Weird results from my film, maybe reticulation?

Reticulation has a very distinctive pattern which I don't see in your samples. Additionally reticulation would effect the entire negative and not be spotty as in the sample. A low alkalinity developer like D-76 would not soften the emulsion to allow this to happen. With modern emulsions it is very hard to produce unintentionally.

Is there any milkiness in the negatives particularly toward the center which would indicate improper fixing?

 

Is that how the negative looks or is it an artifact from the scan?

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

I bet your fixer was weak and, when you pulled the film out at your usual time, the film wasn't completely fixed. When the light hit the incompletely fixed film, partial solarization (Sabbatier) occurred.

 

Severely low contrast with streaks and blotches. Looks like bad fix and maybe foam in the developer along with some other problems.

PE

 

$20 on worker 11811.

 

I agree with worker 11811, weak or incomplete fix.

Just for the record, I've reticulated Tri- X several times when, after processing at 68º all the way through, my wash water ran very hot. Some sheets showed complete reticulation pattern, others, only portions of the sheet were reticulated, perhaps owing to the sheets of film rising above the surface during the washing.

 

I've accidentally reticulated Tri-X sheet film a couple of times. PMK developer followed by cold wash water. The alkalinity of the developer may have something to do with it.

 

Another vote for fixing problems. Either exhausted fix, or not fixed long enough.

Steve

 

In case it is a fixer problem then simply dunk it in the fixer again for 3-4 mins, if it is inadequate fixing it should clear.. For solarisation to take place it has to go back into the developer BEFORE FIXING which is not what happened here.
Reticulation will mainly be caused by going from one fluid - developer which is at a high temp into a much cooler temp fluid - fixer. Or vice versa. Modern emulsions are pretty well proof against that happening unless the temp extremes are well apart.

 

Correct. If fixing is incomplete, the negative will have a visible milkiness that should clear when re-fixed. Looking at the images, I think there could be developing problems as well. Partially exhausted developer, inconsistent agitation, foaming are some of the potential problems. I do not think it is temperature-induced reticulation. To the OP: Are you using fresh chemicals? If your fixer is showing any sign of sulphur precipitating out (i.e. yellow crystals or milkiness in the fixer) it must be replaced. Is your developer fresh? You know the D76 guidelines: 2 months if opened; 6 months in a full stoppered bottle. Anything beyond that is a gamble.

As for the film: What is Ilford Pan 400? Is it old film? I know only HP5+ and Delta 400. If the film is very old, it should not be used at box speed. One can add a stop for every ten years or so. And from my experience with old film, D76 is not the best developer for that. Maybe try HC-110 rather.

 

Thanks for the link. I've never seen it before, so I've learned something! I order most of my stuff from B&H, and locally in South Africa the variety is limited to the mainstream products. If you get the developing sorted and your results improve, I would like to know your opinion on this film. Obviously, if it is in-date film, then D76 should not be a problem. I made the HC-110 comment on the basis that it is the developer that consistently produces the lowest fog for me. There are some newer emulsions like Rollei RPX400 and Kentmere's 400 that I also develop with it as those tend to fog in most other developers, Rodinal being the worst, but D76 also not that great.