Mystery Tiger Striping

[joseph saunders]

Has anyone ever encountered this problem?

~Student roll not my roll~

Just on the sprocket holes. There was two rolls in the developing tank from two different people and two different cameras and this roll came out like this. Same changing room as well. Now it doesn't seem like an agitation issue since the other roll is fine. The tiger stripped roll was on the bottom of the tank but I have never myself had issues with chemistry coverage to bottom rolls, even with developing 8 rolls.

Note: developer is made fresh for each development and batch fixer and stop and hypo are made and checked three times a day. Changing rooms are light tight.

We have seen this a few times with students rolls over the years but still a mystery. It has happened with just single roll development but now it has happened with double roll development and only affecting one roll. Now in the past it has been more aggressive than this going all over the frame, but this one is just in the sprocket holes.

If it was agitation I feel like it would be less consistent that this. If it was fixer wouldn't it be brown or if developer wasn't good or contaminated wouldn't it be light not dark stripes?

Now if you look at the first three frames of the roll you can see that those frames are fine and have no issues which makes it more weird.


Images:


Could this be a manufacturing issue? But even that doesn't make to much sense.

any input is welcomed!

thank you!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Rewound backwards?

 

[joseph saunders]

Rewound backwards?

what do you mean by this?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bromide drag. Over or under agitation will cause marks like that around sprocket holes and into the negative image itself. If you look closely, you can see some of this in the images in your enlarged image.

PE

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

what do you mean by this?

It's possible the film was rewound backwards back into the cartridge causing stress marks. I did that once when I was a kid. Once the film started backwards it was impossible to reverse again (wind forwards) so I rewound the entire roll backwards. The film had stress marks looking like that. I knew at the time it would have been far better to STOP and unload the film in a darkroom but I really needed (wanted) to keep shooting. In retrospect, that was a mistake, especially since I could have badly damaged my only camera.

 

[joseph saunders]

Bromide drag. Over or under agitation will cause marks like that around sprocket holes and into the negative image itself. If you look closely, you can see some of this in the images in your enlarged image.

PE

Why would this only happen to one roll and not the other in the same tank? we do a controlled agitation that shouldn't produce this but then again it is the darkroom.Also i have heard a lot of this and that about Bromide drag and weather its a thing or not. Could you elaborate more?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bromide and Iodide are released by development. Developing agent and alkali are consumed by development. This combination can occur in streaks in the film if it is not getting the proper agitation, and it usually appears around sprocket holes in 35mm. It is sometimes caused by dilute developer or not enough solution.

If it occurs on one roll, this may be due to that roll being in a top position in a tank or that developer level is low. I have seen it many times and both induced it and corrected it by running controlled experiments.

PE

 

[pdeeh]

IF PE says it's Bromide drag, you can be sure that Bromide drag is "a thing". He doesn't deal in "internet myth"

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks, but I'm also prone to error.

I've been studying those negatives and see what appears to be fogging across the negative in streaks. This could be stress fog caused by repeated kinks in the film which would mean that O-N-F's comment may have considerable merit here as well.

I note that it also seems to start in mid roll in the top example.

PE

 

[joseph saunders]

Thanks, but I'm also prone to error.

I've been studying those negatives and see what appears to be fogging across the negative in streaks. This could be stress fog caused by repeated kinks in the film which would mean that O-N-F's comment may have considerable merit here as well.

I note that it also seems to start in mid roll in the top example.

PE

IF PE says it's Bromide drag, you can be sure that Bromide drag is "a thing". He doesn't deal in "internet myth"

It's possible the film was rewound backwards back into the cartridge causing stress marks. I did that once when I was a kid. Once the film started backwards it was impossible to reverse again (wind forwards) so I rewound the entire roll backwards. The film had stress marks looking like that. I knew at the time it would have been far better to STOP and unload the film in a darkroom but I really needed (wanted) to keep shooting. In retrospect, that was a mistake, especially since I could have badly damaged my only camera.

