Neg issues that developed during printing

[Jamie A Cowan]

I'm new to the darkroom so this may be a dumb question...

I was printing last night and during the printing session my negative gained some defects .... (see images)

Anyone know what happened?
At the beginning of the session there was no problem with the prints but later I started to notice the pin prick holes in the negs.

I don't remember doing anything to the negative, could this have happened by me wiping of dust with a lens cloth?





Neg shot through a x5 loupe with phone - (& inverted)

Print from the beginning of the night with no issues at all

Close up of the print with the issues clearly visible

Same print

 

[Jamie A Cowan]

I found another print with the same issue

 

[tezzasmall]

I'm new to the darkroom so this may be a dumb question...

I was printing last night and during the printing session my negative gained some defects .... (see images)

Anyone know what happened?

At the beginning of the session there was no problem with the prints but later I started to notice the pin prick holes in the negs.

I don't remember doing anything to the negative, could this have happened by me wiping of dust with a lens cloth?

Hi Jamie, quite importantly, are you sure that the defects have appeared on the NEGATIVES and not on the PRINTS?

I ask this as I can almost expect something to happen (chemically maybe?) to the prints whilst in the liquids, but for it to happen to the neg whilst in the enlarger... That has me stumped?

Terry S

 

[Kino]

Please let us know about your enlarger. Is it a condenser type with a tungsten or halogen bulb?

Wondering if it might be a heat issue.

 

[Jamie A Cowan]

It's a Leica V35.
Condenser/defuser Head.
https://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/v35.htm
Halogen bulb.

Not sure about heat, had not considered it, Its not a very bright enlarger (as far as I have read).


@tezzasmall ...And yes this shows up on the Neg as well (see first image, through the loupe).

This is the reason I posted about it. Had it shown on all my prints last night I would just assumed it was something to do with processing.
However my first print shows no issues, very strange.
The only thing I think I did was to wipe down the negative with a lens cloth, this may have done the damage?

 

[Kino]

I would suggest you place a strip of surplus (not valuable) negative in the holder and turn it on for the time equal to your focusing and printing session to see if the lamp is burning the emulsion and causing it to bubble.

The link you provided, starting under "Light Path", suggests that there may be some issues with lamp replacement. Check your lamp and your heat IR cut off filter to make sure both are properly set up.

It is possible the emulsion was somehow damaged prior to your wiping it with a cloth (too strong a stop bath?) and that the wiping motion removed the bubbled, loose emulsion, but you can check other negatives from that batch that have not been subjected to the heat of the enlarger.

Try examining the unprinted frames with a loupe with light raking across the emulsion to see if there are raised spots.

 

[John Salim]

They look suspiciously like wet 'spray' marks to me - possibly done by blowing on the neg ...and inadvertently blowing tiny spits of saliva onto the film !

If this is the case, a re-wash is in order.

John S

 

[Bikerider]

Those marks you have on your negatives and prints look very much like particles of iron or something else in the water sticking to the surface of the wet film. They are microscopic, invisible to the eye and will only show when the negatives are enlarged. Your supplier to London - is it Thames Water? They may be able to provide an answer, most water companies are hypersensitive to any contamination in the water. In the meantime filtered water may be the solution

 

[pentaxuser]

So all the negs were fine and now only those wiped down with a lens cloth are affected,? Others not wiped are OK?

I have no idea what a lens cloth is impregnated with for it to do its job that might affect negatives so others will have to comment on this but could anything have got onto the lens cloths that shouldn't be there?

pentaxuser

 

[canuhead]

just to clarify. is the first pic of the neg thru the loupe, directly from the neg, or a contact sheet ? I can't see any way that you would have what look like air bubbles/ undissolved chemistry on the neg, not show up on the print.

 

[Jamie A Cowan]

@Kino

I would suggest you place a strip of surplus (not valuable) negative in the holder and turn it on for the time equal to your focusing and printing session to see if the lamp is burning the emulsion and causing it to bubble.

OK, will do, I have never seen this before and have left negs in the enlarger for some time, however was never looking out for this, so I will definaltly try this.

The link you provided, starting under "Light Path", suggests that there may be some issues with lamp replacement. Check your lamp and your heat IR cut off filter to make sure both are properly set up.

My lamp is a osram 64615 HLX 12V 5W - (Update: 75w not 5W Typo)
I am using the new Kienzle bulb holder.
Check your lamp and your heat IR cut off filter to make sure both are properly set up. - Q. what does this mean, sorry im new to this.

It is possible the emulsion was somehow damaged prior to your wiping it with a cloth (too strong a stop bath?) and that the wiping motion removed the bubbled, loose emulsion, but you can check other negatives from that batch that have not been subjected to the heat of the enlarger.

