Uniform overexposed line on BW negs and scans

[Albuca]

Just stepping my toes into 35mm BW film photography and home development -- and noticed an issue with one of the two rolls I just developed and figured I would engage the hive mind for some assistance.

There is a pretty uniform line on the top of the film roll, where the image is overexposed. The issue carries across the entire roll (more or less, some of the images its harder to discern) and persists even when not shot in bright light. At first I thought it may have been a light leak or shutter bounce - but as it only affects one roll, and the negative is lighter, maybe its a chemistry issue where I didn't have enough developer in the tank?

Background info: Canon Elan 7e, 50mm 1.8 EF, Kentmere 400 (shot at 400)

I've included both pictures of the negative (hard to do by hand, sorry) and the scans.


Appreciate any guidance and assistance =)
Ps. any tips on removing this issue in Lightroom/PS?

 

[Don_ih]

maybe its a chemistry issue where I didn't have enough developer in the tank?

Yes. And the film is slightly underdeveloped above the line, making the area darker in the positive.

 

[pentaxuser]

What was the tank and can you now remember what the quantity of developer that you used was?

Have you used this tank and that quantity of developer in the past with none of the effect you mention?

I'll be honest and say I cannot detect a line across the top that is in any way úniform but when I see scans where I can see much less evidence of a defect there are others who can

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

I would take a look at how your shutter is working -- it might be stuttering a bit.

 

[Ian Grant]

It may be the spiral moved up the column during agitation, quite late into development. Paterson tanks use a locking ring to stop this happening.

Ian

 

[koraks]

It may be the spiral moved up the column during agitation, quite late into development.

That's actually possible, yes. Although the simple explanation of insufficient developer volume is also conceivable, although you generally get a more fuzzy transition between the properly processed part and the underdeveloped part.

Canon Elan 7e, 50mm 1.8 EF, Kentmere 400 (shot at 400)

That's a nice combination to work with.

Welcome to Photrio!

 

[loccdor]

Background info: Canon Elan 7e, 50mm 1.8 EF, Kentmere 400 (shot at 400)

Great camera. It's a favorite of mine.

I haven't ever encountered a line like that from development that was as sharp as yours. If it was from chemicals I would expect it to have more blur and unevenness.


Check out this image of the camera's shutter, especially note the bottom metal blade which seems to match with the line on your negatives (keeping in mind the image will be upside-down):

I think the bottom blade of your shutter is sticking just a touch longer than it should be. Do you have any oiliness or gumminess on the blades? What has worked for me on the EOS series is to soak small strips of paper in isopropyl alcohol and gently put them through the slits of the shutter in order to clean it off. You need to use a light touch if you attempt this.

I had an EOS 650 that had a shutter problem, and, like you, I found it would occur frequently on some rolls, and not at all on others. Temperature and humidity probably plays a role, the most effected shots of my trip were on a ferry with lots of sea spray in the air.

 

[Don_ih]

In one image, the uneven density is defined along a straight line, but in the picture of the truck:

 

[koraks]

I think the bottom blade of your shutter is sticking just a touch longer than it should be.

No, that's not it.
For one, the line would never be this sharply delineated, but it would be very blurry since the shutter is very far from the film plane, so it's out of focus even at a small aperture.
Secondly, there's considerable waviness in the line while the shutter blades are straight.
Also, the mechanics of the shutter are such that the failure mode you describe is probably inherently impossible.

 

[loccdor]

You may be right.

However let's note that the metal blades themselves are neither perfectly horizontal nor in a perfectly straight line. I've also noticed they don't always come to rest in the exact same position, there is a little variance.

I still don't think it's the chemicals.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

What makes you think it's not shutter bounce? I don't think it's the chemicals either, too straight.

 

[koraks]

What makes you think it's not shutter bounce?

See post #9
Also see how an EOS shutter moves:

(note that they never changed the concept since 1980 or so)

It won't fail in this particular way. If it does, it'll create a very vaguely delineated area of underexposure that's also far bigger than what's shown here. There should be some photos floating on the net from EOS cameras with a "sticky shutter syndrom", which is the way they generally fail (but not on this particular camera!) There's no way a single blade will stay behind for a short while and then instantly bounce back since they're all mechanically connected. If a single blade would malfunction in this way, it would be just once and then the whole shutter would be toast (and visibly so).

I think it's insufficient developer volume, which corrected itself in part due to agitation and developer sticking to the film surface. However, the initial phase of development affected density and this area never caught up with the rest.

