Rotary processing and surge marks/bromide drag?

[ic-racer]

My dream is to, one day, develop an entire roll of film with no development defects

Can't say I ever had a 'development defect' with tmax developer and rotary. Started using it around 1987; thousands of rolls.

 

[logan2z]

My CPE2 (no lift) does. It rotates fully then a mechanical switch gets tripped, then it rotates in the opposite direction. There's no option - it's fully built-in. Of course, there are other Jobo machines.

The impact of sprocket holes is mysterious. There is one other possibility. The HC110 is a syrup, right? And if your dilution was not mixed well enough, a concentrated amount may have surged through the sprocket holes when you filled the tank. Obviously not a significantly concentrated amount, but enough to have that impact. Any chance of that being the case? I've never used actual HC110.

I generally mix the heck out of HC-110 before pouring it into the tank so I don't think it's a mixing issue.

 

[logan2z]

Any PhotoFlo residue on your reels?

No, my Jobo reels have never seen Photoflo. I always open the reel and dump the film into a separate glass container holding the distilled water/Photoflo mixture.

 

[logan2z]

Can't say I ever had a 'development defect' with tmax developer and rotary. Started using it around 1987; thousands of rolls.

I guess I'm just unlucky then.

 

[aparat]

It almost looks as if the film on adjacent tracks of the reel was too close together, preventing the liquid from circulating properly. I don't know how that would happen, but I think it's possible. I had this issue once or twice before.

 

[AgX]

One may consider intermittently changing the direction of rotation and adding a swivelling movement around the transversal axis of the tank.

 

[logan2z]

One may consider intermittently changing the direction of rotation and adding a swivelling movement around the transversal axis of the tank.

I assume that shouldn't be necessary since the Jobo processors continuously rotate the tank in a single plane.

 

[foc]

So, at the moment, I'm pro squeegee.

Welcome to a select and very secretive club. (The rest of the world thinks we are the work and ally of Satan)

 

[Don_ih]

The rest of the world thinks we are the work and ally of Satan)

Well, that's because you are!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to a select and very secretive club. (The rest of the world thinks we are the work and ally of Satan)

Well, that's because you are!

+1, they definitely are and they draw people in to use squeegees to scratch their film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Apologies if this has already been asked/answered, but do you prewash the the film before development?

 

[logan2z]

Apologies if this has already been asked/answered, but do you prewash the the film before development?

Yes, a 3 minute pre-wash in 68 degree water.

 

[Arvee]

Using the Jobo roller I cannot see how that method of agitation could produce the defect you've seen. Also, it appears on my laptop that the darker streaks are between sprocket holes; it cannot be surge marks. Lighter areas below the sprocket holes are an indication of bromide drag. I cannot see how these streaks are the result of bromide drag because of the axis of rotation. These simple observations lead me to believe that these streaks are an artifact that occurred during the manufacturing process at the factory. If this is the case, that would explain the defect only occurring in a select few frames, not affecting the entire roll. My suggestion: process another roll with a few frames of just pure sky and see if the defect happens again.

Note: I bulk load in a changing bag by hand rolling cassettes; I don't usie a bulk loader. Sometimes the sleeves aren't perfectly light tight and a sliver of light gets by my arm and produces the same effect seen on your negs.

Just my .02,

 

[logan2z]

Using the Jobo roller I cannot see how that method of agitation could produce the defect you've seen. Also, it appears on my laptop that the darker streaks are between sprocket holes; it cannot be surge marks. Lighter areas below the sprocket holes are an indication of bromide drag. I cannot see how these streaks are the result of bromide drag because of the axis of rotation. These simple observations lead me to believe that these streaks are an artifact that occurred during the manufacturing process at the factory. If this is the case, that would explain the defect only occurring in a select few frames, not affecting the entire roll. My suggestion: process another roll with a few frames of just pure sky and see if the defect happens again.

Note: I bulk load in a changing bag by hand rolling cassettes; I don't usie a bulk loader. Sometimes the sleeves aren't perfectly light tight and a sliver of light gets by my arm and produces the same effect seen on your negs.

Just my .02,

Thanks for your post. I couldn't quite figure out how I'd get surge marks/bromide drag using the Jobo roller either.

