Trouble with Neopan Acros 100

I think you should use water that is heavily chlorinated like pool water, or maybe some Parier water, that should ensure all the bubbles fizzle to the top, that should solve the problem.



(hint: sarcasm)

StoneNYC said:

I think you should use water that is heavily chlorinated like pool water, or maybe some Parier water, that should ensure all the bubbles fizzle to the top, that should solve the problem.



(hint: sarcasm)

Click to expand...

I used puddle water mixed 4:1 with the water from the reservoir on back of the toilet. Did I do right? I was told the fine grit in the puddle water would dislodge bubbles, and the toilet water - well - that's obvious. *more sarcasm*

paulbarden said:

I used puddle water mixed 4:1 with the water from the reservoir on back of the toilet. Did I do right? I was told the fine grit in the puddle water would dislodge bubbles, and the toilet water - well - that's obvious. *more sarcasm*

Click to expand...

I've shot a test roll of Acros 100 (at 80 ASA) with my Hasselblad, and cut it into three pieces (well, two pieces and a 2" "air bell test strip") and the two main segments were both developed in Rodinal 1:50, but one received a three minute presoak with continuous agitation and a drop of PhotoFlo added to the water. The other section did not receive a presoak of any kind - it simply went straight into the developer and its tank received many sharp raps on the counter during the first minute of continuous agitation, and several good whacks in the subsequent 4 minutes. Both were in the developer for eleven and a half minutes and I used two rinses of plain water for a stop bath, then into Kodak hardening fixer (chosen only because its what I had ready and available, not for any strategic reason) I used mineral-free reverse osmosis water (as I always do) for all chemistry. I opted not to treat the water to eliminate any dissolved gasses because I think it is good science to eliminate ONE potential problem factor at a time - otherwise, how would I know for sure which change was the change that gave me the desired result?!
The 2" test piece I cut from the middle of the roll was simply exposed to daylight and then soaked in a water bath for 5+ minutes with near-constant agitation, at which point I examined it for air bells with a magnifying glass. I definitely saw evidence that there were tiny spherical spots where the emulsion appeared to have resisted wetting. I then dunked that piece into the leftover developer after I filled the two tanks and let it swirl about in the developer for a couple of minutes, then fixed and washed it. (I let it go through the developer a bit to see if I could render any air bells permanent on the film, and thus reveal their presence)

I've dried and cut the film and will post the results this evening.

I don't have lots of experience with acros, but I've developed maybe 10 or 12 rolls of 120. I use RO water too, straight from the tank under the sink, and it definitely DOES have dissolved gases in it from being under pressure. No pre-soak, HC110 dilution "E", never seen any airbells. I use "Ilford-style" agitation, 4 inversions per minute, and I whack it pretty good on my palm a few times before setting it down. So at least for me, the dissolved gases are not causing bubbles to stick to the film. My well water goes through a calcite filter and a potassium chloride filter prior to the RO unit.

P.S. I'd never heard anything about fuji b/w films needing additional agitation, that's interesting!

Here is what I found...

Test film segment #1: Presoaked in RO water with one drop of PhotoFlo added, for three minutes, continuous agitation and several good raps of the tank on the work surface.
Result? No air bells on this piece of film.

Test film segment #2: No presoak of any kind - just straight into the developer (I used Rodinal 1:50 for bother pieces of film, at 68F for 11:30) and the tank was rapped firmly on the counter several times in the first minute (continuous agitation) and several times in the next couple of minutes. Result? No air bells on this segment of film either. That's right - BOTH halves of the roll displayed no air bell marks that I can see. (I didn't look at every frame, but I examined 9 out of 12)

So, I am going to conclude that the real culprit was in fact air bells forming on the emulsion surface, creating the circle marks I was getting, and the reason is probably because I was being too casual with the presoak time and agitation. Clearly Fuji's fact sheet says the first minute must include continuous agitation, and that would mean the presoak too. Anyway, since I found no marks on the segment that got no presoak, I may do the next few rolls omitting a presoak and see if that continues to work for me. Thanks to all for the various suggestions and help.

The image from this morning, shot with the Hasselblad w/standard 80 lens, 1/2 second at f11.5:

paulbarden said:

Here is what I found...

Test film segment #1: Presoaked in RO water with one drop of PhotoFlo added, for three minutes, continuous agitation and several good raps of the tank on the work surface.
Result? No air bells on this piece of film.

Test film segment #2: No presoak of any kind - just straight into the developer (I used Rodinal 1:50 for bother pieces of film, at 68F for 11:30) and the tank was rapped firmly on the counter several times in the first minute (continuous agitation) and several times in the next couple of minutes. Result? No air bells on this segment of film either. That's right - BOTH halves of the roll displayed no air bell marks that I can see. (I didn't look at every frame, but I examined 9 out of 12)

So, I am going to conclude that the real culprit was in fact air bells forming on the emulsion surface, creating the circle marks I was getting, and the reason is probably because I was being too casual with the presoak time and agitation. Clearly Fuji's fact sheet says the first minute must include continuous agitation, and that would mean the presoak too. Anyway, since I found no marks on the segment that got no presoak, I may do the next few rolls omitting a presoak and see if that continues to work for me. Thanks to all for the various suggestions and help.

