What happened here??

[ndwgolf]

Question

First of all forget about the background..........well no don't forget about the background, its the neg I want to talk about. With regards to the stupid background, that shit aint going to happen again, I WILL in future make sure that I have the correct size background to fill the frame.

You can see I have got these horrible vertical lines on the neg, initially I thought it was due to the defused window light coming through the net curtains, you know the ones I mean )see attached picture



And with the exposure being over 1 minute (1 min 17 seconds) to be precise I am thinking that that is the reason for these horrible lines is due to the curtains.

Then to my horror I thought about this some more and I am now thinking that it could possibly be coming from the developing process. I'm developing in trays in my dark room and the trays are the normal 8x10 trans from B&H that have channels in the bottom so that it is easy to get the neg out. I use 1 ltr of each of the chemicals so I think there is plenty of liquid in the tray, I also shake the trays to get some turbulent flow. Maybe the lines are due to the uneven developing of the neg (god forbid).............is that possible or am I just over thinking this shit??

I will be able to fix the background in PS, but not so sure I can do that in the darkroom (make burn in a vinaigrette)........theres one thing for sure I will try and do something with it in the dark room



Heres the Neg, and later I will post the finished print

 

[Lachlan Young]

A couple of questions:

Are you developing emulsion side up?

What sort of agitation pattern are you using - & how much agitation are you giving it?

Looks a lot like you may have placed the neg emulsion down & given it massively insufficient agitation in one direction only. A 9.5x12 tray is also a very good idea with 8x10.

 

[ndwgolf]

A few questions:

What size of tray are you using?

Are you developing emulsion side up?

What sort of agitation pattern are you using - & how much agitation are you giving it?

Looks a lot like you may have placed the neg emulsion down & given it massively insufficient agitation in one direction only.

When I think about it after I took the neg out of the holder yes it was emission down. 8x10 trays and constantly agitating buy creating waves buy lifting one end of the tray............this is the 10th 8x10 I have developed this way and never seen this before.........but I also have not consciously made sure the emulsion was up or down?

Neil

 

[Lachlan Young]

When I think about it after I took the neg out of the holder yes it was emission down. 8x10 trays and constantly agitating buy creating waves buy lifting one end of the tray............this is the 10th 8x10 I have developed this way and never seen this before.........but I also have not consciously made sure the emulsion was up or down?

Neil

Emulsion up is good practice in general - the patterns on the bottom of the tray are not unknown to be a cause of uneven development. I tend to agitate the tray both up/ down & side to side - no specifics as to how much each way, but basically enough to ensure that the agitation is not only going in a single direction.

 

[ndwgolf]

Emulsion up is good practice in general - the patterns on the bottom of the tray are not unknown to be a cause of uneven development. I tend to agitate the tray both up/ down & side to side - no specifics as to how much each way, but basically enough to ensure that the agitation is not only going in a single direction.

Cheers mate....I will make sure in future emulsion side is up

 

[Petraio Prime]

Use hangers.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/44-Vintage-...114981?hash=item43fdef1ce5:g:xNUAAOSwLqFV8hGB

 

[Lachlan Young]

Use hangers.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/44-Vintage-...114981?hash=item43fdef1ce5:g:xNUAAOSwLqFV8hGB

Hangers are not as good nor as easy as competent tray development - they're great if you've got lots of sheets to process, but otherwise they're a lot more work, more demanding of your agitation technique (unless you have gas burst agitation) & use deep tanks which require a lot more developer - the traditional Kodak tanks need 3.5 gallons (13.5L) of dev which is fine if you've got decent throughput & are replenishing, but otherwise it's a heck of a waste of chemistry.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Another vote for emulsion-side-up. I had similar streaks when I tried emulsion-side-down (it had been touted as superior-NOT!). You don't say what size negative you are developing, but it's good to have a tray one size larger than the negative size.

For me, tray development is quick, easy and the most consistent method I've tried. Keep at it and you'll be fine.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Petraio Prime]

Hangers are not as good nor as easy as competent tray development - they're great if you've got lots of sheets to process, but otherwise they're a lot more work, more demanding of your agitation technique (unless you have gas burst agitation) & use deep tanks which require a lot more developer - the traditional Kodak tanks need 3.5 gallons (13.5L) of dev which is fine if you've got decent throughput & are replenishing, but otherwise it's a heck of a waste of chemistry.

Please don't contradict me, I know what I am talking about, and readers of these forums will become confused.

DK50, HC110, TMax RS and similar tank developers are suitable. Use a floating lid and the developer will keep quite well. I used hangers when I was working with sheet film, and never had any problems, because I learned the proper agitation technique. Tray developing is tricky and unreliable.



https://www.tanguayphotomag.biz/image-circle/developing-sheet-film-yourself.html

 

[Sirius Glass]

Tray development is a great way to scratch negative and have partial development because sheets of film adhere to each other, but some will always know better by ignoring facts or logic.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Tray development is a great way to scratch negative and have partial development because sheets of film adhere to each other, but some will always know better by ignoring facts or logic.

Right!

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Tray development is a great way to scratch negative and have partial development because sheets of film adhere to each other, but some will always know better by ignoring facts or logic.

Sirius,

Don't bash tray developing. It is a time-tested, efficient and flexible developing method. It is still used by many, including me. Yes, it takes some skill and dexterity plus a bit of practice, but once learned, is just as secure and effective as any other standard method. I develop up to eight sheets at a time (prefer 6 though) by shuffling through the stack. I've done this for over thirty years. I haven't scratched a negative for years, much less had negative stick together in the developer (that's what the pre-soak is for). Those are my facts...

Hangers are fine too, as are BTZS tubes, daylight tanks and rotary processing. All have their quirks and dangers and all can deliver excellent results in the hands of a skilled technician.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Wow, you learn something new every day here!

Better go back in time and tell Weston and Adams that they were doing it wrong their whole lives! I mean, those guys sucked! Have you seen their negatives? Horrible!

The responses to this thread are pretty sad.

I never scratched a negative when I tray developed 4x5. I eventually got a JOBO so I don't do it anymore, but would. It is the easiest way to develop sheet film.

 

[canuhead]

It's been way too many moons since I last processed sheet film in trays but I would think if you were shuffling sheets, emulsion DOWN would be safer since UP could leave it vulnerable to scratching when moving the sheets around. I prefer working in room light with Jobo tubes and tanks

 

[silveror0]

Please don't contradict me, I know what I am talking about, and readers of these forums will become confused...

OMG! The voice of all wisdom has spoken. There is no other viewpoint that is worthy. Pathetic.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius,

Don't bash tray developing. It is a time-tested, efficient and flexible developing method. It is still used by many, including me. Yes, it takes some skill and dexterity plus a bit of practice, but once learned, is just as secure and effective as any other standard method. I develop up to eight sheets at a time (prefer 6 though) by shuffling through the stack. I've done this for over thirty years. I haven't scratched a negative for years, much less had negative stick together in the developer (that's what the pre-soak is for). Those are my facts...

Hangers are fine too, as are BTZS tubes, daylight tanks and rotary processing. All have their quirks and dangers and all can deliver excellent results in the hands of a skilled technician.

Best,

Doremus

I made enough mistakes tray developing to invest in a Jobo processor and a 3010 Expert Drum so that I could concentrate on pulling the dark slide with the lens open and then cocking the focal plane shutter, using the front shutter with the focal plane shutter closed and leaving the front shutter closed when using the focal plane shutter. The Expert Drum just removed a set of mistakes for the negatives lucky enough to survive the exposure fiascos.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Please don't contradict me, I know what I am talking about, and readers of these forums will become confused.

DK50, HC110, TMax RS and similar tank developers are suitable. Use a floating lid and the developer will keep quite well. I used hangers when I was working with sheet film, and never had any problems, because I learned the proper agitation technique. Tray developing is tricky and unreliable.



https://www.tanguayphotomag.biz/image-circle/developing-sheet-film-yourself.html

I think it's quite clear the OP is developing one sheet of 8x10 at a time, not shuffling 4x5s or doing anything more complicated. Deep tanks make sense if you're running 20 8x10s at a time. Various solutions for the middle ground between those levels - Jobo would be my preference & an Expert drum.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I think it's quite clear the OP is developing one sheet of 8x10 at a time, not shuffling 4x5s or doing anything more complicated.

So what? Hangers and deep tanks are the way to go.

