Water Spots vs Other?

[darlesch]

I've been having trouble with these spots on my last two rolls developing at home. These are sporadic throughout the roll. What's throwing me off is the green halo appearance. Is it from hard water stains or could it be something else? I check the negatives themselves and I'm not seeing any hard water stains that can be wiped off that correspond to these marks.

Pictures attached are from Portra 400 scan converted using NLP. I use Cinestill CS41 and I made the chemicals using distilled water. I wash with distilled water.

Thank you for your expertise.

 

[Tel]

I had a similar problem occasionally when I first began C-41 developing. I don't recall if the marks were green, but they didn't appear on the surface of the film and Pec-12 wouldn't make them go away. The solution was to stop using stabilizer, which you don't need anyhow. I just finish with a distilled water rinse.

 

[darlesch]

I had a similar problem occasionally when I first began C-41 developing. I don't recall if the marks were green, but they didn't appear on the surface of the film and Pec-12 wouldn't make them go away. The solution was to stop using stabilizer, which you don't need anyhow. I just finish with a distilled water rinse.

Thanks for the reply and food for thought. I stopped using stabilizer after the first time for the same reason.

However, these days I still notice a small amount of soapy bubbles/foam in the developer and when I wash with distilled water. I’m afraid the chemicals have been contaminated with the stabilizer and perhaps I wasn’t careful in cleaning glassware.

Would this still pose a problem despite me last using stabilizer 15 rolls ago?

 

[koraks]

I don't know what that is, but it certainly isn't just a water/scale spot. Those are neutral density, while this is clearly on the magenta/red end of the spectrum. First thing it reminds me of is bleach, but that should have washed out with ease.

Can you tell us a bit more about your C41 process? Do you use a pre-bath for instance? Separate bleach and fix, or blix? Stop bath?

Btw, welcome to Photrio

 

[darlesch]

I don't know what that is, but it certainly isn't just a water/scale spot. Those are neutral density, while this is clearly on the magenta/red end of the spectrum. First thing it reminds me of is bleach, but that should have washed out with ease.

Can you tell us a bit more about your C41 process? Do you use a pre-bath for instance? Separate bleach and fix, or blix? Stop bath?

Btw, welcome to Photrio

Thanks for the welcome

I didn’t use a pre-bath. CS41 Developer for 3 min 47 sec, manual inversions for first 10 sec then 4 inversions every 30 sec thereafter. CS41 Blix for 8 min; 10 sec inversion then every 30 sec thereafter.

I think you may be onto something. Previously after Blix I would continuous wash using my tap water for 3 minutes. I stopped doing that and used Ilford wash method instead with distilled water all in the name of avoiding hard water stains (where I live the tap water is especially bad).

Ilford wash: fill tank with distilled water, invert 5 times, then dump and fill again with inversion 10 times, repeat then inversion 20 times then I dry. I didn’t wait in between.

While that eliminated the water minerals showing up on scans completely, but I now seem to have a problem with insufficient wash. Could it be the bleach/fixer causing those marks?

I’ll have to resume tapwater wash x 3 min then distilled water after. Or can I get away with the Ilford wash and waiting some time in between dumping? I really don’t like the hard water stains. Thanks.

 

[koraks]

Hmm, I'm not to sure the wash is the problem to be honest. Having said that:

Or can I get away with the Ilford wash and waiting some time in between dumping?

The essence in washing is not so much the agitation, but the wait time. Washing is a diffusion process, so you have to give the water some time to permeate the emulsion. The agitation mostly serves to prevent higher concentration 'pockets' of the previous bath remaining somewhere.

Don't worry too much about hard water being used for preceding wash steps. A final rinse of demi water will remove most of the dissolved salts. Personally I always wipe the shiny side of 35mm film after washing (even with distilled water); it's the only way I get perfectly clean film without any spots whatsoever. We all have our own wash routines; try to figure out what works best for you. This part is no different from B&W btw.

Were the reels and tank perfectly dry when the film went into them? I.e. no chance of droplets of a previous bath/water falling onto the film as it sat waiting for the developer? What kind of tank do you use?

I have no experience with the CS chemistry; in principle a blix should work just fine and I'm not aware of similar problems to yours with this chemistry. @Tel's remark about the final rinse is so far the most concrete lead I think. Try leaving out the conditioner/stabilizer. As @Tel remarked, a stabilizer isn't really necessary with modern C41 films. You can just do a final rinse with distilled/demineralized water with some photoflo added to it.

 

[darlesch]

Hmm, I'm not to sure the wash is the problem to be honest. Having said that:

The essence in washing is not so much the agitation, but the wait time. Washing is a diffusion process, so you have to give the water some time to permeate the emulsion. The agitation mostly serves to prevent higher concentration 'pockets' of the previous bath remaining somewhere.

Don't worry too much about hard water being used for preceding wash steps. A final rinse of demi water will remove most of the dissolved salts. Personally I always wipe the shiny side of 35mm film after washing (even with distilled water); it's the only way I get perfectly clean film without any spots whatsoever. We all have our own wash routines; try to figure out what works best for you. This part is no different from B&W btw.

