Strange marks with rodinal stand processing

[Tumbles]

I recently did some rodinal stand processing and I ended up with these weird blotchy marks all over the film. I had 2 rolls in the same tank, and 1 roll had it strongly, while it was mild on the other roll. I had this happen twice before, seemingly at random. On one it was just on the last 2 frames on the outside of the roll. Another thing I noticed was these marks go outside of the frames and are spread across all of the film.

I really don't know where to start with what could have gone wrong. The rodinal I used has turned purple and has crystalline chucks at the bottom, so it might be time for a new bottle. This did happen when the bottle was new, so I don't think it's related.

Here's processing info:
-Rollei IR 400
-Rodinal 1:75 (tends to come out thin at 1:100) + 4 drop edwal wetting agent in 1 liter
-5 minutine water rinse with 2 minutes of initial agitation
-60 minutes of development with 2 minutes of initial agitation

 

[Svenedin]

I just don't understand why people stand develop and wonder why their results are inconsistent. To me it reads something like, "Why have I got strange marks on my negatives? I just don't get it. I stand developed for 3 weeks in a 1:1000 mixture of dirt from the backyard mixed with some stuff I found under the sink. What can possibly have gone wrong?".

I've not had problems with Rollei 400 IR developed according to the instructions printed inside the box. It is quite an expensive film and there is enough to go wrong with IR photography that straying off-piste with development seems to be asking for trouble.

If you are saying the marks go outside the frame area then this is odd. After proper fixing there should be nothing left outside the frame area (except frame numbers). The film base should be clear outside the frames and on the tail end of the film (that was not exposed). Perhaps post a scan of the negative showing the film from edge to edge and as a negative not a positive. The film base of Rollei IR is PET not acetate. It is more prone to "light piping" than acetate.

The pictures you have posted just look like large grain to me. I suspect that is a consequence of the development you have chosen. The grain is quite small with Rollei IR with the right developer.

Picture attached was taken on Rollei IR 400 35mm, R72 filter, high altitude, Xtol 1+1. 8"x10" print.

 

[revdoc]

I agree that it could well be insufficient fixing. If so, this is easily corrected by re-fixing and washing.

(You're free to develop film however you want. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.)

 

[Tumbles]

Here's a scan showing these marks outside the frame.

I don't really find the grain to be much of a problem. It's still finer than SXF200 with more standard development. I've used this developer/film combination about 40 times with perfectly good results.

 

[MattKing]

I am not a proponent of stand development, except when used in very special circumstances, and even then I assume that there will be a high percentage of unwanted effects.
That being said, that seems like an awful lot of surfactant being added to a process that will already tend to give unwanted artifacts.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is an old saying that you can order Maine lobster in Kansas and the you will probably get it and you will deserve it. Stand development is the save. When you use it you deserve it! As Matt says stand development should be used in only very special cases and you must be prepared for whatever ill effects it produces.

 

[removedacct1]

Rollei IR is known to have irregularity problems if you do NOT use a water pre-soak before the developer. I have confirmed this myself: the pre-soak eliminated all of the odd markings I saw on many rolls of this film.

 

[Saganich]

I like the way they came out. The irregularities work well with the subject and perspective.

 

[Svenedin]

Rollei IR is known to have irregularity problems if you do NOT use a water pre-soak before the developer. I have confirmed this myself: the pre-soak eliminated all of the odd markings I saw on many rolls of this film.

I have developed around 30 rolls of Rollei IR 400 over the last 3 years or so and have never used a pre soak. I have never encountered any strange marks and have followed the manufacturer's developing instructions (which make no mention of a pre soak).

The information from Rollei is poor in English but there is a thorough data sheet in German. No mention of pre soak is made in the manufacturer's developing instructions. There is a magazine article from 2006 that does mention "at least a 30 second pre soak" but this is not information from the manufacturer so I do not consider a pre soak mandatory or even advised -I never pre soak any films.

http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/files/pdf/pdf994.pdf (Manufacturer's data sheet)

http://www.maco-photo.de/files/images/ROLLEI INFRARED englisch.pdf (Italian magazine article from 2006)

http://www.maco-photo.de/files/images/Rollei_Infrared_dt.pdf (Manufacturer's data sheet. German but detailed and can be Google translated)

Attachment: box instructions

 

[Tumbles]

I don't think this is specific the Rollei IR 400. The other two rolls where this happened were Efke 25 and Rollei Ortho 25.

The wetting agent is there because I was having problems with huge numbers of bubbles getting stuck to the film with Rodinal and Pyrocat. I tried the wetting argent, and this all went away.

I did some digging around, and I found someone who got pretty much the same marks:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/index...se-strange-marks-on-fp4-120-negatives.147870/

People there were suggesting problems with the backing paper getting damp.

 

[Svenedin]

I don't think this is specific the Rollei IR 400. The other two rolls where this happened were Efke 25 and Rollei Ortho 25.

The wetting agent is there because I was having problems with huge numbers of bubbles getting stuck to the film with Rodinal and Pyrocat. I tried the wetting argent, and this all went away.

I did some digging around, and I found someone who got pretty much the same marks:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/index...se-strange-marks-on-fp4-120-negatives.147870/

People there were suggesting problems with the backing paper getting damp.

