Stupid Film Developing Problems - Again!

****This new groupings of film are giving us all kinds of hassels to the point of the film being to curly to load on the reels.
We have taken the position now not to run any of this film and we try to make sure people still working with us are buying fresh dated film so that problems are minimal to none.***

Is your post only about personal B/W work done for clients and doesn't include the automatic 35mm colour neg machinery used in good stores? As I use colour for 35mm and anything I give to my favourite store (even in one case exposed colour film lying in a drawer for 8 years) they just provide the prints that are excellent most of the time, although the prints from the 8 year old negs had a colour cast.

****If the deposits are on the base side, you can just wipe it off. If it's on the base side - you're screwed. I have no fact to back this up, but I believe the stains become embedded in the gelatin of the emulsion. It won't wash out. I've tried.***

Well I haven't developed B/W negs for about 15 years (went to colour) and just can't remember any problems with drying marks for 25 years before that, maybe I was lucky or the water treatment plants for hard London tap water was very good at removing chemicals that caused "stains".
Interesting though that no one ever producing a bottle of a chemical that would be remove water stains on films...well maybe they did...

stupid film developing

Film Developing problems


I can sympathize with you frustration, probably many of us have been there.
About the only thing you can do is a process of elimination until you find the one thing that may be causing it. I fought fogged 120 roll film for nearly a year .Changed everything in my darkroom made no difference. But at the same time the 35mm and 4x5 sheet film was unaffected. I finally ended up loading the120 film in reels and only the 120 film, in a changing bag in a different room .Makes no sense at all, but it works!

@ Excalibur2 -> I have only been doing this for eight years now, so I still consider myself a novice. I think much of what we do and the results that we have come from how thorough we are when we process.
Uneven development? - Agitate more often.
Drying marks? - You're not getting enough of the water or contaminants in the water off the film surface before it dries. It really is very simple like that, yet we don't cease to fail in avoiding these issues. Go figure! Some guys say they never had problems. Lucky them!

@rmolson -> Changing bags can be good. But I was taught to lower the reels into the film developer, and not pouring the developer over the reels, because that's a HUGE source of air bubbles. You aerate the water as you pour it in. So I do the first step in the darkroom. And it's dark in there. Very dark.

Conclusion: I think 120 film is extra tricky. I'm going to try a different drying technique with a different wetting agent. All other problems I've had seem to have vanished. When I have the drying technique down, I'll start looking into stainless steel tanks and reels.

Thanks to all for your contributions. No further discussion will be necessary on my account.

- Thomas

Thomas sorry to hear about your woes, don't give up you will sort it.
I think I have the same Patteson super system 4? reels and tanks you have and have no problems. But a few things about your modus seem a little strange.
Lowering the reels into developer seems strange, if they are the same as my tanks they have a built in funnel.
My modus is to load up the reels prepare the developer (ordinary tap water works for me)
Then I start my stop watch, pour slowly into the tank (tank is at a 45° angle) which takes about 10 seconds. I then snap on the lid and agitate GENTLTY for 1 min.
This agitation is a side to side circular rotation not quite inverting–if that makes sense
I then give three sharp taps on the table, followed by agitation every min for 5 or so seconds (agitation varies slightly depending on the contrast of the photographed scene-I have my own system)
I wash in plain water then fix normally- rinse for 10 mins.
Then I put 2 drops (not measured accurately) of photo flow, move the centre spiral up and down gently then hang the film to dry in the cabinet (not too warm)

The biggest worries I have about your process is you mention you negs often look dense, that and you roll the tank on the floor- it could be you are over agitating and that might cause air bells.
I understand you don't want un-even development, but the first min the chemicals are in the tank is very important.

One thing you might like to look into is how you clip your films while drying and if your films are drying too fast.
I remember way back when I had a drying cabinet that when combined with a steel clip would dry the film rapidly the film would then curl causing water trapped in the top clip to run down the dry film- the marks looked just like yours...
Hope you sort it
Kind Regards
Mark Antony

Thomas,

I could be wrong, but the lines on the edge of the negative look like the same type of problem that Andrew Moxom was talking about over on our sister site. Perhaps you might want to follow up with him as to how he made out.

