tri-x w/rodinal 1+50: lighter spots?

[timeUnit]

Hello!

I developed three rolls of tri-x 120-film in my new paterson 1,5 litre tank, with rodinal 1+50 @ 20°C for 13,5 minutes. Agitation the first minute, then four inversions at 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 minutes. Four inversions take 15-20 seconds with this tank.

My problem is that all three rolls have spots that are lighter along one egde. Lighter on the neg, darker on the scans. I'm fairly new with rodinal, and the 1,5 litre tank is even newer, so there might be something I'm missing.

Two rolls were taken with a Mamiya 7 and one with a Mamiya C330, but all show the same spots (or rather patches) so it's not a camera issue. It's not a question of light leaks either, that would of course give _dark_ spots on the neg, light on the scans.

Check this out:

http://www.hform.se/Images/spotex1.jpg

Look along the bottom edge of the negs.

What could be causing this? Dev. exhaution? Insufficient agitation?

Any insight highly appreciated!

*henning

 

[df cardwell]

If the little quasi ameboid splotches are what you're referring to.. I see them, but I don't know the cause.

Rodinal is a very powerful developer, and exhaustion fears are unwarranted. Agitation is out, because the density is even, the splotches are specific, and besides, Rodinal will develop evenly with far less agitation than you gave. With its high pH, Rodinal is soapy, and tends to get to the emulsion very effciently, it is pretty much air-bell proof. It shouldn't matter if you poured the developer in, or dropped the reels into a full tank; at least reagrding the splotches.

Have you had this trouble with other developer ?

Did you wash the reels before using them ?


Have you tried re-fixing the film ?

Did you use a wetting agent after the wash ?

Did you dry the film on the reel ?

I wish I had an answer. Probably one of the Wise Ones will come along soon and know the cause. Probably, you were wearing the wrong color socks.

Good luck.

.

 

[eumenius]

Hmmm. Maybe try another film in your tank, say, one from Ilford line? The film could be damaged during confectioning at Kodak plant... I have seen the manufacturing defects that way, like oily stains on the emulsion. Or maybe your reels caught and trapped air, and you didn't tap your tank on the table after filling it? But in that case the marks should look a bit different... I am inclined more to defective film version.

Zhenya

 

[Donald Miller]

Are you sure that you are using the required amounts of chemical?

 

[timeUnit]

Never seen this before with other developers.

Reels are wased in hot water after use. Sometimes I scrub them, sometimes I don't.

Have not tried re-fixing film. It was fixed in almost fresh fixer, only three films had gone through it.

I used wetting agent after the wash. Same agent as usual.

I dried the film in my bathroom as usual. Not on the reel of course...

Thanks!!

*h

 

[gainer]

Were the spots on the top edge of the film as it stood in the tank? This would be a good place for bubbles to hide it they were at the top edge in the tank. You should perhaps try a set with the agitation at more frequent intervals. AGFA have been at it for many years and recommend vigorous agitation every 30 seconds. My own trials with Rodinal 1+50 and stand development showed various problems, but not this one. It is possible that the first agitation is not vigorous enough, and the spots have been made before the remaining agitation periods, so that even if the postulated bubbles are removed in subsequent periods, the development cannot catch up.

 

[Jordan]

I'm with Gainer. Whenever I see a problem like this, it's invariably because of (a) insufficient developer to cover the reels, and/or (b) foaming at the top due to the reels sloshing back and forth along the centre column when the tank is inverted. Jam something in the tank to make sure the reels don't slide up and down. That has solved all of the "funny mark along the edge" problems for me when using 120 film.

PS. Are these from your new Mamiya 7?

 

[timeUnit]

I sure there was enough chemicals in the tank. About 1,6 litres. The thing is that all three rolls show the same marks. That should rule out insufficient amout of chemicals or foaming at the top.

So I guess the initial agitation should be increased. I will check if the reels can slide up and down and try to prevent it.

I looked over the previous batch I processed, three Acros 120 in rodinal 1+25, and they show the same patches, but not so intense. I'm leaning towards more vigorous and longer initial agitation. With such a large tank, the agitation is much slower. Maybe I'll have to do more milkshake-style agitation...

Jordan,
yes, the top row is from the M7.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts! I will report back if I get other/better results.

 

[timeUnit]

I talked with my photo dealer today, and he said he had the same problems from time to time with other developers including XTOL. He had tried to get info on why, but found none. I'm leaning towards to little initial agitation. I will try this next: 2 120-rolls of tri-x in rodinal 1+50. I will use 1,1 litres developer. Agitation will be vigorous for the first _two_ minutes. Then four inversions at 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 minutes. Hopefully it shows an improvement.

