pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
Sorry .. i'm not so good at photoshop. I have a 2400 dpi scan, but downt know how to resize it in order to get a decente size/quality ...
Is this one better?
Is this one better?
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
You know, not having read through the other 3 pages --
That's an inverted image, right? So that blue stain appears yellow to your eyes? If it's a yellow stain, then it might be insufficiently fixed. I have some tri-x that looked like this today, the fixer had reached exhaustion. Granted, when I find out that my fixer is ready to quit, the stains look like a vague yellow band around the center of the negative and lack the characteristic surge marks of your image, but that might be something to consider.
That's an inverted image, right? So that blue stain appears yellow to your eyes? If it's a yellow stain, then it might be insufficiently fixed. I have some tri-x that looked like this today, the fixer had reached exhaustion. Granted, when I find out that my fixer is ready to quit, the stains look like a vague yellow band around the center of the negative and lack the characteristic surge marks of your image, but that might be something to consider.
pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
tetrisattack said:
No, that is a normal image
straight out the scanner. This was the 2nd or 3rd roll i developed, and at that time i didnt knew that we could save the fixer ... so it was fresh . i did re-fixed the negs and the stain went away... but the pictures didnt come out so good...
eric
[was]: emaquiling
I was going to suggest the fixer as well but usually, if it is getting exhausted like that, just leave it in there longer. Just don't leave film in long with fresh fix.pedro.m.reis said:No, that is a normal image
But when you say, "didn't come out so good". That's the part I dont' understand. 34 out of 36 shots in my rolls don't come out so good either but that's just cause I suck at pictures. But I know how to process
What part didn't come out good? Remember high school chemistry? This is it and you'll have to have some emperical explanations so we can help you. "didn't come out good" doesn't mean much to any chemist. Is it too grainy? too contrasty? to flat? underdeveloped? overdeveloped?
I saw the bigger scan and it looks like banding in equidistant but it is still hard to see for some reason. Did you refix that roll as well? They don't look like classic "surge" marks cause those are usually dark on prints.
djon
Well-known
You have to agitate fix...time doesn't substitute for agitation.
And maybe the fix is exhausted or was never proper in the first place.
And maybe the fix is exhausted or was never proper in the first place.
markinlondon
Elmar user
I'd second (or is it third) the fixer theory, I had a run of films, mostly Delta 400 with marks like this, some hardly cleared at all. When it started happening with conventional grain films, I knew it was my process and not the film.
The problem was solved by 1) using an acid stop instead of water (we have very hard water and the pH in the tank was too high for the weak fixer to overcome - my theory) and 2) changing from the cheap and fairly easily exhausted fixer I was using to Ilford Rapid fix. Only had one bad roll since and that was entirely my fault due to a timing error. Fixer also needs agitation to wash reaction products away from the emulsion surface.
Incidentally I find new Tri-x to have quite a long clearing time for a conventional emulsion, about twice that of FP4/HP5. Could this be due to the changes to the film base?
Mark
The problem was solved by 1) using an acid stop instead of water (we have very hard water and the pH in the tank was too high for the weak fixer to overcome - my theory) and 2) changing from the cheap and fairly easily exhausted fixer I was using to Ilford Rapid fix. Only had one bad roll since and that was entirely my fault due to a timing error. Fixer also needs agitation to wash reaction products away from the emulsion surface.
Incidentally I find new Tri-x to have quite a long clearing time for a conventional emulsion, about twice that of FP4/HP5. Could this be due to the changes to the film base?
Mark
R
Roman
Guest
You might also try a two-bath fixing scheme - use 'old' fixer for half of the fixing time, and then replace it with fresh one - after 6 rolls of film (for 1 liter of fixer working solution), the 'fresh' one becomes the 'old' one, you dump the old old one and mix up a new bath of fresh.
That way you always make sure that at least for half of the fixing time you are using fixer that has not been contaminated with carried-over developer, and most of the fixing is done in the first bath still, so your fixer lasts twice as long (for 12 instead of 6 films).
I have been using that for years (and with paper, too).
Roman
That way you always make sure that at least for half of the fixing time you are using fixer that has not been contaminated with carried-over developer, and most of the fixing is done in the first bath still, so your fixer lasts twice as long (for 12 instead of 6 films).
I have been using that for years (and with paper, too).
Roman