Need help identifying development issue - 'burned' negatives

[John Bragg]

I had a similar problem using Jobo tanks for a while. It is a form of uneven development caused by the flow of chemistry with minimal (insufficient ?) agitation. I solved it by using an empty reel in the bottom and film in the top reel of a 2 reel tank to smooth out the flow. I too use reduced agitation for specific reasons and all I know is it cured my issues. It may also pay you to use a less active developer for semi stand etc. 1:1 D76 is pretty active. Try 1:2 or even use HC:110 instead at 1:63 dilution H. Minimal agitation in my case is 15 seconds at start and 2 invertions at 4 min intervals. 12 mins total with HP5+ @ ei200. Now I have very even development and no such artifacts again. Good luck as this sort of thing is frustrating, but not impossible to solve.

 

[adamsalmond]

Take one of the problem negatives, rotate it 180 degrees without turning it over, and re-scan it.
Do the problem areas look the same as before, or do they move.
If the latter, the problem is with scanning.

I have already done this test, and it confirms that the problem areas are on the negative.

Also, my tank lists 290ml for each 35mm film, so 400ml is definitely sufficient.

 

[adamsalmond]

I had a similar problem using Jobo tanks for a while. It is a form of uneven development caused by the flow of chemistry with minimal (insufficient ?) agitation. I solved it by using an empty reel in the bottom and film in the top reel of a 2 reel tank to smooth out the flow. I too use reduced agitation for specific reasons and all I know is it cured my issues. It may also pay you to use a less active developer for semi stand etc. 1:1 D76 is pretty active. Try 1:2 or even use HC:110 instead at 1:63 dilution H. Minimal agitation in my case is 15 seconds at start and 2 invertions at 4 min intervals. 12 mins total with HP5+ @ ei200. Now I have very even development and no such artifacts again. Good luck as this sort of thing is frustrating, but not impossible to solve.

Thanks a lot for the detailed reply -- although I admit I am slightly confused.

You are saying that this effect is caused by minimal/insufficient agitation, which is what I had gathered already. But you are also suggesting to use a semi-stand method - wouldn't this worsen the effect?

Is your 12 minute recommendation with D76 or HC110? I actually have both on hand at the moment.

Cheers

 

[John Bragg]

Thanks a lot for the detailed reply -- although I admit I am slightly confused.

You are saying that this effect is caused by minimal/insufficient agitation, which is what I had gathered already. But you are also suggesting to use a semi-stand method - wouldn't this worsen the effect?

Is your 12 minute recommendation with D76 or HC110? I actually have both on hand at the moment.

Cheers

I always thought that artefacts like this were caused by over agitation until it happened to me whilst developing using minimal agitation and it wasn't bromide drag. I also described it as a hot spot where the edge of the film had been developed more. I concluded that as I was using invertion method that there was more fresh developer reaching those parts of the film, chiefly at the bottom of the tank. Then I had a brain wave. Use an empty reel as a baffle to smooth out turbulence at the bottom and develop film at the top of the tank. It worked first time like a charm with HC-110 dilution H 12 mins @ 20°C and I have used that method ever since. Hope that helps.

 

[adamsalmond]

I always thought that artefacts like this were caused by over agitation until it happened to me whilst developing using minimal agitation and it wasn't bromide drag. I also described it as a hot spot where the edge of the film had been developed more. I concluded that as I was using invertion method that there was more fresh developer reaching those parts of the film, chiefly at the bottom of the tank. Then I had a brain wave. Use an empty reel as a baffle to smooth out turbulence at the bottom and develop film at the top of the tank. It worked first time like a charm with HC-110 dilution H 12 mins @ 20°C and I have used that method ever since. Hope that helps.

Wow, that makes a lot of sense! And it would reason why my results have gotten even worse when developing one roll at a time (at the bottom of the tank) out of fear of ruining 3 rolls at once.
I'll give your method a go and let you know what I find.

Thanks once again!

