Overexposed lines on film

[MattKing]

0

'Modern' is funny! 1981 they came in. That's 40 years ago. But as you say, Matt, they take good care of pouring in and out.

I'm amazed how often I encounter people who are still using the predecessor, System 4 tanks!
An excellent example of why it is better to have clearly differentiated (System 5?)product names!

 

[snusmumriken]

0
I'm amazed how often I encounter people who are still using the predecessor, System 4 tanks!
An excellent example of why it is better to have clearly differentiated (System 5?)product names!

I still have one of the older tanks. I never use it now, but it annoys me how the lids leak on the ‘Super’ version and not on the plain old one.

 

[MattKing]

For me, the Super system lids never leak, if I have taken the step to "burp" them.
And I do most of my processing with the tanks on their side on a rotary agitator.

 

[Moose22]

Wait -- I thought mine was a system 4, but it's a super system 4? I feel special now.

I did wonder why something that'll do 2 120 or 3 135 was called a 4, but one never knows.

I actually stopped using my two reel omega after an annoying unstoppable leak. I use the three reel paterson even for single rolls now, and always burp it. After that I don't seem to ever lose any chemistry no matter how I agitate. Still don't like patterson's reels and use the ones with the fatter loading ramps, but the tank works just fine.

 

[MattKing]

I did wonder why something that'll do 2 120 or 3 135 was called a 4, but one never knows.

Because it followed after 3, 2 and 1, of course.
The real question being: "why didn't they call them 5?"
Everything you ever wanted to know about Paterson Developing tanks:

and the link for the above: https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Paterson/Developing_Tanks.html

 

[foc]

Maybe I am emitting some sort of bad vibe imprinting the film...

I doubt that....... but you never know........ I am intrigued as to what is the cause.
You appear to have covered most options.
The fact the lab processed film didn't show these lines would suggest to me that it is being caused by you and your procedure in developing (no offense meant) but as you have outlined in your posts, you seem to have covered every possible angle.

 

[Moose22]

Because it followed after 3, 2 and 1, of course.
The real question being: "why didn't they call them 5?"
Everything you ever wanted to know about Paterson Developing tanks:
View attachment 299200
and the link for the above: https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Paterson/Developing_Tanks.html

It's like the Future in a South Park episode. Everything is "Max" or "Super" or some other superlative. You know how the meetings went.

Engineer: "OK, here's the prototype for the System 5"
Marketing guy: "No, we're thinking we want a better name here"
Engineer: "Well, it's just the fifth revision of the design. Can't we call it 5?"
Marketing guy: "You don't understand anything. It has to be New! Improved! Builds on what's great, but even better. It has to be super. That's it, the Super System!"
Engineer: "uh, ok, the Super system. 5, right?"
Marketing guy: "No! People know the number 4. We can't lose that product recognition. We call it SUPER system 4!"
Engineer: "Umm, sure. Whatever."

 

[MattKing]

When you load the reels, is there any chance that the film itself is rubbing against something, like your shirt front or the edge of something?

 

[snusmumriken]

For me, the Super system lids never leak, if I have taken the step to "burp" them.
And I do most of my processing with the tanks on their side on a rotary agitator.

I do burp mine. I have 3 (just in case), and they all leak.

 

[otto.f]

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.
Can these streaks be the infamous bromide drags?

Not that I know, but these drags are always coming off from perforations, in 35mm film mostly, 120 hasn't them

 

[snusmumriken]

The twizzle stick gave me horrible results could you please detail how you use it ?

Sorry, Vania, I missed this. How can this benign gadget give you 'horrible results'? This is what I do: Film in tank, lid on. Pour in chemical. Start timer. Insert twizzle stick and twiddle backwards and forwards between finger and thumb for about 10 sec. Remove swizzle stick (and wash it before the next chemical goes in). Snap on the outer cover and 'burp' it. Tap the bottom of the tank on something firm but not too hard (I use the heel of my other hand) to dislodge any air bubbles. Start inversions at 30 sec until the end of development (or stop-bath or fixer).

