Negatives Coming Out Streaky

[ted_smith]

I had my first go at developing some film the other day. Over recent months I've been building up my darkroom equipment and in the meantime I burnt up a few rolls of B&W film to use as tes rolls. On Saturday, I took the plunge with a roll of 35mm KODAK T-MAX 100.

The first roll came out badly - streaky. "Never mind Ted - it's your first go" I thought. For my second roll, I made sure in advance that I measured the amount of developer to use to cover the film. I also used a different Paterson tank having realised I had slight leak in the other tank.

The results were better this time, but annoyingly some of the shots are still really streaky - I mean streaky like a zebra coat!

I have read up on it and some suggest that it is due to my agitation technique. But I followed the guidance I thought - agitated 4 times in first 10 seconds then 4 times every minute for 8 minutes. In fact, let me clarify - I poured in the developer through the hole in the top of the tanks as quickly as I could which took about 6 or 7 seconds then I agitated 4 times for the following 10 seconds.

Can anyone give me some pointers? I'm using ID11 Developer (the power mix job), some Stop, Ilford Fixer and Ilford Wetting Agent in that order. I use tap water and use a thermometer to make sure it's all around 22 degrees. I use the plastic Paterson tanks and reels.

Cheers

Ted

 

[Akki14]

What do you mean by streaky? What colour are the streaks? Need a bit more information to diagnosis the problem

 

[Andrew Moxom]

can you explain the direction of the streaks in relation to how the film is on the reel? Top to bottom, or left to right? Maybe get a scan of negs?

 

[Anupam Basu]

If the streaks are near the sprockets, it might be due to agitation. As a rule of thumb you should not be able to hear any sloshing noise during inversion. Other reasons might be improper loading - neg sticking to itself etc. A scan or even a quick shot of the negs would be helpful.

 

[ted_smith]

The streaks are vertical - top to bottom. I use 400ml of developer - enough to cover the 35mm film by several mm so yes, there is a sloshing sound when agitated, but I read filling the tank is as bad as not putting in enough?

I wish I couod scan in the negs. Annoyingly, for some reason, my Nikon LS-2000 refuses to scan this set properly. I have no idea why!!

 

[Anupam Basu]

It should slosh around, just not make much of a sloshing noise - that's an indication you are agitating too vigorously. If you have a digicam/cell phone, you can hang up the sleeve at a window and take a quick shot.

 

[Lee L]

Try a longer initial agitation, on the order of 30 to 60 seconds after pouring in the developer. Gentle inversions and twists should do it, not like shaking 007's drink. You also might try using enough developer to fill the tank, which would cut down on turbulence in case that's getting you.

If all that doesn't work, try a pre-soak of 5 minutes or so in plain water of the same kind and at the same temperature you use for your developer.

Lee

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Does the tank have room for another reel on top? If so, you should put the second reel in to stop the bottom one sliding up. It seems to me that your reel is sliding up so the film is getting some streaks of uneven development.

 

[ted_smith]

Kevin - Yes it does. I will try to add my spare one next time.

Also, I have managed to get one to scan in and uploaded for you to see. It about 250Kb - sorry it it takes a while to DL

http://www.tedsmithphotography.com/temp/negative.jpg

The streaks are particularily clear around the dogs chest. Note that this image has been roatetd 90 degrees counter clockwise. The black line at the right is the end of the exposure - another one follows it to the right.

Ted

 

[srs5694]

A couple more comments/questions:

First, could you be more precise in your description of your agitation technique. Everybody here seems to be assuming inversion agitation, and you haven't said anything to counter that, but if you're using the twirl stick or some more exotic method, please say so. Also, you say you do four agitations (inversions?) per minute. How long does each one take? My own technique is to agitate continuously for the first 30 seconds, then four inversions in five seconds of each 30 seconds thereafter. Some people do as I do but agitate for ten seconds of every 60. Most agitation regimes I've heard of involve a period of continuous agitation for the first 30 seconds or so, and if you're not doing that, it could be at least part of your problem.

Second, your streaks are vertical, and if they extend for the length of the roll, that suggests some sort of standing wave along the length of the roll. Are you rotating the tank (or the reel) as part of your agitation technique? When you unload the roll, does it seem to be properly loaded on your reel? The only time I've seen anything like that was on a roll that had an odd "kink" in it, which produced similar vertical streaks for a few frames.

 

[2F/2F]

I just read the messages that stated you left the extra space in the tank empty without putting in an empty reel to fill the void. I would venture to guess that this is what caused it!

