Negative diagnosys

[Photopathe]

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:

 

[Photopathe]

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]

I would guess that you didn't have quite enough developer in the tank.

 

[Photopathe]

I understand how that makes sense from the appearance of the marks but if the film was not fully submerged from lack of volume, why is the edge not affected? Also I am sure I had the same amount as usual (500ml for a 120 reel) and that fully submerges the reel.

 

[MattKing]

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]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

There are strange markings on the right edge of both the volcano and the rocky landscape... I increased the contrast of the volcano photo to see it better..
.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Run another roll of film through the camera and see if it happens again.

 

[Arklatexian]

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
View attachment 211054 View attachment 211055

Tri-X 400:
View attachment 211056 View attachment 211057

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]

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
View attachment 211054 View attachment 211055

Tri-X 400:
View attachment 211056 View attachment 211057

water left in the reel from last processing? reels must be bone-dry before using.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

I would guess that you didn't have quite enough developer in the tank.

+1

 

[David Allen]

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]

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

 

[Bill Burk]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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!?!

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).

 

[removed account4]

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).

+1 !

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I would guess that you didn't have quite enough developer in the tank.

Definitely.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

He's saying he's sure that he had enough developer volume in the tank.

 

[MattKing]

But no comment is forthcoming about whether or not the reel may have rode up the column.

 

[Bill Burk]

He's saying he's sure that he had enough developer volume in the tank.

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.

 

[Pieter12]

The second one looks like foaming of the developer from residual photoflo, the there's too little developer in the tank.

 

[removed account4]

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.

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"

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

500ml certainly covers 120 film in a Paterson tank.