Negative development issue

[Rich42]

Exhausted fix and insufficient agitation maybe exacerbated by a low solution level.

Exhausted fixer would result in residual, cloudy, milky-appearing emulsion remnants and incomplete clearing of the anti-halation layer on the back of the film. Never would it produce dark streaks of developed silver metal.

incomplete fixing can be completely remedied by additional treatment in fresh fixer until the film base is clear.

The film base is clear, indicating the film was completely fixed in the initial processing, yet the problem remains.

Insufficient agitation does not cause excessive development in places where solution is flowing at too great a rate. But it does result in flat images. That does not seem to be the case. In fact they look too dense.

Rich

 

[Steven Seven]

I refuse to believe that agitation or chemistry issues would result in such precise, almost mathematically defined, symmetric pattern on both edges of the film.

I am a newbie when it comes to film development, but I am also an adult with an engineering background and the explanation above doesn't pass even on that level.

 

[mamallama]

I refuse to believe that agitation or chemistry issues would result in such precise, almost mathematically defined, symmetric pattern on both edges of the film.

I am a newbie when it comes to film development, but I am also an adult with an engineering background and the explanation above doesn't pass even on that level.

Exactly. And the dark stripes represent areas either exposed to light or somehow overdeveloped.

It also could have been caused by light leaks in the film cartridge. When I used to load reused 35mm cartridges from bulk film the end caps were snap-ons and after many uses they did not fit as tight and some had light leaks. For nostalgia, here is my bulk 35mm film loader. A 50 foot reel of 35mm movie film on the right. An empty 35mm cartridge on the left. A frame counter in the middle and a lever to open and close a light gate.

 

[guyfawkes]

I refuse to believe that agitation or chemistry issues would result in such precise, almost mathematically defined, symmetric pattern on both edges of the film.

I am a newbie when it comes to film development, but I am also an adult with an engineering background and the explanation above doesn't pass even on that level.

Exactly. And the dark stripes represent areas either exposed to light or somehow overdeveloped.

It also could have been caused by light leaks in the film cartridge. When I used to load reused 35mm cartridges from bulk film the end caps were snap-ons and after many uses they did not fit as tight and some had light leaks. For nostalgia, here is my bulk 35mm film loader. A 50 foot reel of 35mm movie film on the right. An empty 35mm cartridge on the left. A frame counter in the middle and a lever to open and close a light gate.

Light leaks are possibilities, but if the film was fogged in this way I'd be surprised as the last 12 frames in a cassette are furthest away from the light trap, and protected from light by the spool ends themselves. I'd expect to see a more generalised area of fogging, not the distinct pattern we see here. I, too, regularly used a daylight loader, for decades in fact, a Watson, and apart from the the first couple of inches loaded onto the spool and the final couple of inches which would be the film leader, which got completely fogged, no fogging of any sort was ever evident around the sprocket holes of the rest of the film.

I'm also guessing that the original poster wasn't loading his own cassettes from bulk, so fogging of the inner part of the film on the spool seems even less plausible.

Trying to get to the bottom of this is like ringing your doctor and getting him to diagnose you over the phone. On balance, though, I'm sticking with a processing error. A degree in engineering wouldn't assist me here.

 

[Ken Seals]

Do you have a different film camera? It would be interesting to see if another, non motor driven camera would have the same results using the same film and developing techniques. I have a F4 in like new condition but only used it a few times years ago. So I can't check for that effect.

 

[Ken Seals]

In the old days, I load thousands of feet of Tri-X with a Watson loader. I did have the experience occasionally of the cap popping off the end of an exposed roll. If I got the cap back on quickly, the fogging only affected the first few frames, which would have been the first frames on the roll that are on the end of the film loaded deepest onto the processing reesl. We always used stainless steel Nikkor reels in deep tanks with nitrogen burst agitation.

Any kind of fogging of the film would not produce a perfectly even pattern.

 

[Ken Seals]

I’m new to film development having only developed 6 or so rolls so far. My latest attempt came out with streaks from the sprocket holes. See image below. I repeated the same process as previous developments, perhaps with the only difference being re using the stop and fixer (ilford ilfostop and rapid fixer) and possibly the temperature of these being a little low. The developer was ilfosol 3 (1+9) at 20deg C for 7:30. Agitation for developer was 1st minute then 10sec per minute. I’d be grateful for advice as to what might have caused this issue.

This to me is a clearly a fixer problem.

Either the fixer was exhausted or too low temperature or not agitated enough.

Definitely caused by old fix and too little agitation

There is no evidence of lack of complete fixing.

Funny the camera gets blamed when it's an obvious user/beginner fault

Are you familiar with the type of camera he used? It's a battery powered professional camera that uses a strong and fast motor drive to advance AND rewind the film. Any kind of bend or stress on the film before development can cause dark mark just like light hitting the film.

But I guess that's what you get on an equipment focused site

Temperature plays no role in this

If it had been too cold, eg compared to the developer and without using a stop bath and in between rinsing, reticulation would have been more likely

--
Regards,
Ken - LR ACE
FAA Remote Pilot Certificate, ATP ASMEL
Mizzou PJ '66
www.kenseals.com

 

[Mr G Brown]

i know where your coming from i'm having the same problem? but now after reading

the reply's i think i know what i was doing wrong. i was agitating too vigorously too often.

 

[Paul P K]

I refuse to believe that agitation or chemistry issues would result in such precise, almost mathematically defined, symmetric pattern on both edges of the film.

I am a newbie when it comes to film development, but I am also an adult with an engineering background and the explanation above doesn't pass even on that level.

I admit I don't have an engineering degree, but while having one may sound impressive for a inexperienced newbie, that of course is irrelevant for just developing a film, where IMO just plain common sense rather then text book knowledge (let alone totally unrelated text book knowledge) is far more relevamt

I've shot and developed literally thousands of (b&W and color) films since the 70's up to the late 90's (when I switched to digital), as a budding amateur, a student at the Royal Academy of Arts in The Hague, and as a professional photographer https://pbase.com/paul_k and without wanting to boast think I'm in a position to say your newbie assumption that the shown pattern isn't possible is totally incorrect

In your very likely inexperience as a admitted newbie, you very likely have very little, if any experience how certain types of agitation can indeed cause uneven development, or fixation

Let's just begin at the basics

It's very likely that as a newbie you slavishly follow the text book procedures when developing a film: pour in the developer, after the recommended time pour out the developer, pour in the stop bath, after the recommended time pour that out, and pour in the fixer. During all that time gently agitating the film by spinning the film reel with the little rod that came with the development tank (like with the below Paterson tank) in the center of the film reel


Paterson Universal developing tank

That procedure is just plain wrong

If you just pour in developer in the tank with a dry film, you very much risk creating tiny air bubbles on the film surface which can keep the developer from touching that area, and consequently small area's that get less development time (which will show as little white circles on the developed film)

Solution: pre soak your film before you pour in the developer with water of the same temperature as your developer for a couple of minutes, and agitate the film during that time

That agitation should not be faint heartedly: you want to get rid of any bubbles, and gently spinning the reel with the little rod won't be very effective for that.

Based on my decades long experience : take the tank in both hands, be sure to take a firm clap of the cover, and agitate the tank head over heels a few times. Then gently tap the tank on the table or sink or wherever you are developing your film(s) to make any bubbles possibly left on your film (you never know) let go from the film

Pour out the water, and replace it with the developer. During the development time, depending on how you want your negative (steep for more contrast having shot a low contrast scene, soft in case you shot a high contrast scene where you want to have a less contrast negative) shake it after shorter or longer intervals (of course using warmer or colder developer, and specific types of developer will also contribute to the end result)

Note that by just gently spinning the film reel you'll be basically moving it in one horizontal direction, left or right, risking oneven development (due to not completely having changed the developer in certain area's)

Next stop: pour out the developer, pour in water of the same temperature, and shake. Replace the water and repeat the same procedure a couple of times to be sure all developer is washed away out of any nook and cranny

I only used stop batch with the very first films I developed in the 70's. But after having read an article how the acid stop bath could risk a 'scare' reaction of the gelatin carrier of film (and having seen that actually happen, no internet back then to just pick up a story and with some self declared expertise spread it around) I stopped doing that (even if as theory will tell. stop will immediately stop the development process, while 'just' rinsing will allow it to continue due to possible residue developer on the film, based on my extensive experience : nonsense)

Poring in the fix after the extensive rinsing will basically have the same effect as the stop, but rather then stopping any possible developing, it will simple take the silver emulsion away which will leave any residue developer nothing the react with, basically having the same effect, but without risk of 'scaring' the emulsion

And with the fixer in the development tank when, like with the developer, just spinning the film reel with the rod will risk not changing 'saturated' fix enough to create a an evenly fixated ( i.e. without silver traces which will afterwards show as opaque stains on the developed, fixed and dried film)

So as described before, again shake the tank head over heels, and different from the developer, don't be too shy/scary doing so

