Overexposed lines on film

[pentaxuser]

Can you send an exposed film to one of us to process, to see what happens? I would happily oblige, but am in the UK. If that's of any use, please message me.

A great suggestion, Jonathan. We seem to be getting to that stage where a form of thinking out of the box such as this suggestion is a worthwhile suggestion

pentaxuser

 

[snusmumriken]

BTW, I don't think you have mentioned anything about your fixing technique? Have you used a freshly-mixed fixer? What fixer do you use and for how long? What agitation regime do you follow in the fixer (and in the stop-bath)?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can you send an exposed film to one of us to process, to see what happens? I would happily oblige, but am in the UK. If that's of any use, please message me.

Or for a little more money you could fly out here to Los Angeles with your film and we could process it here, drive up the coast to Malibu, take photographs and enjoy the warm weather and blue skies.

 

[bluechromis]

These could not be pouring marks, i.e., the film was unevenly covered by the developer as the tank was filled? A way to check for that would be: 1.) presoak the film with water before using developer, 2.). In the dark, have the tank filled with the developer and drop the reel into it and close the lid.

 

[Vania]

These could not be pouring marks, i.e., the film was unevenly covered by the developer as the tank was filled? A way to check for that would be: 1.) presoak the film with water before using developer, 2.). In the dark, have the tank filled with the developer and drop the reel into it and close the lid.

I suspect something of the sort. The reel is covered for sure but maybe these lines are made by the level of chemistry when inverting. Next try is more chemistry so the film is never out of it and the reel just move into it. After that maybe change to a jobo manual rotary system.

 

[snusmumriken]

I suspect something of the sort. The reel is covered for sure but maybe these lines are made by the level of chemistry when inverting. Next try is more chemistry so the film is never out of it and the reel just move into it. After that maybe change to a jobo manual rotary system.

If that was the case, you could surely overcome it by filling the tank to capacity every time? It would prove the point at least. It sounds as though you are using small quantities of chemistry.

 

[Vania]

If that was the case, you could surely overcome it by filling the tank to capacity every time? It would prove the point at least. It sounds as though you are using small quantities of chemistry.

Yep as I said that was my next test. Fruitless of course since absolutely nothing works. The only thing I see left is constant agitation with a Jobo rotary system. Being in France it's easy to order but I'm unsure if I should choose the 1500 or 2500 system yet. I have some hewes reels with the large center for Jobo ; does anyone knows if it works with both 1500 and 2500 system and (maniual) rotary system?

 

[snusmumriken]

Your frustration is clear, and I can sympathise.

With Paterson tanks, I have never had problems using the recommended quantities of chemical per film, even when doing continuous inversions with one film in a 2-reel tank (so that the chemical is 'air-borne' most of the time). However, I always use the swizzle stick for 10 sec when the chemical is first added. I don't know what the Kodak recommendation is, but it sounds like you start straight off with inversions?

I was also thinking that if this problem is process-related, it must be happening at the fixer stage (or possibly stop-bath). The reason I suggest that is because the lines are dark on the negative, which would mean over-development if it was happening at the developer stage. I simply cannot imagine how that could happen, whereas I have seen inadequate fixing taking various forms. Have you tried Matt's suggestion of re-fixing one of the spoiled films?

 

[Vania]

Your frustration is clear, and I can sympathise.

With Paterson tanks, I have never had problems using the recommended quantities of chemical per film, even when doing continuous inversions with one film in a 2-reel tank (so that the chemical is 'air-borne' most of the time). However, I always use the swizzle stick for 10 sec when the chemical is first added. I don't know what the Kodak recommendation is, but it sounds like you start straight off with inversions?

I was also thinking that if this problem is process-related, it must be happening at the fixer stage (or possibly stop-bath). The reason I suggest that is because the lines are dark on the negative, which would mean over-development if it was happening at the developer stage. I simply cannot imagine how that could happen, whereas I have seen inadequate fixing taking various forms. Have you tried Matt's suggestion of re-fixing one of the spoiled films?

Re-fixing was the 1st thing I tried when the streaks started to appear. Didn't do anything. I just opened a new fixer bottle yesterday so it's real fresh. I thought about the stop bath but I can empty the developer and fill with the stop bath (acetic acid) in less than 10s. I thought about taking the reels out of the developer tank and put them in a stop tank but I think that would take me even longer to do especially in the dark... unless the solution is to process my films in broad daylight maybe that will work!

 

[pentaxuser]

I cannot add anything to what has already been said except to say that if you want to buy a Jobo rotary processor then fine. You may find it useful for other reasons such as developing C41 films but I cannot see how it will help with the problem you have shown to us

So if the purchase of a rotary processor is simply to cure your problem and for no other reason then I strongly fear that it will be money wasted

pentaxuser

 

[Vania]

I cannot add anything to what has already been said except to say that if you want to buy a Jobo rotary processor then fine. You may find it useful for other reasons such as developing C41 films but I cannot see how it will help with the problem you have shown to us

So if the purchase of a rotary processor is simply to cure your problem and for no other reason then I strongly fear that it will be money wasted

pentaxuser

Ah... Thanks for saying this as I am indeed hoping it will solve the problem since I have tried absolutely every possible agitation and processing method except for continuous agitation and inverting myself to process standing on my head. I also remember from another life that I was getting fantastic consistant negs from a Jobo rotary processor. And this tread of someone solving his streaks issues with a Jobo 2500 system (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/streak-across-mf-negs.124546/).
Maybe one last thing to try out is to dilute my developper more to get processing times over 10min...
But thanks for all the insights !