Too strong stop bath, possible, but I dont think so, made fresh chem, and 99% sure I followed directions on the packet correctly.
I will check all the other negs from the film to see if we have similar issues.


Try examining the unprinted frames with a loupe with light raking across the emulsion to see if there are raised spots.
Will do this evening.


@John Salim


NewThey look suspiciously like wet 'spray' marks to me - possibly done by blowing on the neg ...and inadvertently blowing tiny spits of saliva onto the film !

If this is the case, a re-wash is in order.

On careful examination on the light table with loupe, the negs have been damaged. But that would have been my most happy outcome.



@Bikerider

Those marks you have on your negatives and prints look very much like particles of iron or something else in the water sticking to the surface of the wet film. They are microscopic, invisible to the eye and will only show when the negatives are enlarged. Your supplier to London - is it Thames Water? They may be able to provide an answer, most water companies are hypersensitive to any contamination in the water. In the meantime filtered water may be the solution

(Water Report Attached)
Filtered water is on my shopping list along with the Hass regulator, I however did not develop these Negs, this was done at the shop Aperture in central London.
I have wikl have a look for negs that I have process and see if I get similar problems.
Our water is not great here: attached is the report from Themes water



@pentaxuser
So all the negs were fine and now only those wiped down with a lens cloth are affected,? Others not wiped are OK?

So the Negs were cut to 6, and I wiped down all the single strip, I will now go back and examine all 6 on the strip and then the other strips on the 36 roll (not cleaned, and not been in the enlarger, to see if I can spot the same issues)

UPDATE: I had a good look at all 36 images and only the one printed had the issues. - this leads me towards the heat argument.


I have no idea what a lens cloth is impregnated with for it to do its job that might affect negatives so others will have to comment on this but could anything have got onto the lens cloths that shouldn't be there?

I used a brand new cloth, that is stored in a sealed plastic bag, it is unlikely to be the cloth.
See image.


@canuhead

just to clarify. is the first pic of the neg thru the loupe, directly from the neg, or a contact sheet ? I can't see any way that you would have what look like air bubbles/ undissolved chemistry on the neg, not show up on the print.


You are seeing directly the negative strip (that has been inverted in camera-phone) trough the leica x5 loupe.
They defiantly did not show on the first print. but do later on in the print session.


Front Runners are:

Heat from the bulb
Chemicals from my water supplier (eg iron particles)
chemicals from the print development (excessive fix)?
Spit (The neg is actually damaged so least likely)

 

[Jamie A Cowan]

D810 - Digitisation of the neg.
and print made at the beginning of the night.

 

[Kino]

My lamp is a osram 64615 HLX 12V 5W
I am using the new Kienzle bulb holder.
Check your lamp and your heat IR cut off filter to make sure both are properly set up. - Q. what does this mean, sorry im new to this.

Just to confirm the lamp is the proper voltage/wattage and to see if the IR heat filter (illustrated in the web page you shared) is in place and not cracked or badly faded.

 

[pentaxuser]

Surely 5W is a typo and it should be 75W but looking at the light path I scratch my head to see how even a 75W bulb could create enough heat to "bubble" a negative None of the others seem to be dismissing this as a cause so that worries me but frankly it looks as if it should be way down the list of causes to investigate unless I have missed something about heat and the distance to the negative light, given that an exposure is only a matter of a few seconds

pentaxuser

 

[pwitkop]

This is interesting, in the scan it looks like there's bubbling of the emulsion from the film support. If it had been that way since processing, I'd have a couple ideas, and there's not much opportunity for that kind of damage to occur. Heat from the enlarger sounds plausible, I'd put a piece of film, like the leader and leave it in some time with the enlarger lamp on just to rule it out.

Are you using any cleaner in your negatives in addition to the cloth? If so, I'd test and see if that causes an issue.

Emulsion defects aren't very common and I'd expect them to show up immediately unless wiping with the cloth could have damaged an already fragile area. But possibly check and see if ilford has any recalls. In that vein, since you've seen similar damage on other negatives look through and see if there's any common thread, film stock, film batch, who processed the film, types of storage, etc and look for patterns.

Let us know what you find out, this is kind of a stumper

 

[Kino]

Surely 5W is a typo and it should be 75W but looking at the light path I scratch my head to see how even a 75W bulb could create enough heat to "bubble" a negative None of the others seem to be dismissing this as a cause so that worries me but frankly it looks as if it should be way down the list of causes to investigate unless I have missed something about heat and the distance to the negative light, given that an exposure is only a matter of a few seconds

pentaxuser

Understood, but how long does the lamp stay on for composing and focusing? If the IR heat filter is totally gone, a condenser enlarger could possibly bubble emulsion after repeated exposures.

