What Bombed ? Developer or Fixer ?

srtiwari

srtiwari

Daktari
Local time
8:34 AM
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
1,032
Location
Vero Beach, Florida
View My Gallery
Spent the afternoon carefully (and excitedly) taking pictures with a roll of Tri-X 400 @400 in my M5 and the new Planar ZM 50/2. Came home, and after meticulously weighing various options, decided to go the Rodinal 1:100, 20mins. @ 20 Degrees.
Used 3 month old supply of the Developer and Fixer... (Wait a second, had I gotten confused with the Diafine I use, and poured the Rodinal back into the bottle last time ?)...and, 20 mins later, Voila !
NOTHING !! I got a completely clear, transparent (including edges), blank length of Developed, fixed, washed, and "Photo-flo'd" piece of film.
Now I can't remember if I had changed the fixer in a while, know (now) that I should NOT put diluted, used Rodinal back to use again.
But I wonder which it was that failed. Can anyone help ? I'd hate to have that happen again !😱
 
If fixer is exhausted, it evidences itself by a milky fog, not clear negatives. I don't know what you did, but it sounds like the developer is not what you thought it was.

If you got edge numbers but no photos, then you left the lens cap on or the shutter is malfunctioning or the film wasn't loaded properly.

If you did not get edge numbers, you used the wrong chemicals to process.
 
J J Kapsberger said:
Misloaded your film into the M5? Did rewinding feel normal to you? Did it last as long as usual? Mind you it's hard to tell with the M5, as rewinding is very smooth and effortless therein.
Click to expand...

Now you're scaring me. I think it felt normal while rewinding.
So maybe the mystery isn't quite solved yet.
Even if one reuses Rodinal by mistake, unless COMPLETELY exhausted at the first use (possible with 1:100 dilution) shouldn't there be something on the film ?
 
srtiwari said:
Thanks. No, there were no edge numbers either. So I guess it was the exhausted/Reused Rodinal ! I'll try again tomorrow with a new batch, and use the same fixer.
Click to expand...

I'd dump that Rodinal and Diafine if you think you got them mixed up and/or poured diluted Rodinal into the Rodinal bottle again (although how you'd get 100-to-1 back into the bottle is a mystery).

I'd also like to point out that 1+100 dilution for Rodinal is fine for stand developing, but it does increase the chance that you won't have enough developer in the mix at all. Usually, there is a minimum amount of developer specified, even when dilution is great. So that often means at high dilutions, either mixing up much more than you need, or doing a lot of film at once.
 
srtiwari said:
Now you're scaring me. I think it felt normal while rewinding.
So maybe the mystery isn't quite solved yet.
Even if one reuses Rodinal by mistake, unless COMPLETELY exhausted at the first use (possible with 1:100 dilution) shouldn't there be something on the film ?
Click to expand...

I should think so, but I defer to the experts.
 
srtiwari said:
Now you're scaring me. I think it felt normal while rewinding.
So maybe the mystery isn't quite solved yet.
Even if one reuses Rodinal by mistake, unless COMPLETELY exhausted at the first use (possible with 1:100 dilution) shouldn't there be something on the film ?
Click to expand...

If you did not get frame numbers then the problem was not the film not being exposed. The frame numbers are designed to show if development was normal, even if there was no exposure. If you process a blank roll of film, you get numbers - if the chemistry worked. If the chemistry fails, you get no numbers.

It is possible to do both wrong - fail to load/expose and fail to develop, but the chances are lower. I'd go with failure to develop for now.
 
bmattock said:
The frame numbers are designed to show if development was normal, even if there was no exposure. If you process a blank roll of film, you get numbers - if the chemistry worked. If the chemistry fails, you get no numbers.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. Likely, therefore, not misloading.
 
J J Kapsberger said:
Yes, of course.
Click to expand...

You are also right about the getting of 'something' even if the developer is totally exhausted. What I rather suspect is that the developer is contaminated by fixer - or the fixer was used first, which happens. Labels!

In my case, I can always tell - my fixer is Kodak Rapid Fix and it stinks of vinegar (to me - others say it smells like something else). Developers don't smell like much of anything to me. If I am processing film and I smell vinegar - oops.
 
bmattock said:
If you did not get frame numbers then the problem was not the film not being exposed. The frame numbers are designed to show if development was normal, even if there was no exposure. If you process a blank roll of film, you get numbers - if the chemistry worked. If the chemistry fails, you get no numbers.
Click to expand...


I didn't know this. Thanks!
 
You may have used fixer instead of developer or the developer is completely shot. That happens from time to time. The film comes out completely clear.
 
If you mixed the rodinal at 1:100 three months ago, that is most likely the problem. Rodinal changes pretty quickly in 24 hours diluted, I cant imagine that a 1:100 dilution would be any good after three months.
 
Thank you all for the great responses !
I'll go with the consensus, and discover the truth today, when I do another roll with new developer.
I have been happily using Diafine foe 3 months, but didn't like the look of Tri-x in it. Thus the Rodinal. But I had forgotten that its a one shot developer.
Since so many people on RFF have experience with Tri-x, wonder what is their developer of choice for it ? I'd love to see some smooth, creamy, grainless, reasonably sharp negatives with my Tri-x 400.
 
srtiwari said:
Since so many people on RFF have experience with Tri-x, wonder what is their developer of choice for it ? I'd love to see some smooth, creamy, grainless, reasonably sharp negatives with my Tri-x 400.
Click to expand...

I prefer Tri-X for about everything, it is a true do-all film. Other films do one thing better - none do as many things well.

For available-light photography, there is nothing for me other than Tri-X in Diafine. I do not use Diafine for daylight photography, and I generally don't like the look of it with other films (which seldom get the speed boost that Tri-X does, anyway).

For standard daylight photography, Tri-X and D76 are about as unbeatable combination as I've ever found. I like it diluted 1+1.

I like other developers, such as Rodinal and HC-110 and so on, and other films too - but my standards are simple (and boring, I suppose). Diafine for available light, D76 for everything else, and it works great for me.
 
For some reason, I didn't like the Tri-x / Diafine combo, but then I had rated it at ISO 1250. Maybe I should shoot it at 400 and try. Because, if it works for me, it would be an amazingly convenient and cheap solution.
 
srtiwari said:
For some reason, I didn't like the Tri-x / Diafine combo, but then I had rated it at ISO 1250. Maybe I should shoot it at 400 and try. Because, if it works for me, it would be an amazingly convenient and cheap solution.
Click to expand...

It is correct to rate it at EI 1250 with Diafine. Rating it at EI 400 is less than acceptable to me, although Diafine is remarkably tolerant of such flim-flammery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom