Uneven development of the first frame of a roll of film

[BGriffin23]

Hello all. Another noob mistake all of you could help me diagnose. This has happened to me twice already, so clearly it is a trend and not just a fluke. When I develop a roll of film the first frame looks half properly developed and half very dark, like the short length of film after the leader, as if I had accidentally exposed it (picture below). However I load the camera just as the Nikon manual suggests:

1. After fully winding previous roll into cartridge, push little button around film winding crank wheel and pull crank wheel out to open back. (Never had "extra film" sticking out of the cartridge when the camera is opened yet.)
2. Remove previous cartridge and place new one in. Push winding crank wheel all the way in to hold cartridge in place.
3. Pull some film out. Just enough to put a bit of the leader into the slot of the take-up spool. Turn take-up spool a little so as to begin to roll film onto spool. Once the take-up spool has begun to "grip" the film a bit I will hold down the film near the mouth of the cartridge while continuing to wind the take-up spool to take out the slack wile not pulling any more film out of the cartridge. I really try to minimize how much film is pulled out of the cartridge before closing the back.
4. Close the back when the film is reasonably taunt and flat.
5. Pull the film advance lever and push the shutter button a few times until the film counting dial goes from "S" to "1."

This has happened to my third (pictured) and second (first frame was very overexposed so hard to take a picture of) rolls. My first roll has been cut up and put into a 3-ring binder negative sleeve so I don't know what the beginning of the roll looks like, but suspiciously my negatives start at frame # 4.

Also I noticed another such uneven (development?) line in roll # 2 shown in the second picture. This roll has TWO such lines. What is going on here?

Finally I see my rolls are starting at frame # 2 and end in frame # 25 (have only been using 135-24 film so far). Is this normal? Seems I could have a whole 'nother frame if only I load it properly! Better yet I see another two frames worth of film in front of frame # 1...yet another 2?! These could in theory be exposed as the two dots in the beginning of the film counter S . . 1.

Well anyway, I guess I will be having to load my next roll in a darkroom bag for now until I can figure this out.

 

[MattKing]

I'm wondering if the problem might be happening at the other end of the process - after you have rewound the film or while you are loading it into the reels for development.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The facts that these are both at an angle (not straight across the film) and not dense enough to fully obliterate image information (at least in the first example above) suggest this is something other than light fogging at loading (caused, for instance, by not advancing enough frames after closing the camera), but rather something happening in development. Check your tank lid and core for cracks, mismatched parts, and other things that could cause a light leak at the core (which is where the head end of the film would normally land).

 

[BGriffin23]

@Donald Qualls Are you referring to the part on the left? The suspect part would be the central cylinder? Running my fingers around it and the surrounding areas I do not feel any cracks. Placing a powerful flashlight top (underside in the picture) and plugging the bottom of the hole (topside in the picture) to prevent any light coming from there doesn't produce any visible light leaks. I am thinking of just buying another and see what happens. Adorama has a sale on this tank:

https://www.adorama.com/dkt135.html

 

[MattKing]

My 2 reel version of that sort of tank has a separate centre column that comes out. Perhaps yours should have something similar.

 

[Kino]

My 2 reel version of that sort of tank has a separate centre column that comes out. Perhaps yours should have something similar.

+1

 

[BGriffin23]

My 2 reel version of that sort of tank has a separate centre column that comes out. Perhaps yours should have something similar.

Nope. The joys of eBay. You never quite know what you're going to get.

Anyone have experience with the one from the Adorama link? Any good?

 

[Pieter12]

Just want to point out that it doesn't look like uneven development, rather exposure to light either in the camera (doubtful if you're following the instructions as you say) or in the darkroom. How do you load the film on the reel? There could be an issue with light coming through the filler hole in the tank, too. The fact that the sprocket area has been exposed to light as shown in you second example isn't a good sign either. Is that happening throughout the roll?

 

[MattKing]

Anyone have experience with the one from the Adorama link? Any good?

That is designed for steel reels, and won't work with the Paterson reel you have.

 

[MattKing]

This one is the one I would recommend - however it is on backorder: https://www.adorama.com/dktpu.html
The reels included with it work as well for 35mm film as your Paterson reel, and are easier to load with 120 film.
The reel you have will work in the linked Adorama tank as well. You don't have to develop 2 rolls at a time, but you can, and you can use the reels for 120 as well.
That Adorama tank is sold under other names as well - AP (the likely manufacturer), Arista premium, Samigon.
If you wish to stay with Adorama, this Paterson tank and reel combination is excellent as well - https://www.adorama.com/patu.html. The Paterson tank is faster to fill and empty. I prefer the AP reels, because I use a lot of 120 film along with 35mm film, so I use AP reels with Paterson tanks.
Here is the closest thing to what you currently have - from Freestyle: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/5042-Arista-Premium-Single-Reel-35mm-Developing-Tank-with-One-Reel. They also carry the two reel version, but are out of stock until an expected arrival date in March.

 

[BGriffin23]

There could be an issue with light coming through the filler hole in the tank, too.

That is what I suspect right now. The lack of the central pillar part and agitator in what I got is the likely culprit.

The fact that the sprocket area has been exposed to light as shown in you second example isn't a good sign either. Is that happening throughout the roll?

If Exposed To Light = sprocket area is darker, the second picture is the only example on either roll.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep, I'm late the party, but I think you're missing the column. That would cause the fogging on the inner wrap of film in the tank, while the material of the reel itself limits the density and creates the angled shadow. It would also account for the sprocket strip fogging, so fix the tank problem before worrying about your camera.