The image from this morning, shot with the Hasselblad w/standard 80 lens, 1/2 second at f11.5:

View attachment 100837

Click to expand...

Darn good shots for "test" shots

Also, congrats on finding a way to prevent air bubbles.

Be aware by omitting the pre-soak you MAY have to adjust your development times SLIGHTLY to get the same density/contrast as before because the pre-soak adds water into the emulsion, the removal of water and infusion of developer takes some time (this is the side effect of the main purpose which is to prevent uneven development because the initial infusion is slow enough that you can pour the developer in and begin agitation before developer is fully infused in the emulsion) so without the pre-soak you might need to adjust the time.

Also, I would never put PhotoFlo in my tank ever, but that's just me

Good luck!!!

Hi Paul
Well done & like the test shots.
They have banned borax as a wash aid here we are only allowed sodium carbonate.
Noel

StoneNYC said:

Also, I would never put PhotoFlo in my tank ever, but that's just me

Click to expand...

I always do apart from bubbles pouring out the top what bad things will I get?

Xmas said:

I always do apart from bubbles pouring out the top what bad things will I get?

Click to expand...

I'm only going by what I've read is that it can cause unexpected images because of its water shedding properties, streak issues etc. Seen warnings to the effect not to even put the photoFlo in the tank because washing it won't remove all of it and the next time you use it can have development issues.

I have NO experience with issues doing this because I avoided it. So I have NO proof that this is true, but I've seen it written enough, and seen problems presented and removal of photoflo from the equation that it seems logical to avoid it except at the end in a separate container before hanging.

StoneNYC said:

Darn good shots for "test" shots

Click to expand...

Well, you know, just because my primary goal was to provide a roll of exposures for test purposes doesn't mean I'm not going to make some effort to produce a worthwhile photo

StoneNYC said:

Also, congrats on finding a way to prevent air bubbles.

Be aware by omitting the pre-soak you MAY have to adjust your development times SLIGHTLY to get the same density/contrast as before because the pre-soak adds water into the emulsion, the removal of water and infusion of developer takes some time (this is the side effect of the main purpose which is to prevent uneven development because the initial infusion is slow enough that you can pour the developer in and begin agitation before developer is fully infused in the emulsion) so without the pre-soak you might need to adjust the time.

Click to expand...

Noted, and thanks. I was aware that this could potentially be an issue - I mean, when I was being schooled in darkroom craft in the eighties (the 1980s, not the 1880s, thank you) we were advised to do a pre-soak for this very reason. But I also realized this was an opportunity to see if the results could be significantly altered by the omission of the pre-soak, but I could see no significant difference between the two test segments - but of course, a densitometer might show otherwise. Maybe Neopan Acros is different from other emulsionsin this way? I mean, we know it behaves differently in regards to its reciprocity failure rate (how did they do this, and why don't other films fare better?!), and it's tonal curve is somewhat unique, so maybe it doesn't benefit the same from a pre-soak? I certainly appear to have discovered my overly casual approach to pre-soaking was a bad thing for this particular emulsion.

Again, thanks to all who offered their constructive advice. I'm grateful.

StoneNYC said:

I'm only going by what I've read is that it can cause unexpected images because of its water shedding properties, streak issues etc. Seen warnings to the effect not to even put the photoFlo in the tank because washing it won't remove all of it and the next time you use it can have development issues.

I have NO experience with issues doing this because I avoided it. So I have NO proof that this is true, but I've seen it written enough, and seen problems presented and removal of photoflo from the equation that it seems logical to avoid it except at the end in a separate container before hanging.

Click to expand...

I had never added PhotoFlo before yesterday's test and I'm not going to repeat that amendment in the future, since it seems I've identified my problem and can likely eliminate further issues by adjusting my technique in other ways.

Well done in figuring out. good luck and please pass on the information about Acros

Paul well done

now you only have 1000 more things that can go wrong... this is what's so great about what we do, always learning

I remember years ago one of the Kodak books having pictures of almost every know default, It may have been an Ilford or Agfa book , but the air bells you showed and Winger showed were one of the pages. Also showed force reticulation which seems to happen here quite a bit.

If we go back in time on this site, it is obvious that agitation in the first 15 seconds of development is critical.. and if not done right can drive one insane.

I know from painful experience I stopped lab production for three months one year because we were getting minus density in sky's and grey backgrounds.. we were doing every the same for years up to that point.

turned out we would hand agitate and make sure we were inverting and twisting the tank for 15 seconds , THEN we put the drum on the jobo... solved the problem but believe me it was a painful three months to turn work away. I also blamed the water supply which can be a critical element in the process.


Bob