 

[John Bragg]

Wow, that makes a lot of sense! And it would reason why my results have gotten even worse when developing one roll at a time (at the bottom of the tank) out of fear of ruining 3 rolls at once.
I'll give your method a go and let you know what I find.

Thanks once again!

Good luck. I have been where you now are and it is frustrating and expensive. PM me if you need to pick my brains in detail.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Based solely on the evidence of the negatives:

I'm going to vote against agitation issues. Bromide drag due to underagitation causes areas of underdevelopment falling to the bottom of the tank under areas of high density, the drag is always in the same downward direction. Under agitation can also produce mottled negatives and negatives with areas of underdevelopment around highlights due to developer depletion. Overagitation causes denser areas on the edges of the negative due to turbulence but these denser areas line up with 35mm's sprocket holes. Underfilling the tank would cause areas of low density.

The distinctive feature of the dense artifacts are:

• They occur only on the margins of the frame
• The artifacts line up with dense highlights
• The artifacts don't extend past the frame into the rebate and they show up on both sides of the frame.
• They have the distinctive streaky look of a light leak from the margins of the film - always 'pointing' to the center of the frame.

All this points to a light leak of some sort and that the light is coming through the film gate.

One possibility is light leaking around the shutter at the top and bottom of the curtain, or, for vertical shutters, that the shutter isn't properly capped at the top and bottom of the blade travel. Very little light falls on the shutter while the mirror is down, but when a shot is taken the mirror is up for a period of time much longer than the shutter speed (at normal shutter speeds). When the mirror is up the closed shutter is subject to bright light that can leak around the shutter and hit the film. The effect should decrease with long exposures - obviously with a 1 second exposure the mirror up/shutter closed time will be trivial when compared to the shutter's open time -- and the light falling on the shutter will be dim - hence the 1 second exposure. Conversely, at 1/1000 of a second the mirror up time is ~100x longer than the shutter open time and a light leak around the shutter will have a greater effect -- at high shutter speeds the scene brightness is high and/or the lens is open wider and so the intensity of the light falling on the shutter when the mirror is up is greater.

However, if the camera has a horizontal shutter then I have trouble seeing how the problem could appear on both edges of the curtains, if the problem was on only one side of the frame then I can see it. Possibly if one of the curtains was creased or bowed down it's length. Examining the two curtains - before and after a shot is taken - should show any problem.

If the camera has a vertical shutter then I can see that a problem can cause the shutter to improperly cap at both ends of the shutter's stroke.

The OP, TTBOMK, hasn't specified the camera. That information might be helpful.

 

[adamsalmond]

Based solely on the evidence of the negatives:

I'm going to vote against agitation issues. Bromide drag due to underagitation causes areas of underdevelopment falling to the bottom of the tank under areas of high density, the drag is always in the same downward direction. Under agitation can also produce mottled negatives and negatives with areas of underdevelopment around highlights due to developer depletion. Overagitation causes denser areas on the edges of the negative due to turbulence but these denser areas line up with 35mm's sprocket holes. Underfilling the tank would cause areas of low density.

The distinctive feature of the dense artifacts are:

• They occur only on the margins of the frame
• The artifacts line up with dense highlights
• The artifacts don't extend past the frame into the rebate and they show up on both sides of the frame.
• They have the distinctive streaky look of a light leak from the margins of the film - always 'pointing' to the center of the frame.

All this points to a light leak of some sort and that the light is coming through the film gate.

One possibility is light leaking around the shutter at the top and bottom of the curtain, or, for vertical shutters, that the shutter isn't properly capped at the top and bottom of the blade travel. Very little light falls on the shutter while the mirror is down, but when a shot is taken the mirror is up for a period of time much longer than the shutter speed (at normal shutter speeds). When the mirror is up the closed shutter is subject to bright light that can leak around the shutter and hit the film. The effect should decrease with long exposures - obviously with a 1 second exposure the mirror up/shutter closed time will be trivial when compared to the shutter's open time -- and the light falling on the shutter will be dim - hence the 1 second exposure. Conversely, at 1/1000 of a second the mirror up time is ~100x longer than the shutter open time and a light leak around the shutter will have a greater effect -- at high shutter speeds the scene brightness is high and/or the lens is open wider and so the intensity of the light falling on the shutter when the mirror is up is greater.