I use the swizzle stick like this at the start of each process. For the final wash, I always use the Paterson force film washer which forces water up through the spiral(s) from the bottom of the tank. However, I always take the lid off first, to avoid chemical residue pooling up in it around the washer hose.

 

[foc]

I saw a suggestion by @koraks in another thread, see if it might help.

https://www.erikgouldprojects.com/coldcoffee/2016/12/31/streaky

 

[snusmumriken]

I saw a suggestion by @koraks in another thread, see if it might help.

https://www.erikgouldprojects.com/coldcoffee/2016/12/31/streaky

Good find, looks remarkably similar. Rapid introduction of chemical to film or vice versa; and immediate agitation. I maintain that Paterson Super System 4 tanks are the best option. Fill rate is amazing, and the chemical swirls in through the spirals. One can get a twizzle stick in and use it, faster than one can get a lid on and invert the tank.

 

[Pat Erson]

I saw a suggestion by @koraks in another thread, see if it might help.

https://www.erikgouldprojects.com/coldcoffee/2016/12/31/streaky

9. Presoak... That could be a solution.
Otoh I've heard that processing 120 films shouldn't include a water pre-soak.

 

[Craig]

Fill rate is amazing, and the chemical swirls in through the spirals. One can get a twizzle stick in and use it, faster than one can get a lid on and invert the tank.

I've never inverted, I always use the stick for agitation and I have never had streaks on my films like the OP.

 

[otto.f]

9. Presoak... That could be a solution.
Otoh I've heard that processing 120 films shouldn't include a water pre-soak.

Oh I don't know where I remembered this from, but I have somewhere in my mind: the larger the format the more necessity of pre-soak. And when I think about it, this is logic too. When the developer hits the dry film there's much more chance of unequal distribution because a dry surface does not receive wetness in one stroke, you need it to be wet for an even distribution by way of capillary action; the surface sucks the developer then. You can see that in uneven developed skies in 4x5" e.g. Good agitation in the first minute can reduce that problem, but with big films that is less easy to do it quickly

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh I don't know where I remembered this from, but I have somewhere in my mind: the larger the format the more necessity of pre-soak. And when I think about it, this is logic too. When the developer hits the dry film there's much more chance of unequal distribution because a dry surface does not receive wetness in one stroke, you need it to be wet for an even distribution by way of capillary action; the surface sucks the developer then. You can see that in uneven developed skies in 4x5" e.g. Good agitation in the first minute can reduce that problem, but with big films that is less easy to do it quickly

I presoak all film except Kodak Tri-X when processing in XTOL using a Jobo processor because both Kodak and Jobo clearly state not to.

 

[Vania]

I saw a suggestion by @koraks in another thread, see if it might help.

https://www.erikgouldprojects.com/coldcoffee/2016/12/31/streaky

Thanks for the link! This tends to confirms the origin of the streaks as being link to chemical reaction when introducing the developer and/or during the first seconds. As stated already I have tried both type of tanks Paterson and steel tank with and without pre-soak, pouring the developer in the tank (including the Paterson type) and dropping the reels in the developer in the dark, as well as with or without the Paterson twizzle stick (worst results by far!) But none of these had any effect. So the defect is happening anyhow, unless I agitated for the first minute. This maybe due to the active nature of HC110 as dilution B and I definitely should try a higher dilution as suggested before. I don't get perfectly even negatives (when shooting a grey card) though but I will work on that.
I sort of conclude that there is nothing wrong and that I just have to agitate for the first minute with this developer now. I am just very surprised that it is happening now after more than 10 years of use... This does match the recommendation of "Way beyond monochrome" and Steve Anchell's 'Darkroom cookbook" :
« Agitation is an integral part of film development. It prevents chemical defects from occurring, builds contrast in the negative, and has a direct effect on image sharpness. The first benefit, preventing chemical defects, is accomplished within the first minute of development. This is because there are certain irreversible chemical defects that can begin within that time. If allowed to begin, they become worse during the course of development. The solution is continuous agitation for the first 50 to 60 seconds. »
Thanks all for the suggestions!

