Stupid Film Developing Problems - Again!

[Ian David]

G'day Maris

Sounds like you have found a useful workaround - nice work. I recommend that you also try adding the isopropyl alcohol to the final wash water as mentioned above (Bunnings has little bottles of 100% for about $10). I also use less photoflo than recommended by Kodak or Ilford - just a few drops - and make sure it is well mixed in.
(There is a reference to the alcohol idea in Issue 85 of B&W Photography, May 2008, top of page 68, if you are a reader.)

Hope the rough conditions up there are not taking away too much of your beach!

Ian

 

[Excalibur2]

Well I would have thought the length of this thread might have attracted some pros who work in labs who do personal work for clients, appologies if the pros have commented............but if a small lab is handy it might be worth while calling in to speak to one of the guys, as I can't see you would be wasting much of his valuable time if you just mentioned the problem of solving "drying marks".

 

[Mark Antony]

Well I owned a Lab for 18 years and have processed many tens of thousands of 120. The main problems I had with drying marks were the stainless steel clips holding photoflow in the clip that gets released part way though drying.
The solution to that was to flick or tap the clips to move the liquid, much harder to do in my Sitte dip and dunk.
The other thing we'd do is put a tray of water in the bottom of the cabinet to raise the humidity, the drying temp of films must not be too high as they curl causing problems, some people need films quick and the temptation is to turn up the dryer.
Some folks wipe excess stab from the films before they clip them either with their fingers or a blade/sponge, I've never done that.
I'm interested in why people would think the air-bells are caused by plastic reels, I suppose some may find that but in 28 years of using the system 4 reels I've never had an air-bell- but experiment and find what works for you.
I don't want to annoy anyone here my comments are only my personal experience.
Kind Regards
Mark

 

[Mark Layne]

Well I owned a Lab for 18 years and have processed many tens of thousands of 120. The main problems I had with drying marks were the stainless steel clips holding photoflow in the clip that gets released part way though drying.
The solution to that was to flick or tap the clips to move the liquid, much harder to do in my Sitte dip and dunk.
The other thing we'd do is put a tray of water in the bottom of the cabinet to raise the humidity, the drying temp of films must not be too high as they curl causing problems, some people need films quick and the temptation is to turn up the dryer.
Some folks wipe excess stab from the films before they clip them either with their fingers or a blade/sponge, I've never done that.
I'm interested in why people would think the air-bells are caused by plastic reels, I suppose some may find that but in 28 years of using the system 4 reels I've never had an air-bell- but experiment and find what works for you.
I don't want to annoy anyone here my comments are only my personal experience.
Kind Regards
Mark

I agree that the water hanging around in the clip can be a problem.
I suspect what has always worked for me is that I clip the film, hold it up and pour the final wash water from the tank down the emulsion side, hang it up in the darkroom and leave- heat drying the film too fast wouldn't help. I wonder if what some people are calling airbells are really outgassing from too strong a stop bath
Mark
Mark

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

"Air bells during development". I used to get this when I used plastic reels. You need to wash really well these reels as they get contamination from photoflo. Since I switched to metal reels I never had any problem.
I also never use stop bath but a water bath and never squeeze the film.
Hope that helps.

 

[Anscojohn]

