Whats wrong with this picture??

[Slowframe]

Hello all you forum geeks!I recently developed a roll of Bluefire Police film (my first in fifteen years). It was developed according to the Massive Dev App in a Paterson tank. So far so good. Eager as I was I didn't let it dry overnight in room temperature but took it down and cut it within a couple of hours. Because the film was so curly I dropped it to the floor a couple of times but that didn't seem to affect the overall result. There seem to be nothing wrong with the shadows and the mid tones, but the highlights seem to be affected of some kind of effect with unknown (to my knowledge) origin. I have faith in that the expertise hovering this forum give some answers. Is it the developer (delivered with the film), stop, fix, agitation, rinse bath or just Murphys law? Any suggestions much appreciated

 

[Trask]

What is the effect that you think you're seeing? I do not see any screamingly obvious defects with the highlights...

 

[Slowframe]

Maybe I didnt explain my self clear enough. The problem are the pictures with clear sky in them. The first two show the problem (looks like banding in a digital file), the third one are just an example without the sky in it. A sort of reference.

 

[John Wiegerink]

What is the effect that you think you're seeing? I do not see any screamingly obvious defects with the highlights...

Looks like a slight agitation problem maybe. How to you do your agitation scheme?

 

[Regular Rod]

Hello all you forum geeks!I recently developed a roll of Bluefire Police film (my first in fifteen years). It was developed according to the Massive Dev App in a Paterson tank. So far so good. Eager as I was I didn't let it dry overnight in room temperature but took it down and cut it within a couple of hours. Because the film was so curly I dropped it to the floor a couple of times but that didn't seem to affect the overall result. There seem to be nothing wrong with the shadows and the mid tones, but the highlights seem to be affected of some kind of effect with unknown (to my knowledge) origin. I have faith in that the expertise hovering this forum give some answers. Is it the developer (delivered with the film), stop, fix, agitation, rinse bath or just Murphys law? Any suggestions much appreciated

If you soak the first two negatives in water at your usual developing temperature and then fix them again for another two or three minutes, then wash them thoroughly again and finish of with a minute drop of wetting agent in the last rinse, then clip them up and hang them up to drip and dry, this time leaving them until completely dry, you might be lucky and get rid of the wavy marks in the skies of those two negatives...


RR

 

[Jonathan R]

Hello all you forum geeks!I recently developed a roll of Bluefire Police film (my first in fifteen years). It was developed according to the Massive Dev App in a Paterson tank. So far so good. Eager as I was I didn't let it dry overnight in room temperature but took it down and cut it within a couple of hours. Because the film was so curly I dropped it to the floor a couple of times but that didn't seem to affect the overall result. There seem to be nothing wrong with the shadows and the mid tones, but the highlights seem to be affected of some kind of effect with unknown (to my knowledge) origin. I have faith in that the expertise hovering this forum give some answers. Is it the developer (delivered with the film), stop, fix, agitation, rinse bath or just Murphys law? Any suggestions much appreciated

If I am reading the situation correctly, the problem is most apparent in the sky of the first picture, right? Swirly effects, like marbling, and a misty effect in the foreground. My guess would be inadequate time in the fixer, so that clearing is not complete. If you look at the emulsion (dull) side of the negatives in a strong reflected light you may see a milky appearance, which would confirm it.

The common rule of thumb is actually to give the film twice the clearing time. I generally drop the cut-off film leader into the fixer to measure clearing time. So if I'm right your film is woefully under-fixed. I don't know whether it is salvageable at this stage, but in the absence of advice from better people than me, I would be inclined to try re-fixing it, followed by re-washing. You can do this in a tray in the light of course, because you have already cut the film into strips.

 

[Slowframe]

Agitation was 30 sec the first minute and then 10 sec every minute. This was not according to the manufactures scheme but the app caught me by surprise:/ I just followed the on screen instructions. I never turned the tank upside down, just agitated up and down with a shake.

 

[Slowframe]

If I am reading the situation correctly, the problem is most apparent in the sky of the first picture, right? Swirly effects, like marbling, and a misty effect in the foreground. My guess would be inadequate time in the fixer, so that clearing is not complete. If you look at the emulsion (dull) side of the negatives in a strong reflected light you may see a milky appearance, which would confirm it.

The common rule of thumb is actually to give the film twice the clearing time. I generally drop the cut-off film leader into the fixer to measure clearing time. So if I'm right your film is woefully under-fixed. I don't know whether it is salvageable at this stage, but in the absence of advice from better people than me, I would be inclined to try re-fixing it, followed by re-washing. You can do this in a tray in the light of course, because you have already cut the film into strips.