 

[Vania]

For those shooting medium format and using HC110, I have a little test for anyone curious enough to participate and waste an hour or so and a roll of film :

1. Shoot a gray card (or a wall or any evenly lit smooth surface) as zone VI (+1 stop). The card will have to fill the whole frame and the lens set to infinity as it does not need to be in focus. Make sure you (or the camera) do not cast a shadow on the card.
2 .Shoot the whole roll of 120 film. Later in the dark you can cut the roll in 2 and put each half in 2 different tanks so you can make 2 tests if the 1st one is not satisfactory.
Alternatively don't cut the film but also shoot a few zone I (-4 stops) and IX (+4 stops) at different iso (i.e. nominal speed and + 1/2 stop) so you can test your iso setting and development time as well. Zone I should be a barely visible black if your iso setting is correct when printed in grade 2 and zone IX should be just off white if your development time is correct. Off course you will have to print so the unexposed part of the negative is maximum black but not a second more.
Use HC110 dilution B (1+31) at 20ºC.
Develop your usual way.
Make a contact print by determining the time it takes for your film base to be maximum black and not a second more. Later also test your zones I and IX in the enlarger as the results will be different from contact printing.
See how even your development is on the zone VI shots.
I would be thrilled to hear about your results!

 

[otto.f]

For those shooting medium format and using HC110, I have a little test for anyone curious enough to participate and waste an hour or so and a roll of film :

1. Shoot a gray card (or a wall or any evenly lit smooth surface) as zone VI (+1 stop). The card will have to fill the whole frame and the lens set to infinity as it does not need to be in focus. Make sure you (or the camera) do not cast a shadow on the card.
2 .Shoot the whole roll of 120 film. Later in the dark you can cut the roll in 2 and put each half in 2 different tanks so you can make 2 tests if the 1st one is not satisfactory.
Alternatively don't cut the film but also shoot a few zone I (-4 stops) and IX (+4 stops) at different iso (i.e. nominal speed and + 1/2 stop) so you can test your iso setting and development time as well. Zone I should be a barely visible black if your iso setting is correct when printed in grade 2 and zone IX should be just off white if your development time is correct. Off course you will have to print so the unexposed part of the negative is maximum black but not a second more.
Use HC110 dilution B (1+31) at 20ºC.
Develop your usual way.
Make a contact print by determining the time it takes for your film base to be maximum black and not a second more. Later also test your zones I and IX in the enlarger as the results will be different from contact printing.
See how even your development is on the zone VI shots.
I would be thrilled to hear about your results!

I would be inclined to do that (if there's no deadline tomorrow and) if there was one sort of credible reason why this problem as you have defined it now (agitation something) manifests itself as lines. Otherwise put, if I was sure I used the same developing tank with the same reels and the same 'flowchart' of the liquids as you.

 

[snusmumriken]

I would be inclined to do that (if there's no deadline tomorrow and) if there was one sort of credible reason why this problem as you have defined it now (agitation something) manifests itself as lines. Otherwise put, if I was sure I used the same developing tank with the same reels and the same 'flowchart' of the liquids as you.

Agreed. I can't participate anyway because I don't have a MF camera - but I don't see what you are driving at, Vania? Those test exposures are tedious to do, and if only the zone VI shots are likely to be in any way relevant to this thread, why not just do a zone VI exposure of a blank unfocussed sheet of card?

A lot of people have spent time puzzling over your problem here, and now you seem to be going off on a complete tangent.

 

[Vania]

I would be inclined to do that (if there's no deadline tomorrow and) if there was one sort of credible reason why this problem as you have defined it now (agitation something) manifests itself as lines. Otherwise put, if I was sure I used the same developing tank with the same reels and the same 'flowchart' of the liquids as you.

