Roll film - Even development cause / effect

I've been away from APUG for a while, but wanted to post some findings here as I have worked my way through a lot of film and paper lately.

Many people write about unevenly developed negatives, streaks from sprocket holes, etc. Various explanations are offered with respect to what causes these problems, even ideas surrounding fixing the negatives have emerged.

First of all, 35mm and 120 need to be treated differently.

120 Film
Uneven development occurred when there was not enough movement of the developer liquid inside the tank. Since the film is relatively wide, you need a lot of movement of reels and/or the liquid inside the tank to accomplish 100% developer replenishment across the entire film width. Agitate three rapid full inversions every 30 seconds, or six rapid full inversions every minute. You can extend to agitating every two minutes if you want to hold back the highlights in high contrast scenarios if you want.
I recommend using one of the following two solutions:
1. Use a tank where the tank is a bit bigger than it needs to be (like an inch or so; I have two tanks like this), leaving room above the top reel such that the reels can move inside the tank. Also don't fill the tank to the top so that the developer has lots of room inside the tank to move around.
2. If you don't have a tank with room above the top reel, use a tank one size bigger than you need, so develop one roll of film in a two 120-reel tank, or three rolls in a four 120-reel tank. Put an empty reel on top and then don't fill the tank more than about half way up the top reel, so that there is plenty of room inside the tank for the developer to move around.

The result from using this method is perfectly even negatives - every time. Not even a hint of uneven development in solid areas such as skies. I've even photographed a completely flat tonality surface, just to verify that I'm doing things right.
Conversely, every time I use a tank where two reels barely fit, and the tank is filled to the top, I invariably get unevenly developed negatives.

35mm Film
35mm film requires different treatment, because of its sprocket holes. If your developer inside the tank has the kind of velocity that you get with the 120 method above, the liquid will flush through the sprocket holes and cause streaking - without failure.
With 35mm film I recommend the following solution:
Use a tank that precisely fits the number of reels you're developing, and giving them very little room to move around, and fill the tank almost to the top with developer. Use three rapid full inversions every 30 seconds, or six rapid full inversions every 60 seconds. You can extend agitation intervals up to every five minutes if you want, which will bend a shoulder in most films, and it changes the shape of the film characteristic curve.
Luckily, 35mm film has an image area that isn't even half the size of 120 film, so you don't need to move developer solution around as aggressively to replenish evenly across the entire film surface.

This method results in perfectly even negatives - every single time.

Conversely, if I use a tank where the reels can move around too much, or there's a lot of room for developer to move, I invariably get unevenly developed 35mm negatives due to the sprocket holes. This is 100% consistent.

This discovery of needing to treat 35mm and 120 films with different developing regime to obtain perfect results every time took a lot of trial and error.

Disclaimer: I use Hewes stainless steel reels in stainless steel tanks, and I realize that the reels don't move around in a plastic tank like a Paterson, where the reels are locked to the center column. You'll have to improvise and find your own way with those.
Also, I don't profess to this being the only way to obtain perfect results every time. But it sure works for me, and I have worked ALL of the kinks out of my film processing with this approach, and I can now happily shoot and print without having to worry about bad negatives. I hope you can benefit from my discovery.

I won't be checking in any time soon again, so I will probably not be answering any questions you might have.

Happy photographing, and happy printing!

- Thomas

You're not checking back, or answering any questions? But.....we were going to make espresso!

momus said:

You're not checking back, or answering any questions? But.....we were going to make espresso!

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound negative. I'm trying to restrict my presence online to the largest possible extent. It's the only way for me to get anything done. So while I check in here at APUG once in a while, it's not something that happens every week anymore, so don't count on it.

I just wanted to share something that I felt was important. If you disagree, then you lost nothing.

Just out of curiosity, since you have a testing method in place and have found an optimum agitation, it would be interesting to determine the minimum developer concentrate needed to produce an even negative using various popular developers. This question [of how much developer concentrate to use] comes up every month or so and it looks like you are in a position to give some good answers.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

First of all, 35mm and 120 need to be treated differently.

... I invariably get unevenly developed negatives.

35mm film requires different treatment, because of its sprocket holes. If your developer inside the tank has the kind of velocity that you get with the 120 method above, the liquid will flush through the sprocket holes and cause streaking - without failure.

Click to expand...

Thomas Bertilsson said:

If you disagree, then you lost nothing.

Click to expand...

Thomas, I don't normally delve into these kind of threads, but I know your photography and have respect for your work. However, I have to respectfully disagree.

I am happy that you solved your problems in development. I, on the other hand, have been developing 35mm and 120 film for decades and have never had these problems. I use the same types of tanks and reels for both formats, (I've used both steel and plastic over the years) and if I have the same film in both formats, I can develop them together, with no repercussions.

