Bad T-MAX 100?

[dfoo]

When I bought my new enlarger a couple of months ago, the guy sent me a bulk loader full of T-MAX 100. The edge markings are TMX 5052. I shot a test roll last weekend and just developed it Xtol 1+1 for 7 minutes @ 24. I exposed properly, and the negatives are very thin. I see stuff like this over many frames (this is a crop of an example frame):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/3414982761/

Looks bad! I guess the film is dead?

I also note something I haven't seen before when using Xtol. I got some uneven development along the holes in the film rebate. That is where the holes are I see dark streaks, where the holes are not lighter streaks. It is also visible in this shot.

What would cause that? Over vigorous agitation? I typically work with TriX and haven't had this before, and I've used the same agitation scheme (normally 5 inversions every 30s lasting 5s).

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I've never been a fan of Kodak B&W film. In fact, I have used Tri-X and T-Max, and always have problems with them.

Now... you're used to Tri-X and this never has happened to you? I don't think it's agitation. For some reason... it makes me think of dust that got onto the film or marks left by the felt light shields in the loader. OTOH... that's a very suspicious watermark, which may be sign of an emulstion problem...

I wish I were more helpful. Let's see who else can elucidate something on this problem. Take care and good luck!

 

[dfoo]

The cracks in the above picture are definitely not water marks, and I'm pretty sure are not caused by development. I strongly suspect the streaks are caused by the development though.

 

[Trius]

Looks like an emulsion problem which can be due to handling. It's more typical of bad storage conditions. As Francisco said, I've never had a bad roll from Kodak.

 

[Tom A]

The cracks looks like reticulation marks. At some time the difference between the liquids in temperature has been to great and the emulsion "cracks". The big "blobs" looks like crap on the film, either from the loader (full of dust?) or in the developing cycle. Check the negatives with a loupe and see what shows up. Are you scanning directly from film or from prints?
Could be dust in the scanner too.
Tmax 100 is a much more unforgiving film than Tri X. Any problems along the line is magnified. Try a couple of more rolls and see what shows up.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Francisco actually said he always has problems with Kodak film, which seems odd to me. I've never once had problems with any roll of Kodak film. Same with Ilford and Fuji and the old sadly missed AGFA films. Always perfect quality control. Efke, Forte, and Foma, however, have given me problems on occasion.

 

[JohnTF]

You might try souping some unexposed film, directly from the loader in the darkroom, cut your variables until you find where the problem lies.

Unless someone here has a very similar problem, it might be hard to diagnose from a distance.

I do not know if Kodak still offers the service, but I sent them a few frames of E6 I processed, and they sent it back with a very specific explanation that was spot on.

I had a problem with Konica IR, and though they sent it back to Japan for analysis, no one ever found the problem.

I hope the remaining suppliers keep up the support, in the former with Kodak, they answered me very quickly by post.

They told me which bottle had a bad cap. ;-)

I would say that the quality control of Kodak has always been outstanding, I have had trouble with MF film made by others which had dirt in the emulsion, but not by Kodak, Agfa, Ilford, or Fuji. In the case of the MF film, the other distributor (I was one) knew right away there was a problem.

Regards, John

 

[dfoo]

The enlarger was full of grime and dust and needed quite a lot of cleaning until it was usable. The lens was full of fungus, and I threw that out. Out of the 4 boxes of paper he sent me, only one was usable. The remainder was very very fogged. I wouldn't be surprised if the film was sitting in the guys basement for 10 years... since the film looks screwed I'll probably just throw it out.

 

[Trius]

Oops, I misread. But still, I've never had a bad roll from EK.

 

[Tom A]

Don't throw the film out - use it for experiments - like what happens when you shoot it at 800 asa and let it simmer in Rodinal 1:10 for 15 minutes and other "hare-brained' schemes that you can dream off. OH, try Dektol 1:1 for 10 minutes too and rack up the speed to 400-800-1200. With that soup you might find that your "blotches" might be the smaller than the grain!
I have a 10 year old roll of Kodak 2475 recording that I want to test some day - fogged and screwed up contrast - but fun anyway.

