Negative diagnosys

Photopathe

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
147
Location
Montréal
Format
Medium Format
Hi! Can someone tell me what went wrong with those negatives. I assume this is a light leak but I am not sure. Especially for the last two. The first two are from the same roll of T-Max 400. The last two are from the same roll of Tri-X. In both cases the problem appears on the whole roll. I used a Rolleiflex which has recently been serviced and that I usually have no problem with. I develop myself using Paterson tanks. Thanks in advance for the inputs!

T-Max 400


Tri-X 400:
 
OP
OP

Photopathe

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
147
Location
Montréal
Format
Medium Format
Sorry, I just realised it makes not sense to assume it's a light leak as light leak marks would appear as black after development. If anyone can point to the source of the problem, it would be greatly appreciated. They were developped with Ilfotec DD-X 1+4 and fixed with TF4 with minimal agitation method (agitate first minute then 10sec each 3 minutes). I usually get good results from my home developments.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I would guess that you didn't have quite enough developer in the tank.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
The other alternative is that at some time during the process the reel rode up higher than usual on the centre core - what size and version of Paterson tank were you using?
The second T-Max 400 negative has the sort of artifacts that bubbles adhering to the reel sometimes cause.
 

Mick Fagan

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
4,421
Location
Melbourne Au
Format
Multi Format
As that looks very much like Hverfjall volcano near Lake Myvatn in northern Iceland, could it possibly be X-Ray artifacts?

Windy place eh?

Mick.
 

Arklatexian

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
1,777
Location
Shreveport,
Format
Multi Format
Sorry but I was so enthralled by the content of the negatives that I just forgot to look for something wrong. Going back, I saw what you were talking about and I too believe that there was not enough developer in the tank. Looking at your negatives as if they were finished prints, what came to my mind were pictures of the moon.......Regards!
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,644
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
water left in the reel from last processing? reels must be bone-dry before using.
 

David Allen

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
991
Location
Berlin
Format
Med. Format RF
As the edges have developed and you effectively have a defined band that is underdeveloped it does not suggest insufficient developer or the spiral rising in the tank.

What it looks like to me is that the film was not correctly loaded onto the spiral and the film was kinked in such a manner that, where you have the underdeveloped band, the emulsion side was in contact with the surface of another part of the film therefore hindering the developer from working on the entire surface of the film.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
looks like something on the film when it was being exposed or processed
that ran along the whole length of the spool..
i never add whatever the recommended amount of developer &c into the tank when i process film
or use a single reel in a larger than 1 reel tank. film reels don't stay seated and if you skimp on developer
stuff doesn't develop well ...
i fill it until it over flows so if there is an issue it won't be because of low developer in the tank ...
whats weird to me is that it is on the very edge of the first frame and then on the rest of them
that 1st area processed fine but a regular shaped strip blocks the film, like 2-3 stops worth of light ...
otherwise it looks like a strip of something (semiopaque / tape ? ) across the film gate or the lens
 
Last edited:

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,290
Format
4x5 Format
Agitation would bring fresh developer to the top, where it would cling and stay in contact with the top edge, while the band would dry off.

The first pair looks like air bubbles as if there was enough developer but you didn’t “rap” the tank after each agitation.

Paterson tanks do this. Fill it to the top, developer is cheap.
 

RauschenOderKorn

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
814
Location
Bavaria, Germany
Format
Medium Format

In my experience: if the emulsion is touching another surface and not receiving liquid, the affected portion of the film won´t fix or clear either. This film has cleared during fixing, so I´d assume it was loaded properly.

I have not experienced this problem myself, but the three bands seem logical to me:

1.) Top band fully developed due to developer retained in the spiral during standing
2.) Underdeveloped band which was not covered by developer during standing
3.) Bottom band fully submerged in developer and therefore fully developed
 

tezzasmall

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
1,132
Location
Southend on Sea Essex UK
Format
Plastic Cameras
I've seen negs similar to this in the past, with some of them never being resolved but the OP having no problem afterwards, other than with the negs shown on the forum.

Now you will have to try to carry on as normal / doing a test film or two, double checking variables one by one where possible, whilst trying out the various pointers posters have given so far.

I had something years ago similar to you but I'm not sure how this translates on paper, but I found the film reel rose up from its original seating when put in the tank, and gave similar negs to yours - just don't ask how!?!

Anyway, I now put a rubber-band or two on the central column above the reel, to stop the reel rising during development and have had no problem since over many years. Try it and see.

FWIW I don't think it is a camera problem... but heah I'm willing to be wrong if it is proved so.

Good luck finding out the problem or at least getting it to stop.

Terry S
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,290
Format
4x5 Format
tezzasmall said:
I found the film reel rose up from its original seating when put in the tank, and gave similar negs to yours - just don't ask how!?!
Click to expand...

If you fill the tank up, this won't be a problem. That's why I recommend it, solves two possible root causes (too little developer or reel rising up on the column).
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
But no comment is forthcoming about whether or not the reel may have rode up the column.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,290
Format
4x5 Format
Andrew O'Neill said:
He's saying he's sure that he had enough developer volume in the tank.
Click to expand...
500 ml doesn’t fill the tank.

I don’t know the physics but those reels press on so firmly that you would think they would never slip, yet time after time I had these artifacts when I used a Paterson tank.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
Bill Burk said:
500 ml doesn’t fill the tank.

I don’t know the physics but those reels press on so firmly that you would think they would never slip, yet time after time I had these artifacts when I used a Paterson tank.
Click to expand...

it doesn't fill the tank maybe it covers the reel if it is seated completely
in the bottom of the tank and the planets are aligned and the reel stays seated
... not sure why anyone would only want to barely cover their film when they are processing it ...
as "BOB" dobbs say'ith "too much is always better than not enough"
 
Last edited:

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
11,956
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
Bill Burk said:
500 ml doesn’t fill the tank.

I don’t know the physics but those reels press on so firmly that you would think they would never slip, yet time after time I had these artifacts when I used a Paterson tank.
Click to expand...


500ml certainly covers 120 film in a Paterson tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…