Thank you! Seem like something I want to try. Maybe I try it one the next film I develop. Correct me if I´m wrong, but if the app says 5 min fixing, I use 10 min?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Agitation was 30 sec the first minute and then 10 sec every minute. This was not according to the manufactures scheme but the app caught me by surprise:/ I just followed the on screen instructions. I never turned the tank upside down, just agitated up and down with a shake.

That sounds like it should be just fine to me, but I've never used the film/developer combo before so maybe it's not. If it is a fix problem and the film base looks dull or milky then you might try to re-fix the film again.

 

[Slowframe]

This was much more adequate advice than I dared hoping for. For the next film I will agitate more thoroughly, maybe 5 sec every 30 sec and fix it for 10 min or in a two bath fixer. Hopefully this will create the full range greyscale I was hoping for. I will also let it hang overnight to dry. Does anyone no if there is any point in weighing the film down, to counteract the curling? It was PITA to to get it in to the film holders?

 

[MattKing]

A couple of cautions.

First, the Massive Developing Chart (and App) is a little like wikipedia - things can be added that may not be right.

Use the times as a starting point.

Second, Bluefire is fairly esoteric, so it may require unusual times or temperatures.

Third, fixing times will vary with different types of fixer and different types of film - so it would help us if we knew what type of fixer you are using. The best way to determine the right time is to use a clip clearing test. Fix for as long as it takes a clip of film to clear, then replace the fixer with a second bath, and fix for the same amount of time again.

Fourth, I always use clips at both the top and bottom of the drying film. Several hours in a slightly humid environment works best. If, however, Bluefire is on an inherently curly base material, this will only reduce the curl, not eliminate it.

 

[pbromaghin]

This was much more adequate advice than I dared hoping for. For the next film I will agitate more thoroughly, maybe 5 sec every 30 sec and fix it for 10 min or in a two bath fixer. Hopefully this will create the full range greyscale I was hoping for. I will also let it hang overnight to dry. Does anyone no if there is any point in weighing the film down, to counteract the curling? It was PITA to to get it in to the film holders?

What do you have against using Bluefire's recommended agitation procedure - constant for 12 minutes?

 

[John Wiegerink]

What do you have against using Bluefire's recommended agitation procedure - constant for 12 minutes?

Whoa, I didn't even dream it was "constant"! Now I'm leaning more toward an agitation problem.

 

[pbromaghin]

Whoa, I didn't even dream it was "constant"! Now I'm leaning more toward an agitation problem.

I should add that it be "gentle". They recommend using a jobo or some such.

 

[cliveh]

Firstly I'm not a geek. In picture 1, I thought it was the deer that should have antlers, not the man. Picture 2, probably over agitation as already stated. Picture 3, what sad message is this meant to convey?

 

[Slowframe]

Teamwork, but thats not the issue here. This kind of comments make me realize that there is something wrong with the world. Do you know what meat is? They do not produce it behind the counter. These are free ranging moose that has lived a full life in freedom totally devoid of antibiotics and medicines, hormones, slaughterhouses and other man made obstacles. It´s the only meat I eat.

 

[Slowframe]

What do you have against using Bluefire's recommended agitation procedure - constant for 12 minutes?

I have nothing against the advice, but I want the best possible highlight development possible. The advice was development for 16 min, no agitation for best highlights. Clearly I didn't go down that path. Constant agitation for 12 min will not give me the grayscale I want with this film so that is not an option, for now. So I think I will test 15 min, and agitation every 30 sec. I have twenty rolls to get there

 

[pbromaghin]

20 rolls... Please report back periodically as you figure it out. It looks like a really cool film and trying it will have to go on my list of things to do.

 

[CatLABS]

Teamwork, but thats not the issue here. This kind of comments make me realize that there is something wrong with the world. Do you know what meat is? They do not produce it behind the counter. These are free ranging moose that has lived a full life in freedom totally devoid of antibiotics and medicines, hormones, slaughterhouses and other man made obstacles. It´s the only meat I eat.

I guess there is something to be said for growing your food, and hunting animals that you actually eat, as opposed to buying a chop off a cow that lived an awful painful life in small cage only to be zapped to death.

However, I dont eat meat, and i dont understand why one needs to kill an animal that so gracefully escaped all the man made terrors in this world, and you are correct, there is something wrong in the world, where it is a "sport" to hunt an animal with a high powered rifle and a long range scope. That moose just had it coming.

 

[Pioneer]

I guess there is something to be said for growing your food, and hunting animals that you actually eat, as opposed to buying a chop off a cow that lived an awful painful life in small cage only to be zapped to death.

