I really am grateful and appreciate the time everyone takes to answer but as stated several times already this happens with at least 3 different cameras as well as developing tanks (all plastic all metal and metal in plastic) so it's not a light leak ;-)Some of the rolls seem to have two, others three of these streaks, leading me to think it is not insufficient chemicals or agitation. Since the streaks look continuous, but not always in the exact same position, my guess it is coming from loading or possibly in-camera. When the shutter opens, I believe there is a baffle that opens, too. Could there be something happening there? Also, could some light be reaching the film during loading, reflecting off the metal reels? Have you tried plastic reels in a plastic tank?
That's a very good point. There's no sense in pouring in your stop-bath (or dev or fix), then immediately taking it away by inverting the tank. On the other hand you need to ensure the chemical quickly reaches every part of the film. That's why Paterson recommend the twizzle stick when the chemical is first added, with inversion agitation thereafter.
I assume you used Paterson reels on a Paterson centre column in the Paterson tank? Otherwise metal reels moving up and down inside the tank during inversions might be a relevant consideration.
Honestly I think increasing the duration of agitation is a red herring, because most people don't do that. Likewise pre-washing.
You originally described 'sharp inversions', and I wonder exactly what that entails. In the Paterson tank at least, the liquid that gets into the funnel when the tank is upside-down needs time to drain back before you invert again. I reckon a single full inversion takes 2-3 sec. which is not what 'sharp inversion' suggests to me. (Your metal tank may be very different, I have no experience.)
Not wishing to pile on the agony, but I can't help noticing that you've got a serious dust problem too ...
The twizzle stick gave me horrible results could you please detail how you use it ?That's a very good point. There's no sense in pouring in your stop-bath (or dev or fix), then immediately taking it away by inverting the tank. On the other hand you need to ensure the chemical quickly reaches every part of the film. That's why Paterson recommend the twizzle stick when the chemical is first added, with inversion agitation thereafter.
I just cannot imagine what the links might be with 30 sec more agitation and this kind of improvement nor what a rotary processor might add to even greater success but there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy.
However I need to be honest and say that I cannot get rid of a nagging doubt that says to me: Why haven't others here reported this or very similar problems which have been solved by the change such as the one you mention, Nor the nagging doubt that says that something else may have changed that you may be unaware of.
Still as long as that "something else" that is unknown remains a permanent change then that's enough
Oh by the way, on inversion in my Jobo tanks the bottom of my film is uncovered for a second of so as the liquid runs into the funnel shape at the top and then runs back into the tank. Some developer sticks to the film anyway so development doesn't stop. When you empty the tank of developer you need a stop bath whose purpose is to stop the development still on going even though the tank has been emptied of all developer, except of course that developer which sticks to the film surface until neutralised by acid stop immediately or by washes of water which take just a few seconds longer
pentaxuser
Humm I assume you assume I am a woman but Vania is the russian diminutive for Yvan as in Tchekov's Uncle Vania ;-)Do you wear cufflinks when you load reels?
Mostly, I'm not being serious, but repetitive parallel lines could be physical contact/pressure related.
My father had an interesting story about scratched film coming from the Canadian Kodak Kodachrome processing lab that he was the customer service manager for. Solving it involved a serious amount of detective work, but it came down to a small change that one of the experienced employees in the pre-splice area incorporated into her technique.
As the pre-splice area required employees to work in complete darkness, and as they were tasked with opening individual customers' films and splicing them together into a single reel approximately one mile in length at a time, there was a lot of potential to scratch a lot of film.
No, cufflinks are used on men's shirts to hold the cuff at the end of the sleeve together in place of a button.Humm I assume you assume I am a woman but Vania is the russian diminutive for Yvan as in Tchekov's Uncle Vania ;-)
.
And they can be large and clunky.No, cufflinks are used on men's shirts to hold the cuff at the end of the sleeve together in place of a button.
Ah! I thought they were some sort of bracelets... sorryAnd they can be large and clunky.
What I meant by my reference to stop bath was that even when the film is uncovered by inversion for maybe a second or less in time each time the tank is inverted, the amount of developer still on the film is enough to act on it. If it were not enough and development stopped instantly the developer is emptied then there would be no need to use a stop bath to instantly stop developmentI'm not sure I understand what you mean about the stop bath. What I meant with the tank not being full is that when inverted the level of the developer might be where those streaks are and thus be more active at these locations and generate the streaks. But it's far fetch.
