Stupid Film Developing Problems - Again!

[Excalibur2]

****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)***

Well from inter club competitions in the past I know what it is like coming up against an expert in B/W and then there are exhibitions, and it can be demoralising at times.......but there could be an argument in what is more important, the subject or the quality of the print.
It was just the mention of good stores producing scratchy rubbish 35mm colour negs. But I will never know if I had originally took the film to a good lab, just to only be developed, what the difference would be in neg quality.

 

[Excalibur2]

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

..and just to add to the confusion:- has the base of the film or emulsion changed, in that DIY photographers in the past had less problems? I've been looking at "drying marks" on google and some guys reckon some films are better than others......well what can you say, that's google for you.

 

[BobNewYork]

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

Did you really think you'd get away that quick on this forum?

I have to say that for years I've used the Pat. System 4 for 35mm and MF. I do no pre soak, I pour the developer in, start the timer and then agitate by full inversion for a full minute - then two inversions every minute thereafter. After each inversion "set" i smack the tank into my hand five times - hard enough to sting a little. Stop is water - five fill and dump with four significant inversions for each for each fill. Fixer - same procedure as developer. Wash for 25 min in running tap water. Final rinse is C-41 stabilizer / rinse that mini labs use, made up half strength in water collected in my dehumidifier. Hang 'em up and VERY gently sponge off with a photo sponge on each side. The sponge gets thoroughly washed, soaked in final rinse and placed in a Ziploc. I haven't had any issues. (So hate me - g'head)

Don't you dare give up though - you risk the full and combined wrath of the APUG heavies; and you've been on this site long enough to avoid that


Good luck mate.

Bob H

 

[glbeas]

One reason I like the steel reels and tanks is you can rap the tank on the table after your inversions or rolling agitation hard enough to jar the bubbles loose. I've done it with Paterson tanks but I had to be a bit more gentle to avoi cracking the plastic. I don't think I've had bad air bell problems since I first started using steel tanks.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You're too funny, Bob. Appreciate the post.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Gary, thanks! I actually have a stainless steel reel and tank coming my way. I'll try it for sure.

- Thomas

 

[jolefler]

Hey Thomas!

It'll all work itself out. Different problems have done so in the past, right?

You're probably not holding your mouth right when rinsing film. Also try my patented "Stand up & turn around twice in counter rotating directions at every agitation interval for the duration of developement AND rinse."

I'd expound on the scientific principles involved in the above procedure, but my time here is short.

Jo

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks Jo. Actually I thought that standing on my head while developing film, while dancing tango would be appropriate. Some of the acrobatics involves are mind numbing.

 

[Mark Layne]

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?
Thomas, I suspect your problem lies here. I would suggest a 1 minute presoak. Tap the tank well on the table to remove air bubbles. If you get rid of them at this stage they will not return in the developer. Pour the developer into the tank and agitate by inversion for the first minute. I believe your problem will go away. I have done this for 45 years with Patterson tanks.

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.
Agitate by inversion. Air bubbles don't like you to do this, and you have got rid of them in the presoak anyway. Rolling a Patterson tank on the floor is not Jobo agitation, it is some kind of circular agitation with more movement at the top than bottom, and worse with a too full tank.
Use inversion agitation and whack the bottom of the tank sideways on the palm of your hand.

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

Hopefully this will cure the problems
Mark

 

[Curt]

Sometimes you have to scrap what you are doing and start from anew. New materials, new techniques, new methods.

I once chased the film streak rat and used an alcohol rinse along with anything that would help, all kinds of water, changed chemicals etc.. Finally I was in a camera store and saw LFN and read what it claimed. I tried it and have used it with great success ever since. A couple of drops in the developer and when processed a couple of drops in the final rinse. I use a windshield wiper blade for a one time wipe of the excess water off the roll film when hanging. I'm not saying it will work for everyone but it has worked for me. I don't use distilled water anymore, just tap water, and in my part of the country I have not even used a water filter for most of my past work. I process with stainless steel tanks, Patterson, hangers and tanks and tray processing. I'm certain you will be able to figure out the root cause of the problem.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

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

I can't say all films have a gelatin layer on both sides, but film is generally made with a coating of gelatin (or some other synthetic material) on both sides of the film.

The main reason to have it on both sides is to keep the film relatively flat - it would curl severely if there was only gelatin on the emulsion side. If you coat both sides, the swelling of the emulsion when it gets wet is counteracted by the swelling of the coating on the base side.