However, if the camera has a horizontal shutter then I have trouble seeing how the problem could appear on both edges of the curtains, if the problem was on only one side of the frame then I can see it. Possibly if one of the curtains was creased or bowed down it's length. Examining the two curtains - before and after a shot is taken - should show any problem.

If the camera has a vertical shutter then I can see that a problem can cause the shutter to improperly cap at both ends of the shutter's stroke.

The OP, TTBOMK, hasn't specified the camera. That information might be helpful.

Hello there. I appreciate the detailed reply, but light leaks have already been ruled out. Colour rolls shot after the negatives I have posted on here have come back from the lab looking perfect. These issues have also persisted through 3 different SLRs, which I doubt all have the same light leak pattern. In case it is relevant, the SLRs are a Pentax K1000, a Nikon FM2 and a Nikon F3.

 

[MattKing]

Also, my tank lists 290ml for each 35mm film, so 400ml is definitely sufficient.

The numbers on the bottom of the tank don't tell you how much developer concentrate you need. They tell you how much liquid is needed to cover the film.
Developer won't do the proper job if it is too dilute.
400 ml of the 1 + 1 D76 is close enough to the recommended 473 ml of 1 + 1 D76 to only make a small difference.
I still can't see the issue on the first negatives.
Perhaps there is an additional source of flare in your scanner, something that would be attenuated by the orange mask in colour negatives.

 

[adamsalmond]

The numbers on the bottom of the tank don't tell you how much developer concentrate you need. They tell you how much liquid is needed to cover the film.
Developer won't do the proper job if it is too dilute.
400 ml of the 1 + 1 D76 is close enough to the recommended 473 ml of 1 + 1 D76 to only make a small difference.
I still can't see the issue on the first negatives.
Perhaps there is an additional source of flare in your scanner, something that would be attenuated by the orange mask in colour negatives.

I am aware that the value listed on tanks is the amount to cover the film. That is why I used 400ml for a 290ml recommended tank, to make sure it covered the film and then some.

 

[Jfert92]

Adam,

When you were having this issue, was it with the Paterson twist-stick method? or were you inverting the Paterson tank? I am having similar issues when using stainless steel reels.

 

[adamsalmond]

Adam,

When you were having this issue, was it with the Paterson twist-stick method? or were you inverting the Paterson tank? I am having similar issues when using stainless steel reels.

Hi Jfert,

I first experienced the issue using standard agitation methods. I then tried the Paterson twist-stick method of agitating as an alternative to attempt to solve the issue, but this actually amplified it. I then returned to standard agitation, and am still to this day experiencing issues.

I would be interested to know your findings on this problem.

Cheers,
Adam

 

[Vania]

Hi, just curious to know if you solved your issue and how. Thanks.

 

[gone]

I use your agitation for most films, so it's not that. I've seen film that was over agitated (mine!).

On every tank I've used, they got the amount of developer called for on the bottom of the tank, and that also has never been an issue. Old Folders will give you prints like you displayed, but that's caused by not pulling the film taut before firing the shutter. That shouldn't happen on an SLR. Apparently the negs themselves don't exhibit the problem?

It would have to be a scanning issue or development issue, there's not many possibilities left, other than that stick twirling business. Is that how you're agitating? That stick ruined many of my films when I was first learning. Mostly by developer rushing through the sprocket holes, but it caused other issues too. I went to tank inversion and never had any more agitation issues.

 

[pentaxuser]

Hi, just curious to know if you solved your issue and how. Thanks.

Alas we may never know as from his profile he was last scene in August of last year. Let's hope he solved his problem which is why he hasn't needed to come back

pentaxuser