You could try the standard development methods and see if the problem goes away. This doesn't necessarily prove it was the stand development as the problem is intermittent. If you think it might be insufficient fixing you could always re-fix in fresh fixer. You won't lose anything from doing, it will rule that out and it is quick and easy. Theres no need to re-fix the whole film, if you have cut the film a few affected frames will do and you can do this in the light. Air bubbles usually move with a few sharp taps of the tank on the bench and also move with the conventional agitation regimes but with stand development I can see how they could be an issue.

 

[removedacct1]

All I can offer you is this: when I did not pre-soak the Rollei IR400 film, I got irregularities in the negatives, and plenty of tiny air bells. When I went to a five minute pre-soak (as suggested by Massive Dev Chart) these problems all went away.

 

[Svenedin]

All I can offer you is this: when I did not pre-soak the Rollei IR400 film, I got irregularities in the negatives, and plenty of tiny air bells. When I went to a five minute pre-soak (as suggested by Massive Dev Chart) these problems all went away.

Fair enough if that has solved the problem. The OP's pictures don't look like air bubbles to me though but I may be wrong and often am!

 

[cliveh]

I just don't understand why people stand develop and wonder why their results are inconsistent.

+1

 

[pdeeh]

I love stand development threads

 

[MattKing]

I love stand development threads

In the Morning?
Wasn't that a line in "Apocalypse Now"?

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

huge numbers of bubbles getting stuck to the film with Rodinal and Pyrocat.

I've used pyrocat on various films in both 35mm and 4x5 continuous agitation and never once have seen a problem with bubbles or froth of any kind.
You may want to check your water source for why this is happening to you before messing around with chemistry or process changes... Stabilize your test environment, as it were.

 

[pdeeh]

In the Morning?
Wasn't that a line in "Apocalypse Now"?

I was there in the Rodinal Wars, maaaan. You don't wanna know what I saw. It changes a guy.

 

[destroya]

+1

+2

 

[CMoore]

OK...i am a beginner, so Pardon me for asking, but.....why DO people stand.?
It cannot possibly be just to avoid the strain of slowly inverting the tank for 10 seconds every One Minute.
Stand must offer, or purport to offer, something that a mild agitation does not.?

I get the feeling a lot you guys are both Giving me the finger, AND face palming right about now.......
Thank You

 

[pdeeh]

OK...i am a beginner, so Pardon me for asking, but.....why DO people stand.?
It cannot possibly be just to avoid the strain of slowly inverting the tank for 10 seconds every One Minute.
Stand must offer, or purport to offer, something that a mild agitation does not.?

I get the feeling a lot you guys are both Giving me the finger, AND face palming right about now.......
Thank You

Not me Mr. M.

When I first came across stand development, it was via half a dozen different guys on various websites who claimed (I paraphrase): You can shoot a whole roll of film at any ISO you like or every frame at a different ISO and stand development will give you perfect negatives every single time.

and lots of people fall for it.

 

[CMoore]

Oh Wow...OK.
I have heard a few different reasons. Mostly what i have heard is that, simply, Stand works as well as agitation, and the negs will be less grainy and less contrast.
I had never heard the Multi-ASA thing before.
That IS interesting.

 

[dasBlute]

Oh Wow...OK.
I had never heard the Multi-ASA thing before.
That IS interesting.

OK, queue face palm. Any claims of multi-ASA are hooey, like: snake oil, monster cables, bitcoin.
Any minute now, someone will come along and claim something about superior 'edge-effects'
and sharpness. Watch.

I'd only use stand development on film I am willing to lose.
Lack of agitation is one of the most common causes of problems with film developing.

Frankly, for the most part, the developer and agitation method you choose are not the sharp end of the stick.
It's not the 'artistic' side, unless weird looking negatives are your thing. If you're serious
about your film, develop a standardized, repeatable process that gives you
predictable results every time.

 

[CMoore]

OK, queue face palm. Any claims of multi-ASA are hooey, like: snake oil, monster cables, bitcoin.
Any minute now, someone will come along and claim something about superior 'edge-effects'
and sharpness. Watch.
If you're serious
about your film, develop a standardized, repeatable process that gives you
predictable results every time.

Yeah, in just about every Hobby/Craft...there are always guys looking for a magic-wand, and there always seem to be a few that claim to have one.

 

[MattKing]

There is a purpose for which stand or reduced agitation (semi-stand) development makes sense.
If you extend the development time, and significantly reduce agitation, you can often achieve a compensating effect, where developer exhausts near the highlights, but continues working longer near the shadows.
The local exhaustion near the highlights limits the density increase there. The increased development near the shadows boosts the density there. In both cases, the usability increases when you get to the printing stage.
For certain scenes - high contrast with bright highlights and deep shadows - the compensating effect can be useful.
One of the reasons that semi-stand developing is popular is that Ansel Adams advocated its use in particular circumstances.
By compressing the tones, it does have the effect of giving slightly similar results to under-exposed, normally exposed and over-exposed negatives. I expect that is where some of the silliness about multiple EIs on the same roll comes from.
But there are important downsides to stand and, to a lesser extent, semi-stand developing:
1) there is a higher incidence of uneven development outside of the expected compensating effects;
2) as a special case of the above, stand development results in an increased incidence of bromide drag; and
2) most importantly in my estimation, the compression applies as well to the mid-tones - resulting in what I find to often being a sort of lifeless rendering of what I consider to be the most important part of most images.
There are people here on APUG who use stand and semi-stand a lot, and to great effect. I expect that they would agree that it is a useful tool, but best used if one has already become reasonably proficient with more standard agitation schemes.