George

***@ Excalibur2 -> I have only been doing this for eight years now, so I still consider myself a novice***

Well I could be in the same boat as you, as I'm going to start using my medium format cameras again with B/W and develope the negs, and with developer I've never used before...........hope I can remember what to do and don't get your problems....
I've got some very old FP4 roll film, and I'll do a test run.

Hi Mark.

There will always be different opinions on what method is best. Our processes don't differ that much.

1. Lowering the reels into the solution means I can quickly lower it into the liquid. That means that the bottom reel and the top reel gets the same time exposure to the chemistry, the time difference between the first and last reel being in the chemistry is much less. About 2 seconds. Negligible. Plus I don't unnecessarily stir up the chemistry to cause air bubbles.
I'm curious why you find that strange. What, precisely, negative impact would that have on my film development?

2. Rolling on the floor agitation. It's not until I stopped doing torso inversions that I could somewhat limit the amount of air bubbles that were produced during development. In addition, rotary development is done all the time with success. That's why JoBo did so well for so many years. I don't get that 'strange' comment either.

I do understand the importance of the beginning of development. That's precisely why I lower the films into the chemistry instead of the other way around. It introduces all of the film to the chemistry faster and more uniformly.

I understand that you're only trying to help. And I consider all options people give me. With that said, what I absolutely dislike to hear is when people tell me how simple it is to them. It doesn't help. It's never simple to me. I always have something that crops up that screws up my negs, one way or another.

Negs dry in a humid room that's cool. It usually takes about 4-5 hours for them to dry, so it's definitely not speedy.

Thanks for taking time Mark.

- Thomas

My 10 cents worth is that I had problems with drying marks for a long time, and even when I used ilfotol (photoflo equivalent). I figured it out at the end as a function of "how much" photoflow, and how I squeegeed. I now exclusively use my fingers with 120. For 35mm I do the same, and will only use a proper squeegee if I feel that maybe I got the ilftol amount not quite right. I would imagine that water that has been boiled could well have a more concentrated solids content and would result in drying marks, and the randomness of water mineral content coming out of the tap could well be part of the randomness you see..

On the bright side, I live in a place with very hard water, but drying marks are now pretty much history....uneven development, now that rears it's head whenever it likes. I am religeous about my agitation timinigs and method...but those gremlins have a way of overcoming that.

I wish you luck in solving the problem (and sincerely hope you don't give it all up...that would be a tragedy). K

Hey K.

Thanks. I'm not worried about tap water, because I do my final soak & rinse in distilled water now.

I'm going to try a couple of things to get rid of the drying marks. Then I'm going to try to attack the air bubbles. I was a little too belligerent in my comments yesterday. I'm still pissed off, because taking a photo trip for me, even if local, is a large investment of money and time. I froze my ass off making those exposures, got up at ungodly hours, drove for several hours. I still liked it, but to then have the negs turn out the way they did is just a slap in the face - especially since I was careful and made sure by running a roll through to make sure everything was all right.

I won't give it up. It was a childish thing to say.

Thanks for your encouragement. You're very kind.

FWIW, that's a great shot you have there. Hope you have more you can salvage to print wet. At least not *all* is lost with negs like this one if you sometimes print out of the darkroom...... Hope you find your answer and glad to hear you're not packing it in. It's been an informative read- I'll have to start adding some isopropyl to my Photoflo.

Tim

If you are talking about film done in a roller transport machine done , all I can say is put one of your negatives done in one of these good stores, in a glass carrier, use good enlarging glass and make an enlargement and see if your still happy with film processed this way.
IMO roller transport processing of film is absolutely the worst example of film development there is and is only good for happy snaps that are of no value.
We refuse to enlarger print any film done this way as most of it has scratches no matter what good store you use.
My posts all refer to my experience processing film for photographers who want there work exhibited in gallery show settings, or for personal portfolio's.

Excalibur2 said:

****This new groupings of film are giving us all kinds of hassels to the point of the film being to curly to load on the reels.
We have taken the position now not to run any of this film and we try to make sure people still working with us are buying fresh dated film so that problems are minimal to none.***

Is your post only about personal B/W work done for clients and doesn't include the automatic 35mm colour neg machinery used in good stores? As I use colour for 35mm and anything I give to my favourite store (even in one case exposed colour film lying in a drawer for 8 years) they just provide the prints that are excellent most of the time, although the prints from the 8 year old negs had a colour cast.