It also is useful for films that are designed for retouching (they put a bit of tooth in the base side gelatin to grab some pencil) and I think it also mechanically protects the film base from scratching.

Here's a nice little page that covers this:
http://www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/film_handbook/film_construction.html

 

[Ian David]

Whatever the composition of the two sides of the film, drying marks (in my experience) can be cleaned off the shiny backing side of the film. However, the sort of drying marks that I am talking about on the emulsion side cannot be removed.

 

[Morry Katz]

Hi Tom:
Been there. What helped solve the problem for me was to reduce the frequency and the intensity of agitation. I now agitate once every minute - for 5 secconds or so. Not vigourously. The line is actually in the same place on the film (the reel is horizontal in the tank)so it affects all frames. I concluded that the line was the result of extra development caused by developer flowing up and down in the tank - during agitation and colliding at this point. Try less agitation - and more gentle agitation. I hope it works for you. Don't give up - the work is excellent.
Cheers
Morry Katz, Lethbridge Alberta

 

[Mark Layne]

Personally I have never had a photoflo problem unless too much is used.
I jig my films in the tank till it froths and bubbles. Insufficently mixed might be a problem
Mark

 

[Bob Carnie]

I agree , this has been my experience as well.

Whatever the composition of the two sides of the film, drying marks (in my experience) can be cleaned off the shiny backing side of the film. However, the sort of drying marks that I am talking about on the emulsion side cannot be removed.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Thomas, I really feel your pain on this especiually as it would appear we have both had negs ruined on the same trips. The interesting thing is, we use different film , different developer. The ONLY common denominator right now is the Paterson tanks. Our water supply is likely similar. You've been doing this for 8 years I've been doing this for around 19 years and never had problems until last summer, we know what we are doing.

After following Bob Carnie's advice on spinning/rotating the Paterson tank quite aggressively on the first agitation cycle, a lot of my anomalies have gone. Maybe one frame of two will get some air bell blotches at the edges. When I use the same agitation for the stainless tanks with Hewes reels, I get no more anomalies. I for one am planning to stick with steel reels for now until I find out anything different. I am at my wits end with this crap also. I will also attempt the vibration idea to see if I can remove the airbells..... This is something I thought might work after seeing how concrete foundations are poured..... The cement workers vibrate the formers so that any air trapped in the poured mix is dispelled. I have one of those 'sharper image' hand held back massagers the kids bought me for a birthday gift that I think will work to 'vibrate' out any remaining airbells.. It's worth a try at least before the Paterson stuff goes on to Fleabay.

Like you say, it's not rocket science, why don't many others have issues like this either?

If you need to borrow a stainless tank to try, let me know?

A

I am

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks to you all for helping out. I'll leave this discussion here and now. This evening I'll attempt some new things with film developing. I have come across a whole mess of inexpensive film that I can use for testing.

Once again, the only problem I really need fixed is the drying marks, and I have some venues to explore. My hopes are high that I'll resolve this.


With respect to everything else. I have agitated in every way you have told me about. I have poured liquid in first, I have lowered reels into an already full tank. I have used inversion agitation, rolling on the floor, distilled water, boiled tap water, tap water 'plain', spring water, about ten different developers, stand development, presoak / no presoak - trust me when I say I have done it all. Except stainless steel tank.

The current technique is the best compromise I can find between all of these things to minimize the foam and bubbles that causes the stains on the edge while trying to omit uneven development.

Somebody is sending me a stainless steel tank currently for me to try out. I'm excited about that.

Thanks again, everybody. Feel free to continue discussing, but please save yourselves some time and stop trying to help my foaming problem... As much as I appreciate it, I'm just not that worried about it.

 

[Anscojohn]

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

******
To minimize curling?

 

[Anscojohn]

Thanks Jo. Actually I thought that standing on my head while developing film, while dancing tango would be appropriate. Some of the acrobatics involves are mind numbing.

*******
Nay, nay, Thomas; you have it all wrong. Not a tango. You must hum Brahms's Hungarian Dances with the tank over your head whilst doing a gypsy dance. Use two tanks like castenets to prevent airbells, if you wish.
Of course, you can also omit the over night soak for the film and do that to yourself; if you choose that, be careful dancing; the over night soak makes your toes and finger tipis crinkle like golden prunes, and very prone to damage--just like it does to your film.

