Overexposed edges

George Losse said:

After you get done with that, you'll still have the edge build up on the negatives, because its most likely from turbulence of the chemistry on the film in the development tube.

I think your spinning the tank too fast during processing. I've seen the same thing on 8x20 negatives I've processed. It went away when I turned the speed on the processor down as far as I could and still kept it moving.

Click to expand...

George

thanks for the tips, the reason the same edge buildup doesn't show on the last pic is because I used photo paper for the negs. It does show up very very faintly on the print.

My processing technique has been the same for a few years and I've never seen this edge build up with panoramic sheet film negs in the same tube/developer/rotation speed combination. Yes I do use the slow speed.

cheers
Clayton

Clayton,

My point was the paper in holder test will only rule out if the holder leaks. Since it does not recieve the same development procedures/handling as a sheet of film will, it can't tell you anything about that part of the process.

My processing technique has been the same for a few years and I've never seen this edge build up with panoramic sheet film negs in the same tube/developer/rotation speed combination.

How long have you been processing panoramic sheet film with Pyrocat-HD in the film tubes with the Jobo?

There are many other places in the process of going from fresh unexposed sheet of film in the manufacturers box to a developed negative that can effect the final negative. Please tell us more about how the original negative was handled after exposure. Was it loaded from the holder to the tank? Did it go into a holding box? Was the holder exposed to any extra direct sunlight after or before exposure?

Your first scan showed a print with good exposure and edge density increase. There really wasn't any light flare or scattered light in the print which often comes when there is a leak or something reflective in the light path. I think that's why a lot of the early responses questioned the development.

This is undoubtedly a processing problem.

George Losse said:

Clayton,

My point was the paper in holder test will only rule out if the holder leaks. Since it does not recieve the same development procedures/handling as a sheet of film will, it can't tell you anything about that part of the process.

My processing technique has been the same for a few years and I've never seen this edge build up with panoramic sheet film negs in the same tube/developer/rotation speed combination.

How long have you been processing panoramic sheet film with Pyrocat-HD in the film tubes with the Jobo?

There are many other places in the process of going from fresh unexposed sheet of film in the manufacturers box to a developed negative that can effect the final negative. Please tell us more about how the original negative was handled after exposure. Was it loaded from the holder to the tank? Did it go into a holding box? Was the holder exposed to any extra direct sunlight after or before exposure?

Your first scan showed a print with good exposure and edge density increase. There really wasn't any light flare or scattered light in the print which often comes when there is a leak or something reflective in the light path. I think that's why a lot of the early responses questioned the development.

Click to expand...

George

I agree with your logic here, rather than get into any argument I'll go back and carefully review my earlier work. I rarely contact print proofs and all my negs are enlarged. I also crop them quite a bit and never print near the edges.

The print I posted here I've just done a run of prints from the neg 3 feet wide and they show no fogging or flare from scattered light.

Generally when I load holders I cut the film if it's an odd size, then put it straight into the holder. Then it's usually shot the same day, left in the holder until it's loaded into a tank, then processed immediately. The loaded holders are always left in black plastic bags before and after shooting. I never use holding boxes. I've been processing panoramic sheet film in the Jobo with Pyrocat for about 2 years so saying "a few years" might be a slight exaggeration.

I appreciate your help

Clayton

claytume said:

George

I agree with your logic here, rather than get into any argument I'll go back and carefully review my earlier work. I rarely contact print proofs and all my negs are enlarged. I also crop them quite a bit and never print near the edges.

The print I posted here I've just done a run of prints from the neg 3 feet wide and they show no fogging or flare from scattered light.

Generally when I load holders I cut the film if it's an odd size, then put it straight into the holder. Then it's usually shot the same day, left in the holder until it's loaded into a tank, then processed immediately. The loaded holders are always left in black plastic bags before and after shooting. I never use holding boxes. I've been processing panoramic sheet film in the Jobo with Pyrocat for about 2 years so saying "a few years" might be a slight exaggeration.

I appreciate your help

Clayton

Click to expand...

Clayton,

Don't worry I don't want to argue either. I just solved a similiar problem a different way then you were heading. I also want to make sure I didn't just mask my problem, and thought I solved it when I haddn't.

Lets look at this last post. "Film gets cut and put into the holder. No holding box or anything else." Good that eliminates two or three places for exposure to the negatives. As I stated earlier, I even had trouble with film boxes not being opque and I did not put the film into a plastic bag inside the box. I'm not sure but what size film have we been talking about here?

"Exposure made and film usually left in the holder until unloaded for processing." Again that removes more places where light could hit the negative. You even keep the holders in black plastic bags before and after shooting. These bags are from the inside of the film boxes (meaning more opque then trash bags) or is this to cut down on dust and they are trash bags?

I've been spinning the 2850 tank for about 13 years processing 8x20 sheets. I have run into this same edge build up on my own stuff. But I usually find I have changed something in my normal ULF processing procedure from either processing a different tank/chemistry combo for smaller films.

How many sheets are you putting in the tank at once? And how much chemistry? Maybe it too much or too little, and that is causing different flow to the chemicals inside the tank.

Actually, I had much better results with the PyroCat-HD then any other developer and the jobo tank for the big panoramic film then I ever had in the past. Maybe that's because I did learn to use the developer with the bigger films and no bad habits came over from other formats or tanks.

George Losse said:

I'm not sure but what size film have we been talking about here?

These bags are from the inside of the film boxes (meaning more opque then trash bags) or is this to cut down on dust and they are trash bags?

I've been spinning the 2850 tank for about 13 years processing 8x20 sheets. I have run into this same edge build up on my own stuff.

How many sheets are you putting in the tank at once? And how much chemistry? Maybe it too much or too little, and that is causing different flow to the chemicals inside the tank.

Actually, I had much better results with the PyroCat-HD then any other developer and the jobo tank for the big panoramic film then I ever had in the past.

Click to expand...

George.....some answers to your questions

Film size is 5x12 and I'm cutting down 12x20 sheets which gives me 4 per sheet.

The black bags I use are photo paper bags which come in paper boxes. Been using them for years with no problems....yet.

The tank I'm using is a 2551 which is a film tank for spirals, smooth inside with no ribs.

I always process one sheet at a time, this is because I usually only shoot 1 or 2 scenes and back them up. So I make processing adjustments to the rest of the sheets if I need them.

Chemistry I use 450 ml per sheet.

I only use Pyrocat HD for my good negs, like you I've found it to be trouble free. For the occasional test neg when I have no intention of printing it I use TMax dev, it's just quick and convenient.

cheers
Clayton