Understanding water qualities and effect on film

Hello,

In my pursuit of bulletproof (foolproof) negatives with the new TMax I've examined my water after mixing chemistry with distilled water and actually seeing my grain suffer with the distilled. I was wondering how specific minerals can affect film development, stop, fix, hypo-clear and wash.

I'm systematically working through each stage whilst changing one variable in my water because there's something in the process that makes my negatives look unpolished.

Is there a book that will help me understand the effects of water content and pH to minimize grain? Has anyone else examined these qualities in their water? Comparisons with tap water to distilled at each stage?

For example; As I understand stop bath, it is the rapid change in pH that creates the halting of development. Store bought stop bath has a higher pH than water stop thus the store bought will halt development instantly at the expense of more grain, tap water will work just as well but one must account for the time and I've seen decreased grain using plain water or vinegar diluted 1:4.

I'm not that scientific of a person but I want to understand the phenomenons that occur when I'm processing my film to get the most out of it.

Thanks for your insights,

Puma

Here's the breakdown of my water

Silica 9.9
Magnesium 60.0
Calcium 3.0
Sodium 1.7
Potassium 1.0
Bicarbonate 150.0
Sulphate 10
Chloride 2.4
Nitrate .14
Iron .17

In the pursuit of Bullet Proof Negatives I suggest the following

overexpose rated !SO by three stops
overdevelop film by three times the normal time
Do constant agitation
:munch:

Puma said:

... Store bought stop bath has a higher pH than water stop thus the store bought will halt development instantly at the expense of more grain ...

Click to expand...

Stop bath has a lower pH than water, and developer has a higher pH than water. I am unaware of any stop bath influence on grain.

I don't know how you would see a different grain structure when using distilled water. Judging grain is a very subjective matter, are you comparing two negatives of the same subject. Also density and contrast must be the same before you can make any comparison. Ask someone else to judge for you as they will not know which negatives correspond to which situation.

I agree with the two above posters. I've never seen a difference in grain based on water and that's after moving 4 times in the last 3 years and to two very distinct regions of the US. I simply use distilled for consistency sake with my developers.

EDIT: What I mean by the distilled water is that now that I'm mixing my own chemicals, etc I'm trying to keep the same pH at all cost.

My interpretation of "Bulletproof" means a high quality negative that prints reasonably well at grade two so that the starting point of making an excellent print is as good as it can be, minimal grain and a full range of tones. From there I can burn and dodge as needed, minimally adjust contrast to refine areas of the print. On the occasions where I have nailed exposure and development to exacting standards I have produced prints like this, obviously I want to recreate this scenario as much as possible and get the most out my negative as possible. Because I only shoot 35mm and that's all I ever want to shoot the highest quality negative is important. Perhaps my interpretation of bulletproof isn't accurate?

Bob, I don't know if you're making fun of me or not but it sounds like what you suggested would produce burned up negatives?

Puma:

"Bulletproof" is a label with some history. I have heard a lot of people use it to describe over-exposed and over-developed negatives - "my negatives were so thick they could stop a bullet". I think I've used it that way a time or two as well .

I'm sure Bob Carnie took your use of the phrase to mean the same.

I would think "foolproof" might be closer to the "high quality negative" meaning you've described - but still not ideal.

Your original question is a good one though. I just wish you would not use "hypo" when you mean "wash-aid"!

I shoot two rolls and change one variable to examine the differences so that I have a control group to compare to. I looked up bulletproof and I did understand to mean something other than it does. I see now that it's a negative that is very high contrast and has been overexposed by one or more stops. I typically expose TMax 400 at 200 to achieve a greater density. I've had many problems with the new TMax and the only thing I can think that could be wrong is something in the water. I process it as exactly as I can with consistency in every variable. The only place in the chain where I haven't exclusively used distilled water is the washing stage and that's only because I can't afford to wash every roll for thirty minutes in distilled water.

When you say you've had many problems with TMY could you be more specific?

Puma:

I've just re-read the thread you started ( (there was a url link here which no longer exists) ) where you described your problems with the new TMY, and I have had another thought.

You indicate that you use diluted vinegar as a stop bath.

I myself favour using a stop bath over a water rinse after the development stage, but I think you should try either using a stop bath from Kodak, Ilford or another photographic chemical supplier (my preference) or a water rinse.

Food grade vinegar could have additives that are fine for food, but lousy for film.

It seems that at every stage there has been a problem and I've systematically tried to solve each. First my fixer was bad and I replaced it and it seemed to solve the problem, now I think that my developer is bad too. In a private message an APUG member told me about John Sexton's article where he talked about dichroic fog from old developer. I've had a lot of dichroic fog, present in every roll I've developed so far. So I surmise from other's posts that the water isn't the culprit.