 

[JohnTF]

. OH, try Dektol 1:1 for 10 minutes too and rack up the speed to 400-800-1200. With that soup you might find that your "blotches" might be the smaller than the grain!
I have a 10 year old roll of Kodak 2475 recording that I want to test some day - fogged and screwed up contrast - but fun anyway.[/quote]

Ten minutes in Dektol, wow, we used to soup Royal Pan sheet films for one or two. I processed some paper in Dektol with the pH raised with NaOH (be careful with this), and got amazing grain, I think the restrainers left the building? Contrast dropped as well.

Is it KBr that is one of the anti fog agents?

I lost about 1000 sheets of a wonderful paper that just did not keep, and the plant closed. I need a larger freezer.

Already have more film than food in the fridge and freezer.

Regards, John

 

[ChrisN]

Tom once recommended Benzotriazole as an anti-fog agent. I can't recall the dosage necessary but I'm sure Tom can!

 

[charjohncarter]

Francisco actually said he always has problems with Kodak film, which seems odd to me. I've never once had problems with any roll of Kodak film. Same with Ilford and Fuji and the old sadly missed AGFA films. Always perfect quality control. Efke, Forte, and Foma, however, have given me problems on occasion.

I've used Kodak films, and as Chris says Ilford and Fuji also with zero defects. In fact thinking back on the the last 56 years of using Kodak, I can't think of any product (film or otherwise) that I have used that has been as trouble free.

 

[Tom A]

Tom once recommended Benzotriazole as an anti-fog agent. I can't recall the dosage necessary but I'm sure Tom can!

I take 1 gram of Benzotriazole and dissolve it in 100ml of hot water ,hot enough that you wont keep your finger in it for more than a split second! (basically a 1% solution). For film that is outdated or "known" to have fog - I use 10ml/1000ml of developer. It is not the "magic wand" but it does cut down on the fog. Be careful using too much as it will slow the film speed!
For paper, I usually put a similar volume in. About 50ml for 3000 ml of developer diluted for use. You can add more, but again, it slows down the paper (lowers the sensitivity of it).
Seems to store well too. I usually mix 100 - 200 ml and add to film and paper as needed. Sometimes it can sit for a month or two without any ill effects.

 

[JohnTF]

I collected a few bottles to stock up while I was in Prague when they were selling chemicals the way they once were in the US when I started out.

I can also probably order from the standard supply houses the schools used.

Flynn Scientific gave us a few kilos of Sodium to toss in a mine pond and photograph the reaction.

They will more than likely sell this kind of chemistry without a school address if it is paid in advance.


They sell the Video of the Sodium event, I am not in it, but my hard hat is. ;-) Something like "Experiments best left to the Pros", as if we really knew what we were doing, but we had done it several times. Last time the police stopped by to check us out.

Thanks for the dilutions, I have a feeling many of us may need it. Do you use it as a standard brightener in printing as well?

Regards, John

 

[johannielscom]

Was the film already in the bulk loader when you got it? Did the seller supply any refillable canisters with it that you are using?

Both loader and canisters have a thin strip of felt to shield the film from light, this felt might accumulate some dust or debris over time.

I'm not sure what the marks on the film surface would look like once the film is developed, this just seems a solution since fellow RFF-ers are sure it's not a fluid or bubble stain.

Good luck sorting it out!

 

[David William White]

The enlarger was full of grime and dust and needed quite a lot of cleaning until it was usable. The lens was full of fungus, and I threw that out. Out of the 4 boxes of paper he sent me, only one was usable. The remainder was very very fogged. I wouldn't be surprised if the film was sitting in the guys basement for 10 years... since the film looks screwed I'll probably just throw it out.

I agree with Tom and Trius, looks suspiciously like reticulation marks. Damn shame it's not uniform across the film. Wait...go with Tom again...do some purposeful reticulation during development (hot, cold in the wash) and lay down some decent reticulation on top. Totally creative. Everyone will wonder how you got that effect. Don't toss -- if taking up space, send it to me!