Hello All,
Touch wood, I have not had drying-mark problems, going on 45 years now of souping film. Just lucky, I guess. I use less Photoflo than before, based on advice--even though I did not have a problem--I'm just cheap. My first mentor stressed the importance of not leaving the film in the wetting agent too long--thirty seconds or so. And I slosh the reel in the container to make sure there is a little bit of foaming.
I have then used, at various times, a sponge squeegy (which I kept in an old pickle jar with photo flo in it); a rubber squeegee rinsed then sloshed in the photo-flo out of which the reel just came; my pudgy fingers, also sloshed in the photo-flo. I have used soft tap water from the New Jersey shore; Ohio River Punch in Cincinnati; ok water in suburban Philadelphia; and hard water here in Northern Virginia. Some years back, based on the advice of more knowledgeable photographers, I began using my stored AC water for the Photo-Flo--even though the (real) experts said it possibly contained alien spores; fungus; detritus, neuritus, neuralgia and nostalgia. I hang my film straight down, using a low-tech wooden clothes pin, on a length of picture wire along one wall in my basement darkroom. Sometimes is leave the ss reel attached at the bottom as a weight; sometimes I just attach a second clothes pin (this with 35 mm); with 2 1/4 I use a weighted Patterson film clip or two wood clothes pins. I use Ek photo flo, at less than recommended strengh. I had trouble with Edwal LFN and also with Zone Vi at times.
Based upon my consisten problem-free results over the years, I think that the keys are (as others have stated); not too much heat and humidity in the darkroom--temp there does not stray much from 68 F--and leaving the film too long in the wetting agent.
Sign me, Just Lucky, I guess.

 

[BobNewYork]

I've just remembered I did once have problems with drying marks on one batch of film. That was the time I turned on the dehumidifier in the darkroom - didn't do that again. My guess is that in very dry conditions the water evaporates out of the photo-flo before it's reached the bottom of the film. This time of year in North America the air is pretty dry - maybe that's the root of Tom's problem.

I've had no problems with air bells with plastic reels - ever. I used to rap the tank on the counter - until I broke one. Didn't do that again either! For years now I've held the tank in one hand and smacked it hard into the palm of the other five times after each agitation cycle. It has to be hard though. If it doesn't sting it's not hard enough. (said it before - you gotta suffer for your art!)

Bob H

 

[Kirk Keyes]

One easy way to remove water from a clip is to take a can of compressed air and just blast the clips with some air and let it blow any water off the clip.

 

[fatboy22]

Thomas,

I looked at the negative you posted. The white streak is what I call a surge mark from developement. I was a lab tech in a pro lab for many years and have processed thousands of B&W film rolls by hand. We used a deep tank line to process but still wound the film onto standard stainless steel reels like most people use in small metal tanks. My questions for you are.

1. What kind of developing tank and reel are you using?
2. What type of motion are you using for agitation?

There are many ways to process film. Some are better than others, some work for some films others work for other films. I know its frustrating. Even I have problems with developement some times and I have been at this over 30 years on and off. Keep working at it, there is nothing more rewarding then finally nailing your process down and making great negatives with both technical and artistic qualitys. I have looked a some your photos they are quite good!

Jamie

 

[wogster]

Thanks Bob.

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.

Your theory of even development sounds perfectly sound. Since I started agitating more often, I got rid of the uneven development problems. Some suggest to me that plastic reels are mad to use. I'm going to try stainless next, just to see. But only on test rolls.

Thanks,

- Thomas

Think about the way they distill water, the water is placed in a metal container, then heated until it boils, the steam is collected and cooled in another metal container (the condenser, which probably looks like a car radiator). Some of the metal may end up in the finished product. If you purchase it in plastic bottles, some of the plastic can also become infused into the water.

With wetting agents you want enough to do the job, but not enough to cause other problems. Here is an idea, take an eye dropper, put one drop into the water for a tank full, see if that works, if it isn't enough, try two drops, then 3 drops, etc until you get the result you want. Now put that number of drops into a small graduate to see how much you need, you can multiply that out to 1L for convenience, if you like. If you change brands of water you may need more or less to do the job. You can get home distillers, which will take water from the tap and distill it. Probably the best solution, in that you have control of the source.

 

[waynecrider]

I hope you get it figured out Tom. I'd add that if the negatives are important and there are only minor problems with them I personally would get them scanned and fix them digitally if possible. Better something to show for my efforts then nothing. It may not be your desire to do so but sometimes you have to use other tools. You can always get wet prints off the files. Now in my workflow if you can call it that, ha, I am as lackadaisical as can be sometimes. It might be because I use Diafine nowadays, but I also don't make a big deal out of the wash. 4-5 drops of Photoflo in a 120 tank and sitting for a minute then hung and squeegeed. Never a problem and I have good ol Florida hard water that I use for the rinse. Go figure. I guess I'm lucky. Knock knock. I look forward to see how you make out.