However, I dont eat meat, and i dont understand why one needs to kill an animal that so gracefully escaped all the man made terrors in this world, and you are correct, there is something wrong in the world, where it is a "sport" to hunt an animal with a high powered rifle and a long range scope. That moose just had it coming.

And how does this relate to the topic of this thread?

To each his own. I will refrain from telling you how to live your life if you don't tell me how to live mine. I eat meat and enjoy it, whether it is an animal I raised for slaughter or one I took while hunting. I have done both. As for the rifle, I prefer to take the animal cleanly with no suffering so I use the proper tool for the job. I find nothing whatsoever shameful in that.

I also raise a lot of my own vegetables and fruit as well. Like the meat, they taste much better then most of what I can buy in a store.

 

[Truzi]

Teamwork, but thats not the issue here. This kind of comments make me realize that there is something wrong with the world. Do you know what meat is? They do not produce it behind the counter. These are free ranging moose that has lived a full life in freedom totally devoid of antibiotics and medicines, hormones, slaughterhouses and other man made obstacles. It´s the only meat I eat.

I've a friend at work who grew up in Romania, and he has commented that no where but the U.S. has he ever seen such a disconnect between the source and table. I feel this applies to non-animal food as well, as I surprise people with the quality of produce that comes from local growers. I try explaining to people how most tomatoes are not ripe when picked, and merely changed color (with help) but do not ripen before they buy them. Also, most produce from the large grocers has been bred to increase yield and ease harvest - which robs flavor and nutrition.

My uncle hunts and will get a deer most seasons, and it is quite good. I doubt I could hunt, but I've nothing against it. I prefer food-animals that are "free range," so-to-speak. When I was a kid my uncle explained one scenario where they thought they only wounded a deer and had quite some trouble tracking it. I think many non-hunters either believe every kill is instant, or that hunters leave a plethora of wounded but living animals in their wake. Many don't realize there is a great deal of responsibility involved for the vast majority of hunters.

 

[StoneNYC]

I guess there is something to be said for growing your food, and hunting animals that you actually eat, as opposed to buying a chop off a cow that lived an awful painful life in small cage only to be zapped to death.

However, I dont eat meat, and i dont understand why one needs to kill an animal that so gracefully escaped all the man made terrors in this world, and you are correct, there is something wrong in the world, where it is a "sport" to hunt an animal with a high powered rifle and a long range scope. That moose just had it coming.

Plants also FEEL pain and die when you ingest them.

Seriously, plants do feel pain. So the argument about poor animals, I don't eat them, doesn't really fly if you're logical about it and know the facts.

Secondly, do you own a leather belt, leather shoe or dress shoe with a leather sole, leather seated couch or car seat, old sewing machine or lawn mower with leather belt, cozy suede slippers with lamb skin inside... Etc etc...

I too think it's terrible the way we keep animals in tight quarters and would prefer free range, but to not eat animals for "humanitarian" reasons is assanine. If you believe it's healthier to be vegan, then that's your perspective and option on and choice to do so (and it can be, depends on your genetic background whether your body works better on one or another food groups.

I also don't think it's good as a "sport" if you're able to buy meat at a store, but who's worse, the super market shopper who buys meat from a poor animal who was stuck in a dirty pen all it's life, or one who went out and killed their own meat from an animal who had a real life?

Just something to ponder.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pbromaghin]

Good lord.

When I was a boy, I lived on a farm and had a character flaw where I had trouble killing. My father loved hunting. I also loved hunting, everything about it, but just didn't like seeing animals die. I didn't like chopping heads off chickens or rabbits for dinner, either. I found that i was eating game because I killed it, not killing it so I could eat it. So I quit hunting.

Leave this guy alone. He hunts to eat, for christ's sake! It's an honorable way to live.

 

[CatLABS]

Secondly, do you own a leather belt, leather shoe or dress shoe with a leather sole, leather seated couch or car seat, old sewing machine or lawn mower with leather belt, cozy suede slippers with lamb skin inside... Etc etc...

No.

depends on your genetic background whether your body works better on one or another food groups

What???

I also don't think it's good as a "sport" if you're able to buy meat at a store, but who's worse, the super market shopper who buys meat from a poor animal who was stuck in a dirty pen all it's life, or one who went out and killed their own meat from an animal who had a real life?

The one who does not buy or eat any meat is obviously better, that way, at the very least, there is nothing to ponder on.
No animals in pens, and no animals who are not in pens get murdered. After all the most dangerous game is a human.

 

[pentaxuser]

Haven't we moved from the lab to the lounge here?

pentaxuser