The pattern shown on the film of the OP is based on my pretty extensive experience :-D of course possible with old fix, and too little, too much in one direction only movement (in this case too gently tipping over the development tank with the fixer) and yes, creative the traces on both sides (top and bottom of the developing reel) of the film

Firmly shaking the development tank with fixer will of course have no averse effect on the film: you're trying to get rid of any trace of undeveloped emulsion in any place, and firmly shaking will assure you the fixer will get in any nook and cranny

So based on my decades of real world, practical, deviating from the texbooks, experience (and the results to back that up) I dare say your based on unrelated knowledge statement however adult you are ("I'm right because I'm old' ? :-O ) is wrong

--
all in a day's work
http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/

 

[Steven Seven]

Unless that's your account, this person is having somewhat similar, but less pronounced, issue:

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/what-is-making-the-marks-on-this-negative.5519361/

 

[Paul P K]

Are you familiar with the type of camera he used? It's a battery powered professional camera that uses a strong and fast motor drive to advance AND rewind the film. Any kind of bend or stress on the film before development can cause dark mark just like light hitting the film.

Sorry, but having used similar film powered professional bodies during several decades (F2 AS with MD1 motordive, FE with MD11, in the 70's and 80's, F90/90X with MB10, F100 with MD11 in the late 80's and 90's) several of which had a similar strong rewind function, I dare say your statement may perhaps sound plausible for layman ears, but is purely theoretical and obviously not based on any real world, wide scale experience or reporting

 

[Steven Seven]

As a newbie who just read every single data sheet posted online by Kodak and Ilford, nobody suggests using the agitation stick. Both Kodak and Ilford are saying the same thing you're saying: 180 degree inversions followed by a firm tap to dislodge the air bubbles.

But your post was fun to read nevertheless. Thank you.

But... Saying "insufficient agitation" only sparks more curiosity. Are you saying that there are air bubbles caught in the perforations? Why are they so symmetrical and only specific to certain frames, and the fogging goes inward from both edges, i.e. "up from the bottom" of the tank and "down from the top"? Neither air or fluid would flow like this.

 

[Steven Seven]

Are you familiar with the type of camera he used? It's a battery powered professional camera that uses a strong and fast motor drive to advance AND rewind the film. Any kind of bend or stress on the film before development can cause dark mark just like light hitting the film.

Sorry, but having used similar film powered professional bodies during several decades (F2 AS with MD1 motordive, FE with MD11, in the 70's and 80's, F90/90X with MB10, F100 with MD11 in the late 80's and 90's) several of which had a similar strong rewind function, I dare say your statement may perhaps sound plausible for layman ears, but is purely theoretical and obviously not based on any real world, wide scale experience or reporting

... yet it's the only explanation that matches the observed pattern and conforms to common sense. Perhaps it's a defective roll of film with a weakened base?

 

[Ken Seals]

Are you familiar with the type of camera he used? It's a battery powered professional camera that uses a strong and fast motor drive to advance AND rewind the film. Any kind of bend or stress on the film before development can cause dark mark just like light hitting the film.

Sorry, but having used similar film powered professional bodies during several decades (F2 AS with MD1 motordive, FE with MD11, in the 70's and 80's, F90/90X with MB10, F100 with MD11 in the late 80's and 90's) several of which had a similar strong rewind function, I dare say your statement may perhaps sound plausible for layman ears, but is purely theoretical and obviously not based on any real world, wide scale experience or reporting

I am not speaking from the position of a layman.

Do you agree that mechanical bending to the point of putting a kink in the emulsion and backing of film before development will cause the same effect as exposure to light? I'm sure that is the crux of this issue.

 

[A Marcus]

The streaks from the coroners of the sprocket holes appear at first glance to be an agitation issue. Such artifacts are due to increased turbulence caused by over agitation. I practice 1 minute agitation followed by 10 seconds of agitation every 30 seconds thereafter. However, for this example, the streaks are quite dark, likely near maximum blacking for pictorial film. How can this be? Over agitation will add density but not to this extreme. I think this film was fogged by a low level of light exposure. Film of this type has an opaque backing called annihilation coat. This coat reduces re-exposure from the rear. Often a vista contains bright points of light like reflections off glass or gemstone, or shiny metal object or a bright lamp. Such bright sources can and will traverse the film during exposure, hit the pressure plate and reflect back into the film causing a halo surrounding the image of such objects. The annihilation coat also allows loading and unloading of the camera in subdued light.