I am not disputing the problems you encountered, or the solutions you discovered, but I think you have overstated the absoluteness of both. I suspect there are other variables at play.

Cheers,

David

Just looking again at your method "I've even photographed a completely flat tonality surface" Have you considered flashing the film? Most common camera lenses have light falloff at the edges which could confound your results. Out of curiosity, did you use a denstomete to verify the density of the negative is the same at the center and edges?

For 120 I have found too much sloshing to cause issues on edges too. I try to not let reels slide around but do leave some air in there so developer does slosh some. And I invert with a twist three times every minute but not too aggressively. Sort of a more moderate version of your recommendation.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

35mm Film
35mm film requires different treatment, because of its sprocket holes. If your developer inside the tank has the kind of velocity that you get with the 120 method above, the liquid will flush through the sprocket holes and cause streaking - without failure.
With 35mm film I recommend the following solution:
Use a tank that precisely fits the number of reels you're developing, and giving them very little room to move around, and fill the tank almost to the top with developer. Use three rapid full inversions every 30 seconds, or six rapid full inversions every 60 seconds. You can extend agitation intervals up to every five minutes if you want, which will bend a shoulder in most films, and it changes the shape of the film characteristic curve.
Luckily, 35mm film has an image area that isn't even half the size of 120 film, so you don't need to move developer solution around as aggressively to replenish evenly across the entire film surface.

This method results in perfectly even negatives - every single time.

Conversely, if I use a tank where the reels can move around too much, or there's a lot of room for developer to move, I invariably get unevenly developed 35mm negatives due to the sprocket holes. This is 100% consistent.

This discovery of needing to treat 35mm and 120 films with different developing regime to obtain perfect results every time took a lot of trial and error.
Disclaimer: I use Hewes stainless steel reels in stainless steel tanks, and I realize that the reels don't move around in a plastic tank like a Paterson, where the reels are locked to the center column. You'll have to improvise and find your own way with those.
Also, I don't profess to this being the only way to obtain perfect results every time. But it sure works for me, and I have worked ALL of the kinks out of my film processing with this approach, and I can now happily shoot and print without having to worry about bad negatives. I hope you can benefit from my discovery.

I won't be checking in any time soon again, so I will probably not be answering any questions you might have.

Happy photographing, and happy printing!

- Thomas

Click to expand...

Thomas, I also respect your photography and views, but fail to see how sprocket holes have anything to do with streaking and more likely to be related to lack of agitation, or stand development.

Michael, I think it must be a terminology thing as I have never heard of surge effect. but then there are many things I've never heard of.

Good for you!
I need to get the self control to do the same and stay away from this infernal machine.
Jim

That is a great idea! Check in once a week!

A couple notes from my own experience.
1. I occasionally see streaking in my sprocket holes but it does not seem to affect the rest of the negative...yet.
2. Since I started continuous agitation (jobo rollers & jobo cpe2) I always get even development.

I shake my tank vigorously like a cocktail at agitation time and no longer get blocthes or streaks. (well I didn't get them but once or twice before)

Works for me, color or black and white. 35mm or 126 or 127 or 120.

Like I said, I hope somebody can benefit from my findings.

I also clearly stated that I don't profess that my method is the only method of retaining good results. I just said that it is one method that has worked very well for me, eliminating every single film processing issue I've ever had.

I just printed 16x20 prints from 35mm negatives of continuous tone subjects, and the tonality is perfectly even across the whole print surface. Same from my 120 negs that have suffered from inadequate agitation in the past.
Whether you agree or not, I find the distinction of treating 35mm and 120 differently, based on their physical size, to potentially be an important thing. Make of it what you will.

David Brown said:

However, I have to respectfully disagree.

I am not disputing the problems you encountered, or the solutions you discovered, but I think you have overstated the absoluteness of both. I suspect there are other variables at play.

Cheers,

David

Click to expand...

Hi David

When I print I've never seen uneven...
When I use stock ID11 or Microphen or 1+100 Rodinal I just pour the liquid in and then set the stop watch or kitchen timer.
I never bang the tank.
Now on reflection Thomas may be 100% cause I only use 5x or 8x multi tanks
Except I very rarely use the agfa daylight loader which is continuous agitation unless you only want 50% development but never had sprocket drag.
So I think you are correct.

Noel

David Brown said:

Thomas, I don't normally delve into these kind of threads, but I know your photography and have respect for your work. However, I have to respectfully disagree.

I am happy that you solved your problems in development. I, on the other hand, have been developing 35mm and 120 film for decades and have never had these problems. I use the same types of tanks and reels for both formats, (I've used both steel and plastic over the years) and if I have the same film in both formats, I can develop them together, with no repercussions.

I am not disputing the problems you encountered, or the solutions you discovered, but I think you have overstated the absoluteness of both. I suspect there are other variables at play.

