where it attaches to the camera body? Perhaps a seam might be opening up upon certain amount of extension of the bellows.

I did yeah. I'm now fairly sure it isn't a light leak.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It is high density at very edge against rebate, then strip of normal density (same as rest of sky), followed by a wider band of higher density again. No shadow I can see here. I feel like it all has to be the same cause as they come together or not at all.

Okay, what I was reading as a shadow is the rebate. Yes, I see two strips of increased density; the one nearer the rebate is stronger, the second one wider.

Do these extend into the inter-frame rebate? If not, it's "bellows flare" -- something bright or glossy on the inside of the bellows or frame gate scattering light from a bright sky in the frame. If they do extend through between frames, then it's a light leak that's present while advancing (and may come and go, in part due to light conditions on the exterior of the camera at the time you're shooting the roll). Or, just possibly, it's a light leak in the developing tank.

 

[John Louis]

Do these extend into the inter-frame rebate? If not, it's "bellows flare" -- something bright or glossy on the inside of the bellows or frame gate scattering light from a bright sky in the frame. If they do extend through between frames, then it's a light leak that's present while advancing (and may come and go, in part due to light conditions on the exterior of the camera at the time you're shooting the roll). Or, just possibly, it's a light leak in the developing tank.

I'll have to check this, you don't get much of the rebate in the scans. Re. reflections, there are aluminium (?) strips on each side of the gate. I read somewhere else that if the film isn't 100% flat, there could be some light bounce back on the edges with that very slight gap. Though I suspect if the film wasn't flat, I'd also have softness which I haven't seen. What do you think?

 

[John Louis]

To confirm, I can't see this extending into the rebate, but definitely visible on the negs. It affected 6 of 12 frames on the last roll, all 12 being heavy on sky, so it's definitely pretty random (invariably the best images!). I'd really like to solve this and document it here, being that there are a few similar reports of this on various forums with no conclusions.

No light leaks that I can find, all seals good, bellows good inside and out.

I keep coming back to the reel as most likely culprit as the bands are always on the side of the frame that was at the top of the tank. I wish I had flipped the reel over on the last roll (I always have it on the column with the film spooled clockwise), so I will do this next.

Welcoming more suggestions of course.

Edit: image of film attached and strips on sides of gate as mentioned earlier as possibility (I'm sure there is a good reason they are silver?).

 

[Donald Qualls]

I suspect if the film wasn't flat, I'd also have softness which I haven't seen. What do you think?

That seems highly likely. The depth of focus at the film, however, gets larger by the same geometry that increases depth of field in the subject space (when you stop down or focus further from the camera).

To confirm, I can't see this extending into the rebate, but definitely visible on the negs. It affected 6 of 12 frames on the last roll, all 12 being heavy on sky, so it's definitely pretty random (invariably the best images!). I'd really like to solve this and document it here, being that there are a few similar reports of this on various forums with no conclusions.

No light leaks that I can find, all seals good, bellows good inside and out.

I keep coming back to the reel as most likely culprit as the bands are always on the side of the frame that was at the top of the tank. I wish I had flipped the reel over on the last roll (I always have it on the column with the film spooled clockwise), so I will do this next.

One other thing that could cause increased density and might not be visible in the inter-frame space is if the top centimeter or so is getting more agitation for some reason (wouldn't show between frames because the halide there isn't exposed, so doesn't develop). If it's visible enough on a particular frame, you might be able to examine a tight crop on the scan to check if the contrast is higher in those stripes than in the rest of the frame. If so, that stripe is getting more development than the rest, which could reasonably only occur if it's getting more agitation or you're using a developer that accelerates with oxidation (hydroquinone is known to do that). What developer are you using? Inversion, swizzle stick, or rotary processing?

And as an orientation check: for that edge to be up in the tank, you'd be loading the (taped) head end of the film first, with the tank core on your left while loading "over the top" of the reel (or vice versa, tank core on the right if you load from the film tail). Extra development at the bottom would be due to slow filling, more so than agitation...

 

[John Louis]

One other thing that could cause increased density and might not be visible in the inter-frame space is if the top centimeter or so is getting more agitation for some reason (wouldn't show between frames because the halide there isn't exposed, so doesn't develop). If it's visible enough on a particular frame, you might be able to examine a tight crop on the scan to check if the contrast is higher in those stripes than in the rest of the frame. If so, that stripe is getting more development than the rest, which could reasonably only occur if it's getting more agitation or you're using a developer that accelerates with oxidation (hydroquinone is known to do that). What developer are you using? Inversion, swizzle stick, or rotary processing?.

It's definitely higher value, so it seem the best avenues to pursue are increased local dev activity like you say or still possibly a light leak somewhere - I guess I can't yet completely rule that out. I don't have much film left (or money!) atm and was in the middle of some serious headed stuff, so this is pretty painful, but I'm going to have to sacrifice another roll I think.

Dev is DD-X, inversion in Patterson single reel (plastic) - 4 inversions every minute with 45-90 degree rotations after each, all totalling about 10 secs. I do however invert continuously for first 30 seconds and just noticed Ilford recommend 4 inversions for first 10 - is this another possible lead? I do also "over-fix" - about 6 minutes, same agitation routine. I'm questioning everything now!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Dev is DD-X, inversion in Patterson single reel (plastic) - 4 inversions every minute with 45-90 degree rotations after each, all totalling about 10 secs. I do however invert continuously for first 30 seconds and just noticed Ilford recommend 4 inversions for first 10 - is this another possible lead? I do also "over-fix" - about 6 minutes, same agitation routine. I'm questioning everything now!

