Overexposed lines on film

[Vania]

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?

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 ;-)

 

[Vania]

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 ...

True the Paterson tanks take longer to invert.

 

[Vania]

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.

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

 

[Vania]

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

I agree this does not makes sense to me either!
What I deduce from this is that the problem clearly happens in the very beginning of the development and having more initial inversion time evens out the development. I just added a prewash to the 1 minute initial agitation and it looks even better on the negative but I need to see the contact print to really tell.
Also both the film developing/darkroom cookbooks and way beyond monochrome recommend an initial 1 minute agitation especially for development time bellow 10 minutes. Plus HC110 in dilution B is a very active developer so I imagine it does easily streak the film and more agitation at first may even things out.
I'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.

 

[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.

Humm I assume you assume I am a woman but Vania is the russian diminutive for Yvan as in Tchekov's Uncle Vania ;-)
But no I really don't think so. I even put my watch out of the darkroom...

 

[Craig]

Humm I assume you assume I am a woman but Vania is the russian diminutive for Yvan as in Tchekov's Uncle Vania ;-)
.

No, cufflinks are used on men's shirts to hold the cuff at the end of the sleeve together in place of a button.

 

[MattKing]

No, cufflinks are used on men's shirts to hold the cuff at the end of the sleeve together in place of a button.

And they can be large and clunky.

 

[Vania]

And they can be large and clunky.

Ah! I thought they were some sort of bracelets... sorry

 

[pentaxuser]

I'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

 

[otto.f]

Vania: how do you mix your HC110 to working solution, say eg. 1+32, in one or two steps?

 

[Vania]

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 did not mean that it stops developing but that it develops more along the lines where the developer is.

"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"

So does the knowledgeable printer who developed my film and so does recommend Ilford. But when I do that it's worse than ever... Even 30 seconds is now unusable for me only 1 minute works.

My feeling is that you are both right and wrong. Clearly a 1 minute initial agitation sort of solves the problem, even more so with a 3 minutes prewash. But I think these mesures might compensate for something else and even out the chemical defect that is happening anyways. Even though they are now imperceptible I can still sort of recognise the streaks patterns lurking in the highlights waiting to reappear.
But frankly I went through every possible steps and nothing makes sense nor seems to work.
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. Maybe I should convince my wife to do the development for me under my supervision with everything else being equal. Maybe I am emitting some sort of bad vibe imprinting the film...

 

[Vania]

Vania: how do you mix your HC110 to working solution, say eg. 1+32, in one or two steps?

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

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.

 

[Craig]

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. .

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.

 

[Vania]

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.

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...

 

[Vania]

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.

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.

 

[foc]

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.

• 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.

I have a few questions @Vania , please.

• 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)

 

[Vania]

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.

• 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.

I have a few questions @Vania , please.

• 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

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to consider this.
Never used a rubber band nor heard about using one.
My darkroom is pitch black and I pay attention to hide my fluorescent clock and thermometer and remove my watch although these have proven quite safe over the years. It won't cost anything to try though but I just don't see why... and light leaks don't get better with more agitation.
I tear the tape and usually load that end 1st onto the reel. Although for these tests I cut my rolls in 2 for saving on film. Hence maybe the crescent moon shape I guess.\
Do you think the kink from loading would affect the film on all it length ?

 

[bdial]

Do you think the kink from loading would affect the film on all it length ?

The kink would only affect the spot where it is.
... Leastwise, that has been my experience.

Have you tried pre-filling the tank with developer to help eliminate the pouring-in portion of the process? Like several others here I am stumped.

 

[otto.f]

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.

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

, it's not the pouring of the developer since I dipped the reels straight in the tank. ...

bdial I think Vania answers your question here

pentaxuser

 

[Vania]

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.

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?

 

[snusmumriken]

bdial I think Vania answers your question here

pentaxuser

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.

 

[MattKing]

Try the other approach - pouring the developer into the tank with film loaded and the top on.
Most of us use that method, so I can provide reassurance that it works well.
Modern Paterson Super System 4 tanks fill very evenly and quickly when you work that way.

 

[snusmumriken]

Modern Paterson Super System 4 tanks fill very evenly and quickly when you work that way.

'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.