What is that on my negative?

[Gabriel Aszalos]

Does anyone know what that could be? I developed using 1+100 Ilfotec HC (3ml + 100ml water) for 90 minutes with one inversion midway. All the other photos on the roll look fine.

I would’ve suspected that the end of the roll touched this part of the negative on the reel, but that’s impossible since this is position 19. Could it be some sort of light leak or reflection? That would also be unusual because I have not seen it on other negatives including this roll.

 

[MattKing]

That is a light leak. It may be the sort of leak that only reveals itself infrequently, when bright light hits the camera in a particular way.
What type of camera is it? Is it one with a little window in the back that shows the film cassette loaded?

 

[Gabriel Aszalos]

It's a Nikon FM2n. I think you're right. It does look like that part was exposed to light. The fact that it also reaches outside the frame confirms it even more.

 

[pentaxuser]

Does anyone know what that could be? I developed using 1+100 Ilfotec HC (3ml + 100ml water) for 90 minutes with one inversion midway. .

Not directly related to your problems but seeing how you develop the HP5+ has made me ask a question on it. As the film is 135 I presume it was a 135 tank, holding somewhere between 250 -300ml so 3ml of HC per 100ml is about a 1+31dilution. The Massive Development chart gives 6.5 mins for this using normal Ilford agitation but you use 90 mins with one inversion so a form of stand development.

What surprises me is that with only one inversion and a normal 1+31 dilution you have been able to leave it in the tank for 90 mins without overexposing it. I had no idea that using only one inversion over 90 mins slowed down the development rate that much

Have I misunderstood what you do or did you mean 3ml of HC +300ml of water instead of 100ml?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[gone]

I'd check the usual suspects: the seals on the back, especially around the hinge, and the pressure plate to see if it's properly springy and holding the film nice and flat.

 

[Gabriel Aszalos]

Ah, yes. You are right. It was a typo. It’s actually 300ml water and 3ml HC, so 1+100. I am going to edit my post.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ah, yes. You are right. It was a typo. It’s actually 300ml water and 3ml HC, so 1+100. I am going to edit my post.

Thanks for the reply. I felt this was probably was the case but it is always better for anyone such as I who is puzzled to check what he has read

Incidentally it tells me that based on your negs that stand with HC is successful. Can I therefore also ask: Does stand with HC give less grain as well compared to the usual Rodinal?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Gabriel Aszalos]

I found stand with HC not very worthwhile for my test. I do not think I will try it again since I see no benefit in it other than low contrast. It did give A LOT less grain than Rodinal, and not nearly as much sharpness.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Gabriel

pentaxuser