Yet another accident

[Fraunhofer]

I am posting this in Darkroom but the problem may have occurred before I even made it to the Darkroom. This is a real riddle for me: I developed a 120 roll film (Ilford Delta 400) and it came out uniformly black as if the whole film was exposed to day light.

The film was shot about two weeks ago together with a second roll in the same camera (RB67 ProS) using the same back (ProS). I developed both films in one stainless steel tank on steel reels at the same time using freshly mixed HC110. The second roll came out perfectly well developed. I used 1l of chemistry which fills the tank completely.

Now, where did I make the mistake? Any hints, theories or pure guesswork would be much appreciated.

 

[gone]

At this point, guesswork is all I have. I'm a little concerned about your statement that the tank was filled completely, as you need some air space in there when you agitate the tank, but that probably has nothing to do w/ your problem. Are the edge markings completely black as well as the image area of the film? If that's the case, then it sounds as if somehow the roll was exposed to light. If you have edge markings, maybe the shutter wasn't working correctly.

 

[markbarendt]

Film does not turn black without exposure so somehow the "black" roll got uniformly exposed.

The way you developed the film rules out development problems.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

As the second roll came out perfectly normal, the problem must have occurred before development.

So, some kind of exposue must have happened, when and how, we can only guess.

 

[Rudeofus]

What was in the tank before you put in the first roll? There are some liquids used in photographic processing which will fog film: most sulfur toners, E6 color developer from 3 bath kits, E6 reexposure bath from 7 bath kits. Some fixer residues mixed into developer will also create fog, so will residues of strong alkali.

Is the 'blackness' of your film completely uniform, or can you detect a pattern? If there is a pattern: is it image pattern, or some indication of a light leak? If density is uniform: can you measure or at least estimate it?

 

[JW PHOTO]

Like momus ask, do you have edge markings? Can you see any writing or numbers when holding up to a light source?

 

[removed account4]

my poor guess is the spool of film was not wound tight and sealed and put someplace light-proof
so the whole roll of film was exposed to daylight, or the back of the camera was opened by mistake
and left open with the film in it or you had it in your pocket when you were testing a RADAR machine ...
oh wait a second that's how microwave ovens were invented ... i mean what i said before, the roll wasn't sealed ..

 

[Fraunhofer]

Thanks to everybody, let me try to answer the question brought up so far:

No edge markings.

Black is very uniform and is as black (by visual comparison only) as the leader of a similarly processed 35mm film. Light leaks from a not tightly wound roll tend to be a lot less uniform, i.e. it at least on some frames I should have some image left. If you open the back by accident, you ruin about two frames (don't ask where I know that from ...). Furthermore, the film was tightly wound on the spool when I unpacked it in the darkroom for processing.

No RADAR or exposure to ionizing radiation, that I know of, also if that was enough dose to turn the whole film black, I should be loosing my hair by now... which fortunately is not the case.

The tank is a stainless tank and has been used exclusively for film development, i.e. either water, developer or fixer go in there. The tank was clean and dry before I started that specific developing session.

 

[Moopheus]

How did you load the tanks? In a dark box or tent, or in a darkroom? If the error was unlikely to have happened in-camera, and not in the tank either, it must have been between tank and camera, while one roll was spooled and the other wasn't. (Unless it was a manufacturing defect, but that seems even more unlikely).

 

[Fraunhofer]

I loaded the tank with both (!) films in my darkroom and as far as I can remember in an identical fashion, so if there was some say residual light, it should have affected both films, but it did not.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Do you load the tank with your eyes closed? I recall a story on the Large Format Forum of someone who loaded and unloaded holders with his eyes closed out of habit, even though he was working in the dark. One time he forgot to turn off the lights but didn't notice because his eyes were closed...

 

[Fraunhofer]

That is a good one: but no, I don't close my eye in the dark

 

[removed account4]

well, fraunhofer,
i am glad you have a sense of humor about all of this
if you hold a flash light behind the film is there an image ?
if so it could just be massively over exposed, and you can remedy
it by maybe putting the film in a bath of farmer's reducer.
(i've done that with dichroic fog ( green metalic stain ) it worked OK.
john

 

[Fraunhofer]

jnanian, fortunately I don't have to earn my living with my photography and this particular roll did not have anything on it which I couldn't retake. My concern is, how do I prevent this in the future.

So far all I've heard seems to support the notion of a freak accident and thus, nothing I really can do to prevent it.

 

[AgX]

if so it could just be massively over exposed, and you can remedy

A overexposed film would only yield the image frames exposed.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

if the film is uniform in blackness with no image and no film markings on edge, then I think it is a factory issue. my reasoning is . . . 1. if the roll after exposure was NOT wound tight and taped then edge marking would be present deep into the roll, while outer frames would have mass light leaks. 2. the "uniform blackness" is key to understanding this dilemma. How do you get uniform blackness across the whole roll with no edge markings, and with no varyings gaps of densities between images? my guess is the entire roll, "rolled out" and exposed to light. where can this happen????

 

[Fraunhofer]

Greg got this right: the film looks *exactly* as if I pulled it all out in sunlight and developed it (I have done that before because I needed a makeshift high density neutral filter).

 

[greg zinselmeier]

well, . . . . here is a story for ya. when I was in high school, back in 88, my friend steve and I were in a photography class together. we went to Creve Coeur Camera to buy paper, for the next day we were printing. we dropped it off at his house and then went over to his girlfriends house for. . . . anyway. the next day we went into the darkroom and started to print, but each image came out completely black. At the time this was quite vexing. The instructor told us the paper was all exposed to light! how didi that happen?? it turned out steve's sister opened up the package of paper and took it out "to look at" the paper. then put it back in the box, because it didn't look any different. This happened while we were at his girlfriends house, the night before. HAHA!!!

did your family member sabotage your roll of film???

 

[Fraunhofer]

They would have to be real good: I took the film out of the paper box and had to tear the foil wrapper and remove the little band ... maybe the CIA?

 

[summicron1]

By any chance are there any small children in the house who could have unrolled a roll of daddy's film to see the pictures, decided they weren't there and rolled it up again?

OK, the torn tape would reveal a problem, but I honestly can't think of anything else.

There is also the possibility of evil spirits. Have any virgins been handling your film? Did you fail to sacrifice the proper sex/breed of goat?

 

[removed account4]

A overexposed film would only yield the image frames exposed.

hmmm. good point

 

[Fraunhofer]

Plenty of kids, but they generally stay away from the photo stuff and they would be real good in covering up their operation: as I said, the packaging was undamaged, paper carton, foil pack and the little paper band on the roll were all intact...

No sacrificial goats, roosters, etc. ... may be we call this roll of film a sacrifice to the gods of photography?

 

[greg zinselmeier]

IMO, this issue is a factory related one. Move on, press on, regardless.

 

[JW PHOTO]

IMO, this issue is a factory related one. Move on, press on, regardless.

Well, if it's factory we'll be hearing reports of the dreaded "Black Death" of my 120 Delta 400 film syndrome coming in left and right. Since a factory does everything in large numbers. That usually includes mistakes too.

 

[pdeeh]

IMO, this issue is a factory related one. Move on, press on, regardless.

that's almost never the case with this sort of problem.
it is quite incredibly rare to find a film - even from a minor manufacturer - with such a gross fault.

it will be user error of some sort