Has anyone seen these patches with other developers, using paterson tanks?

 

[df cardwell]

Are you putting the reels into a full tank, or are you filling the tank with developer after loading the reels ?

The idea of initial agitation making ANY difference with Rodinal is outside my experience with the developer. Pouring the developer into a Paterson tank, though, seems to be more likely a source of trouble.

.

 

[timeUnit]

Not putting reels in a full tank. I understand that can be done, but it's quite impractical, IMO, as is has to be done in total darkness. I think most people using the Paterson system or similar would pour the dev. into the tank, as this is what the manufacturers recommend?

Do you mean this is a problem specifically with Rodinal or generally?

*h

 

[Quinten]

Pouring the developer into a Paterson tank, though, seems to be more likely a source of trouble.

.

Isn't that the idea of a peterson tank? Three rolls might give some trouble if you fill the tank just enough to soak all three of them. The thinner the developer (like 1:100) the more liquid you should pour into the thank.

cheers,
Quinten

 

[fschifano]

These artifacts don't look at all like air bells, but could be small aread that don't get enough agitation at the start of development. Most problems I've had that look something like this are usually the result of insufficient initial agitation. Four inversions in 20 seconds seems awfully slow to me. I'm getting 1/sec. with a 1L SS tanks and agitate for 10 seconds each minute or 3 sec. each 30 sec. depending on the developer.

A real possibility is that your tank is too full. You need a little bit of air space above the developer to insure that it all gets mixed up during agitation. Preventing the reels from slipping up and down on the center column is easy. Simply slip a rubber band around the center core above the top reel.

 

[Huub S]

I have the same problem with the large Paterson tank when using Tri-X 120 film in 1+1 XTOL, especially when i am not very carefull in my agitation. My guess would be that you use to much agitation, in stead of not enough. In the large Paterson tank there's a lot of air space on top, even with 1.6 L chemicals in it. After inversion I can always hear a 'blob'-sound after a couple of seconds when all the air is getting back to the top of the tank. Also: 32 ml rodinal is about 33% more then you need for 3 120 films according to the rodinal data sheet, so that can't be the problem either. When I inverse this large tank slowly only half way (untill it's about horizontal and then back to it's normal vertical position again) and use this agitation every ten seconds for the first minute and one every minute for the remaining time, the problem seems to be solved.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Get rid of possible air bubbles

I have not had the specific problems. The patterns are very symmetrical. I wonder if you have air bubbles trapped between the film layers. I have had one problem where my agitation with the developer in the tank was much more careful than when the fixer is in there, causing the film to 'stick' to the reel, not allowing developer to contact the film emulsion. Then when putting water in for stop bath, I have agitated vigorously enough for the film to let go of the reel. After that the film is fixed, and there are spots on the edge of the film that are undeveloped, and totally clear.
This I cured by always using a 3min presoak in water with fairly vigorous agitation, but more importantly, give the tank 5-10 fairly hard raps with your palm on the bottom, so that any air bubbles in between film layers float to the top. It has really improved my consistency and quality from batch to batch. It is very strange that it's only along one side of the film, however. Would that edge have been up or down in the tank? If it's up, it's a definite possibility that air bubbles got caught there while floating to the surface.
Even when pouring the developer and fixer into the tank, I rap the tank in the bottom. It's worth a try!

A test of the film would be to develop a film strip in a tray. If I had to guess it has to do with how the film is developed, since it doesn't matter which film or camera you use.

Good luck, lycka till,

- Thom

 

[df cardwell]

Not putting reels in a full tank. I understand that can be done, but it's quite impractical, IMO, as is has to be done in total darkness. I think most people using the Paterson system or similar would pour the dev. into the tank, as this is what the manufacturers recommend?

Do you mean this is a problem specifically with Rodinal or generally?

*h

I mean RODINAL is probably the easiest and most troublefree developer ever made. I mean that if you are having problems, it could very well be linked to Paterson reels or tanks.

It has ALWAYS been considered 'good practice' to fill the tank with developer before putting in the the reels. ALWAYS. I'm concerned the Paterson reels restrict solution flow, as opposed to steel. But I have no idea what is the source of your trouble. If anything might work, I'd suggest loading the reels into a tank full of developer, shaking the reels gently as you lower them into solution, then rap the base of the tank soundly after you've secured the lid and turned on the lights.

The only problem as I see it is that you should NOT be having consistent defects on your negatives, and you should be having the same trouble with all developers.

good luck.