 

[Pieter12]

Before you drop big money on a Jobo system, consider this alternative: https://aurafd.mypinnaclecart.com
I have one. Much more reasonable priced and works with either the Patterson System 4 tanks or Jobo. You may have to contact Viktor through his website, I don't see a way to purchase one online yet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

These could not be pouring marks, i.e., the film was unevenly covered by the developer as the tank was filled? A way to check for that would be: 1.) presoak the film with water before using developer, 2.). In the dark, have the tank filled with the developer and drop the reel into it and close the lid.

I have spend a lot of time thinking about the source of the problem and I too have come to the conclusion that the tank has not been filled enough and that bands on the film are a result of insufficient chemical volume needed to properly cover the film.

 

[Craig]

I don't think this is a processing system fault. If it was light leaks during darkroom handling, I would expect to see the bands between the frame spacing as well as in the image area. I'm leaning toward a camera problem.

Do you have anyone near you who could expose a roll of film for you in their camera and you process it as you normally do? I think that would narrow it down to either a camera or processing problem.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

OP says that lab-developed film did not show the artifact. That would point to processing, especially in the light of this happening with many different cameras. I'm stumped.

Doremus

 

[MattKing]

I have cracked a Paterson tank before, and under certain circumstances the crack allowed light in.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have cracked a Paterson tank before, and under certain circumstances the crack allowed light in.

But even then, Matt, the light never consistently fell into nice neat bands roll after roll. I believe that there is not enough developer in the tank and that is the cause of the very consistent banding. Definitely a camera problem, photo finisher problem or a tank problem.

 

[grain elevator]

The lines are totally parallel with the film edges, yes? To me that points to pressure marks. I don't know hasselblad backs, is it possible for them to malfunction or to load them wrong so that they produce pressure or stretch marks like that? Rubber bands around exposed rolls have already been mentioned.

 

[otto.f]

The lines are totally parallel with the film edges, yes? To me that points to pressure marks. I don't know hasselblad backs, is it possible for them to malfunction or to load them wrong so that they produce pressure or stretch marks like that? Rubber bands around exposed rolls have already been mentioned.

Yes, I thought about push exposure too, but then it is a little strange that they are not very straight and bend off the image sometimes, not impossible, but interesting. Plus, Viana told that he used all his camera’s with all backs random. There’s not one back I understood.

 

[Vania]

I have spend a lot of time thinking about the source of the problem and I too have come to the conclusion that the tank has not been filled enough and that bands on the film are a result of insufficient chemical volume needed to properly cover the film.

A new hope…
So after trying all possible variations of development method and agitation pattern possible I finally had twice usable negatives again. But they are not perfectly even and streaks can be perceived on some views. Mainly because I am shooting a zone VI white board, but it will probably not be discernable on a textured surface. So at least I know I am on the right track. Here’s what changed that made a difference :

1. Using more chemical. 500ml instead of 450ml in steel tank (haven't tried this on the Paterson tank yet). This change alone did not do anything and maybe is not needed but I suspect it was part of the problem. Although my reels were always well covered before, I think there was too much empty space in the tank. This was probably allowing part of the film to be out of chemistry during inversions. This is a wild guess since using a Paterson tank with the twizzle stick only and no inversion, just rotations of the stick, did bring some streaks too, but more in the center of the frame.
2. Most importantly and this is the game changer : constant agitation for the first minute and not just 30s. I tried everything and nothing else worked until I implemented this. Then it’s 5 inversions every 30s.

I am open to more suggestion to get more even development as this is far from perfect.

I would also be curious to know how much developer do you all use with Paterson tanks per 120 roll. In 1 roll tank and 3 rolls tank.

Prewash did not do anything during any of the test, but I am thinking of trying it now again to see if I can get a more even development. Although film manufacturer recommend against it for a good reason probably.

It is completely mind blowing to me that this 30s more of initial agitation has such a dramatic effect. Even more so that I processed hundreds and hundreds of films with just an initial 30s agitation for years with no issues… Should also add that the lab guy whom I gave some films to test told me that he uses the Ilford recommended method of only 4 inversions at first then 4 inversions every minutes after that. He uses Paterson tanks and always avoid being much shorter than 10 minutes. Trying this gave me the worse results at 8 minutes development time. Go figure... someone probably sliced a chicken throat on a picture of me or something...

This brings me to the conclusion that more agitation is the best course to achieve even development considering my current karma, although probably not in force but in quantity. So changing to a Jobo rotary system probably makes sense. They have little rollers to allows manual rotation which makes the whole system quite reasonable. The question beeing which one to choose for best even development the 1500 or the 2500 system ? And do they both work well with the hewes reels (the ones with the large center for Jobo) ?

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

A rotary process brings consistency to the processing. A Jobo processor et al brings temperature stabilization and agitation consistency to the processing.

 

[MattKing]

The lines are totally parallel with the film edges, yes? To me that points to pressure marks. I don't know hasselblad backs, is it possible for them to malfunction or to load them wrong so that they produce pressure or stretch marks like that? Rubber bands around exposed rolls have already been mentioned.

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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?

 

[snusmumriken]

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

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.

Have you tried plastic reels in a plastic tank?

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 ...