 

[logan2z]

Interesting thread. I use a Beseler condensor enlarger with the correct 75W bulb and the Beseler heat absorbing glass. Yet I still get popping of my negatives. I don't know how much heat it takes to pop a 35mm negative but it's a bit concerning if there is sufficient heat in such a setup to actually damage the film emulsion.

I'm very curious to hear if the OP's problem is related to heat or something else.

 

[canuhead]

It's not a bulb and heat issue. I have the v35 as well and if heat was an issue, it would melt the diffusion chamber first before even getting anywhere near close to the negative. My guess is particulate matter got onto the emulsion during processing, which is why the areas are dark (no development).

 

[Bikerider]

I think that to get the spots as sharp as they are then the objects must be on the film plain. If you had the negative commercially processed then have you taken it up with them. They may have a problem they don't know about, or if they do it is high time they sorted it out!

 

[Bikerider]

It's a Leica V35.
Condenser/defuser Head.
https://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/v35.htm
Halogen bulb. Not sure about heat, had not considered it, Its not a very bright enlarger (as far as I have read).

When the V35 was in production the bulb was more than adequate, but a different specification, when the enlarger ceased production the original bulb also discontinued. The original bulb has not been available for about 8 years. There have been several adaptation of similar bulbs but none have proved to be equal to the original. I believe the reduction of light is due to the position of the filament itself which gave an actual point of light. Later bulbs give a light that is more widely spread. This is what caused the light loss.

I owned one about 20 years ago and it was a beautiful instrument to work with, but there again I had the original bulb

UPDATE

I have just found a post on a UK forum FADU (Film and Darkroom User) dated in 2009 about the V35 replacement bulbs.

"comparing it with the Philips 13139 it is about a stop 'dimmer', maybe due to a wider beam."

The original bulb was a Philips 13139 as above

I still think however it is some sort of sediment in the water. Possibly in the washing stage.

 

[Kino]

It's not a bulb and heat issue. I have the v35 as well and if heat was an issue, it would melt the diffusion chamber first before even getting anywhere near close to the negative. My guess is particulate matter got onto the emulsion during processing, which is why the areas are dark (no development).

OP states he is setting up a new darkroom. I merely asked him to check his heat IR filter. If he bought a used enlarger and this is the first time using it extensively, there is the slight chance that the heat absorbing glass could be missing . It is worth checking and it is a variable that is easy to eliminate with just a few minutes work.

Why not be sure?

 

[logan2z]

I still think however it is some sort of sediment in the water. Possibly in the washing stage.

The OP stated that a print he made early in his darkroom session showed no signs of the spots, so I think that rules out a problem during development of the film.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I remember while I was an undergrad, my professor said he never uses stop bath only a water rinse because the shock from residual alkaline developer to acidic stop bath causes pinholes. Since then, I've never used a stop bath just a rinse. I've haven't verified his theory though. Stop bath is super cheap so cost wise, it not an issue for me. I do notice in BW printing, when the print is out of the developer then goes into an acetic acid stop bath, sometimes I hear squeaking from the residual print developer reacting with the stop bath. I always guessed that the noise is C02 gas escaping from the print. Again, I haven't verified that.

 

[pentaxuser]

I agree that a check on the IR filter is useful, in fact essential if we are to eliminate heat as the problem. What the OP hasn't told us, I think, is what film he used . My impression based on the use of acid stop bath for a few years with Ilford films is that they all seem to be very tough stable films and not affected by the correct level of acid stop but again having eliminated heat as the problem by doing the Kino test then it might be useful to substitute water for acid and see what happens.

The problem with solving problems on Photrio is that it is done by hoping a solution will be found by separate individuals contributing with a series of causes but often without reaching an agreed protocol by which we reach a consensus on what we can eliminate so that we narrow down the causes to the satisfaction of all the parties and in theory end up reaching the solution.

Not a criticism of Photrio or its members but a flaw that is inherent in the usual forum problem solving approach



pentaxuser

 

[Kino]

I remember while I was an undergrad, my professor said he never uses stop bath only a water rinse because the shock from residual alkaline developer to acidic stop bath causes pinholes. Since then, I've never used a stop bath just a rinse. I've haven't verified his theory though. Stop bath is super cheap so cost wise, it not an issue for me. I do notice in BW printing, when the print is out of the developer then goes into an acetic acid stop bath, sometimes I hear squeaking from the residual print developer reacting with the stop bath. I always guessed that the noise is C02 gas escaping from the print. Again, I haven't verified that.

I remember printing in a very cold darkroom in college using ceramic coated metal trays. When I would put the print in the stop, it would practically scream; very startling the first time!