 

[L Gebhardt]

When you get the stainless tank you should be able to pour the developer in and not get air bells. If you do you are not rapping it hard enough on the counter/sink. The only time I have had air bells is when I switched to a combi-plan for 4x5 film and was afraid to crack it so I skipped the banging it on the counter step. Unfortunately it was one of my favorite images that has a small air bell. I now use a Jobo and haven't seen an air bell since due to the constant rotation.

 

[zenrhino]

Tom, have you tried a Jobo? If you'd like to, I have one you can try out.

 

[Mark Layne]

I have used Patterson tanks for 45 years and if anyone is having problems it ain't the tank - how they are used maybe. In fact in the case of 35mm film it is better separated than in SS tanks. I still think a presoak will cure a lot of problems.
A Jobo will suppress the inherent acutance of some films. This is less of a problem with LF film which is how they became popular in the first place. I have one and don't use it.
Mark

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Mark, we are talking about 120 film in the Paterson reels/tanks. I am 99% convinced that the airbells are caused by the Paterson reels retaining the bubbles and not allowing them to break free and come to the surface regardless of what agitation and 'rapping' method to shake them out is used. The marks Thomas speaks of are drying marks on the emulsion side of the film. I've experienced it too in the past, that is not likely due to film reels though.

That said, I get no problems with my stainless tanks and Hewes reels whatsoever.

We have both tried presoaking and not presoaking. We see no difference to the film edge marks either way. I have heard that putting in photoflo to the developer as a good method to assist with this, but I am not convinced as I thought that would only increase the foaming issues and likelihood of bubbles staying on the film. I have actually marked each of my Paterson reels now with a numebr so I can try to nail it down to one or all of the reels.

The residue on the emusion side of the film when it's drying is what's causing the problems. Both Thomas and I use distilled water with photoflo for the last bath..... The marks still happen. I always (for 18 years!) used to squeegee both sides of the film without problems either until last summer. Now I cannot do that as the film emulsion gets marks on it. My compromise is to use one edge of a squeegee on the non emulsion side only and that works. I get the marks on the emulsion side occasionally also.. It sucks.

 

[Ian David]

One last personal observation about photoflo drying marks on the emulsion...
I think that on most (if not all) occasions when this is going to happen, if you look carefully you can see the potential problem as soon as you hang the wet negatives up to dry. If you examine the emulsion side of the hanging wet film at the right angle against the light, you can see the rivulets of slightly viscous solution running down the surface of the film. Sometimes they can be hard to spot, or there aren't many of them, but they will be there. Once I stopped having the drying marks problem, I noticed that the emulsion side of my wet negs always has a lovely consistent matte finish - no visible droplets or rivulets whatsoever - pretty much immediately after the wet negs are hung up. (There may still be a few rivulets on the shiny backing side, but they don't seem to cause any problems when they dry.)

 

[Maris]

Drying marks used to bedevil my early attempts at processing 120 format and I wondered why. I used the right amount of Photo-Flo in tap water; a combination that should work fine. But it didn't. Then I decided to watch my films dry (not as boring as watching paint dry!) to catch the drying marks in the act of forming.

This is what I saw:
Water plus Photo-Flo runs quickly and smoothly off wet film but it forms streaks and drops on drying film. A wet processed 120 film hung with stainless steel weighted clips doesn't drain and dry all at once. Frame #1 at the top drains and dries first. Frame #12 at the bottom drains and dries last. All the water+Photo-Flo from frames 1 to 11 needs to get down and across frame #12 before frame #12 gets too dry to permit cross flow. In my darkroom 120 film gets too dry too quickly, some of the water+Photo-Flo stops moving before it gets to the end of the film, forms drops and streaks, and eventually turns into drying marks.

Another trap for me is getting the top stainless steel hanging clip wet. This acts as a reservoir of water+Photo-Flo that continues to leak liquid onto the top frames, #'s 1, 2,... and delivers streaks and blobs in due course.

My desperate remedy for all this is to dry film edge on at a 45 degree angle. Now the water+Photo-Flo only needs to get across the film not travel the entire length. This happens in seconds not minutes. And if there are any blobs and streaks they form on the lower edge of the film outside the picture area.

I still get the occasional unexplained artifact on film but unless it crosses the picture at a 45 degree angle I know it is not a drying mark.