Cheers,

David

Click to expand...

+1

For several years I worked in a commercial photography studio and for some of that time I was in charge of the film processing. We did a lot of black and white product photography and it was very common for the background to be blank light grey. The black and white equivalent of a light blue sky. Those plain light grey backgrounds needed to be perfect and any little unevenness of tone would really show up especially in catalogs. The degree of unevenness that would cause us problems was not enough to show up in normal photography. Even the sky in a landscape photo has tonal modulations. Most people could have a little unevenness and never ever see it. But not on those blank grey backgrounds that were often reproduced in grid patterns in a catalog.
Most of the work we did was with 4x5 film and getting that perfect was nightmare enough. We eventually got rid of the hangers and tanks and just processed film by hand in glass bread pans. We did do a fair amount of 120 film, usually in a 120 back or sometimes of models with a hasselblad. It was very difficult to get perfect even tones using the stainless steel tanks and we usually had such a quantity of film that the tanks were full. I tried every imaginable type of technique of rapping or shaking or spinning or tilting and could never get absolutely perfect film. Not every frame would have unevenness but a few in the middle would. I finally completely solved the problem for roll film by getting rid of the stainless cans and building my own processing tanks that were over sized and tall. I still used the stainless steel reels but I made a longer stainless rod and bent a handle in it and processed film in total darkness. For awhile I still had a little of the unevenness problem even in the big tanks and I experimented with different techniques of spinning and tapping and it seemed the harder I tried to correct it the more the mottling would show up. Finally I came upon the same realization that Thomas did in that the unevenness is due to inadequate exchange of developer inside the reel. I finally figured out that for my agitation I should just lift the entire rod of reels completely out of the developer for a couple of seconds and then put it straight back down in. No twisting and turning just out straight and down straight.
I was worried that I might see the surge on 35mm film sprocket holes but it doesn't happen except on old out dated film.. for some reason. To this day I process roll film this way in a sink in total darkness with 4 or 5 tanks in a line. I still do custom film processing and still get perfect results and that is why I still have clients.

The uneven processing problem is a very well known and established problem that has generated years of discussions. There are always some who weigh in to say that they have never ever in their life seen such a problem and they have processed every type of film and every type developer and it has never happened.

Dennis

dpurdy said:

For several years I worked in a commercial photography studio and for some of that time I was in charge of the film processing. We did a lot of black and white product photography and it was very common for the background to be blank light grey. The black and white equivalent of a light blue sky. Those plain light grey backgrounds needed to be perfect and any little unevenness of tone would really show up especially in catalogs. The degree of unevenness that would cause us problems was not enough to show up in normal photography. Even the sky in a landscape photo has tonal modulations. Most people could have a little unevenness and never ever see it. But not on those blank grey backgrounds that were often reproduced in grid patterns in a catalog.

Click to expand...

Truer words were never spake. It is indeed surprising what good lenses and film will resolve out of a perfectly monotonous looking mid tone sky. Often, unfortunately so. Vapor, smoke, and light distribution, unappreciated to the naked eye and particularly relevant to wider angle compositions, frequently means much thoughtful post exposure interpretation under the enlarger. For anyone who thinks photographing, and especially printing, landscapes is trivial, I'd just like to say, it sure ain't for sissies.


Re: 120 film development as related by the OP, more developer and larger tanks may be as useful to roll as it is with tray processed sheet film in regard to evenness of development. Frankly, I've never had any issues with single reel 120 Hewes tanks with normal* developers and standard 30 second inversions – and I do a lot of sky, except with the problematic Technidol and Tech Pan. Much of this ultimate developing nonsense is simply dependent on workflow and the ultimate Brownian motion kind of uncertainty and randomness of the analog process.





* PMK Pyro gets inversions every 10 – 15 secs, virtually continuous.

I re-read my initial post and it isn't entirely clear what I meant with respect to 35mm.

The 'uneven development' I referred to was indeed the sprocket hole surge marks. If your developer moves too fast in the tank when you agitate, or the reels can move up and down as you invert the tank, the velocity of the liquid through the sprocket holes will most likely cause surge marks.

That is the only kind of uneven development I've had with 35mm, unless standing development went wrong, or right at the beginning when I didn't understand how important good agitation is.

Sorry for being unclear.

In essence: 120 film, due to its physical width, for perfectly even negatives you need to insure that agitation is sufficient for fresh developer to be distributed across the entire film width. If you accomplish that already, then you have nothing to gain from my findings.
I have seen, however, lots of film that is NOT processed evenly, even though the person developing the film thought it was 'fine'. I should add that I am extremely critical of my final results and I often photograph scenes with even tonality, where these tendencies are the most noticeable.

35mm is easier, I think, since it's physically smaller, and it's easy to overdo things. Surge marks are from one thing only, and that is developer rushing through the sprocket holes.