Thanks! No deadline off course and as Johnathan says only 2 or 3 consecutive zone VI shots would do perfectly well! (1 is to few and might not show the defect as well as a few consecutive shots). No need for a whole roll like I have to keep doing until I fix my developing. This is driving me crazy, I am not thinking straight...
The idea is that I am starting to think it is not possible to get even development with HC110 as dilution B. But it might only show on a grey card and not in real life pictures. So if regular HC110 users have the same issue when shooting a grey card but never notice anything otherwise, I might be good to go. The tank and reels are not relevant since I use different kind. The Paterson System as well as several metal tank with hewes reels. They all perform equally.
So if some of you feel curious about this too it would be great! Or maybe it's just that I am ready for the cuckoo nest...
I include a picture of the best result I got so far which is a tremendous step forward but I can still see some discrete streaking. Although is does not show well on the picture. Plus the now denser sides perhaps due to the increased agitation necessary to solve the streaking issue.

 

[Vania]

Those test exposures are tedious to do, and if only the zone VI shots are likely to be in any way relevant to this thread, why not just do a zone VI exposure of a blank unfocussed sheet of card?.

Yes you are completely right I am not thinking straight! Just 2 or 3 consecutive shots in any roll will do perfectly!

 

[otto.f]

starting to think it is not possible to get even development with HC110 as dilution B.

In my experience with HC110, which I seldom use anymore, I recognize this a bit, but it is rather overstated. As I said earlier the very thick syrup is hard to get to an even working solution and takes a lot of agitation to come to. The viscosity of HC110 has been changed recently btw to a thinner liquid. So you could compare with the new HC110, but then you are stuck to a litre again of a developer which worries you. To me, personally the whole Kodak idea has failed since about 2010, so I left it. A good alternative and quite comparative in handling, times, etc. is Ilford DDX, much easier to mix.
And, if this is your theory why don't you try a totally different developer and company? Consider the Adox line (FX39 ii for instance, very reliable), fresh newly (re)developed films and chemistry and not a firm that struggles for survival. They also deliver developers in very small quantities, so it's always fresh. Apart from this advertisement, testing whether the fault lies in HC110 is very easy and not necessary for us to do. You just have to do simple (methodo)logical tests with isolating only one variable at a time.

 

[Vania]

In my experience with HC110, which I seldom use anymore, I recognize this a bit, but it is rather overstated. As I said earlier the very thick syrup is hard to get to an even working solution and takes a lot of agitation to come to. The viscosity of HC110 has been changed recently btw to a thinner liquid. So you could compare with the new HC110, but then you are stuck to a litre again of a developer which worries you. To me, personally the whole Kodak idea has failed since about 2010, so I left it. A good alternative and quite comparative in handling, times, etc. is Ilford DDX, much easier to mix.
And, if this is your theory why don't you try a totally different developer and company? Consider the Adox line (FX39 ii for instance, very reliable), fresh newly (re)developed films and chemistry and not a firm that struggles for survival. They also deliver developers in very small quantities, so it's always fresh. Apart from this advertisement, testing whether the fault lies in HC110 is very easy and not necessary for us to do. You just have to do simple (methodo)logical tests with isolating only one variable at a time.

I don't think it's the syrup ; as I mentioned before, I premix a large quantity for convenience since it last for so long. It has probably more to do with the very active nature of the developer in dilution B. I will try a different developer and dilution as well as other variable which is what I have been doing for the last couple weeks with already about 20 rolls in the garbage can, 2/3 of them cut in 2 that's about 30 development trying to isolate every possible factor. Having a test from the outside would be very interesting. I am not telling or counting on anyone to do it, I just thought I might tempt those who would be curious about how even their developments are
If I am so persistent about this, it is because this developer dilution gives me exactly what I look for in a film developer, and has worked for me perfectly for the last decade. Could the recent change in formula you mention explain the sudden emergence of this defect?... I'm not a big fan of DDX but I thought about using ilfotec hc to get similar result though. I will look into adox to try something completely different.