Bizzare

[Moto-Uno]

I sure could use some help with these.Taken with my Mamiya 7,B+W 022 filter (exposure adjusted to +1),Ilford Pan F Plus developed in HC110,dilution F,9 1/2 minutes (as per digitaltruth) and the negatives scanned on my Epson v600. These negatives looked similarly eerie on the light table. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Regards,Peter

 

[Moto-Uno]

I'm usually quite careful loading film on reels in my dark bag and there were and are no light leaks in my Patterson tanks,however after reading your wiki link,they certainly look like the example they use. I used the Mamiyas' exposure meter and a Sekonic Twinmate meter and the readings were similar . So I'm still stumped,but as I said your example sure looks the same.
Regards,Peter

 

[Dwig]

It's definitely some form of solarization.

The "fogging" exposure can be from age, heat, chemical, radiation, or any other method of exposing the film, not just from visible light.

 

[Moto-Uno]

Thanks for the responses,and to address the last posting,the film was fresh from the fridge(1 1/2 yrs left 'til expiration date),all exposed the same day(around 70 degrees outside) and developed that night in fresh 20 degree hc110. The Ilford fixer is about 3 months old(in a sealed jar) and had no ill effect on my last roll. Sure don't want the next roll to come out this way.HELP
Regards,Peter

 

[MartinP]

It might possibly be caused by silver left behind by the fixer, though it does look very much like a 'solarisation' effect. Any remaining silver emulsion would lighten the shadows (ie. areas which 'should' be clear on the neg) of the reversed negative image rather than darken it - it depends on what the scanning software tried to do with the image. Is there any unexpected colour to the film? Anything in the direction of the beige emulsion colour suggests a fixer problem.

Check the fixer by putting a drop on a piece of scrap film (ideally Pan F, if that's where the strange results are found), wait a few minutes until it is almost clear underneath the drop of fixer, then dunk the whole thing in a beaker with an inch of the fixer and agitate at normal intervals. Note how long it takes for the clear dot to become indistinguishable from the rest of the film offcut (this is how you are able to categorically decide that the film is cleared), then double that to give your required total fixing time.

If you find that this experimental time is more than the time you gave the roll when you processed it, then re-fix the negs. This can be done in daylight of course. Loading at least one of the strips on to a dry reel should not be too tricky, and will allow easier fixing and washing than having short pieces of film in a tray.

 

[Moto-Uno]

Hi Martin,I'm about to mix a new batch of stop bath and fixer,the negatives have been dry for about a dozen hours,would I still be able to re-fix them?
Regards,Peter

 

[taskoni]

Hi Peter,

Yes, you can re-fix it. No stop bath needed. Make sure the negative is clean and dust free before you put in on the reel.

Regards,

Boris

 

[Aristophanes]

Those pics are of Vancouver (hometown). Hard to be solarized in a rainforest!

 

[Moto-Uno]

You've got the village named correctly,although it was pretty sunny the day these were taken.I'm going to try the re-fixing soon,any other ideas?
Regards,Peter

 

[sevo]

Have you really verified that the NEGATIVES themselves look like that? If it is just a matter of the scans, disable DigitalICE and re-scan - using IR dust filters on black and white may cause solarization like artefacts...

 

[charjohncarter]

I'm not 100% sure but with print solarization (which this is) is done by letting light hit the print when it is in the fixer. At least that is my memory from the solarization fad days of the early 70s. If I'm right and it is the same with film, then be sure your fixing cycle is light tight and you haven't under fixed.

 

[sevo]

I'm not 100% sure but with print solarization (which this is) is done by letting light hit the print when it is in the fixer.

No, that would be way too late - there is nothing developing at that stage, and fixing happens at many magnitudes faster pace than direct exposure to black. The recipe was to use well-used (or bromide doped) developer, and briefly turn on the light on the fully developed sheets in the developer, avoiding any movement throughout the development. No movement and used developer to maximize the (inhibiting) bromide cloud that creates the white edges between shadows and highlights.

 

[Moto-Uno]

I have in fact checked the negatives on my light table and it's on the negatives,the scanner has made fine scans on other,non affected negatives.
Regards,Peter

 

[sevo]

I have in fact checked the negatives on my light table and it's on the negatives,the scanner has made fine scans on other,non affected negatives.

Ok, and DigitalICE is off? Then it is pseudo-solarization in the process - there must be light shining into your tank during the later stages of development or before the stop (or fixer, if you use no stop) has started to act. The most likely culprit is some error assembling the light traps of the tank.

In theory you might also have exposed the hell out of your film and arrived at genuine solarization - i.e. partial inversion through overexposure. But that is called solarization because it would mostly happen on the sun (giving it a solar eclipse look) whenever it happened to be inside the frame on ancient low-latency plates. I can't imagine a way to create that accidentally in the foreground on modern film.

 

[Moto-Uno]

I've been using a patterson tank pretty much all the time and I'm not sure how any light could've made it's way to the negative. The B+W 022 filter suggested a 1 stop exposure compensation ( which I added as a 1 stop + compensation) is this correct? I haven't re-fixed with new fixer yet)
Regards,Peter

 

[sevo]

I've been using a patterson tank pretty much all the time and I'm not sure how any light could've made it's way to the negative.

Well, you may be missing one piece of a light trap, or could have picked the wrong funnel (for a shorter tank, if you have several).

You can rule out overexposure - we'd be talking of something like +50 to +100 EV for real solarization to happen, so much light that the only thing I've ever seen with genuine (rather than pseudo) solarized foregrounds were pictures from 50's H-bomb tests...

If it is a partial fixing issue, the shadow areas on the negative would be pale grey (or after some exposure to light cream coloured to brown) rather than transparent - so that ought to be quite obvious.

 

[Johnmcd]

Well, you may be missing one piece of a light trap, or could have picked the wrong funnel (for a shorter tank, if you have several).

I agree.

It definitely looks like solarisation which is usually done at the print stage by adding light during developing.

On my Jobo tank the inner tube must be used or it will not be light proof. I think from memory the Patterson tank is similar. I have forgotten this once in the past and light entered each time the lid was taken off to add /remove chemicals. Could you have made this mistake also?

Cheers - John

 

[Moto-Uno]

Painfully Stupid

Painfully Stupid

It seems I have to go out and buy myself a "Stupid Hat", upon reading the fixer instructions, I see that it says to only use the fixer(when diluted for use) for about one week!!! I've been using it for months. The re-fixed negs look great!
Does this count for an embarrassing moment?
Seems I've got a few rolls around here that are going to be re-fixed.

Thanks again everyone for your time,I love this site!
REgards,Peter