pushed lucky 400 and stand development results

[timeUnit]

Hi!

I shot a concert yesterday on Lucky 400 rated around 1600 ISO (I shot at 1/30 f/2.8). I developed this in Rodinal 1+100 (606 ml) for 2 hours and 15 minutes. Agitation first 20 sec, then 10 sec each 15 minutes.

The negs look good, but there seems to be a bit of fogging along the edges. Next time I try this I will reduce the development time.

*h

 

[timeUnit]

And I should add that the Lucky films are not always of the highest quality. The last two rolls I've shot have small scratches in the emulsion. It doesn't show that much, but...

This roll has small black dots (on the neg, white on print) about 7 mm from the edge, from the first to the last frame. It doesn't show on all frames. See attachment.

The scratches could be my mistake, but I don't think so. The spots are not my fault.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Those spots look almost like pressure marks -- could come from a piece of grit on the cassette felt (assuming it's 35 mm) or pin roller (if 120). Scratches likewise, in both cases. FWIW, the two rolls of Lucky I've processed (SHD 400, 120 size) had no scratches I haven't also seen on Pro 100 and TMY in the same camera, and no hint of the kind of dots you show -- but a sample of two is pretty small...

 

[timeUnit]

This is 120-film. I don't think the spots are pressure marks, I think coating defects. On closer inspection of the film there are two "lines" of black spots parallell to the edge of the film. One is about 7 mm from the right edge, one is about 20 mm from the left edge. They are not visible on all frames. Since they are black and there is two of them, I find scratches or other mechanical marks are unlikely.

I should say, though, it doesn't bother me that much. This is "fun film" for me, I like that they're not perfect. The bleeding highlights and nice grain makes me smile. A little spots here and there doesn't matter.

*h

 

[derevaun]

I did a lot of fastidious searching in this forum before doing 1:100 semi-stand with Rodinal, and the consensus seemed to be that nothing useful is going to happen after an hour. Or was it 45 minutes? Anyway, I wonder of leaving the film wet for that long could cause trouble. But the question is, is it the trouble you're looking for?

 

[timeUnit]

... But the question is, is it the trouble you're looking for?

I guess so!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Pressure marks would give exactly what you report, timeUnit -- black marks where something deformed the emulsion before processing. The most common expession is "fingernails" or "murder marks" where 120 film kinked while loading into reels, but I've seen similar marks that looks like scrapes on microfilm (dark on the negative), which I learned were due to friction from tightening the roll to fit in the supply housing of a Minolta 16 cassette (the microfilm has no overcoat, so it's more sensitive to this kind of abuse).

The spacing relative to a 120 frame is about what I'd expect from a frame counter roller or pin roller that had a ring of something on it; in fact, it's very similar to the marks I get in the margin of my 120 when I shoot it in my Kodak Reflex II TLR (the camera uses a toothed roller to operate the frame counter). The same could certainly also occur during the process of mating time to backing and rolling onto the spool during manufacture, however. The only way to be certain which it is would be to process a roll that's fresh from the factory packaging and look for similar marks. If you've seen it in more than one roll with the same emulsion number (does Lucky even have emulsion numbers?), then another from the same batch would be a good candidate for such a test.

I wouldn't think leaving the film wet too long would produce perfectly linear strings of dots like this, though. What you'll get from that would be more akin to reticulation, blistering, etc.

 

[timeUnit]

Donald,

thanks for the info! The two rolls I've shot were in my Mamiya C330. The first roll had none of these "linear" spots, but some scratches in the emulsion (could be me, but I don't think so). I don't know what a "pin roller" is... is there one in the C330?

I haven't seen this on other films I shoot often, HP5, Tri-X, Acros. But it's possible that the lucky films are more sensitive as they lack that anti-halation backing...?

I just processed a Lucky SHD 100, hopefully it lacks these marks...

*h

 

[Donald Qualls]

"Pin rollers" are the rollers (they look like the spring bars on a watch band, only bigger) that the film rolls over at the start and end of the film gate in most medium format cameras. Usually, they're bright steel about 1/8 inch diameter, with a reduced diameter section on each end that rides in a hole to act as a bearing. If the pin rollers don't roll, they can scratch, and if they get "stuff" on them they can leave pressure marks on the film even when rolling (since the emulsion side of the film rolls over the rollers -- in some cameras, under compression from the pressure plate).

Your C330 almost certainly has pin rollers and IIRC is also crank wound with a mechanical frame counter, so at least one of the rollers needs to bear on the film hard enough to drive the counter mechanism (unless it has a toothed wheel at one or both ends to ride in the film margin). That would be exactly where I'd expect to see this kind of marks cropping up -- and see how the heavier mark repeats periodically? If you measure on the negative between the darker marks and divide by pi (3.1416) you'll get the diameter of the object that's making this mark; I'd almost bet it's the size of one of your pin rollers.

The Lucky film is a relatively soft emulsion -- not as soft as Efke or Pro 100, in my experience, but much softer than T-Max or Tri-X -- and may in fact have less overcoat to protect the emulsion. It's both prone to scratching (mostly while the emulsion is wet -- very, very careful handling is called for) and due to the curly, thin backing likely prone to "murder marks" from kinking, though I don't recall see those on the two rolls I've used. Lucky does in fact have an antihalation backing, it's just less effective than that on some films (and the antihalation layer is less important on 120 anyway because the backing paper is black and acts as an additional halation suppressant). The frames where I saw something like halation, it could almost as easily have been flare from an uncoated lens.