Strange problem, with 'thin' negatives but sufficient exposure/development

Hey!

I have been using semi-stand developing for years, always the same routine;

• 18.5°C, 1:150 Adonal, 1 hour development with 10 inversions every ten minutes (for 35mm).

I sometimes (Really infrequently) get 'thin' negatives. The negatives look almost transparent, even the film number markings are barely visible, so I don't think it has anything to do with the exposure. Last night I did two Paterson tanks, with two 35mm rolls per tank, and everything was identical with these developments.

One tank came out 'thin', and one came out perfectly normal (Delta 400 for all).

What can be causing this? Any ideas at all would be very much appreciated.

Possibly a chemistry issue. Exhausted or stale developer.

I got 2 complains from my acquaintance that Rodinal went bad, after only couple of months after opening the concentrate. Here also recently couple of APUGers complained about Rodinal goes bad.

It could be that there is a bad run somewhere in some production line - making the Rodinal not so stable as it was in the last 100-200 years?

Dear Gombrich,

At such high dilutions errors in measuring out developer could be the problem.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

I can't imagine it can be the developer itself, I measured out one aliquot of developer for both tanks, so they both got the same batch/bottle. And I also think that the difference in the amount of developer for each tank could not be so large, I use a 10 ml syringe to measure the developer and it could only be off by a fraction of a ml, but the differences in negative 'thickness' was huge.

Could it be that the dilution is so low that there is some kind of threshold, and I am occasionally going too dilute, causing no development at all? I used to do 1:100 dilution, but tried 1:150 just for fun and saw no issues so kept that, but I wonder if 1:150 is just on the border of being too dilute.

There certainly is a minimum amount of developer you need to process x number of square inches/cm of film. It also sounds like you may not have mixed the solution sufficiently so that you ended up with developer and water in one and mostly water in the other.

Remember that there is also a minimum volume of developer to consider per 135 or 120 film.
Even if you are using a dilution of 1:150, you (according to Adox) need a minimum of 5ml of developer concentrate (not working solution) per 135 or 120 film - 5ml of concentrate plus 745ml water.
If you are making up that dilution but using only enough of the working solution to cover a single 135 film (so, in a Paterson tank. about 300ml) you are not getting anywhere near Adox' own recommendation - about 60% too little in fact.

ADOX said:

When using high dilutions and small developing tanks please make sure to apply on each film 35mm or 120 at least 5 ml of concentrated developer.

Click to expand...

Of course, some people do indeed use smaller volumes of concentrate - down to 1ml, 2ml or 3ml per film, and appear to get away with it.

But it is hard to see what benefit is gained thereby.

There may be impurities in water which render a developer weaker than it should be, and this may show up stronger with such high dilutions. I remember doing tests runs with some developers, in which I used a short piece of copper wire to hold short film clips in place. After the first test run the copper piece turned patch black but film looked normal, and in the second run a fresh batch of developer was mostly inactivated (as in: test clips came out mostly blank) when that blackened piece of copper wire was present. Iron, as in rust particles, can create a similar situation.

18.5C and 1:150 are both on the cusp, the chemistry is quite temperature dependent.

You could try 20C and 1:100 that will get you more density and contrast unless you also go to full stand or less frequent.

I don't bother with minum quantity.

One of the problems with extreme dilutions of any developer is that not only are the developing agent(s) present in very small amounts but in addition so are any preservatives like sulfite. This combined with the high alkalinity of Rodinal and the long developing time (1 hour) make this mode of development very problematical. Aerial oxidation can occur quite easily. You might consider using a more concentrated solution say 1:100 or greater in the future. Then there is always the option of using a more conventional developing method.

I personally have never liked the idea of stand or semi-stand development NOR the reasons given to justify its use. The method is used with the Zone System to compress the contrast range of a contrasty lighting situation. It was never intended for use as a general development method.

Thanks for the tips everyone.

Interesting also to hear that Stand development isn't good as a general development method. For me, the fact that it saved developer, and was a lot less sensitive to being 'off' on the timing was what I like most about it. It's more like I can't see the benefits of standard developing if stand developing is an option.

Although I guess these kind of problems wouldn't have happened with a normal development method. I also just love that with Stand developing I can change the ISO settings on my cameras mid-roll and still get decent negatives. The accentuated grain is also a plus for me. But I might try doing some rolls the recommended way and see if I like the results.

I will definitely change to 1:100 and 20°C for future stand developing though.

I have never had an issue with 'minimum amount of required developer', I think most people actually haven't tried that.

Stand development isn't as good as say 1:50 and 1:25, unless you add stuff to it I've found, as it usually deteriorates image quality instead of enhancing as often claimed. It's good for non-normal films in some cases, but not for normal films, I'd use a more normal development method.

people are always having problems with stand development. Sounds like a fairly unpredictable method of development. Could be you just haven't cleaned equipment thoroughly after last use. Could also be a host of other things. No one here is going to be able to tell you exactly what the problem is but just consider that most of the off the shelf developers have incorporated buffers to protect against minor inconsistancies in PH values, water purity etc etc. Highly diluting them removes that protection. Stand development really shouldn't be necessary except possibly in extreme cases. I just don't understand why people think they need to do it that way which really doesn't help you one iota.