I'm also thinking that I'm not agitating vigorously enough, I follow the directions of putting my thumb on the top of the tank and inverting 180 degrees. Should I be really rough about it?

This evening I will try a water bath. And I doubt I'll ever buy chemistry from my local supplier anymore because it seems like everything I've bought from them is expired. I should look up the storage life of TMax developer. I have some old and unopened TMax RS developer but it's probably expired too. Sigh, now I've got to wait for shipping.

Michael, I've been shooting two rolls of the same subject and comparing them but I hadn't thought of doing it with a uniform subject to compare the grain. I will try that.

In the examples I've already processed the grain is so pronounced and I can easily see that it isn't the way it should be. I'm using a tripod for testing, trying to do everything I know to do correctly and it still looks awful, the thing is that I used to process my own film with great success so I'm frustrated that now it's so problematic.

Sincere thanks,

Puma

I am pulling your leg..

** bullet proof is a lab rat language for crappy negs.**

Just like flat as piss on a plate describing low contrast prints.

Or that photographer does not shit from shinola

or , you need to push the crap out of that slide to get detail.

Puma:

Where (approximately) are you? Someone here might have a good suggestion for sources.

Some, but not all of the Kodak chemistry has an expiration date printed on the outside of the bottle.

As for your agitation regime, it appears sufficiently vigorous to me. It might help to add a bit of "swirl" to each twist of your wrist though (in as random a pattern as you can). It doesn't sound to me though that you are experiencing uneven development, which would be a more likely result of an improper agitation regime.

Bob, my negatives are good in the sense that I can print them and the average non-photographer would think they were good but I want more in them and there's those weird problems that I had with expired chemistry.

I used the twist and swirl agitation technique with other films. I've adhered to Kodak's advice with one alteration: when I sit the tank down in the water bath I turn it 1/8th of a turn so that in each cycle I'm putting a different part of the film into the lowest part of the inversion. I would say that the negatives are perfectly even, though I have seen these black areas around the film rebate.

I live in Central Arkansas, not exactly a lot of photography happening here. There are only two photo stores that I'm aware of and one of them has completely abandoned darkroom equipment and chemistry, the other one is where I got my chemistry and it must have sat around awhile. I decided to go back to the darkroom because I was dissatisfied with the digital prints even if I had a pro print them, they all had a color cast to them that I didn't like and the surface didn't have the same psychological feel. Also, I just don't enjoy staring at a computer. So the road back to the darkroom is littered with obstacles but I'll get there and I've got much better equipment to use. I've made some prints with old negatives in my new V35 enlarger and the difference is stunning compared to the cheapo enlarger I used to have but actually I thought I did a pretty good job with what I had.

I checked the expiration date on the developer and it expired in January of this year, all my carefulness and I never even considered that. I should've looked when I bought it.

Thanks for everyone's help in figuring this out,

Puma

Well , I use distilled water for all my film developers and final wetting agent rinse,
The reason , was when reading Gordon Hutchings Book of Pyro , he mentions how distilled water has no ***metals and crap** that some regular water has in it and therefore the developer gets to all areas of the emulsion with less resistance.
I took this to heart and since then all our film was done this way.
I also have taken a lot of formulas given here and in lets say the darkroom cookbook by Steve Anchell .
Ian Grant and Ralph here an APUG are a huge resource of information when it gets to the nitty gritty of chemical usage and I always defer to their wisdom regarding chemicals.
The more you mix yourself the better .
Also when using hand tanks for processing I use a twist and invert method you do and it gives marvelous results.
The key IMHO is to get the chems onto the film surface quickly and evenly with a good agitation proceedure, in my darkroom we only use one shot chems with distilled water. Other darkrooms vary but I have been pretty happy with the film we have produced over the years.
Using straightforward methods , and not searching for a magic bullet has always been the case for me. I have been using Dektol for 35 years now and I seem to get some decent results. I have never seen the need to move to more exotic chems.
Nothing wrong with experimentation , but the wizards at Kodak , Ilford, Agfa and Fuji are nothing short of amazing in there standard products.
I am sure there are others in your area to gang up on stock.

I would like to the point of reference when OP says good/bad and grainy/not_grainy. I've played around with Tmax 400 (the new version) for about a year and I've never had big issues. I had density and contrast issue but I reduced dev time and I managed to control it.

I know many will disagree but with my usage, shooting Tmax at box speed and using XTOL 1:1 with databook time resulted in very dense, contrasty, and hard to print negatives.