 

[Lachlan Young]

So what? Hangers and deep tanks are the way to go.

Can you quote relevant material from Haist et al, or a suitable peer reviewed journal article? Or is it merely your jejune declaration posing as immutable 'fact' without allowing itself to be subject to testing? It is worth noting that neither Kodak or Ilford have anything to say about tray processing being unsuitable in any way, especially for processing one sheet at a time. How many sheets of 8x10 are you processing at one time?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Can you quote relevant material from Haist et al, or a suitable peer reviewed journal article? Or is it merely your jejune declaration posing as immutable 'fact' without allowing itself to be subject to testing? It is worth noting that neither Kodak or Ilford have anything to say about tray processing being unsuitable in any way, especially for processing one sheet at a time. How many sheets of 8x10 are you processing at one time?

I used to do industrial photography of appliances with a 4 x 5 view camera, and I would shoot and develop maybe a dozen or two dozen sheets a day. Kodak shows hangers and deep tanks in their literature. They used to sell them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=kod..._rrUAhUJaT4KHWGRDP4Q_AUIBygC&biw=1920&bih=974

 

[trendland]

Sirius,

Don't bash tray developing. It is a time-tested, efficient and flexible developing method. It is still used by many, including me. Yes, it takes some skill and dexterity plus a bit of practice, but once learned, is just as secure and effective as any other standard method. I develop up to eight sheets at a time (prefer 6 though) by shuffling through the stack. I've done this for over thirty years. I haven't scratched a negative for years, much less had negative stick together in the developer (that's what the pre-soak is for). Those are my facts...

Hangers are fine too, as are BTZS tubes, daylight tanks and rotary processing. All have their quirks and dangers and all can deliver excellent results in the hands of a skilled technician.

Best,

Doremus

You just got it - there are different methods in use with advantage and disadvantages beside each others.
But the key to disadvantages should be
experience.
As you said :"After over 30 years experience - tray developement can't be
a failure in general ".


with regards

 

[trendland]

Coming back to the OP's problem - I am sorry to say so but I can't remember such kind of sharp lines coming from
agitation failure with developer.
You can hit me from less experience I might have, but the more reason of having no developer problem is the constantly structure of this phenomenon.

It would be very hart to reproduce this -
even with absolute no agitation at all.

For me the reason is elswere - not the
developer. ......

What can be the failure the OP may have
done? Sorry I have no Idea.....

And now? Am I allowed to speculate a bit?
It is looking like a double exposure.
The first exposure is with your flower,
the second is only your background as
a picture with higher E.I. because it is
an underexposure.
Let me ask : Is this a test ndwgolf ??
Because you mentioned explicitly the
background and advised us not to care
about????

with friendly greetings

 

[Lachlan Young]

Coming back to the OP's problem - I am sorry to say so but I can't remember such kind of sharp lines coming from
agitation failure with developer.
You can hit me from less experience I might have, but the more reason of having no developer problem is the constantly structure of this phenomenon.

It would be very hart to reproduce this -
even with absolute no agitation at all.

For me the reason is elswere - not the
developer. ......

What can be the failure the OP may have
done? Sorry I have no Idea.....

And now? Am I allowed to speculate a bit?
It is looking like a double exposure.
The first exposure is with your flower,
the second is only your background as
a picture with higher E.I. because it is
an underexposure.
Let me ask : Is this a test ndwgolf ??
Because you mentioned explicitly the
background and advised us not to care
about????

with friendly greetings

The marks match the shape of indentations on the bottom of a Paterson 8x10 tray.

I used to do industrial photography of appliances with a 4 x 5 view camera, and I would shoot and develop maybe a dozen or two dozen sheets a day.

Considerable difference there in terms of throughput over a week. I own a deep tank system (Kodak tanks, Kodak & Hewes cages, hangers) & I know when it's appropriate to set it up, but realistically it's a scale the OP does not need. BTZS tubes or a Jobo & an Expert drum would be a far more appropriately scaled next step.

 

[trendland]

The marks match the shape of indentations on the bottom of a Paterson 8x10 tray.

Ok............ = strange to imagine

(even without agitation)


with regards

 

[trendland]

I am using Kaiser trays. ..? But Lachian ?
I can only count 3 intentations on the bottom of 8x10 Paterson trays......