You may have loaded or unloaded under bright light conditions or the darkroom was not truly dark. If this is fogging from improper loading, likely the streaks are only present on the first 4 or 5 frames. Also the film could have been fogged at the factory. Don’t overlook x-ray from a machine at the airport.

 

[mamallama]

I refuse to believe that agitation or chemistry issues would result in such precise, almost mathematically defined, symmetric pattern on both edges of the film.

I am a newbie when it comes to film development, but I am also an adult with an engineering background and the explanation above doesn't pass even on that level.

Exactly. And the dark stripes represent areas either exposed to light or somehow overdeveloped.

It also could have been caused by light leaks in the film cartridge. When I used to load reused 35mm cartridges from bulk film the end caps were snap-ons and after many uses they did not fit as tight and some had light leaks. For nostalgia, here is my bulk 35mm film loader. A 50 foot reel of 35mm movie film on the right. An empty 35mm cartridge on the left. A frame counter in the middle and a lever to open and close a light gate.

Light leaks are possibilities, but if the film was fogged in this way I'd be surprised as the last 12 frames in a cassette are furthest away from the light trap, and protected from light by the spool ends themselves.

If the cap were not seated properly on the canister and there is a light leak between the cap hole and the spool end that extends out of the ends, the last frames would have the light leaks.

With the patterns that corresponds directly with the sprocket hole means that it is not random like would happen with uneven chemical processing.

It would be interesting to know the brand and history of the original film. Was it a reputable manufacturer?

I'd expect to see a more generalised area of fogging, not the distinct pattern we see here. I, too, regularly used a daylight loader, for decades in fact, a Watson, and apart from the the first couple of inches loaded onto the spool and the final couple of inches which would be the film leader, which got completely fogged, no fogging of any sort was ever evident around the sprocket holes of the rest of the film.

I'm also guessing that the original poster wasn't loading his own cassettes from bulk, so fogging of the inner part of the film on the spool seems even less plausible.

Trying to get to the bottom of this is like ringing your doctor and getting him to diagnose you over the phone. On balance, though, I'm sticking with a processing error. A degree in engineering wouldn't assist me here.

 

[Ken Seals]

You may have loaded or unloaded under bright light conditions or the darkroom was not truly dark. If this is fogging from improper loading, likely the streaks are only present on the first 4 or 5 frames. Also the film could have been fogged at the factory. Don’t overlook x-ray from a machine at the airport.

The marks are on the last few frames. #36 is in the example.

 

[mamallama]

Are you familiar with the type of camera he used? It's a battery powered professional camera that uses a strong and fast motor drive to advance AND rewind the film. Any kind of bend or stress on the film before development can cause dark mark just like light hitting the film.

Sorry, but having used similar film powered professional bodies during several decades (F2 AS with MD1 motordive, FE with MD11, in the 70's and 80's, F90/90X with MB10, F100 with MD11 in the late 80's and 90's) several of which had a similar strong rewind function, I dare say your statement may perhaps sound plausible for layman ears, but is purely theoretical and obviously not based on any real world, wide scale experience or reporting

I am not speaking from the position of a layman.

Do you agree that mechanical bending to the point of putting a kink in the emulsion and backing of film before development will cause the same effect as exposure to light? I'm sure that is the crux of this issue.

The film was loaded for development with one of those Patterson rocking ratchet reels that uses a ball bearing to grip the film to push the film onto the reel. My suspicion is that excessive pressure was needed to push the last end of the film and caused the marks to develop around the weak areas around the sprocket holes.

 

[Ken Seals]

The film was loaded for development with one of those Patterson rocking ratchet reels that uses a ball bearing to grip the film to push the film onto the reel. My suspicion is that excessive pressure was needed to push the last end of the film and caused the marks to develop around the weak areas around the sprocket holes.

I can't comment on that theory. I tried the Patterson reels once and threw them away . Always used Nikkor stainless reels after that.

 

[justinwonnacott]

Exhausted fix and insufficient agitation maybe exacerbated by a low solution level.

Exhausted fixer would result in residual, cloudy, milky-appearing emulsion remnants and incomplete clearing of the anti-halation layer on the back of the film. Never would it produce dark streaks of developed silver metal.

incomplete fixing can be completely remedied by additional treatment in fresh fixer until the film base is clear.

The film base is clear, indicating the film was completely fixed in the initial processing, yet the problem remains.

Insufficient agitation does not cause excessive development in places where solution is flowing at too great a rate. But it does result in flat images. That does not seem to be the case. In fact they look too dense.

Rich

I have seen this before...and you are right about the fixer being ok. My bad but I have seen streaks like this before, bad stop bath or no stop bath maybe?