Vertical Streaks In 4x5 Negatives?

[n2mf]

I tray developed two 4x5 negatives of the same shot and ended up with wide vertical bands as you may be able to see in this example. At first I thought it was the scanner, but looking closer, I realized it's in the negatives. Each has the same bands in the same areas. Leads me to believe it's exposure somehow. I don't see how otherwise two negatives could end up with the same bands after tray processing. Each negative was developed separately.

 

[MDR]

Light leak, or oxidation during the development process causing uneven development, the neg was not submerged.

 

[maciekz]

If they're not *exactly* aligned between the neatives this could be related to the structer of the "ridges" on the bottom of your tray. Do you develop emulsion side down? How do you agitate the film? Can you post the scans of both negatives?

 

[L Gebhardt]

Looks like a light leak, probably from the film holder not being seated fully. Could also be a gap where the bellows isn't tight to the frame.

 

[Jim Noel]

I vote for light leak.

 

[n2mf]

Light leak, or oxidation during the development process causing uneven development, the neg was not submerged.

I've tried everything I can to create a light leak with my camera and I can't get one to show up. I don't know what causes "oxidation during the development", so I don't know how to reply to that. And, I do believe the negatives were submerged.

 

[n2mf]

If they're not *exactly* aligned between the neatives this could be related to the structer of the "ridges" on the bottom of your tray. Do you develop emulsion side down? How do you agitate the film? Can you post the scans of both negatives?

I develop emusion side up and the ridges in my trays are going opposite of the streaks. I rock the trays for agitation. The streaks are in the same spot on each negative.

 

[n2mf]

I will say this, the streak isn't nearly as visable in the other negative. Much more faint.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Was the negative with the more visible streaks allowed to sit in-camera (with the slide withdrawn) for a longer period of time than the negative with the less visible streaks? Might be an indirect clue.

Ken

 

[n2mf]

Was the negative with the more visible streaks allowed to sit in-camera (with the slide withdrawn) for a longer period of time than the negative with the less visible streaks? Might be an indirect clue.

Ken

No.

 

[Sirius Glass]

i think that it is a light leak too.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I'm going to vote against light leak, if only for the fact that every light leak I've ever had seems to 'bloom' away from the source of the leak, I've never had one so perfectly straight like that before.
As to what it is instead, no idea though...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Was the negative with the more visible streaks allowed to sit in-camera (with the slide withdrawn) for a longer period of time than the negative with the less visible streaks? Might be an indirect clue.

No.

Then that may in itself be an indirect clue...

If the duration the dark slide was pulled was unchanged, and light direction and intensity falling on the camera was unchanged, and camera position between negatives was unchanged, and the nature of any light leak was unchanged, then the location and intensity of the fogged portion of the negatives should have been identical.

That they are not identical thus may point away from a light leak in the camera or holders as being a cause. Unless of course one of the other constraints also changed.

We are also conditioned to always think in terms of the obvious. It may be worthwhile to think outside the box. When the holders were loaded, was the room/bag completely dark? Was the box containing the sheets in a fixed open position? Were the sheets laying emulsion side up? Were they picked up for loading at varying intervals?



Ken

 

[n2mf]

Then that may in itself be an indirect clue...

If the duration the dark slide was pulled was unchanged, and light direction and intensity falling on the camera was unchanged, and camera position between negatives was unchanged, and the nature of any light leak was unchanged, then the location and intensity of the fogged portion of the negatives should have been identical.

That they are not identical thus may point away from a light leak in the camera or holders as being a cause. Unless of course one of the other constraints also changed.

We are also conditioned to always think in terms of the obvious. It may be worthwhile to think outside the box. When the holders were loaded, was the room/bag completely dark? Was the box containing the sheets in a fixed open position? Were the sheets laying emulsion side up? Were they picked up for loading at varying intervals?



Ken

I've not experienced any problems with light leaks with my camera on other shots. I'm now leaning to the history of the film I used...I purchased a lot of fresh and expired film from a photographers estate. Most all that I've shot from the lot has been fine, but some Tri-x I tried had some spotty fogging issues. These two negatives in question were from another opened box of film from that lot which I hadn't tried before. I think this is the "outside the box" part that I overlooked. When I can, I will try a couple more from the box...see what happens..and update here.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

These two negatives in question were from another opened box of film from that lot which I hadn't tried before. I think this is the "outside the box" part that I overlooked. When I can, I will try a couple more from the box...see what happens..and update here.

Good idea.

Maybe also take a sheet (preferably the very next one from the same side of the stack in the open box you previously loaded from) and develop it immediately, without even a trip to the holder or the camera, thus factoring those variables out entirely.

Perhaps even overdevelop it on purpose to tease out any fainter defects since it would have lived deeper in the stack.

Then see if it shows the same telltale fogging pattern.

Ken

 

[n2mf]

Good idea.

Maybe also take a sheet (preferably the very next one from the same side of the stack in the open box you previously loaded from) and develop it immediately, without even a trip to the holder or the camera, thus factoring those variables out entirely.

Perhaps even overdevelop it on purpose to tease out any fainter defects since it would have lived deeper in the stack.

Then see if it shows the same telltale fogging pattern.

Ken

Good ideas and tips...Thank you.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

What film is it? I once purchased a box of inexpensive Arista printing paper and about half of the 100-ct box had some kind of weird pre-exposure shape. It was indeterminate just what had caused it. It was pre-purchase as it was the same on many consecutive sheets.

I bring that up to say that if it lesser film being used then quality control may be lacking and chalk it up to spend a little more next time. Again, not knowing the film used here.

 

[Dennis S]

What film is it? I once purchased a box of inexpensive Arista printing paper and about half of the 100-ct box had some kind of weird pre-exposure shape. It was indeterminate just what had caused it. It was pre-purchase as it was the same on many consecutive sheets.

I bring that up to say that if it lesser film being used then quality control may be lacking and chalk it up to spend a little more next time. Again, not knowing the film used here.

That was one thing I found also. The cheap stuff is great to learn on but any quality prints or negs require the best. Really shows up on the larger format film.

 

[hamradio]

How are you developing it? I was having all sorts of streaking issues with 4x5 in my print drum. Eventually, I began inverting the drum up every 1.5min during agitation, in addition to sliding the negs to the middle, as I think the endcap was creating a weird wave inside.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I tray developed two 4x5 negatives of the same shot and ended up with wide vertical bands as you may be able to see in this example. At first I thought it was the scanner, but looking closer, I realized it's in the negatives. Each has the same bands in the same areas. Leads me to believe it's exposure somehow. I don't see how otherwise two negatives could end up with the same bands after tray processing. Each negative was developed separately.

View attachment 100055

Not drum in this case.

 

[n2mf]

What film is it? I once purchased a box of inexpensive Arista printing paper and about half of the 100-ct box had some kind of weird pre-exposure shape. It was indeterminate just what had caused it. It was pre-purchase as it was the same on many consecutive sheets.

I bring that up to say that if it lesser film being used then quality control may be lacking and chalk it up to spend a little more next time. Again, not knowing the film used here.

Delta 100

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Are you using a camera with a focal plane shutter?

 

[fotch]

I would skip the camera completely and develop the film without exposure, same way & see if it is the film itself, like post #15.

 

[n2mf]

Are you using a camera with a focal plane shutter?

No.

 

[n2mf]

I would skip the camera completely and develop the film without exposure, same way & see if it is the film itself, like post #15.

That's the first thing I'm going to try.