What's happened here? Newbie question!

[Guille Ibanez]

Hey everyone,

First time posting here, nice to meet you all!

I've recently gone back to shoot film as I just got a 4x5. I've decided that in order to keep cost down, I'm gonna go back to develop/scanning myself. I used to develop 35mm + MF years ago so back into it is like meeting an old friend!
To get used to it again, i tried a Delta 100 MF with Cinestill monobath (which i don't think it existed back when i used to develop) and the roll came out weird...
What do you guys think happened here? I had some trouble with my Bronica early in the day but I'm confused as to why those two exposures at the top seem to be fine and then the rest look too dark? My guess is a light leak? or any other reason you can think of?

Any pointers appreciated so I don't make the same mistake twice!!

Many thanks!

Guille

 

[M Carter]

Monobath is very often the source of "what the heck happened to my negs", but that does sorta look like a camera or handling issue - that light-fogging goes all the way to the ends of the roll, so it looks like an error in loading the film into the tank possibly? You're not doing this under red safelights (not an uncommon mistake)?

(A lot of newer-to-film shooters on Reddit have posted a lot of monobath fails - it seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist; adding a bottle of fix doesn't seem like that huge of an issue in film development).

 

[Don_ih]

The very edge of the film is fogged, so it's not a shutter issue - in the top fogged frame, there is a small strip of an image that's not fogged. Did the film back maybe pop open without you noticing?

 

[Guille Ibanez]

Thanks for your replies,

It could be both reasons, the film back might have opened slightly at some point as I had trouble fitting it in properly. So as you say, that would be a good explanation for the 'random' fogging but also I loaded the film on a changing bag and it was a bit of a struggle (as i hadn't done it for years) so yep, I wouldn't discard that the film was loaded poorly as well.

What a disastrous back into film! upwards and onwards, i guess : )

 

[Don_ih]

I think the fogged line is too straight to have happened because of the change bag, so my money is on the back popping open.

 

[shutterfinger]

Let me guess, you used a Patterson or similar tank, loaded the film last frame first and left the center column out.

 

[Guille Ibanez]

Let me guess, you used a Patterson or similar tank, loaded the film last frame first and left the center column out.

I did use an old Paterson tank and I’m sure it wasn’t the best film loading of my life, yep. However, as Don mentioned the fogging line is too straight and uniform across the entire negative. Would that indicate a loading problem though?

thanks

 

[shutterfinger]

I opened the photo in a new tab then enlarged to its max. I do not see frame spaces after #14, the rest of the roll appears to be double exposed with the drying clip on part of one frame. Secondary exposures usually occur in camera and the straightness of the start of the fogging suggest a sharp edge such as the film holder. The end with the clip is slightly denser than frame 15, the start of the fogging.

I do not know if a latent image of one frame can be transferred to adjoining frames/areas of the film in a processing tank or not. Its also difficult to tell if the fogging occurred pre exposure or post exposure.
The tank over a 40 watt appliance bulb in total darkness will show any leaks in the tank except for the center column and lid. With the lens/lensboard removed from the camera the same light inserted from the front with the film holder you used attached, darkslide removed should show any light leaks in the camera/film holder combination.

A CFL bulb can be used in place of the appliance bulb but LED bulbs are too directional to be as effective as the appliance or CFL bulb.

 

[Guille Ibanez]

I opened the photo in a new tab then enlarged to its max. I do not see frame spaces after #14, the rest of the roll appears to be double exposed with the drying clip on part of one frame. Secondary exposures usually occur in camera and the straightness of the start of the fogging suggest a sharp edge such as the film holder. The end with the clip is slightly denser than frame 15, the start of the fogging.

I do not know if a latent image of one frame can be transferred to adjoining frames/areas of the film in a processing tank or not. Its also difficult to tell if the fogging occurred pre exposure or post exposure.
The tank over a 40 watt appliance bulb in total darkness will show any leaks in the tank except for the center column and lid. With the lens/lensboard removed from the camera the same light inserted from the front with the film holder you used attached, darkslide removed should show any light leaks in the camera/film holder combination.

A CFL bulb can be used in place of the appliance bulb but LED bulbs are too directional to be as effective as the appliance or CFL bulb.

Thanks mate,

Yes, there was a problem with double exposures on camera. I had trouble removing the lens as the multiple exposures lever was down so i had to press the shutter a few timers until i realised this so multiple factors ocurred with this roll. It could be one or a combination of them. I'm shooting another roll this weekend but i'm getting a new tank this weekend as the one used for this roll is pretty old and possibly leaky. Would you recommend the AP or Paterson. I find the Paterson reels a bit annoying and ive heard the AP reels are much easier.

Many thanks!

 

[shutterfinger]

I use Jobo and a stainless steel tank and reel(s). I'm not familiar with either the Patterson or AP. Old does not mean bad, mistreated can. I bought my Jobo's in the 90's.

 

[Don_ih]

Test your developing tank with a piece of unexposed film. You seal it in there, in a reel, set the tank in fairly bright light and develop/fix the film. If it's clear, your tank is fine. It would be impossible for a faulty tank to fog film the way you've shown.

 

[shutterfinger]

I also suspect that if the film holder had opened slightly that there would be very dense areas where the film stopped for each frame at either the latch side or hinge side.
The rubberized coating in changing bags deteriorates with age.

 

[grat]

A missing center column could have bad effects, but I wouldn't think it would be that even (actually, I saw such an example recently, and it wasn't nearly as uniformly dense as this). Similarly, I'm not sure how you'd get that much exposure in the bronica unless you just pulled the film insert out of the back. I would hope the OP would have noticed that.

Mirror-lockup and a wide open lens (T mode) wouldn't darken the edges of the film-- it would still be protected by the film gate. Overdeveloping shouldn't darken unexposed areas of the film.

The film has been mishandled a bit-- looks like some scratches on the edge near the bottom.

Oh-- and while Paterson tanks are great, the AP reels are much, much easier to load 120 film onto.