 

[Roger Bulcock]

I made a mistake with photoflo 2 weeks ago. I developed and fixed some 120 film did the first wash and had a peek. The frames looked good. For the last part of the wash I put a few drops of photoflo in the tank. I then forgot about the film for 2 weeks! Looking at it today the all of the emulsion has been removed including the numbering! Oops.

Roger

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Think I'm In The Clear

Well, I had some success last night. I was able to process a test roll of Ilford HP5+ 120 with success.

I tried to kill two ghosts in one go and address both my drying marks and air bubbles.

1. Drying Marks: Instead of doing the distilled water soak thing, I decided to go through a normal wash sequence, i.e. Ilford method, followed by ten minutes in one of those dedicated film reel washers.
Then I added 5ml of PhotoFlo 200 into 1l of distilled water, poured that into an open 6" round container, and 'see-sawed' through the solution ten times. On the last 'saw' I pulled the film through rapidly and then held the film up for two minutes at a 45 degree angle, until all of the little air bubbles had escaped to the edge of the film. I will eventually try some isopropyl alcohol added to the PhotoFlo solution, but looking at the dry negatives today it looks like it worked, because I can find no drying marks.
Tonight I'll process a roll of Plus-X 120 and a roll of Foma 400 120. Just to make sure it's not film dependent. I'm sure Ilford is different from Kodak in more than one way...
So, one out of two I'm looking good.

2. Air bubbles. Many suggestions have alluded to putting wetting agent into the tank while developing. I don't want to do that. Instead I changed to a softer agitation. I practice inversion agitation of the tank, and instead of completely inverting the tank 180 degrees, I tipped it a little over 90 degrees. While doing so I also rotate the tank around the centre axle like the earth rotates around its own pole axle.
I used Edwal 12 developer, which is a replenished solution of 2l, with 100ml fresh developer going in for each roll I develop. This developer should have remnants of whatever caused the foaming before because it's used over and over again. I agitated continuously for the first minute and two inversions every minute with these soft inversions for 8 minutes at 70*F.
Lo and behold - no air bubble marks on the film. None.

So, it was all about fine tuning the process - mind you - this time. I'm pretty confident I did a good job, and I'll repeat this procedure again and again, and hopefully none of my important negatives will be lost. It's not the first time I've 'solved' problems with film developing, only to have them come back when I process film after I spend time and money on traveling somewhere to photograph.

Time will tell.

Thanks too each and all of you for contributing!

- Thomas

 

[Kirk Keyes]

That's great, Thomas. It sounds like your heading in the right direction.

 

[BobNewYork]

Thank God - we've pulled you back from the Dark Slide!!!!

Bob H

 

[waynecrider]

Nice shot Tom.
Btw, I always do the same agitation as you have tried in my Jobo tanks. Seems to work out good.

 

[Larry.Manuel]

Thomas, You are an inspiration - with your determination and stick-to-it-ness. I note your technique of see-sawing the film through Photo-Flo. I was going to suggest that. Here are some points that work for me:

- I use about 0.5 to 1.5 ml Photo-Flo per litre, not the 1+200 Kodak recommends.
- Foaming could happen in Paterson tanks while developing, as I've read that Photo-Flo has a great affinity for plastic reels and tanks. I use the Paterson system, too.
- Now, I do not put Photo-Flo in the tanks, I use a separate container, and soak the film 1-2 minutes, see-sawing it through the liquid, and letting it sit, coiled loosely for part of that time.
- Something no-one mentioned: Bubbles on the surface of the Photo-Flo while pulling the film out to hang. I've solved this by gently pouring more fresh water into the - slightly tilted - container of Photo-Flo [and film]. The tiny [and large] bubbles run off with the overflow. Only then do I slowly pull the film out to hang it.
- Like you mentioned, I immediately hold the film at 45 degrees, to start the liquids [and bubbles] running over to the film edge, and walk to the drying station with film held like that. Then I hang to dry with film sloping, one edge down.
- This time of year, the humidity is so low, film dries so fast that the liquid has little time to run off, and thus the bubbles sit there and give us gears.
- Another seasonal thing [for me, I don't think for you]: My tap water is brutally cold, so I warily mix in warm tap water, which I've noticed has thousands of almost-invisible bubbles. I assume this is from the heating process in the water heater. Warm water cannot dissolve as much air [as you noted earlier].

