Negative development issue

[Ranger 9]

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.

Back in the day I put literally hundreds of rolls through Minolta Maxxum 9000 cameras with high-powered MD-90 motor drives: 5 FPS forward, power rewind in about 7 sec (accompanied by a horrible screeching noise.) I also had a Leica M4-2 with the original, terrible Leica Winder M, which put so much stress on the film that it often ripped the sprocket holes right out.

I NEVER saw these types of marks with either camera.

Before that, when I was just getting started with darkroom stuff, did see them occasionally when I would accidentally use partly exhausted developer or when I didn't agitate correctly. We called them “flow marks” or “pumping marks,” and they are precisely spaced along the edges of the film because, as you'll notice in the example photo, they are precisely aligned with the sprocket holes. In effect, the areas right next to the sprocket holes are receiving more agitation than the rest, because the holes allow the developer to circulate more freely. This creates extra density in the areas that are receiving extra development.

Incidentally, I developed all those rolls in Paterson tanks, and it seems implausible that the little balls that ratchet film onto the reels could cause such evenly-spaced marks. The balls grip the film only sporadically and at irregular intervals at best.

Light leaks do seem like a possibility, too... I've sometimes seen these aligned with the sprocket holes when light passes through them. But these are so sharp-edged that I think they're more likely to be flow marks.

 

[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.

Back in the day I put literally hundreds of rolls through Minolta Maxxum 9000 cameras with high-powered MD-90 motor drives: 5 FPS forward, power rewind in about 7 sec (accompanied by a horrible screeching noise.) I also had a Leica M4-2 with the original, terrible Leica Winder M, which put so much stress on the film that it often ripped the sprocket holes right out.

I NEVER saw these types of marks with either camera.

Before that, when I was just getting started with darkroom stuff, did see them occasionally when I would accidentally use partly exhausted developer or when I didn't agitate correctly. We called them “flow marks” or “pumping marks,” and they are precisely spaced along the edges of the film because, as you'll notice in the example photo, they are precisely aligned with the sprocket holes. In effect, the areas right next to the sprocket holes are receiving more agitation than the rest, because the holes allow the developer to circulate more freely. This creates extra density in the areas that are receiving extra development.

Incidentally, I developed all those rolls in Paterson tanks, and it seems implausible that the little balls that ratchet film onto the reels could cause such evenly-spaced marks. The balls grip the film only sporadically and at irregular intervals at best.

The weak point on the film is at the corners of the sprocket holes. That is where the marks are. The ball bearings grip the film and push it laterally in the surface direction. Ask yourself, what is common where the marks are? To me it is where the film is weakest.

Light leaks do seem like a possibility, too... I've sometimes seen these aligned with the sprocket holes when light passes through them. But these are so sharp-edged that I think they're more likely to be flow marks.

Why would liquid flow marks over a flat surface be sharp? Another mystery that works against it being bad agitation is that it occurs linearly along the last 12 or so frames of the roll and not so much on the middle and front of the roll. Well, on the reel during development the last part of the roll and first part could be next to each other.

 

[Rich42]

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.

Back in the day I put literally hundreds of rolls through Minolta Maxxum 9000 cameras with high-powered MD-90 motor drives: 5 FPS forward, power rewind in about 7 sec (accompanied by a horrible screeching noise.) I also had a Leica M4-2 with the original, terrible Leica Winder M, which put so much stress on the film that it often ripped the sprocket holes right out.

I NEVER saw these types of marks with either camera.

Before that, when I was just getting started with darkroom stuff, did see them occasionally when I would accidentally use partly exhausted developer or when I didn't agitate correctly. We called them “flow marks” or “pumping marks,” and they are precisely spaced along the edges of the film because, as you'll notice in the example photo, they are precisely aligned with the sprocket holes. In effect, the areas right next to the sprocket holes are receiving more agitation than the rest, because the holes allow the developer to circulate more freely. This creates extra density in the areas that are receiving extra development.

Incidentally, I developed all those rolls in Paterson tanks, and it seems implausible that the little balls that ratchet film onto the reels could cause such evenly-spaced marks. The balls grip the film only sporadically and at irregular intervals at best.

The weak point on the film is at the corners of the sprocket holes. That is where the marks are. The ball bearings grip the film and push it laterally in the surface direction. Ask yourself, what is common where the marks are? To me it is where the film is weakest.

Light leaks do seem like a possibility, too... I've sometimes seen these aligned with the sprocket holes when light passes through them. But these are so sharp-edged that I think they're more likely to be flow marks.