Back to front -- overfixing is impossible, within reason. Rapid fixer will very very slowly bleach the image, but six minutes won't do that. As long as you're consistent from roll to roll, I don't think there's a huge amount of difference between ten seconds, 30 seconds, and 1 minute of continuous inversion at the start of development -- this is during the "induction period", while the developer is soaking into the film (either swelling dry gelatin or replacing/diffusing into the water in the pre-soaked gelatin), so there isn't much happening in terms of oxidation of the developer and reduction of silver. The point of doing that is mainly to ensure the film is completely and evenly wetted during that "induction period".

How much developer do you use? My Paterson (Super System 4) wants 500 ml for a single 120 reel; older versions should be the same. More won't do any harm, unless you get it so full inversion does almost nothing (that'd be above 650 ml for the 1x120 tank). DD-X is a PQ formula (dimezone rather than actual phenidone, I think, but they're interchangeable for most purposes), though, so it's possible you're getting an effect from oxidation of the hydroquinone at the surface. Try adding 50 ml additional developer on the next roll and see if that improves things.

 

[John Louis]

Back to front -- overfixing is impossible, within reason. Rapid fixer will very very slowly bleach the image, but six minutes won't do that. As long as you're consistent from roll to roll, I don't think there's a huge amount of difference between ten seconds, 30 seconds, and 1 minute of continuous inversion at the start of development -- this is during the "induction period", while the developer is soaking into the film (either swelling dry gelatin or replacing/diffusing into the water in the pre-soaked gelatin), so there isn't much happening in terms of oxidation of the developer and reduction of silver. The point of doing that is mainly to ensure the film is completely and evenly wetted during that "induction period".

How much developer do you use? My Paterson (Super System 4) wants 500 ml for a single 120 reel; older versions should be the same. More won't do any harm, unless you get it so full inversion does almost nothing (that'd be above 650 ml for the 1x120 tank). DD-X is a PQ formula (dimezone rather than actual phenidone, I think, but they're interchangeable for most purposes), though, so it's possible you're getting an effect from oxidation of the hydroquinone at the surface. Try adding 50 ml additional developer on the next roll and see if that improves things.

Thanks. Maybe of note, I use around 550ml because at 500 I had bubbles effecting the edge of frame (the same edge). DD-X can be a bubble bath. I have been tempted to go to 600ml.

 

[Donald Qualls]

With a PQ developer, this could possibly still be a bubble effect, but it's hard to be certain.

I'd have to say you're probably right, the only option left is to shoot a test roll with lots of sky in frame and load it same end first, but with the reel the other way up, and see if the problem transfers to the other side.

 

[grat]

Did you check the seals on the film door itself? Mine have gone a bit crumbly over time. The other thing to test would be develop a roll with exactly 500ml of fluid (assuming it's the Paterson 115 tank).

 

[John Louis]

The issue has pretty much gone on my last roll, with many sky shots. I flipped the reel around in the tank (after loading the film) and also reduced initial agitation from 30 secs to 10 secs (as per Ilford). There is one frame where it's very slightly visible, but so slight as not to be an issue.

I think the issue has to be a surge of development activity along the edge of the strip, something to do with the reel, exacerbated by over-eager initial agitation. I am not sure whether flipping the reel had that much of a bearing, being the same on both sides.

 

[grat]

Just... to cover all bases, which way did you put the center column in? With the lip that holds the reels at the top, or bottom?

Turns out, having just tested it, that it works both ways, and I could see that causing issues if the center column is in upside down.

 

[John Louis]

Just... to cover all bases, which way did you put the center column in? With the lip that holds the reels at the top, or bottom?

Turns out, having just tested it, that it works both ways, and I could see that causing issues if the center column is in upside down.

Just flipping the reel on the column, keeping the column lip at the bottom of tank yes.

I should also note, on the affected edge of the film strip, the rebate is narrower (my P67 has one narrow edge as well, but because of the way the film is oriented in camera, it's not the sky side). I checked when the film was in the reel and the image area isn't broken by the rails, but it's pretty close. The rebate is showing comfortably on the other side by comparison. Whether that narrower edge being at the top or bottom of the tank actually matters in development, I am not willing to gamble on atm, so flipping + reducing initial agitation it is.

I'll be back if this stops working!

 

[John Louis]

Hello again,

The issue is still present and very bad on my last roll, affecting frames 2 - 7. The worst edge follows the top of the tank, but it is also faintly visible on the other side.

Image attached, darkened in PS, shown as oriented in the tank. The sky is also generally a mess here, but I still don't know if it's all related to development or light leaks. I shot clear skies a few weeks ago, which are absolutely perfect. All but one rolls shot in 2020 (maybe 25) were fine, then suddenly in 2021 this has started happening maybe every other roll. The randomness is really driving me a bit insane.

I do still need to check my Pentax with the same film and dev in this tank, with sky at the top. But before I go down a potential rabbit hole of lost money and time with that, can anyone offer any more tips?

 

[John Louis]

Further levels adjustment, here is the previous imaged frame side by side with the next frame - 3 & 4.