What I meant by my reference to stop bath was that even when the film is uncovered by inversion for maybe a second or less in time each time the tank is inverted, the amount of developer still on the film is enough to act on it. If it were not enough and development stopped instantly the developer is emptied then there would be no need to use a stop bath to instantly stop development
I have never used an initial 30 secs of agitation. I invert for 10 secs at the beginning and 10 secs every minute. In 18 years of developin g many films both 35mm and 120 I have never had the problem you have. I am not saying 30 secs is wrong, it is not. What I am saying is I have never found that my non use of 30 secs at the start has caused me a problem
I feel that there is just a chance that we may need to look elsewhere for the cause. Basically if anyone follows the Kodak or Ilford agitation then he can be pretty sure that agitation is not the issue
pentaxuser
I mixe a large quantity that I use as a stock that is good for several months. The current mix is less than a week fresh.Vania: how do you mix your HC110 to working solution, say eg. 1+32, in one or two steps?
That is where I would look next, because it is a problematic approach.I mixe a large quantity that I use as a stock that is good for several months. The current mix is less than a week fresh.
It's not the 3 cameras, it's not the 4 tanks I have tried now, nor the many reels it's not the chemistry, it's not the film, it's not the pouring of the developer since I dipped the reels straight in the tank. What else ? The only factor I have not adjusted yet is myself. .
Yes it's dark and I manage to have the streaks become almost imperceptible with an initial 1 minute agitation. Light leaks do not get better with agitation... Plus I would have to stand in the exact same position when loading the reels and have the streaks always at the same place...What about your darkroom? Is it actually dark? As experiment, when it's daylight outside try sitting in your darkroom (or wherever you load film) for about 15 min to allow your eyes to completely adjust and see if you can see any light leaks? A small pinhole in a wall can produce a small shaft of light.
HC110 last for 6 months at least! This is what makes it so convenient. The problem persisted over two mix and this particular mix is fresh... but yeah I guess I should try a different developper altogether just to see.That is where I would look next, because it is a problematic approach.
A partially filled bottle of stock is projected to last 2 months.
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to consider this.I have been watching this thread from the side and am fascinated by the problem.
I hope I have the fact correctly below, correct me if I don't, please.
I have a few questions @Vania , please.
- Not the camera. 3 different cameras used.
- Not the developing reels. Metal & plastic used.
- Not a light leak in the darkroom. Would have to stand in the same position each time.
- Lab processed film did not show the lines on the negatives.
- Do you put a rubber band around your films after you have attached the "exposed" sticker to the outside of the film?
- Have you tried to load your films, onto the reels, in a changing bag in the dark, in your darkroom?
- Do you cut the film from the backing paper or tear off the tape?
- Which end of the film do you load onto the reel first? The start or the end?
- Do you load this way every time?
I did notice on one of the frames posted here that there was a crescent moon mark on the negative. This usually suggests that the film was kinked and this again usually happens at the film of either removing backing paper and/or loading onto reel. (see below)
View attachment 299168
Do you think the kink from loading would affect the film on all it length ?
ok, fair enough.I mixe a large quantity that I use as a stock that is good for several months. The current mix is less than a week fresh.
bdial I think Vania answers your question here, it's not the pouring of the developer since I dipped the reels straight in the tank. ...
It's all a bit blurry still but I can say that the 1 min initial agitation made a dramatic improvement and I think that pre-soak adds a little extra evenness although pre-soaking before I tried the added initial agitation time did not provide a noticeable improvement.ok, fair enough.
But: you say that agitating 1min. reduces the stripes to nearly invisible. Do you pre-soak? That would help giving a more even distribution of the developer over the film at the start. And the impact at the start is relatively decisive. How that would be related to a consistent pattern of lines on the films would be the next question then.
Do you think it's possible that in thrusting the reels sharply into the developer, the film caves in and touches the next turn of film in the spiral, causing uneven processing? It might explain the shape of the marks perhaps, although I still don't see how that would cause darker lines in the negative, and presumably Vania pours the chemical into the tank for the stop and fixer stages.bdial I think Vania answers your question here
pentaxuser
'Modern' is funny!Modern Paterson Super System 4 tanks fill very evenly and quickly when you work that way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?