Why would liquid flow marks over a flat surface be sharp? Another mystery that works against it being bad agitation is that it occurs linearly along the last 12 or so frames of the roll and not so much on the middle and front of the roll. Well, on the reel during development the last part of the roll and first part could be next to each other.

Insisting that the problem is a mystery and forming theoretical causes of non-existing issues doesn’t solve anything. The marks on the film are exactly what happens with developer surging through film sprocket holes. This is not the result of mechanical stresses. Or any other exotic process.

Anyone who processes enough 35mm film may encounter it especially when first learning how to agitate. It’s also something that has to be adjusted for in automated processing equipment.

Rich

 

[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.

Back in the day I put literally hundreds of rolls through Minolta Maxxum 9000 cameras with high-powered MD-90 motor drives: 5 FPS forward, power rewind in about 7 sec (accompanied by a horrible screeching noise.) I also had a Leica M4-2 with the original, terrible Leica Winder M, which put so much stress on the film that it often ripped the sprocket holes right out.

I NEVER saw these types of marks with either camera.

Before that, when I was just getting started with darkroom stuff, did see them occasionally when I would accidentally use partly exhausted developer or when I didn't agitate correctly. We called them “flow marks” or “pumping marks,” and they are precisely spaced along the edges of the film because, as you'll notice in the example photo, they are precisely aligned with the sprocket holes. In effect, the areas right next to the sprocket holes are receiving more agitation than the rest, because the holes allow the developer to circulate more freely. This creates extra density in the areas that are receiving extra development.

Incidentally, I developed all those rolls in Paterson tanks, and it seems implausible that the little balls that ratchet film onto the reels could cause such evenly-spaced marks. The balls grip the film only sporadically and at irregular intervals at best.

The weak point on the film is at the corners of the sprocket holes. That is where the marks are. The ball bearings grip the film and push it laterally in the surface direction. Ask yourself, what is common where the marks are? To me it is where the film is weakest.

Light leaks do seem like a possibility, too... I've sometimes seen these aligned with the sprocket holes when light passes through them. But these are so sharp-edged that I think they're more likely to be flow marks.

Why would liquid flow marks over a flat surface be sharp? Another mystery that works against it being bad agitation is that it occurs linearly along the last 12 or so frames of the roll and not so much on the middle and front of the roll. Well, on the reel during development the last part of the roll and first part could be next to each other.

Insisting that the problem is a mystery and forming theoretical causes of non-existing issues doesn’t solve anything. The marks on the film are exactly what happens with developer surging through film sprocket holes. This is not the result of mechanical stresses. Or any other exotic process.

Anyone who processes enough 35mm film may encounter it especially when first learning how to agitate. It’s also something that has to be adjusted for in automated processing equipment.

Poor agitation does not explain the mystery of it being linear on the film - more at the end than in the front and middle. Surging through sprocket holes does not explain why it is only on the corners.

Rich

 

[guyfawkes]

Thanks again all for taking the time to reply, it’s great to have an online knowledge resource like this. However I’m now quite confused .... some advice notes too much agitation and other notes too little. So I’m going to try the more gentle but inverted agitation method and report back on the results.

Good luck. I hope that you have success and the problem is resolved.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

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

Just to let you know, Ilford clearly says do not pre soak your film. So your whole experience vs Ilford’s technical experience.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

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.

As a newbie, similar in your position, I’d suggest you to read Ilford Ilfosol TS and follow the guideline until you feel comfortable what you are doing.

The following agitation is recommended for spiral tank processing with ILFORD chemicals; Invert the tank four times during the first 10 seconds. Repeat these four inversions during the first 10 seconds of each subsequent minute of development. At the end of each agitation sequence, tap the tank firmly on the work bench to dislodge any air bubbles which may be trapped in the processing spiral. This method of agitation should also be used with the fixer. Drain off the developer10 seconds before the end of the development time and then immediately fill the tank with the next process solution.



the text above is copied from the technical sheet. So you say 1 full minute development against Ilfords 10 sec development. Let’s what happens if you follow the instructions above and if the issue continues, I’m quite sure the members will be able to help you.

 

[Jorri]

Perhaps you can send the question to Ilford (and perhaps Patterson?), and see if they have a good idea? Especially considering the variety (and intensity, oh boy) of some of the replies here.

 

[lotsofsilver]

Might have been mentioned, TL;DR all..

This is a light leak during development if you are using a Patterson developing tank or similar.

Check and make sure that you:

Used the internal center column - the tube that the reels fit on which goes into the tank

Placed the internal center column with the wide flange down at the bottom of the tank

I see this all the time with my students..