Good look and I admire your perseverance.

 

[Anscojohn]

[
I tried to kill two ghosts in one go and address both my drying marks and air bubbles.
Man, Thomas, hed you be a noobie en we wudda jump alloverya fur makin two change ata same tyme!

1. Drying Marks: Instead of doing the distilled water soak thing, I decided to go through a normal wash sequence, i.e. Ilford method, followed by ten minutes in one of those dedicated film reel washers.
******
If it works for Ilford, it works for us. And one of my early mentors swore by taking the tube off the film washer and curling it inside the rim of the tank in the direction of the film spirals. Said it cleaned his negs perfectly in about five minutes. I swore AT it, because the tube kept popping out for me. I now use an old four reel SS tank--so old it actually had gotten holes in it. I drilled a coupla 3.8 holes in the bottom edge and allow the water to run in the top and out the bottom. I'm sure that is what your washer does, much more high tech, tho.


Then I added 5ml of PhotoFlo 200 into 1l of distilled water, poured that into an open 6" round container, and 'see-sawed' through the solution ten times.
******
Very old fashioned approach. We dinosaurs approve.

Why add alcohol?? This works. Are you a glutton for punishment?

looking at the dry negatives today it looks like it worked, because I can find no drying marks.
******
So why change?????

Tonight I'll process a roll of Plus-X 120 and a roll of Foma 400 120. Just to make sure it's not film dependent. I'm sure Ilford is different from Kodak in more than one way...
*****
Ilford is English film. With it and Fuji, the little bubbles run down the opposite side compared to American-made film. Dunno about Czech film, howemsoever.


So, one out of two I'm looking good.
*****
So, gudlukin, why do propose doing anything differently?

2. Air bubbles. Many suggestions have alluded to putting wetting agent into the tank while developing.
******
Only Edwal LFN. And it is not a good idea unless desperately necessary--and it should never be necessary.

I don't want to do that. Instead I changed to a softer agitation. I practice inversion agitation of the tank, and instead of completely inverting the tank 180 degrees, I tipped it a little over 90 degrees. While doing so I also rotate the tank around the centre axle like the earth rotates around its own pole axle.
*****
Thomas, Thomas, Thomas--we have been over this before. Hold the tank over your head and turn YOURSELF around. No tango, tho, as you have suggested. A gentle sarabond, or some such, perhaps? Of course, people rotate in the opposite direction in NZ, AU, and Tasmania, do they not?

I used Edwal 12 developer, which is a replenished solution of 2l, with 100ml fresh developer going in for each roll I develop. This developer should have remnants of whatever caused the foaming before because it's used over and over again. I agitated continuously for the first minute and two inversions every minute with these soft inversions for 8 minutes at 70*F.
Lo and behold - no air bubble marks on the film. None.
*****
You have found your solution, methinks. And I do believe, intuitively, that some developer solutions can be more prone to air bubbles than other. Don't ask me why, because I do not know. Also, I don't think you can be hurt by giving the tank a rap on the bottom with your open palm before putting it down, should you begin seeing air bells again. I always do this.

*****


It's not the first time I've 'solved' problems with film developing, only to have them come back when I process film after I spend time and money on traveling somewhere to photograph.
**************

Unfortunately, there are gremlins that lurk in the darkroom.

