Stravinsky
Leitz Fellowship
So, the worst thing is I can't figure out what went wrong.
I still need to scan the negs, so my investigation is not complete yet. However the developed film is clearly spoiled by dark spot that ranges across three/four frames every two/three clean frames.
When I get out the reel the film looked properly positioned, although in the winding process I feared something get wrong at the end.
However, my first suspect is the position of the reel. I have a Paterson tank with two reels and somehow I managed to position the loaded reel in the top position, leaving the empty one below. I guess this spoiled the development, although I can't figure out the black spot in sequence.
Any idea what could be happened?
Thank you in advance, Andrea
I still need to scan the negs, so my investigation is not complete yet. However the developed film is clearly spoiled by dark spot that ranges across three/four frames every two/three clean frames.
When I get out the reel the film looked properly positioned, although in the winding process I feared something get wrong at the end.
However, my first suspect is the position of the reel. I have a Paterson tank with two reels and somehow I managed to position the loaded reel in the top position, leaving the empty one below. I guess this spoiled the development, although I can't figure out the black spot in sequence.
Any idea what could be happened?
Thank you in advance, Andrea
jmcd
Well-known
It could be that the film was not wound properly onto the reel, and so film was touching.
The film should load very smoothly onto the reel—without any fell of kinking, or sound of popping. Usually if you get off to a good start you are in good shape, and if you do feel there is a kink along the way, back up and restart for a smooth rolling experience, or unwind the film completely and start over.
The film should load very smoothly onto the reel—without any fell of kinking, or sound of popping. Usually if you get off to a good start you are in good shape, and if you do feel there is a kink along the way, back up and restart for a smooth rolling experience, or unwind the film completely and start over.
MartinP
Veteran
If enough developer was used for just one reel, and the loaded reel was on top, then the chemicals will have touched the film only during inversion (or other agitation). That would leave you with under developed negatives and under-fixed negatives. It could be the leftover remains of the unfixed emulsion which you are seeing as black spots. Posting a quick digital photo (the horror!!) of the negatives would help to identify the symptoms.
The only good news is that you can put the negatives into fixer again to remove the undeveloped emusion. If my guess, above, is correct then you will have very thin and irregular development - but this is better than nothing!
For the usual new-ish sort of Paterson tank it is not necessary to put both reels in the tank as they are very close fitting on the centre-tube and "shouldn't" move. Alternatively, use enough chemicals to cover both reels, ideally developing two rolls at once when you are happy with the process.
Good luck and don't give up !
The only good news is that you can put the negatives into fixer again to remove the undeveloped emusion. If my guess, above, is correct then you will have very thin and irregular development - but this is better than nothing!
For the usual new-ish sort of Paterson tank it is not necessary to put both reels in the tank as they are very close fitting on the centre-tube and "shouldn't" move. Alternatively, use enough chemicals to cover both reels, ideally developing two rolls at once when you are happy with the process.
Good luck and don't give up !
mugent
Well-known
I sometimes had trouble with paterson reels, and I've just had a go of an AP/Samigon one, it was a revelation, so much better. I think with the paterson ones, it's very easy for the film to pop out, the AP ones prevent it with a much larger 'nubbin' thing.
MT
MT
Stravinsky
Leitz Fellowship
Thank you for the fast replies guys.
1) film touching in the reel: I don't know really. When I got out the thing, I was possibly excited to see the results, and I was not paying enough attention, but my impression is that the film was properly positioned. However the repeated sequence of spots point in that direction.
2) reel position. I don't have a great experience, but the "clean" frames to me looks like Martin described: thin and irregular.
So, would another 3 min of fixer help?
I manage to get behind the horror and I touched the digital thing to get these. I hope it helped because it was not easy
! (nb: joke).
Thank you again.
DevDis one meter by [Str@vinsky], on Flickr
DevDis close up by [Str@vinsky], on Flickr
1) film touching in the reel: I don't know really. When I got out the thing, I was possibly excited to see the results, and I was not paying enough attention, but my impression is that the film was properly positioned. However the repeated sequence of spots point in that direction.
2) reel position. I don't have a great experience, but the "clean" frames to me looks like Martin described: thin and irregular.
So, would another 3 min of fixer help?
I manage to get behind the horror and I touched the digital thing to get these. I hope it helped because it was not easy
! (nb: joke).Thank you again.
DevDis one meter by [Str@vinsky], on Flickr
DevDis close up by [Str@vinsky], on Flickr
MartinP
Veteran
Well done for the analysis and pictures. Yes, this is unremoved emulsion, so fixing again will clear it. It may well be that the regular position of the patches means that all the agitation was done by inversion, and as the film was really 'out' of the chemicals most of the time the clear parts (the areas which are more fixed and transparent) line up on one side of the tank which received most movement of the liquids.
When agitating by inversion, it is useful to give the whole tank a 90 to 120 degree turn when you put it down - this means the main movement of the chemicals is not always in precisely the same part of the tank and reel.
If that is the case, then the film at the side of the tank with the most development might not line up with the part with the most fixing simply because the tank was likely moved in an irregular way during filling and dumping the developer and stop-bath (if used). In any case you probably have to expect irregular development as the end result, as well as the pretty thin negatives which we can see.
But never mind - it is done now and is an excellent learning episode! Working on their own, meaning not in a supervised darkroom with convenient instructor, probably most people have had similarly unfortunate "learning episodes" . . .
When agitating by inversion, it is useful to give the whole tank a 90 to 120 degree turn when you put it down - this means the main movement of the chemicals is not always in precisely the same part of the tank and reel.
If that is the case, then the film at the side of the tank with the most development might not line up with the part with the most fixing simply because the tank was likely moved in an irregular way during filling and dumping the developer and stop-bath (if used). In any case you probably have to expect irregular development as the end result, as well as the pretty thin negatives which we can see.