I suppose it could be a film defect of some kind, I just always assume that the problem is me

I discounted a light leak while loading the film in my changing bag because I didn't see any evidence of that in the area outside of the frames.

I'll develop another roll and hopefully find that this was a one-off issue.

 

[Craig]

I have a Jobo ATL and it reverses the direction of the drum about every 1.5 revolutions. So you seem to be doing things consistent with what a fully automatic Jobo processor does.

One thought is you said you're using 8ml of concentrate to mix the working solution. I had a look at the current HC110 data sheet and when I calculate back the amount from the capacity guidelines, it suggests a minimum of 12.5ml of concentrate per 8x10" or equivalent, which would also be per 36 exp of 35mm.

Where you have a lot of exposure (such as a sky) you might be exhausting the developer and that causes the unevenness. The effects would probably depend on the subject, as if you were shooting a lot of dark scenes ( i.e. ares that are clear on the film) then the developer isn't exhausted. Perhaps try a different dilution, or more volume of developer to ensure you have at least 12.5ml of concentrate and see what happens.

 

[MattKing]

I had a look at the current HC110 data sheet and when I calculate back the amount from the capacity guidelines, it suggests a minimum of 12.5ml of concentrate per 8x10" or equivalent, which would also be per 36 exp of 35mm.

Craig,
It looks to me like you may be working J-24 capacity numbers for tray processing . The J-24 numbers for development in tanks work out instead to twice the capacity, meaning half the minimum amount of concentrate - 6.25 ml per 8"x10" or equivalent.

 

[AgX]

I assume that shouldn't be necessary since the Jobo processors continuously rotate the tank in a single plane.

Jobo thought differently and introduced that second motion at the times of the CPP but did not continue so.

 

[logan2z]

Jobo thought differently and introduced that second motion at the times of the CPP but did not continue so.

Interesting, I did not know that. All of the Jobo processors that I've seen only rotate the drum in one plane.

 

[foc]

+1, they definitely are and they draw people in to use squeegees to scratch their film.

Oh ye of little faith ! ! !

 

[AgX]

Interesting, I did not know that. All of the Jobo processors that I've seen only rotate the drum in one plane.

That is because you in the USA only know Jobo stuff from a later period on.
And then authors over here as ignorant copy this again...

Anyway, my impression is that the 2nd motion was a very shortlived concept. And thus hardly known.

 

[Don_ih]

I discounted a light leak while loading the film in my changing bag because I didn't see any evidence of that in the area outside of the frames.

A tiny amount of light hitting the edge of the film could make more density in the already-exposed parts of the film out of line with the sprocket holes, which would interrupt the travel of the light - even if it was not enough light to fog the edge of the film itself. You would not notice that amount of increased density in anything other than a very even tone - like the cloudless sky.
There is no possible manufacturers defect in the emulsion that can correspond to the location of sprocket holes, since those are added long after the emulsion is dry. (Are holes added or subtracted?)

 

[koraks]

Recently I offered the same explanation for a similar problem as @Don Heisz does above. Someone responded that it would take a pretty exact amount of fogging to not show up as density on the clear film, but as a noticeable pattern on the exposed image. I agree with that remark. While it doesn't eliminate it as a possibility altogether, I would say that as fogging goes, I'd have expected clearer signs of it somewhere along the film. So I think some kind of chemical explanation still more likely, although that is equally problematic to explain in this case.

 

[Don_ih]

Recently I offered the same explanation for a similar problem as @Don Heisz does above. Someone responded that it would take a pretty exact amount of fogging to not show up as density on the clear film, but as a noticeable pattern on the exposed image. I agree with that remark. While it doesn't eliminate it as a possibility altogether, I would say that as fogging goes, I'd have expected clearer signs of it somewhere along the film. So I think some kind of chemical explanation still more likely, although that is equally problematic to explain in this case.

It explains the increased density being where it is. That's the only reason I offered it. I agree it's very unlikely.

 

[koraks]

Yeah, that was pretty much my reasoning as well that last time I referred to.

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

There is no possible manufacturers defect in the emulsion that can correspond to the location of sprocket holes, since those are added long after the emulsion is dry. (Are holes added or subtracted?)

You ADD the holes by SUBTRACTING material, so I say it’s both (at the same time)