The pretty close to definitive guide to how you screwed up

[Radost]

I wa

As fixer gets older extend the time. Fix for 10 minutes. After that is fixing is not complete mix new fixer.

I was getting similar results with my Kodak fixer. I mixed this fresh a day before the development.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wa

I was getting similar results with my Kodak fixer. I mixed this fresh a day before the development.

I use mine until the time goes over 10 minutes.

 

[MattKing]

Well, the film is motion picture film, re-purposed for use as a still film. Which means it starts out being designed for lower contrast. So there may be other factors in play.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I wouldn't expect Double-X to take any longer to fix than Tri-X; both are convention (= cubic) grain films, albeit Tri-X is the most up to date, evolved cubic grain I know of (with the possible exception of Ilford FP4+ and HP5+).

 

[Radost]

I wouldn't expect Double-X to take any longer to fix than Tri-X; both are convention (= cubic) grain films, albeit Tri-X is the most up to date, evolved cubic grain I know of (with the possible exception of Ilford FP4+ and HP5+).

By any longer do you mean the recommended 5 minutes or double the recommended time rule of 10 minutes?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I mean Double-X shouldn't take any longer to fix than Tri-X in the same fixer. In other words, if you can fix Tri-X in five minute, you ought to be able to fix Double-X in five minutes as well.

 

[MattKing]

However, if what you are seeing is at least partially due to the negatives being low in contrast, that may be due to the fact that the film is designed to be developed to a lower contrast. That is, of course, possible to (mostly) correct by extending development times.

 

[Donald Qualls]

However, if what you are seeing is at least partially due to the negatives being low in contrast, that may be due to the fact that the film is designed to be developed to a lower contrast.

Double-X is designed to be developed to lower contrast -- Kodak's recommended developer (for cine negatives) is D-96, which is a low contrast developer. However, like most (all?) cubic grain films, it can be processed to higher or lower contrast by using different developers and developing longer or shorter time. Few of us use D-96 when shooting Double-X in a still camera, and we use times (from the Massive Dev Chart or other sources) arrived at by others developing the film for still negatives at more comfortable (for printing) slope or CI. When processed at box speed in something comparable to D-76, Xtol, etc. you should get negatives that look almost indistinguishable (at least by eye) from "normal" process Tri-X, HP-5+, FP4+, or even Fomapan 100 or 400 negatives.

Muddy negatives can also come from overall fog -- perhaps due to excessive age, poor storage, a translucent storage container, darkroom not fully dark during developing tank loading, and so forth. We'd need to see a photo of a strip of the negatives, showing the rebates, to say more about that.

 

[Radost]

Second fix cleaned the the negatives. For some reason the sides perforation curled to a point getting tore in a few spots.
This is my development
XTOL 7 minutes. No prewash.
Kodak indicator stop bath.
ilford rapid fix
600ml water 2 drops of photo flo.
10 minutes Paterson hose wash.
Ilford wags 5 10 15 inversions.

but this time I did not do the Ilford wash and got bunch of water spots. aperently paterson hose for 10 only does not work as well as I taught. Or I don’t have the faucet turned strong enough.

 

[Radost]

But at least contrast looks good

 

[Donald Qualls]

For some reason the sides perforation curled to a point getting tore in a few spots.

This could be due to a problem with the film (cine perfed) getting cocked up on the sprockets in the camera. Shouldn't happen with Cinestill; theirs is confectioned for them (hence why they can offer it in 120) and has still film perfs, but if you're using 5222 from any other source...

Any case, I agree, nothing muddy looking there, but you've certainly got something in your wash water. Sloughing of oxidized rubber from the wash hose, perhaps? Or junk in well water, if applicable, or junk from your pipes.

 

[Radost]

This could be due to a problem with the film (cine perfed) getting cocked up on the sprockets in the camera. Shouldn't happen with Cinestill; theirs is confectioned for them (hence why they can offer it in 120) and has still film perfs, but if you're using 5222 from any other source...

Any case, I agree, nothing muddy looking there, but you've certainly got something in your wash water. Sloughing of oxidized rubber from the wash hose, perhaps? Or junk in well water, if applicable, or junk from your pipes.