But never mind - it is done now and is an excellent learning episode! Working on their own, meaning not in a supervised darkroom with convenient instructor, probably most people have had similarly unfortunate "learning episodes" . . .
Last edited:
Stravinsky
Leitz Fellowship
Thank you Martin.
I'll try to run some fixer over it then, I'll post the results.
And for the future my lessons are:
- using only one reel in the Patterson with the single film chem quantities
- twiddling instead of inverting (I can't see how I could do both: removing and replacing the lid any time I switch seems too complicated...).
Is the time for twiddling the same of the inversions?
I forgot to tell: I used Rodinal 1:25, Ilford Stop Bath and Fixer on a TMAX 100. Since I got 22 degrees in the tank, I developed for 4:30 agitating 5 secs any 30 secs.
Ciao, Andrea
I'll try to run some fixer over it then, I'll post the results.
And for the future my lessons are:
- using only one reel in the Patterson with the single film chem quantities
- twiddling instead of inverting (I can't see how I could do both: removing and replacing the lid any time I switch seems too complicated...).
Is the time for twiddling the same of the inversions?
I forgot to tell: I used Rodinal 1:25, Ilford Stop Bath and Fixer on a TMAX 100. Since I got 22 degrees in the tank, I developed for 4:30 agitating 5 secs any 30 secs.
Ciao, Andrea
MartinP
Veteran
Inversion should work fine - just remember that it should be NOT totally regular, hence the slight turn to the tank each time to help avoid the unevenness you found.
Simplest way to re-fix would be to let the film dry completely and then load it back into the (dry) reel and dunk it in the developing-tank containing fixer in daylight. More frequent agitation is no problem with fixer, but fix for double the time it takes for the film to appear clear. This is because you need to get all the undeveloped silver out of the emulsion to avoid it gradually going brown over the next years.
The time you used might be a little short for convenience. Most recommendations suggest at least 5 or 6 minutes in order that any small variations of timing (say 10 seconds difference in the filling or draining of the tank, for example) become a less significant proportion of the total time.
That recommendation is separate from the time that might theoretically be needed for any particular film and developer combination of course. Perhaps you can adjust the temperature or dilution to get a longer, and hence more consistent, development time.
There are a few threads here, for example by Juan Valdenebro, about the interesting things one can do with Rodinal to match different circumstances. Very often it is suggested that Rodinal can build up contrast quite quickly with agitation, so as well as temperature and dilution you can use changes in agitation (more or fewer inversions, more or less slowly) to manage the contrast in your negatives. But better to keep it all standard for a while though at the start of course.
Simplest way to re-fix would be to let the film dry completely and then load it back into the (dry) reel and dunk it in the developing-tank containing fixer in daylight. More frequent agitation is no problem with fixer, but fix for double the time it takes for the film to appear clear. This is because you need to get all the undeveloped silver out of the emulsion to avoid it gradually going brown over the next years.
The time you used might be a little short for convenience. Most recommendations suggest at least 5 or 6 minutes in order that any small variations of timing (say 10 seconds difference in the filling or draining of the tank, for example) become a less significant proportion of the total time.
That recommendation is separate from the time that might theoretically be needed for any particular film and developer combination of course. Perhaps you can adjust the temperature or dilution to get a longer, and hence more consistent, development time.
There are a few threads here, for example by Juan Valdenebro, about the interesting things one can do with Rodinal to match different circumstances. Very often it is suggested that Rodinal can build up contrast quite quickly with agitation, so as well as temperature and dilution you can use changes in agitation (more or fewer inversions, more or less slowly) to manage the contrast in your negatives. But better to keep it all standard for a while though at the start of course.
Stravinsky
Leitz Fellowship
Done!
I did as advised and now at least the "black" spots are gone. I have now a very "lighlyt" developed roll of TMAX... we will see what the scanner will get out of it.
Thank you all and especially Martin! It could have been a tragedy but your help transformed it in a lesson learnt.
Ciao, Andre
I did as advised and now at least the "black" spots are gone. I have now a very "lighlyt" developed roll of TMAX... we will see what the scanner will get out of it.
Thank you all and especially Martin! It could have been a tragedy but your help transformed it in a lesson learnt.
Ciao, Andre
Stravinsky
Leitz Fellowship
Yaawooooo!
Yaawooooo!
Tonight I developed my second ever roll.
Just finished now, the film is hanging in the kitchen and it seems in a pretty good damn shape! I am happy like a teenage at his first date!!!
Thank you again for your support.
Ciao
Yaawooooo!
Tonight I developed my second ever roll.
Just finished now, the film is hanging in the kitchen and it seems in a pretty good damn shape! I am happy like a teenage at his first date!!!
Thank you again for your support.
Ciao
Stravinsky
Leitz Fellowship
Just to complete the things out... here's an example from the "infamous" first roll:
TMAX, Rodinal 1:25, agitation by inversion
Much better the second attempt:
TriX, Rodinal 1:50, agitation by twist
TMAX, Rodinal 1:25, agitation by inversion
Much better the second attempt:
TriX, Rodinal 1:50, agitation by twist
wblynch
Well-known
Your Tri-X picture looks great.
Tmax is a funny film. I've only done one roll but it took forever to fix and I had to wash it twice as much too, just to get the pink out.
But once done, it can render very nicely.
I like Plus-X and Tri-X better than Tmax though.
Tmax is a funny film. I've only done one roll but it took forever to fix and I had to wash it twice as much too, just to get the pink out.
But once done, it can render very nicely.
I like Plus-X and Tri-X better than Tmax though.
brandonmsweet
Member
Definitely looks like the film was either A) not reeled properly or B) not fixed long enough. I'm sure most of us have made that mistake at one time or another