Were the reels and tank perfectly dry when the film went into them? I.e. no chance of droplets of a previous bath/water falling onto the film as it sat waiting for the developer? What kind of tank do you use?

I have no experience with the CS chemistry; in principle a blix should work just fine and I'm not aware of similar problems to yours with this chemistry. @Tel's remark about the final rinse is so far the most concrete lead I think. Try leaving out the conditioner/stabilizer. As @Tel remarked, a stabilizer isn't really necessary with modern C41 films. You can just do a final rinse with distilled/demineralized water with some photoflo added to it.

Good thought about the dry reels. I usually put two reels even if developing one roll only, one of them may have been unclean/wet. I will make sure to wash the reels better now and dry them.

Regardless, I'm gonna go back to the 3 minute rinse + distilled water to see if that helps.

 

[koraks]

If you get droplets of water onto the film before development, it's virtually certain to show up. Since the film is already wet in those spots, there will be a difference in how quickly the developer permeates the emulsion and starts to act on the silver halides, and hence, the effective development time/degree of development will vary.

Especially that final image of the diagonally oriented spot makes me suspect the above is a possible cause, since anything that drips off the film as it's hanging will generally be oriented longitudinally.

A better wash of course never hurts.

 

[darlesch]

If you get droplets of water onto the film before development, it's virtually certain to show up. Since the film is already wet in those spots, there will be a difference in how quickly the developer permeates the emulsion and starts to act on the silver halides, and hence, the effective development time/degree of development will vary.

Especially that final image of the diagonally oriented spot makes me suspect the above is a possible cause, since anything that drips off the film as it's hanging will generally be oriented longitudinally.

A better wash of course never hurts.

That makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Tel]

Looking at your method, I notice that you don't use a pre-soak. While I've only used Unicolor and Tetenal chemistry, never the Cinestill stuff, and that might be an important difference I wonder if the absence of a pre-soak could cause problems with the dispersion of the developer. Does the CS kit say not to do the pre-soak? Koraks has a good point, that the stains seem to be oriented in the wrong direction for a drying stage artifact.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Presoak

 

[koraks]

I wonder if the absence of a pre-soak could cause problems with the dispersion of the developer.

But not this kind of unevenness, which seems clearly shaped like droplets hanging onto the emulsion. And to be honest, the lack of a presoak has never been a problem with me when processing 35mm. In 120 and sheet film formats, yes, but it has always shown up as eddy marks along the very edges of the film (roll/sheet), but in 35mm, that's where the sprockets are, and they tend to create turbulence that somehow prevents those same eddy marks from occurring. Well, that's my observation at least.

In short, I'd be surprised if the lack of a presoak would be the problem here. I would not be surprised if adding a presoak turned out to make a difference. If my suspicion is correct, this is due to a couple of drops of water making their way onto the film, resulting in uneven development. If you do a presoak, the entire film will be evenly wetted, and previously present droplets won't make a difference anymore and the problem might be gone. It'll look like the lack of a presoak was the problem, while it wasn't. One might ask if that's relevant if the presoak solves it - if it's gone, it's gone, after all. Still, curious minds want to know, and all that...

Anyway, adding a presoak generally doesn't hurt and is worth a try.

@darlesch - Another thing that doesn't hurt to add is a stop bath. Acetic acid at a dilution of around 0.5% ~ 1% (it's not critical) is fine. I always use cleaning vinegar (unscented) diluted 1+20 or so.

 

[Flighter]

The essence in washing is not so much the agitation, but the wait time. Washing is a diffusion process, so you have to give the water some time to permeate the emulsion. The agitation mostly serves to prevent higher concentration 'pockets' of the previous bath remaining somewhere.

Yes, see Troop and Anchell (The Film Developing Cookbook) where they cite the method devised by Kodak's G.I.P. Levenson published in the 'Economics of Photographic Washing' which has the following:

• Fill tank with water, invert 5 times, let the tank sit for 5 minutes
• Drain and refill, invert 10 times, let the tank sit for 5 minutes
• Drain and refill, invert 20 times, let the tank sit for 5 minutes

They mention that the above paper was cited by Ilford's own chief researcher, L.F.A. Mason. They go on to say that this method has been published by Ilford without the 5 minute wait time between steps which is incorrect and directly contradicts what Mason says about washing in his 'Photographic Processing Chemistry'.

 

[Tel]

I'm reminded of a thing that we lost when Kodak downsized but many film consumers never realized. Kodak spent a lot of time and money researching the details of film use, processing, chemistry etc. and sharing that info liberally. I was part of a tour of Kodak Park back in 2001 and met a couple of engineers who were studying "chatter" patterns in the gates of film projectors, trying (successfully) to design a shape of the gate channels that would make the film lie flatter as it moved through. Seems esoteric (and in hindsight unnecessary, given the movie industry's quick changeover to digital projection) but Kodak was investing in that sort of research up there in Rochester.

 

[foc]

I wonder if could it be where the negative almost touched on the spiral during developing.

See this image of the negative.