I am at a new place. Yes it has to be the water. Cleaned with isopropyl alcohol cleaned almost everything.
I have to say I like the film especially with a flash.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I've added a detergent rinse step after fixing when developing films in 16mm; a small drop of dish soap with a modest flow rate and constant agitation until the water is clear. I sometimes see similar artifacts at high magnifications, probably due to remjet contamination in my case.

Maintaining the process temperature while washing the film can help prevent debris from adhering to the emulsion as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've added a detergent rinse step after fixing when developing films in 16mm; a small drop of dish soap with a modest flow rate and constant agitation until the water is clear. I sometimes see similar artifacts at high magnifications, probably due to remjet contamination in my case.

Maintaining the process temperature while washing the film can help prevent debris from adhering to the emulsion as well.

Dish soap is a big no no. PE warned repeatedly that it contains things that contaminate films. Look up his threads. Stabilized for color films & a surfactant such as PhotoFlo. I strongly you read and follow directions.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I strongly you read and follow directions.

Mind digging up a few links? The wash is a step for a particular tank I use for 16mm cine film; an appropriate detergent seems like it could help dislodge physical debris, especially from hand-rolled film.

Finish with a distilled water & photoflo rinse otherwise, like a gentleman

 

[Sirius Glass]

Mind digging up a few links? The wash is a step for a particular tank I use for 16mm cine film; an appropriate detergent seems like it could help dislodge physical debris, especially from hand-rolled film.

Finish with a distilled water & photoflo rinse otherwise, like a gentleman

Feel free to do a search on Photrio.

 

[MattKing]

Mind digging up a few links? The wash is a step for a particular tank I use for 16mm cine film; an appropriate detergent seems like it could help dislodge physical debris, especially from hand-rolled film.

Finish with a distilled water & photoflo rinse otherwise, like a gentleman

Photo Engineer's posts about not using detergents referred to the fact that all commonly found detergents have things like perfumes in them which are, at the very best, of uncertain effect on films.
In most cases though, it would be the surfactant in detergent that helps release debris. And Photo-flo is basically a pure surfactant, so you could certainly consider using that.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I got a blank roll of 120 film after running it through the RB67. I figured out what went wrong. In my rush to get out the door and to location before the fog lifted, I loaded the film so that the film was facing the back of the magazine. I've used this camera since 1992, and never made this error. I also forgot my tripod, so had to hand hold. I shot a video, but didn't know of the screw up until after development. All I could do was laugh!
Here is a recent upload...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I got a blank roll of 120 film after running it through the RB67. I figured out what went wrong. In my rush to get out the door and to location before the fog lifted, I loaded the film so that the film was facing the back of the magazine. I've used this camera since 1992, and never made this error. I also forgot my tripod, so had to hand hold. I shot a video, but didn't know of the screw up until after development. All I could do was laugh!
Here is a recent upload...

I did that once in the Hasselblad. Only once. Many do that once. Rarely does that happen again. Once is enough.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I did that once in the Hasselblad. Only once. Many do that once. Rarely does that happen again. Once is enough.

I wish I did it once and only once in 1992, not 2022!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wish I did it once and only once in 1992, not 2022!

The Twelfth of Never would be better.

 

[mshchem]

My Hasselblad loading error, which has happened to me twice, is not getting the film under the perfectly placed little Clamp that aids in inserting the roll holder into the shell of the back. I noticed the film crank turning hard opened up the back to see what was going on.

Too much time on Bronicas.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My Hasselblad loading error, which has happened to me twice, is not getting the film under the perfectly placed little Clamp that aids in inserting the roll holder into the shell of the back. I noticed the film crank turning hard opened up the back to see what was going on.

Too much time on Bronicas.

Dump the Bronicas, leave the Dark Side and come to the Hasselblad side.

 

[Radost]

Dump the Bronicas, leave the Dark Side and come to the Hasselblad side.

Mamiya 645 pro Tl and RZ67 forever!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ack. Electronics! RB67 (and lower-tech backup, Century Graphic).