Uneven development of film HP5+ and Retro400s with DDX and FX-39II

OP
OP

dirk_van_damme

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
16
Location
Belgium
Format
Medium Format
I would like to thank everyone for the contributions during our discussion and I would like apologize for the delay in providing my feedback and final findings.

Material and Development Process:
  1. The camera used is a Rollei Hy6/M2, utilizing 66 format black and white film, thoroughly tested and checked by DW-Photo and Paepke-fototechnik with no errors found.
  2. Film development is carried out using a tank by myself.
  3. Upon removing the film from the cassette, I ensure it is well protected from light in a black bag until development.
  4. Development temperature is consistently maintained around 20°C.
  5. The darkroom is fully covered against any light.
  6. I consistently employ the same agitation process.

Summary of the Problem:

1. for different film/developers combination, after development a dark line/zone appears across the whole width of the film - see jpg
View attachment 366131

My Findings:
  1. In August, I couldn't identify/pinpoint a specific cause for the issue. I believed I followed all procedures correctly which, in retrospect, was completely not true. I left the problem unresolved starting a new project in September, which involved working with Bergger PMK and HP5+ and FP4+ films. Now PMK requires quite heavy agitation which I did consciously. the issue did not appear but only on the last film processed in November 2023. I looked into the agitation process, as this was the only differing factor.
  2. I discovered that the problem was caused by an completely insufficient quarter twist of the tank during inversions.
  3. Additional validation of this I found in John Finch's book, "The Art of Black and White Developing" see http://www.pictorialplanet.com/.
  4. I adjusted my agitation method which is now, each time it is required I do a quarter twist of the tank whilst turning it upside down
  5. I tested it with FX-39II and RPX-100 film, which resulted in no issues at all.
  6. Since then, all my films have been free of the issue.
Ashamed of ignoring such a important and basic element in film development I have to admit that I have learned to never underestimate the importance of agitation method in the development process.

Again I thank you all for your help and apologize for taking your time on helping to resolve such a basic beginners-issue
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,599
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
@dirk_van_damme welcome back. Not sure if we're still talking about the same issue, but if it's this:

it's very definitely NOT related to agitation.

Perhaps in the meantime something else changed in your routine that you haven't noticed (yet) and that has solved (for now) the problem. Let's hope it stays away.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,035
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm

Yes it seems a little strange to me as well that a quarter of a twist is all it took to cure the problem but I echo your hope that it stays away

pentaxuser
 

Augustus Caesar

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2023
Messages
457
Location
Cleveland
Format
35mm
It's a light leak. The clear part of the negative has been exposed to light.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,700
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
I learned a long time ago to never say never and that anything is possible. If one little twist solves your problem I'm happy for you. I'll also log this down incase I run into something similar. Good work and thanks for not leaving us hang in the wind as to your findings.
 
OP
OP

dirk_van_damme

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
16
Location
Belgium
Format
Medium Format

thanks for the reply - it is actually this issue I am referring too - the line across the second negative. the issue you mention could very well be related to the agitation.
.
 
OP
OP

dirk_van_damme

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
16
Location
Belgium
Format
Medium Format
pentaxuser said:
Yes it seems a little strange to me as well that a quarter of a twist is all it took to cure the problem but I echo your hope that it stays away

pentaxuser
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I should mentioned that the twist is a strong twist, so the chemicals against the surface of the film are getting changed - whether it is a quarter or a half turn I am not sure whether it matters at the level. At least it solved the problem
 

Augustus Caesar

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2023
Messages
457
Location
Cleveland
Format
35mm
If you are talking about the lower negative, it has nothing to do with development.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,599
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Augustus Caesar said:
Light. Only light can do what is shown there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, practically, yes. There's a 0.001% of dichroic fog caused by e.g. a sulfur compound, but that's a long shot, and still unrelated to agitation.

dirk_van_damme said:
the issue you mention could very well be related to the agitation.
Click to expand...

No way. Sorry, but it's just not the case, any more than you'll step inside your car tomorrow morning to find it has become a time travel machine.

You had a light leak and for some reason it hasn't manifested over the past few months. Like I said, hopefully it stays away. But no amount of secret handshaking or rain dancing with a development tank is going to help.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,583
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
dirk_van_damme said:
the issue you mention could very well be related to the agitation.
Click to expand...

I agree with everybody else. If we are talking about the "line", above which there is clearly more exposure than under, it's not an agitation-related issue. No process involving a moving liquid can result in a straight line on the negative. Moreover, since there is a difference between over and under the line, if this were a development-process issue, it would mean that a specific part of the negative was over (or under) developed, in a straight line. Again, impossible if the whole film is immersed in a liquid.