 

[darlesch]

Yes, see Troop and Anchell (The Film Developing Cookbook) where they cite the method devised by Kodak's G.I.P. Levenson published in the 'Economics of Photographic Washing' which has the following:

• Fill tank with water, invert 5 times, let the tank sit for 5 minutes
• Drain and refill, invert 10 times, let the tank sit for 5 minutes
• Drain and refill, invert 20 times, let the tank sit for 5 minutes

They mention that the above paper was cited by Ilford's own chief researcher, L.F.A. Mason. They go on to say that this method has been published by Ilford without the 5 minute wait time between steps which is incorrect and directly contradicts what Mason says about washing in his 'Photographic Processing Chemistry'.

Arcane knowledge like this so hard to find on the internet. All I can find are debates on whether to wait or not in between steps. Thanks for the citation. I'll be sure to incorporate this down the road.

But not this kind of unevenness, which seems clearly shaped like droplets hanging onto the emulsion. And to be honest, the lack of a presoak has never been a problem with me when processing 35mm. In 120 and sheet film formats, yes, but it has always shown up as eddy marks along the very edges of the film (roll/sheet), but in 35mm, that's where the sprockets are, and they tend to create turbulence that somehow prevents those same eddy marks from occurring. Well, that's my observation at least.

In short, I'd be surprised if the lack of a presoak would be the problem here. I would not be surprised if adding a presoak turned out to make a difference. If my suspicion is correct, this is due to a couple of drops of water making their way onto the film, resulting in uneven development. If you do a presoak, the entire film will be evenly wetted, and previously present droplets won't make a difference anymore and the problem might be gone. It'll look like the lack of a presoak was the problem, while it wasn't. One might ask if that's relevant if the presoak solves it - if it's gone, it's gone, after all. Still, curious minds want to know, and all that...

Anyway, adding a presoak generally doesn't hurt and is worth a try.

@darlesch - Another thing that doesn't hurt to add is a stop bath. Acetic acid at a dilution of around 0.5% ~ 1% (it's not critical) is fine. I always use cleaning vinegar (unscented) diluted 1+20 or so.

I've decided I will add pre-soak in the beginning as well to evenly wet the film. As well as do a 3 minute tapwater wash > Ilford distilled water method.

I wonder if could it be where the negative almost touched on the spiral during developing.

See this image of the negative.

I can't deny that it may have happened. I use the Job 1520 and the reel that comes with it, and working with this reel has been quite frustrating compared to the Paterson reels.

I'll update the thread once I develop my next C41 roll.

 

[koraks]

Don't forget the stop bath between developer and blix.

 

[darlesch]

Edit: Made a post prematurely but I'm going to wait until the negatives dry completely and I scan them before I provide an update. Thanks.

 

[koraks]

Fingers crossed for good news!

 

[darlesch]

The good news is that the marks are greatly minimized to two frames. The bad news is that they're still there. I'm happy about the results however.

I have yet to make the stop bath so the only difference is the pre-soak in the beginning and the 3 minute wash + Ilford wash distilled water.

The first picture shows the same kind of mark seen in the original post.
The second picture shows the negative in the immediate drying period right after it was taken out of the reel.
I see that the mark on the scan correlates to the substance circled pink on the negative.

Is the milky substance on the negative something to worry about? It seemed to have dried and disappeared completely except for the mark left behind.

Addendum: Please note I hang my negatives diagonally.

 

[darlesch]

Attached is a picture from the other frame this mark was seen.

The other frames turned out fine thankfully.

 

[koraks]

Is the milky substance on the negative something to worry about?

Frankly, it looks like the film wasn't fixed.

 

[foc]

The second picture shows the negative in the immediate drying period right after it was taken out of the reel.

Can you post a photo of it when it is fully dry, please? (wet negs can be hard to judge)

 

[darlesch]

Can you post a photo of it when it is fully dry, please? (wet negs can be hard to judge)

Sure. Negatives dried quite well with no remnants of that substance, however, in the first picture you can see the mark it seems to have left behind.

I'm still not sure if it's a washing/drying issue or a pre-soak issue. However, pre-soaking seemed to have helped greatly thanks to the advice here.

Cinestill's reply:

"Thanks for reaching out to us and for including some pictures. From the look of the negatives, the actual chemical development seems to have gone fine. Image area looks nice and dense and the unexposed film base is nice and translucent.

The fact that these markings register as magenta-colored density on the negative (green in the scan) could mean some kind of light leak, but I've never seen that shape before. I'm honestly a bit stumped and would encourage you to reach out to Kodak as well. Perhaps they could shed some light onto this."

I might reach out to Kodak but I don't think it's a Kodak issue, as this happened with Cinestill 400D as well.

Any ideas?

 

[darlesch]

Frankly, it looks like the film wasn't fixed.

Yeah it seems that way. Cinestill process uses blix. I’ve emailed support the picture of the white substance for troubleshooting. However, it seemed to dry fine with no residue except for the marks.

The blix was newly mixed. This batch I’ve overdiluted to perhaps 50-100 mL at worst by accident (instructions say mix to 1L). Could this be the issue?