 

[timeUnit]

fschifano,

Yes it is quite slow. The Paterson tanks have a very big "lump" on top that fits the funnel/light trap. There is a lot of air in that. If you invert the tank, it takes around 2 seconds for the air to move from the top to the bottom, and about 3 sec back, on the big tanks that is. So if you do the full inversion, and want all of the developer to move around that's how slow it is. Huub S has a very nice suggestion that I will try. It might be so that the full inversion introduces lots of air that gets stuck around the reels and is hard to remove by whacking the tank.

In Sweden Paterson is dominant on the market, and with "analog" photo sales plummeting, there's not so much to choose from. Jobo is hard to find, as is steel spirals for the Paterson system. So my options are a bit limited.

I do feel, after extensive searching, that agitation is key, especially with big Paterson tanks.

df cardwell,
the reels have worked good before, it's only the tank that is new. Therefore I'm reluctant to deem the reels as defective. Also, as stated above, my options are limited. The Paterson system is designed to have the deveopler poured into the tank. It's by far the most popular tank in Sweden, and very common around Europe as I understand. Although your suggestion is a good one, it seems to me a last resort. I really hope the engineers at Paterson haven't built a system that is useless when following their own instructions.

I will contact the Paterson distributor in Sweden. They have had good suggestions before.

Thanks for all you suggestions!
*h

 

[timeUnit]

I think it was the agitation! I did two rolls of Pan F + in Rodinal 1+50 @20°C, 11 minutes. Agitation for the first 1,5 minutes and then 10 sec/min, with a technique recommended by a few people here and on photo.net. Alternating "tipping" of the tank from vertical to horisontal to the left and to the right. Between the the tippings I do a fast circular motion to create a whirlwind motion in the liquid. This way I get more agitation in the given amount of time, and probably more random and altogether better.

Both rolls look absolutely fine in terms of lighter spots or patches, I'm pleased with the results!

Thanks everyone for your knowledge!

*henning

 

[Marco Buonocore]

Super-old thread, I know, but:

I just wanted to share a similar experience with people. I recently developed a whole whack of 120 400tx. About half with Rodinal 1:50, and the other half with HC110(B). My agitation pattern is the same for both:

68F, 30s initial, tap tap tap, 4 inversions in 5s, every 30s, tapping at the end of each cycle.

Without question the negs developed in Rodinal had the same edge markings as TimeUnit's, and many others I've seen posted. Saunders McNew had a thread on this some time ago. The Hc110 negs were just fine.

Looking back over older negs, those developed in Rodinal consistently showed this same problem. A real shame, but live and learn. I'll probably just stick with HC110, as I've discovered I like the look of it better than Rodinal, edge markings aside.

It undoubtedly is an agitation issue. Nothing to do with under filling the tank, I'm quite sure. I reckon I'm over agitating (I like contrast). I've always read to treat Rodinal gently; I should have taken heed!

I would love to know what it is about Rodinal that would cause these problems, however. I wish they made clear developing tanks to see what the agitation patterns looks like (on dead rolls, obviously!). I bet it would be pretty obvious.

Any thought on this would be appreciated!

 

[dpurdy]

I know the problem is bubbles or air on the edges of the film because I have seen it many times. You have to dislodge the air from the film somehow. It might be that there is too much air in the water. Some water is far more aerated than other. I am not sure how that happens except with certain types of taps and mixing air in. I would do a presoak and find someway to rap the tank to get the air off the film. Maybe more initial agitation would help.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

This is why I stopped using Paterson Tank, I had these marks most of the time with 120 rolls. Now with Hewes spirals and Jobo tank roll film are perfect.
G.

 

[j_landecker]

I've had these marks often, too, and I always assumed it was bubbles. For me it seemed to start when I started using Pyrocat HD. One thing that bothers me about Ilford films is that they seem to create a ton of foam. By the last agitation cycle, it seems that the developer isn't even moving because there's so much foam in there. I always develop 2x 120 rolls per Paterson reel, so that may account for the amount of foam I get.

 

[Mark Antony]

My Advice, Pre-wet, agitate for one min intitially then 3 sharp taps on the work bench to dislodge any air.
If you still have problems, then use the central swisher stick method for agitation rather than inversion.
Mark

 

[sbelyaev]

I agree, these are bubble marks.
Use at least 600cc of developer, do not agitate vigorously and gently tap the sides of the tank after agitation. I'm confident that these marks will disappear.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What really helps is as I stated in my two year old post; to rap the tank firmly on the counter a couple of times after each agitation. I put a folded up towel on the counter so I don't break or damage the tank. That helps to dislodge the air bells.
The less agitation you do in your developing, the more important this becomes, since when you agitate you will at least move the bubbles an affect a different area.
Has someone measured the pH of both these developers? I'm not a scientist, but I thought that might help understand why this problem occurs.
- Thomas