Name This Flaw!

rubyfalls · Oct 25, 2013

So, I'm still struggling with getting a solid process for drying my 35mm. I'm having issues with getting all the water off. The emulsion side is so tacky that squeegeeing feels, well, wrong. I've read that using hypo may make the emulsion less tacky, but before I add another step, I thought I'd submit an example to see if the problem might be something else -- ie, poor reeling or agitation. So, submitted for your eyes is the following 35mm shot. Notice the streaking on the right, center latitude. This shows up in three consecutive frames, same latitude. Any and all thoughts would be greatly appreciated. FYI, Tri-X developed in Microphen.

Rich Ullsmith · Oct 25, 2013

Newton rings. This is a scanned neg, right?

rubyfalls · Oct 25, 2013

Yes. And I didn't even think of a scanning issue! Thanks - you just made my day. I just started scanning. I use an epson v600; mostly just to organize, get a better look before I make prints, and share. If I want a print, I do it the old-fashioned way.

pbromaghin · Oct 25, 2013

Another vote for Newton rings. Take a look with a loupe and you won't see them. Caused by the film touching the glass of the scanner. If using a flatbed, you can try flipping them over so the curl goes the other way and they should go away.

rubyfalls · Oct 25, 2013

Scanning issues aside, is it worth it to add a hypo to my workflow? Or sponge? Or just quit fussing?

rubyfalls · Oct 25, 2013

Done. And yes, the negative is just fine. I feel like a dolt.

(Replying to pbromaghin)

jp498 · Oct 25, 2013

I use TF4 or TF5 fixer and hypo remover is irrelevant. I wouldn't scrape the negatives with a sponge. Just hang them up to dry. Last step use some distilled water (and clean alcohol if you want quick drying)

MattKing · Oct 25, 2013

rubyfalls said:
Scanning issues aside, is it worth it to add a hypo to my workflow? Or sponge? Or just quit fussing?

Pedantry warning!!!

Hypo = fixer (or at least an old name for fixer)

Hypo eliminator/remover = don't use

Hypo clearing agent ("HCA") = shortened wash times

HCA is the Kodak name. There are similar products from Ilford and others. Generically, I would describe them all as wash aids.

If you refer to something as "hypo", many people will think you mean fixer!

The answer to your question is that wash aids should make no difference to drying, and the artifact you see is most likely newton rings - a scanning artifact.

rubyfalls · Oct 25, 2013

MattKing said:
Pedantry warning!!!

Hypo = fixer (or at least an old name for fixer)

Hypo eliminator/remover = don't use

Hypo clearing agent ("HCA") = shortened wash times

HCA is the Kodak name. There are similar products from Ilford and others. Generically, I would describe them all as wash aids.

If you refer to something as "hypo", many people will think you mean fixer!

The answer to your question is that wash aids should make no difference to drying, and the artifact you see is most likely newton rings - a scanning artifact.

I *heart* pedantry! HCA it is, then. I never thought to use one and am relieved to read that I needn't do so. I use primarily ilford chemicals (and a rapid fixer). Aside from experimenting with new and fun developers, I mostly like my current process. I just sometimes get a little fussy with the hanging negatives. Thanks so much!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

mfohl · Oct 25, 2013

After your last wash, with or without hypo eliminators or clearers, rinse for about 20 seconds in distilled water, then rinse for another 20 seconds in a PhotoFlo solution. I do the PhotoFlo thing, then dunk in the distilled water to make sure the PhotoFlo doesn't get tacky. Then I air dry in a dust free room: my darkroom.

LJH · Oct 25, 2013

You could consider using Photoflo as the final step. Once my film's hanging, I spray it with a good dose of Phototflo and get dust-free negs. I also hang them in a shower cubicle, having steamed up the bathroom prior to hanging.

Not the fastest way to dry film, but, at over $10 per sheet, I don't care too much about speed. Quality is my main aim.

rubyfalls · Oct 25, 2013

I will try this - I have been doing PhotoFlo, then hanging and squirting down with distiller water, maybe I need to rinse a little more post PhotoFlo. My darkroom is nice and dust-free. Plus I keep a candy stash in there.

cliveh · Oct 25, 2013

Can you advise your present process steps and then we may be able to help?

E. von Hoegh · Oct 25, 2013

If you scan with the emulsion side on the glass, Newton's rings are less likely - the emulsion has just enough texture that they shouldn't be a problem. And depending on your scanner and some other things, the scans may be better

ROL · Oct 25, 2013

Ruby McNewton Nasty.