 

[patricia de roeck]

Thomas - I've been following this thread with great interest after reading the anguish in your voice in the original post and believe me that was me about 18 months ago when I began using 120 film. I think it took me about 6 months of frustration to get it right - I thought the disasters were going to be endless and I used to feel physically sick every time I inspected a finished roll of film. I'm a landscape photograpaher of limited means, mature years and wonky knees so I know what goes into these special trips away when to quote someone or other "The anticipation of discovering new possibilities becomes your greatest joy" - only to be shot down in flames once the alchemy began in the darkroom. Endured streaky negs, holes in the emulsion, dense negs, white bits on the negs etc. etc. Here's what I learnt -
1. To keep my camera bag meticulously clean - before each trip empty it, turn it upside down and use an air-blower to clean out all the compartments
2. To clean the backs inside before loading film, plus the darkslides and camera rear interior.
3. To keep the lid of my camera bag closed once I'm set up and waiting (sometimes for an hour or more) for the light
By doing these three simple things I've eliminated the holes in the emulsion - dirt specks really, it was a big problem.
4. No pre-soak, no stop bath, just water - and only 2 drops of Fotoflow in a tankfull of water- about 500ml - only leave in for 30 secs
5. Even though I might have 6 rolls or more from a trip I only ever process one at a time - that way I limit any stupid errors to 1 roll not 3 or 4
6. I threw my old tanks out and bought 3 new Paterson single tanks, have 3 extra reels so I can process more film without having to use damp reels or try and dry them out too quickly.
7. Dedicate each tank to each back (I have 3) - that way if I have a problem with a roll of film I know which back it came from and which tank so can narrow a problem down.
8. No pre-soak, pour the dev. into the tank and tap smarly before agitating
Agitate by twisting the tank 360 degrees at a slight angle, no turning it upside down or using a violent motion.
I hang the film from a steel clip with another clip at the bottom and never use anything to wipe the film down. Never have any streaks or bubbles.
Hope you can use some of these hard-earned 'handy hints' to achieve your own personal darkroom nirvana Thomas - the best lesson I learnt (apart from keeping things super clean) was to be able to identify each roll of film from start to finish, the backs are numbered of course and when the roll is finished it goes into a glass container with the same number as the back, then that goes into the same numbered tank - this sytem gets rid of a heap of variables.
Good luck, Patricia

 

[mts]

I'm with AnscoJohn on this one. Ditch the roller & tubes and use Nikkor reels for 35 mm and roll film, and stick with trays or tanks and hangers for LF. You shouldn't be fooling with LF until you have mastered small format processing. Then start with Adams' book "The Negative" and learn the procedures therein. The amount of equipment needed to perfectly process film is truely minimal and should not break your budget. Processing consistency follows from developing a good darkroom procedure and then following it without deviation. In this sense photography is indeed an artform and you must learn to process film properly.

 

[PVia]

Agree with Patricia above:

2 drops Photoflo for 30 seconds...

 

[jordanstarr]

Thomas...

For what it's worth I just developed 4 rolls and used the same technique. One of the rolls had the same marks you have BEFORE I put in the photoflo. I always check out the film before and after, because sometimes I have the photoflo marks too. However, this was the first time I've seen it before photoflo. Don't rule out that it could have been done before that process. The weird part is all my other rolls were perfect. Naturally it was the most important roll that got messed up. For the record, this happens to me 1/5 rolls. I really don't think there's much I can do. I think it's just the un-luck of the draw sometimes as I've been using the same techniques for a while now with 80% success.

...Jordan.

 

[jordanstarr]

Here's the example on brand new Tri-x in Pyrocat HD....

 

[jordanstarr]

....not quite sure why it's not working, but you can view it on my flickr site.

 

[Ian David]

Hi Jordan
The marks on your "badfilmexample" look more like uneven development than drying marks. There is a large area of decreased neg density/increased print density running down the left middle of the frame. Not sure why you would get it 1 in 5 rolls though... Wonder if it could be a problem with loading your reels - maybe some turns of film lying against each other on the reel?
Ian