Overexposed lines on film

[Vania]

Hello everyone,

I have some issues with my developments lately and don’t know if it comes from the camera or my development process. I have almost systematically 2 overexposed parallel lines (see photos), one on each side of the frame (left and right with hasselblad), but sometimes only one. Do you have any idea what these can be ? There is nothing visible between the frames but it clearly follows a direction from one frame to the next. It keeps coming rolls after roll all in HC110 B with development times between 7 and 9 min. The intensity of the artefact seems to vary and it mainly shows on even middle gray/light surface (ie sky, snow, etc.).

The hasselblad repair service thinks it's process related I do too since I get it from different lenses/back/body/film but only from my hasselblad cameras so far. Not the fujis. I have developed films for a very long time and my agitation method has been problem free for the last decade. I use mainly stainless steel tank with hewes reels but tried the paterson system and got the problem too except this one time when I use two reels in a 3 reels tank for greater agitation. But since the problem is not 100% systematic I can't be sure and this is not normal that I should need to do this...

I invert the kodak way for the first 30s then 5 sharp inversions in 5s every 30s.

It's not x-rays or drying marks. I tried a pre water bath for 2min with no effect. Picture of the film itself would be pointless as this is too subtle to show on picture.

I would really appreciate some technical insight if possible as I am loosing my mind over this. And getting tired of wasting good film shooting the sky...

Many thanks in advance !

Vania

 

[MattKing]

Picture of the film itself would be pointless as this is too subtle to show on picture.

Actually, that is the only way to tell - we need to see the negatives themselves, backlit and as large as practical.
In particular, we need to be able to see if there is evidence of the effect between the frames.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

We like negatives.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It does not appear to me to be outside the image frame, that is I do not see it between the frames. Does anyone else see it as I do?

 

[MattKing]

Thee images are too small to tell.

 

[Vania]

So this new development is soooo bad that I actually manage to take a picture of the problem on the film. 3 lines this times and one of them becomes round like a drop of some liquid...

 

[MattKing]

Is your camera one of the models that has a focal plane shutter?

 

[nakol]

This could be an agitation problem during development.

Do you use Paterson developing tank with the top spinner?

I had weird lines appearing on my negatives which I thought was a light leak because the lines showed up at the same place. I was going crazy replacing the bellows and installing light seal foams everywhere but in the end it was my agitation method.

Once I switched to inversions the lines went away.

 

[Vania]

Here are the picture in larger format I think... 3 files

 

[Vania]

This could be an agitation problem during development.

Do you use Paterson developing tank with the top spinner?

I had weird lines appearing on my negatives which I thought was a light leak because the lines showed up at the same place. I was going crazy replacing the bellows and installing light seal foams everywhere but in the end it was my agitation method.

Once I switched to inversions the lines went away.

I invert yes and tried all kind of tanks and reels, and every agitation method I could think of except constant agitation... They all resulted in the same issue with more or less intensity. The more conclusive so far has been 2 reels in a 3 reels paterson tank. But this is not normal...

 

[Vania]

Is your camera one of the models that has a focal plane shutter?

I don't know I have an 903SWC from 1990 and a 503CW from early 2000.

 

[MattKing]

I invert yes and tried all kind of tanks and reels, and every agitation method I could think of except constant agitation... They all resulted in the same issue with more or less intensity.

That says light leak to me - in the camera or back or.
And I understand that you have looked for that as well.
Can you get someone else to expose a roll of film in their camera, and develop it for them?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So... this has happened more than once with FP4? Does it happen with other films? How fresh is the film?

 

[Vania]

That says light leak to me - in the camera or back or.
And I understand that you have looked for that as well.
Can you get someone else to expose a roll of film in their camera, and develop it for them?

I have tried 2 hasselblad cameras (903SWC and 503CW) 2 backs and 2 lenses with the 503CW. I had a lab develop 2 rolls for me that turned out fine but this might just be luck... I will try with the fujis cameras too I guess to be sure. Stange things is that it seems to show more on Ilford films than trix and even more on FP4+ than HP5+... As for the light leek the Hasselblad service shop here in Paris says it would show between the frames too. They don't think it looks like it. Also The number of lines varies. Sometimes it's 1 sometimes 2 and now 3. But they are always more or less in the same place as you can see on the picture of the neg. They seem equally spaced out.
Oh8 just thinking too that light leaks would actually show everywhere ; here it's just on middle and light grey. Doesn't show on zones darker than IV or where the surface is not even.