There, I named the flaw after you.

sly · Oct 25, 2013

Presumably you are already using hypo, or FIX. Do you mean hypo-clear? It helps get fix off your negs, cuts down on wash times.

paul ron · Oct 25, 2013

Drying film is better done using photoflo... A wetting agent added to water as a final dip after washing. I wet my idex n mid fingers with the dip n squgee with these fingers a few times with the strip hanging. The rest of the water on the film will dry evenly without any water marks whatsoever.

Maybe newton rings in your scan but if not a result of the scan it can be a processing problem where the film was toutching another part of film on the reel.

erikg · Oct 25, 2013

I don't think it's a good idea to rinse after photo-flo as has been suggested. That would negate the effect of the photo-flo. Use photoflo at the correct dilution hang in a dust free place and you will be fine.

Mainecoonmaniac · Oct 25, 2013

You might not have to do a thing. Does the neg holder have glass? Glass and humidity may be the problem.

LJH · Oct 25, 2013

erikg said:
I don't think it's a good idea to rinse after photo-flo as has been suggested. That would negate the effect of the photo-flo. Use photoflo at the correct dilution hang in a dust free place and you will be fine.

Exactly right; Photoflo is the last step.

The negs that I was referring to are 7x17". If negs that big don't end up with streaks and/or much dust, I figure that I'm doing something right. Of course, it could just be a confluence of my location's water and dust levels...

tars · Oct 25, 2013

rubyfalls said:
I *heart* pedantry! HCA it is, then. I never thought to use one and am relieved to read that I needn't do so. I use primarily ilford chemicals (and a rapid fixer). Aside from experimenting with new and fun developers, I mostly like my current process. I just sometimes get a little fussy with the hanging negatives. Thanks so much!

If you are using rapid fixers (ammonium thiosulfate) you don't have to use the HCA. It is more necessary when using sodium thiosulfate fixers, which are more difficult to wash.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 26, 2013

erikg said:
I don't think it's a good idea to rinse after photo-flo as has been suggested. That would negate the effect of the photo-flo. Use photoflo at the correct dilution hang in a dust free place and you will be fine.

Correct, rinsing after Photo-Flo defeats its purpose which is to reduce the water's surface tension and allow it to drain off the film.

rubyfalls · Oct 27, 2013

ROL said:
Ruby McNewton Nasty.

There, I named the flaw after you.

Awesome! Like a star, but better.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

rubyfalls · Oct 27, 2013

cliveh said:
Can you advise your present process steps and then we may be able to help?

Certainly. Standard development and stop, then rapid fixer, then ilford rinse protocol (5/10/20), then PhotoFlo (very dilute). Then I unreel and hang with rubber-tipped clamps and weight with same. Then I squirt down with distilled water that has approx two drops of PhotoFlo per quart. Then leave them alone (ie, no squeegee or finger-squeegee or sponge) in my dust-free darkroom. This process works perfectly for my 120.

It seems like my McNasty is not a film flaw but simple scanning error. I'm new to scanning, and am really just doing it to examine frames before printing and to be able to share before printing. I use an epson v600, which is great for my needs, but I find the frames to be frustratingly flimsy.

I should also say that I have still's disease (like RA but with fevers) and sometimes my hands are useless meat chunks, so I am quick to attribute error to loading and reeling. Strangely, I find the stainless reels MUCH easier on my hands than the plastic. Go figure.

Thanks so much - for now, I will definitely add tapping the reel to clear water before hanging. And I might try light sponging - my big concern is that while bubbles aren't so much of a problem now, they might be soon when the humidity levels drop in our house and the water evaporates more quickly.

You all are awesome!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

rubyfalls · Oct 27, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
If you scan with the emulsion side on the glass, Newton's rings are less likely - the emulsion has just enough texture that they shouldn't be a problem. And depending on your scanner and some other things, the scans may be better

Huh - never thought of that. And just flip the images. I'll give this a shot! Because the negs are definitely curling so that the center bulges toward the glass (emulsion side up).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Name This Flaw!

rubyfalls

Attachments

Rich Ullsmith

rubyfalls

pbromaghin

rubyfalls

rubyfalls

jp498

MattKing

Moderator

rubyfalls

mfohl

LJH

rubyfalls

cliveh

E. von Hoegh

ROL

sly

paul ron

erikg

Mainecoonmaniac

LJH

tars

Gerald C Koch

rubyfalls

rubyfalls

rubyfalls

Name This Flaw!

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency