Microphen fail

[ajuk]

I just tried to push some Pan F in Microphen to 200, I had rated it at 400 by mistake, but I thought I would push to 200 in Microphen anyway I just got a completely blank film, no numbers only the leader has come out black but so why are there no numbers, this is the second time I have used this Microphen stock and I added 10% to the time, oh and the first time in that developed in that stock was more than fine.

Tmax 400 @ 800

 

[Ian Grant]

Probably because it's not been exposed

If the leaders developed then it sounds as if the dev was working. Microphen's very robust and unless you contaminate it should keep well for nearly a year.

It's possible the film slipped out on loading so never went through the camera. Pan F doesn't push well at all but you should get something even a ghostly image.

Ian

 

[Denis K]

The usual reason for a completely blank film is when you swap the developer and fixer but you said the leader was black so that doesn't sound like what happened. The fact that you got no numbers in at the edge of the film doesn't jive with having a black leader even if the film got no exposure. Something doesn't sound right with what you are telling us. The results you are describing just don't sound possible.

Denis K

 

[ajuk]

That's what I thought.

 

[ajuk]

Could it be that the leader has had so much exposure that it went black even though the dev is shagged, and if the dev is knackered, why could that be?

 

[Anscojohn]

Could it be that the leader has had so much exposure that it went black even though the dev is shagged, and if the dev is knackered, why could that be?

*****
If the developed part looks to be about like the amount of film ordinarilly sticking out of the casette, you souped a new roll of film. If a and inch or a couple more than that amount is black, then the tongue of the leader slipped out of your take up in the camera.

 

[ajuk]

Yeah but that doesn't explain the lack of numbers.

 

[Anscojohn]

Yeah but that doesn't explain the lack of numbers.

*****
Oh, yeah. You DID mention that!! Hmmm. Gremlins?:confused:

 

[Anscojohn]

Do you have a piece of leader from a properly developed roll which you can compare for density with that of the suspect roll?

 

[Ian Grant]

There have been posts about Pan F and no edge numbers, yet the films developed fine.

It doesn't matter how much gross over-exposure that leader had it will only process to the same density, and that density is only dependant on the developer. So if it's black the developer is functioning, we don't know quite how well, but certainly well enough so that there should be something on the film even if very underexposed.

So test the developer, put a film in the camera shoot a few frames, don't rewind, open the camera in the darkroom or changing bag cut them off the roll and process them. Then cut a new leader and you can finish the film later.

Ian

 

[clayne]

PanF barely has numbers as it is. ;-)

 

[ajuk]

Looking closely I can just make out one frame towards the end of the roll Only one corner of it and I can't see what it is, is is REALLY faint.

 

[Anscojohn]

Looking closely I can just make out one frame towards the end of the roll Only one corner of it and I can't see what it is, is is REALLY faint.

*******
It is conceivable you have underdevelopment AND under exposure. Sometimes a cranky focal plane shutter will not hold the following curtain properly and the film gets little or no eposure. If you say there is part of a frame at the very end, it might be the shutter getting a bit better after some usage. Just a wild thought.

 

[ajuk]

I see it says add 10% per 1l bottle for every film processed but I have kept the 400ml I used for the first film in a separate bottle to the rest of the stock, should I have added more than 10%? But even if I did add 20% I scarcly see how it would make a difference.

 

[Denis K]

Looking closely I can just make out one frame towards the end of the roll Only one corner of it and I can't see what it is, is is REALLY faint.

Which end of the roll, the leader end or the tail end? Are there any faint numbers as well?

Perhaps I shouldn't speak for others, but I don't think anyone feels that partial developer developer exhaustion could explain what you are seeing.

Denis K

 

[ajuk]

I tried but I really can't see any numbers, anyway I put that dev back in with the rest gave it a shake and I have just inspected the next roll out of the tank and it looks fine.

 

[mattmoy_2000]

Ajuk, when reusing developer like this, you need to mix the used developer back in with the unused. This reduces both the proportional depletion of developer and the concentration of (development-products called) bromides, which act as restrainers. I used to reuse developer, now I don't bother - it's really not that expensive!
EDIT: I know microphen is more expensive, which is why I don't use it.

 

[ajuk]

Yeah I hope to get 10 usages out of this, I mainly use it to push.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I am wondering if it is massive underexposure combined with massive underdevelopment by reusing dev too much/too old etc.

 

[Ian Grant]

More likely the massive underexposure & not enough increase in development to take into account the re-use and the push processing, plus the fact that the slower the film the less you can push process anyway.

Ilford recommend Pan F in Microphen FS at 4:30 mins @ 50 EI, and 6 mins @ 64 EI, extrapolate up the film needs 13:30 mins to get to 200 EI and will still be a stop under, more like 20 mins for EI 400 that's without adding the 10% for re-use.

So I think it's looking at the wrong cause to say the developer's failed, put it down to learning by mistakes

Ian

 

[ajuk]

Still I would have expected to get something even if really thin.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think that's why you need to look elsewhere, like did the film actually get exposed, if the developer had enough energy to process the leader then there should be a at least a hint of an image. Also test the develop with a short clip of a different fim.

Ian

 

[dynachrome]

Pan F+ is not a very good film for pushing. Some people shoot it at 100 and develop it in Diafine or Microphen. Shooting Pan F+ at 400 is really not recommended. You will have much better luck shooting Tri-X at 1600 in the right developer than shooting Pan F+ at 200 in any developer.

 

[pentaxuser]

I tried but I really can't see any numbers, anyway I put that dev back in with the rest gave it a shake and I have just inspected the next roll out of the tank and it looks fine.

I take it the next roll was a different type of film? If nothing changed between the duff roll and a good roll then this rules out the developer doesn't it and the camera, assuming both were taken on the same camera and seems to point to the particular roll of film.

You might want to contact Harman

pentaxuser

 

[Akki14]

So... that used solution, you mentioned you use microphen for pushing film a lot. You're not suppose to reuse Microphen if you use it for pushing. At least that's what the directions say. You might have exhausted that solution on the previous film.