 

[Pieter12]

A wild guess...some sort of interior reflection in the camera?

 

[Vania]

So... this has happened more than once with FP4? Does it happen with other films? How fresh is the film?

Brand new FP4 and HP5 and old Trix but it seems to show more on ilford and especially FP4 but that could be random...

 

[MattKing]

As for the light leek the Hasselblad service shop here in Paris says it would show between the frames too. They don't think it looks like it.

A wild guess...some sort of interior reflection in the camera?

Not so wild a guess - but I would wait to see if you have it happen with a Fuji camera.
Is there any chance that it is a low level light leak in your reel loading area - something like a pinhole in a changing bag or a LED indicator light that remains on while the film is being loaded?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Brand new FP4 and HP5 and old Trix but it seems to show more on ilford and especially FP4 but that could be random...

It's Hasselblad then, if it doesn't happen with your other camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't know I have an 903SWC from 1990 and a 503CW from early 2000.

That would be a NO.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Okay, let's assume that the lab processing was not a fluke. That means it has something to do with your processing.

So, let's brainstorm a bit about what could cause areas of increased density like this.

1. light strike (don't rule out the tank, changing bag, light leaks in the darkroom, etc.)
2. developer surge marks caused by agitation or features in the tank that cause turbulence
3. bending or crimping the film

There are likely others, but I'd start trouble-shooting with the above.

Sorry I can't be more specific,

Doremus

 

[Vania]

Not so wild a guess - but I would wait to see if you have it happen with a Fuji camera.
Is there any chance that it is a low level light leak in your reel loading area - something like a pinhole in a changing bag or a LED indicator light that remains on while the film is being loaded?

Again in all logic this would show between the frames and on all part of the images not just where there is even density (sky, snow, a white wall)... will definitely try the fuji.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Okay, let's assume that the lab processing was not a fluke. That means it has something to do with your processing.

So, let's brainstorm a bit about what could cause areas of increased density like this.

1. light strike (don't rule out the tank, changing bag, light leaks in the darkroom, etc.)
2. developer surge marks caused by agitation or features in the tank that cause turbulence
3. bending or crimping the film

There are likely others, but I'd start trouble-shooting with the above.

Sorry I can't be more specific,

Doremus

1. light strike (don't rule out the tank, changing bag, light leaks in the darkroom, etc.) ===> unlikely because it does not show between frames
2. developer surge marks caused by agitation or features in the tank that cause turbulence===> unlikely because it does not show between frames
3. bending or crimping the film ===> unlikely because it does not show between frames

It is within the frame lines, back to the camera.

 

[MattKing]

Again in all logic this would show between the frames and on all part of the images not just where there is even density (sky, snow, a white wall)... will definitely try the fuji.

The only exception to the logic would be if the light level was essentially a pre or post-flash - just enough to add density where additional exposure is added, but not enough to form an image on its own.
Did you perhaps use a particular shutter speed or aperture setting with FP4 that was not used for the other films?
How about different filters?

 

[Vania]

Okay, let's assume that the lab processing was not a fluke. That means it has something to do with your processing.

So, let's brainstorm a bit about what could cause areas of increased density like this.

1. light strike (don't rule out the tank, changing bag, light leaks in the darkroom, etc.)
2. developer surge marks caused by agitation or features in the tank that cause turbulence
3. bending or crimping the film

There are likely others, but I'd start trouble-shooting with the above.

Sorry I can't be more specific,

Doremus

I would exclude 1. because that would show everywhere on the film and between the frames not just evenly dense portions of the images. I would also exclude 3 because I am very careful and used different types of reel plastic and metal and quite a few different ones as I have a lot.
2. would be most probable but what and how?! I have been doing this for more that 20 years and this is new. Can this come from the fixer?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Yeah, but unexposed areas often won't show as much or any increase in density when physically affected or with development turbulence.

I agree, however, that the lack of artifacts between the frames points to the camera, however, if the rolls developed by the lab don't show them, that points back to processing or handling.

Time to think outside the box .

If the marks are in the same general position on all frames, then its time to look for things that may impact the film in those specific areas. Rubber bands around the rolls? Physical pressure from anything when handling? Ridges, etc. in the development tank? Light reflections inside the camera body? Contact with the reel or the film above it when loaded onto the reel? (loading an exposed or scrap role and checking would tell the tale here). Etc.

Best,

Doremus