Click to expand...

Looks like a water/drying/photoflo mark to me. I use distilled water with about 1/2 as much photo flo as kodak recommends. I also add a little 91 percent Iso alcohol to it as well, to speed drying and keeping the tiny amount of photo flo left in the container from getting moldy. However I dump my photoflo mix every day.

As for distilled water not being pure, it is possible. However if you think of the film emulsion as a sponge, then during the entire processing and washing time, it's soaking up microscopic particles with the water and holding onto some of them. The final distilled water/photoflo soak may just release them to sit on the surface of the film.

All of the water used for my film processing is highly filtered. The presoak is distilled water as is the developer. The rest of the water is filtered first with a 5 micron sediment filter, then a water softener (which adds a tiny amount of salt) then a carbon filter with a 1 micron filter, and finally at the point of use itself, a .5 micron particulate filter. While this is probably overkill for non commercial users one could simply make the last 2 film washes with distilled water, and vigorous agitation, to make sure that any particles have a chance to dissolve out of the film, and then use the distilled water with photo flo to finish.

As for the air bells, when I was processing by hand, I use a Jobo now, I used to really bang the tank hard , really hard, several times after I poured in developer. This worked quite well for me. Just make sure you have a hand holding the top tightly to the tank.

I'm curious why you find that strange. What, precisely, negative impact would that have on my film development?

Click to expand...

Well possibly strange is not the right phrase, but I still feel that pouring will give better results. Don't get me wrong lowering the film into the dev is common and I've done thousands of film that way in my handline baskets.
What I worry about is the 3-5 seconds where the tank is sitting still while you lock in the integral funnel and snap on the lid. Maybe its a wash but just trying it at home with a stop watch I can't get less than a 4-5 sec delay before i start agitation with your method.
If you find my doubts unfounded fine, and yes I'm only trying to help
Mark

By using distilled water I thought I could omit wetting agent. Since distilled water is so pure I was under the impression no 'bad things' would be left behind. No mineral, no nothing. Just clear up and disappear.
It proves then that distilled water isn't pure, and that it does leave stuff behind. Back to the wetting agent dilemma.

Click to expand...

Where did you get the distilled water?

About two years ago when I was in college and still buying vinyl records fairly regularly, I would clean them with a solution of rubbing alcohol, distilled water, jet-dry, and dish detergent. Then I would rinse with distilled water and leave to air-dry, reasoning that the perfectly pure distilled water would just evaporate and not leave any deposits even though the record was covered with beads of water.

Well, distilled water bought from Walmart and drugstores is not that pure. It will leave spots that you can both see and hear. I don't understand why, but they leave spots. One would think all distilled water would be the same but it's not.

For record cleaning I started stealing deionized water from the chemistry lab, which worked as expected. At my current institution we have CMOS-grade 18 megaohm-cm water plumbed right in, which I steal and take home by the 5gal container.

Distilled water can be from RO, reverse osmosis, or steam distilled. RO water will leave marks. Check the bottle if it says either RO or steam it could be either. If it says steam you are OK.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

If the deposits are on the base side, you can just wipe it off. If it's on the base side - you're screwed. I have no fact to back this up, but I believe the stains become embedded in the gelatin of the emulsion. It won't wash out. I've tried.

Thank you for your suggestion!

- Thomas

Click to expand...

There's generally gelatin on both sildes of the film, the emulsion side and the backing side. So go figure that logic out again...

Thomas, go digital. No more film processing issues. Jokes aside, I understand your difficulties. I have come to believe that film photography is an inherently imperfect pursuit and there will always be minor annoyances (which can become major ones if you allow them to eat at you). I agree with Mark that some of your processes seem a little odd and I don't wish to debate them at this time. I will say that I have a very simple process that has resulted in very few problems. I use DDX mixed with distilled water. Kodak stop bath mixed with distilled water. Ilford Rapid Fix in distilled water. Wash using Ilford method followed by a minute or so in running tap water. Finally, I soak the film in two consecutive baths of distilled water, about 30-60 seconds each. Hang to dry. No photoflo, no squeegee. The only problems I have ever had were uneven development, which I fixed by doing an initial 30 second agitation, and air bells. Once I was aware of the air bells (and they were very sporadic/minor), I fixed them with a more "controlled" rap on the counter. I also use a single reel steel tank with a Hewes reel. Perhaps it would be beneficial to give this very basic method a try. Or, you might take up drawing. Anything that happens on the paper is the result of something you did. No mysteries.