 

[loccdor]

I think it's insufficient developer volume, which corrected itself in part due to agitation and developer sticking to the film surface. However, the initial phase of development affected density and this area never caught up with the rest.

Hmm, yeah, now that you describe it more I could see that. The tank would have to be sitting on a surface while the chemicals were poured into it to make that kind of line. I always have the tank in one hand, developer in the other while I pour, so that type of line straightness isn't something I could experience.

OP, was the tank sitting on a surface while you poured the developer in? Tell us more about your earliest form of agitation and about how long it was after you poured that you agitated.

 

[koraks]

OP, was the tank sitting on a surface while you poured the developer in? Tell us more about your earliest form of agitation and about how long it was after you poured that you agitated.

Yeah, good question.

I'd also like to see a photo of a few consecutive frames that all show the same problem clearly. What I'm looking for is whether the line 'jumps' from one frame to the next, or if it seems to be continuous (except for the inter-frame gaps). If the line jumps, it's frame-related and thus camera-related. I don't think it is, but it's easy enough to verify.

 

[Albuca]

Thank you all very much for all of your detailed replies and insights!

What was the tank and can you now remember what the quantity of developer that you used was?

Have you used this tank and that quantity of developer in the past with none of the effect you mention?

I used a Paterson Super System 4 with 500ml of developer. This was my first time developing with two rolls, I have only done one roll at a time in the tank previously (mainly as I was excited and wanted to develop right away, rather than waiting to shoot two rolls).

OP, was the tank sitting on a surface while you poured the developer in? Tell us more about your earliest form of agitation and about how long it was after you poured that you agitated.

Tank was sitting on the counter when I poured the developer in. I then put the rubber lid on and inverted the tank for ~60 seconds, then for 10 seconds every minute. I developed for ~11.5 minutes using DD-X at 20c.

Yeah, good question.

I'd also like to see a photo of a few consecutive frames that all show the same problem clearly. What I'm looking for is whether the line 'jumps' from one frame to the next, or if it seems to be continuous (except for the inter-frame gaps). If the line jumps, it's frame-related and thus camera-related. I don't think it is, but it's easy enough to verify.

I've attached frames 6-12, which should hopefully provide better clarity.

 

[Albuca]

The bottom of the Paterson tank gives these values:
35mm or 126 -- 290 ml
127 -- 370 ml
120/240 -- 500ml

I now see a little arrow that states "each film uses", which is leading me to believe I should have rounded up and used 600ml of developer, instead of 500ml as I was developing two 35mm film rolls.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The bottom of the Paterson tank gives these values:
35mm or 126 -- 290 ml
127 -- 370 ml
120/240 -- 500ml

I now see a little arrow that states "each film uses", which is leading me to believe I should have rounded up and used 600ml of developer, instead of 500ml as I was developing two 35mm film rolls.

Fill the tank almost all the way if you are doing inversion agitation, no matter which film size you are using.

 

[koraks]

I now see a little arrow that states "each film uses", which is leading me to believe I should have rounded up and used 600ml of developer, instead of 500ml as I was developing two 35mm film rolls.

It's simple to test. Take the tank with two reels on the core, spaced at the 35mm setting. Put the reels into the tank and then fill the tank with water until the reels are submerged. Decant this amount of water back into a measuring beaker/jug and determine how much it was.
This will give you a definitive answer regardless of who says what etc. You'll know for sure!

Having said that, I do suspect that the volume was on the low side, and/or the top spiral/reel was not pressed all the way down onto the center column. In fact, I suspect the latter is really the more plausible cause.

 

[Albuca]

So I went with @koraks suggestion, and poured water in the tub with the spindles together and center rod in place. I ended up measuring ~550ml of water to cover the spindles -- leading me to believe it really was the low volume of developer that did me in.

In the future, I will probably just add 600ml of developer and fixer when processing two rolls, to give me some wiggle room and prevent this from occurring again.


Thanks again for everyone's detailed and thoughtful responses. Its been extremely helpful!

 

[koraks]

Excellent, so now you know! Please post back next time you do two rolls at a time to tell us if it worked out!

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

The bottom of the Paterson tank gives these values:
35mm or 126 -- 290 ml
127 -- 370 ml
120/240 -- 500ml

I now see a little arrow that states "each film uses", which is leading me to believe I should have rounded up and used 600ml of developer, instead of 500ml as I was developing two 35mm film rolls.

yes always round up, not down

I mean rounding down from 580 to 500 is a big big round down