Why do my Medium-Format Negatives Seem Thicker and Less Clear?

[MattKing]

I don't keep my negatives beyond the time it takes to scan or enlarge them

Some here will respond with horror to this .

 

[RLangham]

Some here will respond with horror to this .

I bet. I just don't have any sleeves around and I never think to order them. So I chuck the negs when I'm done with them.

 

[btaylor]

Well one thing stands out to me here: the 120 and 35mm are not being exposed with the same equipment. Using a shutter tester I have found wide variations amongst my various 35mm and 120 cameras- the 120 often with slow leaf shutters in particular which would result in “thick” negatives. Maybe try shooting a gray card with your 35mm and 120 camera then use a transmission densitometer to check the values. If they aren’t close to identical then you likely have an exposure problem. Just food for thought.

 

[RLangham]

Well one thing stands out to me here: the 120 and 35mm are not being exposed with the same equipment. Using a shutter tester I have found wide variations amongst my various 35mm and 120 cameras- the 120 often with slow leaf shutters in particular which would result in “thick” negatives. Maybe try shooting a gray card with your 35mm and 120 camera then use a transmission densitometer to check the values. If they aren’t close to identical then you likely have an exposure problem. Just food for thought.

The thing about variation across large samples still applies though... I have used a number of different cameras for 120 and a LOT of different 35mm cameras, so the variation is, shall we say, controlled for.

 

[kevs]

I don't keep my negatives beyond the time it takes to scan or enlarge them, so I don't know that it matters, but I use it most of the time. I will say that my stabilizer doesn't seem to have a wetting agent, as the water leaves marks whether I use it or not.

Ah well, you needn't worry about the stabiliser then! Wetting agent would help the film dry more evenly. I'm very glad my father didn't dump his colour negatives; they've survived the last 50+ years far better than some of the prints have!

 

[BradS]

The thing about variation across large samples still applies though... I have used a number of different cameras for 120 and a LOT of different 35mm cameras, so the variation is, shall we say, controlled for.

Do you use the same light meter for all cameras?

 

[RLangham]

Do you use the same light meter for all cameras?

I judge by eye for all my manual-exposures cameras. I get good results with all my 35mn manual ones--I studied this pretty hard and got good.

 

[brbo]

Regardless of your metering and cameras you should get very similar min (film border) and max (specular highlights) densities. If not, you should use proper C-41 process (no pre-wash, 3:15 dev (constant agitation), no stop/wash, bleach, wash, fix, stab) with proper chemicals (Kodak, Fuji).

 

[afriman]

The same agitation regime (ten seconds agitation out of every sixty)

Are you agitating at sixty second intervals? Your problem may be insufficient agitation, particularly in the Blix. C41 chemistry usually calls for agitation every 30 seconds. Assuming you are using inversion agitation and the same tank for both film formats, one can understand why the 35mm film might receive more efficient agitation: since the tank is less full, there is more movement of the liquid when inverting the tank. With 120 film, there is about twice the amount of chemicals, so inversion would cause less movement.

Remember that a Blix bath already has a hard time doing a proper job. With insufficient agitation, the situation is only made worse.

 

[RLangham]

Are you agitating at sixty second intervals? Your problem may be insufficient agitation, particularly in the Blix. C41 chemistry usually calls for agitation every 30 seconds. Assuming you are using inversion agitation and the same tank for both film formats, one can understand why the 35mm film might receive more efficient agitation: since the tank is less full, there is more movement of the liquid when inverting the tank. With 120 film, there is about twice the amount of chemicals, so inversion would cause less movement.

Remember that a Blix bath already has a hard time doing a proper job. With insufficient agitation, the situation is only made worse.

I should have been more clear. What I have always done is five seconds every thirty for a total of ten per minute.

I do not use inversion because the Yankee Clipper II is not designed to permit inversion. It had a removable agitator rod that you would turn back and forth to rotate the film spiral back and forth in the tank. I used this once and discovered it caused the film to work its way out of the spiral. I instead slosh the tank somewhat vigorously by quickly moving it in a circular motion continuously for five seconds.

 

[RLangham]

Regardless of your metering and cameras you should get very similar min (film border) and max (specular highlights) densities. If not, you should use proper C-41 process (no pre-wash, 3:15 dev (constant agitation), no stop/wash, bleach, wash, fix, stab) with proper chemicals (Kodak, Fuji).

I mean, I follow the instructions on the chemicals to the letter, including increasing development time by 2% after each roll that I develop.

 

[afriman]

Could you post a picture of some of your negatives, if possible next to a strip of your 35mm negatives (like brbo did)?

 

[afriman]

I still suspect that the bleach/fixing is insufficient. Even with your method of agitation, there is probably less vigorous movement when agitating the fuller tank with 120 film.
I just read some user reviews of the Yankee Clipper II tank on the B@H site: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/895914-REG/Yankee_rfc_15t_Clipper_II_Roll_Film.html. On the whole they are not very positive. Perhaps it would be worth trying a different tank?

 

[RLangham]

I still suspect that the bleach/fixing is insufficient. Even with your method of agitation, there is probably less vigorous movement when agitating the fuller tank with 120 film.
I just read some user reviews of the Yankee Clipper II tank on the B@H site: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/895914-REG/Yankee_rfc_15t_Clipper_II_Roll_Film.html. On the whole they are not very positive. Perhaps it would be worth trying a different tank?

I don't have any negatives on hand, but I suspect you're right about agitation. Eventually I'll get a new tank. Until then I'm still getting decent prints. It just takes a longer exposure.