 

[Pieter12]

That is what I suspect right now. The lack of the central pillar part and agitator in what I got is the likely culprit.



If Exposed To Light = sprocket area is darker, the second picture is the only example on either roll.

Both photos show the sprocket are exposed.The film in that strip top & bottom should be clear with frame numbers, film type etc.

 

[BGriffin23]

UPS delivered my new paterson tank today. Should solve the problem but will let everyone know. One question: Do I use the agitation rod (notched on one end) for spin agitation or should I continue to do rotational inversions?

 

[MattKing]

UPS delivered my new paterson tank today. Should solve the problem but will let everyone know. One question: Do I use the agitation rod (notched on one end) for spin agitation or should I continue to do rotational inversions?

Have you read the instructions ?
They say that the agitation rod is only to be used for the initial agitation.
Many here - including me - never use it.

 

[BGriffin23]

Have you read the instructions ?

Second hand items rarely come with instructions.

 

[MattKing]

Second hand items rarely come with instructions.

https://www.patersonphotographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GREYSCALE-FinalSupertanksFULL.pdf

 

[Donald Qualls]

Have you read the instructions ?
They say that the agitation rod is only to be used for the initial agitation.
Many here - including me - never use it.

That's the official stance. I've been using the rod, doing "swizzle stick" agitation, since I started replenishing Flexicolor, as a way to minimize oxygen exposure of the color developer. Haven't had any complaints about either the 120 or 35mm negatives that result.

 

[laingsoft]

That's the official stance. I've been using the rod, doing "swizzle stick" agitation, since I started replenishing Flexicolor, as a way to minimize oxygen exposure of the color developer. Haven't had any complaints about either the 120 or 35mm negatives that result.

I typically use the swizzle stick as well, without issue.

 

[pentaxuser]

I typically use the swizzle stick as well, without issue.

Yes I have often wondered about what the real facts are in terms of the safety of the swizzle stick. Way back in 1960 I joined my school's photography club. It was very small group of us and all we had for processing was one tank and reel. I feel certain in those days it must have been a Paterson tank and I recall the swizzle stick. All we were told to do in terms of agitation was to use the swizzle stick. As far as I can recall we swizzled relatively slowly both ways so all the film got was the motion provided by the stick

While our film processing output was very small ( as schoolboys reliant on limited pocket money we just could not afford to buy many films) I cannot recall any processing problems with those sticks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

My first developing tanks didn't permit inversion (Kodak apron and Yankee plastic with a combination agitator and thermometer), so I understand the possibilities.
I'd rather be extra careful though, and randomize the agitation a bit more.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Lots of the Bakelite and other plastic tanks from the "good old days" (before I started developing in 1969-1970) could not be inverted, and in some of the older Yankee and FR tanks the top of the core was the swizzle stick -- no separate part. These were the low-cost beginner's tanks in the 1960s and early 1970s (probably the 1950s, too) -- if you were just starting out, you'd get a 620 or 127 camera with an f/6.3 or f/4.5 lens and three shutter speeds, an FR (Fincke & Roselieve, though I might have butchered the spelling) tank with adjustable reel (most would take either 35mm to 116/616, or 16mm to 120, always including 35mm to cover 828 and, after the mid-1960s, 126, as well as 127), a few packets of MQ Universal developer, dry powder stop bath, and a small bag of fixer ("makes a quart"), and often you could pick up a second hand enlarger and one lens for next to nothing. Rust? Frayed insulation on the cord? Who cares, as long as the light works, both the column and focus work, and it has a carrier for your chosen format. Worked for me when I was fourteen...

 

[reddesert]

@Donald Qualls Are you referring to the part on the left? The suspect part would be the central cylinder? Running my fingers around it and the surrounding areas I do not feel any cracks. Placing a powerful flashlight top (underside in the picture) and plugging the bottom of the hole (topside in the picture) to prevent any light coming from there doesn't produce any visible light leaks. I am thinking of just buying another and see what happens. Adorama has a sale on this tank:

https://www.adorama.com/dkt135.html

Your first tank looks similar to the AP tanks that Freestyle sell as the Arista Premium, and as everyone else pointed out it's missing the central core. Freestyle sells replacements for their tanks, and it is possible that the replacement for the single reel tank would work: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/05042-Arista-Replacement-Core-for-5042-Premium-Single-Reel-Tank
It only costs a dollar, so add one to your next order.

 

[laingsoft]

Yes I have often wondered about what the real facts are in terms of the safety of the swizzle stick. Way back in 1960 I joined my school's photography club. It was very small group of us and all we had for processing was one tank and reel. I feel certain in those days it must have been a Paterson tank and I recall the swizzle stick. All we were told to do in terms of agitation was to use the swizzle stick. As far as I can recall we swizzled relatively slowly both ways so all the film got was the motion provided by the stick

While our film processing output was very small ( as schoolboys reliant on limited pocket money we just could not afford to buy many films) I cannot recall any processing problems with those sticks

pentaxuser

If you are processing two rolls at the same time I could see the eddys in the fluid flow could cancel each other out if you use a swizzle stick. Likewise, if you are using too little developer, enough inversions could save your rolls.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you are processing two rolls at the same time I could see the eddys in the fluid flow could cancel each other out if you use a swizzle stick.

If that is the same eddys as in eddys amazing hand coloured pictures then I need to ask him how he does those before he disappears

On a more serious note I don't have a Paterson tank but as I said when using one from 60 years ago I cannot recall a problem even with single rolls but in 1960 things were a lot more reliable. You could trust things then

I hope the OP lets all of us know whether his new secondhand tank cures the problem

pentaxuser