I'm not trying to argue, just a bit of devil's advocate here . We are using Sprint chemistry and looking at the msds to my understanding of chemicals on a surface level it doesn't list bromide or iodine. Are those released by the film not the developer? Also after talking about loading the film upside down in development i just developed a roll upside down and it came out fine no tiger strips due to stress, or do you all mean backwards in to the camera ?

Also i really appreciate all this feed back

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm suggesting the film was rewound backwards in the camera. It causes the film to bend sharply resulting in stress lines across the film exactly like that and in that direction.

Loading film backwards on the developing reel seldom has any negative effect unless it gets an occasional kink which looks nothing like those examples.

 

[Photo Engineer]

O-N-F is correct and that is why I bring it to the fore again in my last post.

Bromide and Iodide can be in the developer at levels below those required by listing in an MSDS. However, Bromide and Iodide are in the film and are released by development. This release is imagewise and can create halos around images in extreme cases.

PE

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I think you meant "striping". I thought the thread was going to be about a sex crazed tiger, a mysterious one at that.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I think you meant "striping". I thought the thread was going to be about a sex crazed tiger, a mysterious one at that.

Wrong kind of 'kitty'.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

My two cents -- looks like bromide drag. The tipoff to me is that appears around the sprocket holes. It would be nice if the OP provides more information as to the development method. In particular the agitation scheme.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's something decidedly odd with the negatives in the images, brode drag wouldn't give the three distinct lines between adjacent sprockets and this is so consistent, I think that's the clue and then the second film in the tank was fine.

I think they are stress marks, maybe as ONF says the cassette was rewound backwards that would put considerable pressure on the emulsion gainst the lip of the cassette and some of those lines go across the full frame width. It might be the cassette just wasn't seated properly in the camera again causing stress.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So, bromide drag is increased density? I always thought it was the other way around... I have some stand negatives I did in Pyrocat-HD, that have, I thought at the time, bromide drag. The drag areas ran top to bottom (8x10 film), and were clear.

 

[Ian Grant]

Excessive agitation gives the extra density, your right Bromide drag cause loss of density between sprocket holes. Neither can cause these 3 lines between the sprocket holes.

Ian

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

This is NOT bromide drag nor any other processing condition. I'm absolutely sure the film was rewound backwards in the camera into the film canister.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Usually, bromide drag decreases density, but can also cause abnormal effects with abnormal processing. You can get a bimodal light, dark, light effect. However, if you look at the negatives in the second shot, the effect comes and goes and varies in intensity and pattern. The general effect is rather as if it is repeating but only generally. It could be more than one thing going on. Bromide drag and over development at the same time perhaps.

Again, note the fog on the film.

PE

 

[joseph saunders]

developed in Sprint Chemistry.

agitation first 30seconds and then every minute for about five seconds ( so about three ) agitation is inverting 180 degrees on its head side and then back to right side.

Developer 1:9
developed 9 minutes at 70F

prewash (fill up and dump out)

stop 30sec

fix 4minutes

wash 1minute

hypo 2minutes

wash 4minutes

photo flow 1 minute

placed in film dryer for 12 minutes

 

[joseph saunders]

fog might be from my iPhone, film doesn't look fogged in person. will double check tomorrow when i am back at the school.

 

[joseph saunders]

This is NOT bromide drag nor any other processing condition. I'm absolutely sure the film was rewound backwards in the camera into the film canister.

how would film be rewound backwards in the camera back in to the canister? Sorry I'm just asking dumb questions, just want as much info as possible

 

[mike c]

The second image shows the marks starting abruptly while the first few frames are clear. Also if the marks are bromide drag why do they go in two directions up and down, always though the bromide would flow down in one direction.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

how would film be rewound backwards in the camera back in to the canister? Sorry I'm just asking dumb questions, just want as much info as possible

Easy... by turning the rewind crank backwards.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I understand why many here have no respect for my opinions. After all, I've not dealt with analog processes for a very long time due to family, and then professional, and then health issues. This doesn't make me completely ignorant. However, long ago I was very good at this. Processes have not changed that much and this condition is obvious to me. I find it difficult to believe others don't see it. Sorry... but as with other times I've posted, I don't understand the confusion.