Edit: I just saw the attachment you posted. I would say that those are some pretty heavy-duty "pump marks". No doubt about it. I will take a wild guess that there are eight bright streaks per frame. Due to the speed of agitation, the developer rushes through the sprocket holes and jets over the emulsion, developing it more than the areas that are not adjacent to sprocket holes. Thus, these areas are light streaks on the print (dark streaks on the film).

Take a good look at the "print" you posted. The non-streaked areas are totally normal, because they developed between agitations, as intended, as opposed to being pummeled by developer rushing over the emulsion. In theory, agitation itself should not really be what develops the film. All you are trying to do when you agitate is replace the spent developer that is standing in contact with the emulsion with fresh developer, so it can develop as it sits. It is kind of like the changing of the guard...not the beach landings on D Day.

If, indeed, you put a single roll into a double or quadruple roll tank, did not take up the free space, and used inversion agitation, with the tank either 100% full of developer or just full enough to cover the film, this is exactly the mess one would expect, to the letter (or to the picture element, to be more exact). In fact, this is literally a "textbook" example. It looks exactly like an example of a jacked up neg. that you would see in a basic photography text.

On this note, if you have not read at least one basic textbook cover to cover, now would be the time! Do you mean to say this is the first roll of film you have ever developed? I thought I had seen your posts around here for a while, so I assumed you already shot film. At any rate, the reading of a basic technical text should fully explain proper processing.

Do not ever use inversion agitation if the roll will slide back and forth. Put in an empty reel, get a smaller tank, or better yet, just wait till you have enough exposed film to do a whole tank full.

I hope your dog is not too pissed that his or her pix got jacked up, and will let you reshoot (this time for realz!)

 

[Jon Shiu]

Hi, could it be a light leak? The space between the negs looks fogged. Check the film edges to see if they looked fogged.

Jon

 

[Lee L]

Looks very much like strips of fogging, as the shadows are being lifted well above normal looking levels in the fogged stripes, but look OK elsewhere. Mids and highlights aren't affected as much.

Tell us about your camera. Does it have window on the back that lets you see the film cartridge? Is the foam around that secure and rebounding, or is it sticky and staying depressed when you compress it? How are the camera light seals on the end near the take up spool? How are you transferring the film from the cassette to the developing reel, and in what kind of setting?

Lee

 

[k_jupiter]

Look at the sprocket holes. They line up with the density streaks, yes?

Are you using ID11 straight? Diluted 1:1? 1:3?

So,
1.) keep the reels from sliding around. I fill up the tank with empty reels, I crush a 135 canister (if that's the format I am shooting) to work like a spring against the top of the tank.
2.) Go to a higher dilution. More forgiving. You'll need to adjust your development times.
3.) Nice easy half turn inversions. Like a spiral.

You'll be fine. Develop two films, call me in the morning.

tim in san jose

 

[Lee L]

Look at the sprocket holes. They line up with the density streaks, yes?

To my eye the streaking doesn't look like it's as even as sprocket hole spacing, and I've never seen surge marks from sprocket holes hold a long uniform density line across the whole frame like in the posted image. Surging also causes greater density variation in the highlights, and less in the shadows. The variation in the posted image is most readily evident in the shadows which don't go to full black, which is characteristic of light fogging.

Lee

 

[2F/2F]

"To my eye the streaking doesn't look like it's as even as sprocket hole spacing, and I've never seen surge marks from sprocket holes hold a long uniform density line across the whole frame like in the posted image. Surging also causes greater density variation in the highlights, and less in the shadows. The variation in the posted image is most readily evident in the shadows.

Lee"

I think it is far more simple, although I agree that this is a very extreme example. Remember that he was just letting the reel slide end to end in the tank during agitation. You've probably never seen pump marks like that because you've never developed your film like that!

 

[k_jupiter]

"To my eye the streaking doesn't look like it's as even as sprocket hole spacing, and I've never seen surge marks from sprocket holes hold a long uniform density line across the whole frame like in the posted image. Surging also causes greater density variation in the highlights, and less in the shadows. The variation in the posted image is most readily evident in the shadows.

Lee"

I think it is far more simple, although I agree that this is a very extreme example. Remember that he was just letting the reel slide end to end in the tank during agitation. You've probably never seen pump marks like that because you've never developed your film like that!

amazing 2F/2F. We agree on sumpthin.