I remember the OP's original thread and I understand majority of the issue was traced to bad/old chemicals. If something is STILL awfully wrong, I'd think there are more catastrophic issues than just type of water he is using.

How large are you magnifying to see objectionable grains? TMY2 135 enlarged to 8x10, I had to look very close to see grains. I don't know OP so I'm assuming a lot, but it sounds to me he is trying too hard to make perfect negatives. With these confusing results, I tend to take a safe route, reset everything to "book figures", do everything by the book, use distilled water just for testing, and then move forward.

For the record, I use filtered water for mixing stock chems but for everything else, I just use tap water.

The issues were bad chemistry, that I bought recently. I've learned a valuable lesson about checking the dates on them. It caused a great deal of frustration and I was chasing down every variable I could think of. I was enlarging a small section of the negative to 8x10 and comparing them to old prints that I made over ten years ago, with lesser equipment and the difference is very grainy. I have since had success with all new chemistry.

There's only one problem left and that is in the film rebate. It isn't perfectly clear like it should be. I'm guessing that I should fix a little longer but I'm not certain?

I'm mixing chemistry with distilled water because it does seem like a good idea. I also use Dektol and always have for printmaking. Like you Bob, I'm pretty sure the people at Kodak and other major companies know what they're doing and I get good results when the chemistry isn't as old as Jurassic park. In college I dated a girl whose father worked for Kodak, he had a Masters in Chemistry from Duke and I'm certain that he knew exactly what he was doing and I assume the rest of the company does as well. I have also always used developer one shot, mostly because I don't think I could invent a sliding scale for getting expansion and contraction down to a science.

Speaking of exotics, I would like to try Stoeckler someday, just because it's been around forever and I've never used it.

My sincere thanks to everyone who has given their valuable input in this thread,

Puma

Puma said:

I was enlarging a small section of the negative to 8x10 and comparing them to old prints that I made over ten years ago, with lesser equipment and the difference is very grainy.

Puma

Click to expand...

You do realize that when looking at a priint what you are calling grain is actually the space between grains. To really judge grain you need to look at the negatives themselves with a microscope.

Concerning film rebate, using metal reel for processing, part of rebate where it touches the wire of the reel is never completely clear. It always leaves some unfixed portion looking like a long broken line. This happens on both side of the film. Between frames, the space is always clear. I've fixed up to 15 minutes or so with fresh fixer and it is never completely gone. I usually don't worry about it and stick with my usual 10 minutes of fix when new and 12 minutes with close to capacity fix.

Is that what you are talking about??

Puma said:

... I would like to try Stoeckler someday, just because it's been around forever and I've never used it. ...

Click to expand...

That's probably the worst reason I've heard so far.

However, I would like to pass along a piece of advice, given to me by C. J. Elfont, a creative photographer and author himself, which has served me well over the years. ‘Pick one film, one developer, one paper and work them over and over again, until you have a true feeling for how they work individually and in combination with each other.’ This may sound a bit pragmatic, but it is good advice, and if it makes you feel too limited, try two each. The point is that an arsenal of too many material alternatives is often just an impatient response to disappointing initial attempts or immature and inconsistent technique. Unless you thrive on endless trial and error techniques, or enjoy experimentation with different materials in general, it is far better to improve craftsmanship and final results with repeated practice and meticulous record keeping for any given combination of proven materials, rather than blaming it possibly on the wrong material characteristics. There are no miracle potions!

RalphLambrecht said:

Unless you thrive on endless trial and error techniques, or enjoy experimentation with different materials in general, it is far better to improve craftsmanship and final results with repeated practice and meticulous record keeping for any given combination of proven materials, rather than blaming it possibly on the wrong material characteristics. There are no miracle potions!

Click to expand...

Amen, brother!

Or blaming your water quality.

Puma said:

Silica 9.9
Magnesium 60.0
Calcium 3.0
Sodium 1.7
Potassium 1.0
Bicarbonate 150.0
Sulphate 10
Chloride 2.4
Nitrate .14
Iron .17

Click to expand...

I take it these numbers are in units of mg/L?

If so, that looks like perfectly fine water for drinking. And if it's fine for drinking, it's going to be fine for photography.

Puma said:

The issues were bad chemistry, that I bought recently.

Click to expand...

Stop Bath is one photo chemical that has a practically unlimited shelf life. There is really nothing there to go bad, if it is just a simple indicator stop like Kodak's.

I had a large bottle of Kodak Indicator Stop Bath concentrate that I used for over 10 years and it was just fine.

Kirk, the plastic bottle can go bad. I found that out at a local university, went to open the bottle and the filler neck came off with the lid.