Bob Carnie said:

If you are talking about film done in a roller transport machine done , all I can say is put one of your negatives done in one of these good stores, in a glass carrier, use good enlarging glass and make an enlargement and see if your still happy with film processed this way.
IMO roller transport processing of film is absolutely the worst example of film development there is and is only good for happy snaps that are of no value.
We refuse to enlarger print any film done this way as most of it has scratches no matter what good store you use.
My posts all refer to my experience processing film for photographers who want there work exhibited in gallery show settings, or for personal portfolio's.

Click to expand...

Well I have no idea how good stores develope 35mm colour film, and can only say, one of my negs developed by them was used for a large print by a lab, and I assume it was drum scanned, then it would be the skill of person to "touch up" the tiff (or whatever) file before printing..and quite a few people say inkjets are on par with darkroom prints.
And I have no idea if I originally took the film to a professional lab to be developed and printed that it would look any different......as you know it would depend on the quality of the lens used and correct exposure of the neg.

Anyway you might think this photo would never be good enough in quality for an exhibition, but surely have to admit it's not too bad from a neg originally developed in a good store,
Canon 28mm, 35mm neg:-

BetterSense said:

At my current institution we have CMOS-grade 18 megaohm-cm water plumbed right in, which I steal and take home by the 5gal container.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your honesty!

Thomas - I definitely suggest scrapping the overnight soak in distilled water. 10 minutes or less with agitation should be enough. You risk softening the emulsion by soaking it so long. Especially with 2nd rate film suppliers that do not make film as good as Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford.

I'd suggest going back to a photo-flow final rinse. Measure it out and follow the instructions, don't just dump some in water and hope it's right.

The nice thing that the photo-flow will do is create a sheeting action that allows the water to run off the film. And remove the excess water, I also recommend fingers dipped in the photo-flow. You will have a lot of water adhering to a roll of 120 film, it's wide and long and you want to remove most of it before you dry it.

Distilled water, while it does not have minerals in it, does not sheet off the film. It will create spots of uneven drying and it can cause uneveness. The photo-flow will prevent that.

All that said, I don't think it's a photoflow/drying issue. Can you post a scan of of a proof sheet so we can see it in context to the larger roll of film?

I think maybe you are missing my point.
Thomas is processing the film himself and I do know he is printing himself on enlarger and his prints are spectacular.(I have seen them in person)
His problem is vexing and all my posts refer to his situation, ie processed by hand and then enlarger printed by himself.
Your example and observations are based on taking a film to a roller transport lab and then having a digital print made from a scan .
That is how all these labs work, process as fast as possible, then scan , fix any scratches, blobs inperfections with a Ice Program developed to do this automatically and then pre printing PS work to clean up the rest. To the customer everything looks good , but I can assure you from past experience these negatives are sometimes crap.

Two entirely different workflows.

As far as the example image, can't really make a comment as I would need to see the original print. But I would be concerned about the apparent green/magenta crosscurve in the white outfit.

Excalibur2 said:

Well I have no idea how good stores develope 35mm colour film, and can only say, one of my negs developed by them was used for a large print by a lab, and I assume it was drum scanned, then it would be the skill of person to "touch up" the tiff (or whatever) file before printing..and quite a few people say inkjets are on par with darkroom prints.
And I have no idea if I originally took the film to a professional lab to be developed and printed that it would look any different......as you know it would depend on the quality of the lens used and correct exposure of the neg.

Anyway you might think this photo would never be good enough in quality for an exhibition, but surely have to admit it's not too bad from a neg originally developed in a good store,
Canon 28mm, 35mm neg:-

Click to expand...

Kirk Keyes said:

There's generally gelatin on both sildes of the film, the emulsion side and the backing side. So go figure that logic out again...

Click to expand...

Lots of good suggestions - but are you sure about this one, Kirk? Why would there be gelatin on the base side?

So to sum up now...

No more overnight soak. Use wetting agent. I've ordered some Edwal... and I just bought some Sprint End Run to try.

That's the only problem that bothers me right now. The drying marks. If I didn't have those, I'd be A-OK with everything else.

Thanks,

- Thomas