*L*

tim in san jose

 

[Lee L]

Another thought: I was thinking earlier that I could eliminate a shutter problem because the fogged strips seem not to be image forming. However, is there a chance that your shutter is leaking after the shot when you're cocking the shutter? If the shutter curtains are sticking a bit when being reset/cocked, they could spread apart and allow a light leak pattern like this, and the fogging would vary as they got further apart, closer, or overlapped properly during the cocking travel in front of the film. An uneven cocking speed could also cause the fogging density variations. This is more likely to be a problem with a rangefinder, but an SLR without a good seal around the mirror could also do this, and that would make the light hitting the shutter non image forming. If you're moving a rangefinder camera or have it pointed where it's not focused, while recocking the shutter, that could also cause this kind of pattern.

Watch the shutter curtain as you cock it without film in the camera, or shoot and develop a short film clip with another camera body if you have one.

Is this your F80 Ted? If so, try a piece of opaque tape over the film cartridge viewing window and see if the problem goes away. I don't think you can watch the shutter cock on an F80 either, so that might be hard to diagnose.

Lee

 

[Lee L]

I have seen multiple examples of film sprocket surge marks from excessive inversion agitation, my own and others. Been doing this since '68. Surge marks fan out radially away from the sprocket holes rather than making straight lines across the frame. I used to work in a lab printing 2000 B&W prints a month, film shot and processed by others, both amateur and pro, and also diagnosed a ton of problems for customers by looking at negatives in two camera stores over about three years, so I've seen my share of negatives from a large variety of sources with all kinds of problems.

Besides, unless the scan is bad, I'm convinced from the evidence on the film that this is uneven light fogging, not agitation.

Sure, I could be wrong. Let's see what Ted finds.

Lee

 

[2F/2F]

The streaking looks like it matches the sprocket holes perfectly to me.

I betcha I can make the same thing happen and have posted results in about an hour.

But why waste my silver on an Internet debate...

I've got to go right now anyhow, though...honestly...I am gonna be late cuz of this post!

You can just do it in Photoshop anyhow.

...but I will take a few frames and snip them off and process them with a bunch of air space and see what happens.

 

[Ian Grant]

If you wanted to create streaks like that you'd find it difficult.

First it makes no difference what dilution the ID-11 is, that won't cure those streaks. Assuming it's a Paterson (or Jessops) tank (most UK tanks are) there should be a locking ring to stop the spiral moving on the centre column. If there isn't use a rubber band (type the p[ostmen use).

You're agitation itself may be far to vigorous as well to cause those marks, more gentle inversion agitation is required.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

This looks like fogging to me. The "normal" (dark) parts of the image appear sharp, while the lighter parts of the image seem veiled and unsharp.

I would think that if this was a problem with developer surge, the sharpness would be consistent, while the density varies.

You say that one of your tanks leaks.

Maybe both of your tanks leak light.

Is the streaking uniform along the rolls, or is it more intense at one end of the rolls? If it varies, I think that would indicate a light leak near where the streaking is more obvious.

If you want to test for this, you might want to try developing an unexposed roll.

Matt

 

[Anupam Basu]

Just to make sure, did you remember to put in the black center column thru the film reel? I once forgot it and ended up fogging the film in a streak pattern.

 

[Akki14]

Assuming it's a Paterson (or Jessops) tank (most UK tanks are) there should be a locking ring to stop the spiral moving on the centre column. If there isn't use a rubber band (type the p[ostmen use).

I wonder how old everyone's Paterson tanks/reels are because my brand new reels all come with pressure-bumps on the inside to hold it to the column and the brand new one I bought never had a retaining ring for the centre column - the newer ones are designed to not need it because that pressure-bump on the reels keep them in place. If it was so important, Paterson would include this ring in their new tanks as I bought a new 2 reel tank which only came with 1 reel (seems standard in their lineup). And yes this was a genuine honest-to-goodness Paterson tank, not a knockoff.

I've never seen anything like that but I've never forgotten a centre column in the tank and the only thing close to that sort of streaking I've seen is bromide drag and it'd not be that bad on any film, I think. So I'm not much help, sorry

 

[Ian Grant]

Even new spirals can still slip Heather, I know because I've had a couple of 120 films almost ruined because I forgot to add the locking ring. I have about 10 Paterson tanks and probably 24 or more spirals some from the first series 4 tanks I bought late 60's.

Your right the newer spirals shouldn't slip but with over vigorous agitation they will. I think the lock rings are usually sold with the larger multi spiral tanks - the number I have matches the no of large tanks. I tend to use my newest spirals first.

I think what's happening here is possible over cogitation is creating these streaks and these are amplified by the spiral slipping up and down the spiral at the same time.

Ian