The difference in exposure isn't that huge. One stop, maybe two. In other words, part of your negative had a fraction of a second more exposure than the other part. The detective in me would look on the body for something that opens and closes in a vertical manner. Maybe it just temporarily and intermittently got stuck for a fraction of a second, and perhaps the simple fact that it was opened and checked cured it from whatever was impeding it's motion — the equivalent of "Have you tried unplugging you wifi and turning it back on?"

This is pure speculation on my part, of course. I don't know that camera. But definitely not agitation related.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,599
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Alex Benjamin said:
, part of your negative had a fraction of a second more exposure than the other part.
Click to expand...

I think it was probably much longer, but low intensity - fogging due to an in-camera light leak, most likely. Note the fogged area along the edge of the film.

Camera light leaks sometimes occur in spots where they might be covered against sufficiently strong light if the camera is kept in a bag etc., and the problem may only play up if the camera is hold at a specific angle to a strong light source, or is allowed to sit long enough in a bright/well-lit spot with the film in the same place.

Given the fact that the light leak has a well-defined edge and extends across the width of the film, I'd expect it to be related to the film back and/or the interface between the film back and the camera body. A slight leak like this would be easy to miss during a routine inspection and might only be located by loading the camera with film and then exposing each side of the camera with strong light for an extended period of time (let's say 30-60 minutes), advancing the film every time the camera is lit from a different angle. Upon development of the film, it might be possible to conclude which side the leak occurs at. It seems film transport in this camera system is vertical, so especially the top and bottom seams between the camera back and the body would be suspect.

It's also possible that the problem is intermittent and caused by a slight misalignment when mounting the camera back to the body; I don't know to what extent this is possible with this system, but it's something I'd certainly look into.

In any case, all signs point firmly and IMO conclusively in the direction of an in-camera light leak.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,583
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
koraks said:
I think it was probably much longer, but low intensity - fogging due to an in-camera light leak, most likely. Note the fogged area along the edge of the film.
Click to expand...

This is indeed an excellent hypothesis.

dirk_van_damme said:
Additional validation of this I found in John Finch's book, "The Art of Black and White Developing"
Click to expand...

I found the passage in question, and it does — unfortunately, I'm tempted to say — confirm that it is not a development-related problem.

Passage is under the heading Tip - Possible Side Effect of Inversion Agitation, and reads as follows:

Surge lines beneath your sprocket holes come from violent inversion agitation. Don't shake the developing tank like a cocktail mixer! With inversion we use gentle but firm inversion. A little twist with your wrist, as you invert, will help give the developer a gentle spin but is not essential. When done inverting, rap the tank to dislodge bubbles!

Sound advice. But unrelated, I believe, to you problem.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,322
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Alex Benjamin said:
No process involving a moving liquid can result in a straight line on the negative.
Click to expand...

Generally, I would agree - as long as some regular agitation was involved.
If a film is allowed to sit stationary, part in and part out of developer, for a length of time, you may very well see a line where the top of the solution was.
That isn't this case though.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,035
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
koraks said:
No way. Sorry, but it's just not the case, any more than you'll step inside your car tomorrow morning to find it has become a time travel machine.
Click to expand...
I hope you are wrong I was intending to get into mine tomorrow and travel back about 15 years for cheap film, Xtol. ID11, D76 etc .

Anybody want anything?

pentaxuser
 

DWThomas

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
4,606
Location
SE Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
Just another comment ... in post #40 @koraks provides some excellent wisdom. I have no familiarity with the OP's camera, but have definite acquaintance with frustrating light leaks. In backs for the Bronica SQ series (another 6x6), the film passes emulsion side out from the supply spool chamber, then over a roller, past the pressure plate, thence another roller and down to the take-up spool. Deterioration of a light seal where the back/magazine closes could result in light striking the emulsion side between a supply or take-up spool and the film gate area. That opens up another possible area to check.

In my 1st-hand experience, the first exposure was fine. Apparently because I loaded the film indoors and wound to frame 1, thus with a light strike issue on the supply spool side, the first frame was already shielded by the film gate area. Beyond frame 2 the effect was there, but not always as noticeable depending on where the camera was pointed and whether it was in the sun or not.

Possible sources of trouble could include a bad seal, slight flexing of a cover, angle and/or intensity of the light, and time between exposures. One also must consider the image is "upside down" on the film side of the lens when sorting out the source.

Here's a more dramatic example of of the situation I describe (which is similar to the OP):

You can see the pattern goes out over the rebates. (Yeah, I inverted the scan!)

The problem was a messed up -- read almost missing -- seal across the back shell which covers the insert that holds the film.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,599
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
@DWThomas That is indeed *exactly* what I meant! I'm familiar with the SQ backs since I have an SQAi myself. Having looked at the camera system OP uses, it seems that the film travel path is somewhat similar. The sealing around the back is different, but I can imagine how a very similar fogging pattern would be possible on that system.

Thanks for giving such an apt illustration that bears so much similarity to OP's problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…