Peter^
Well-known
Any ideas what caused these artifacts? I was using T-max 400.:bang:
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
You'll need to describe in detail your entire development procedure.
Never Satisfied
Well-known
Hi, I'm no expert, but it looks like a light leak of some type.
Can you scan the frame again to include the sproket holes?
And what frame number is this, start, end or middle of the roll?
Good luck, cheers Andrew.
Can you scan the frame again to include the sproket holes?
And what frame number is this, start, end or middle of the roll?
Good luck, cheers Andrew.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Without a little more information than you've provided, it's probably not very useful for us to imagine what happened here. That said, to hazard a guess I'd suspect your agitation is pretty vigorous. This looks to me like developer drag from the sprocket holes from over-zealous agitation. As Andrew suggested above, it would be helpful to see scans that show the sprocket holes. Can you describe your agitation routine?
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Agree. That plus-density patterning is pretty interesting. It looks like you have 8 "streaks" which would correspond to the sprocket holes on 35 mm film, but there's not enough information to determine if it's even 35 mm.
/
gho
Well-known
I would say, a bit more agitation would not hurt. Expose some bracketed frames on a test roll.
Peter^
Well-known
Wow, guys, thanks a lot. Yes, it was a 35 mm film, Tmax 400, I developed myself, I shake the container about once a minute.
My scanner won't scan outside of the frame, so I can't show you the image with the sprocket holes. However, it seems the streaks originate between the sprocket holes.
This has never happened to me before, but I usually use slower films.
I was worried about some kind of light leak, but now it seems to be a processing problem. So is my agitation "over-zealous" or should I agitate more?
My scanner won't scan outside of the frame, so I can't show you the image with the sprocket holes. However, it seems the streaks originate between the sprocket holes.
This has never happened to me before, but I usually use slower films.
I was worried about some kind of light leak, but now it seems to be a processing problem. So is my agitation "over-zealous" or should I agitate more?
Landshark
Well-known
It's overzealous, take it down a notch & you should be OK.
I use 5-6 inversion/rotations each minute and for stand development 30 sec initial and let it sit for the rest of the time.
I use 5-6 inversion/rotations each minute and for stand development 30 sec initial and let it sit for the rest of the time.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Overzealous agitation is impossible, AS LONG AS the agitation is truly random.Only completely uniform rotation will give streamers.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
gho
Well-known
Umm, shaking like shaking a cocktail shaker? Try switching to slow inversions. If I develop Tri-X@400 in Rodinal 1+50 for example I do the following: 5 initial slow inversions, then one slow inversion each minute for 13 minutes total. One inversion takes about 5 seconds. Temperature is about 68F or 20C. Your mileage may vary.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
My own agitation regime in small tanks:
10 sec/minute, about 6 agitations in those 10 seconds. Invert & twist the tank simultaneously. Leave plenty of air space in the tank: think of shaking (a) a full bottle of orange juice and (b) one with a glass poured out from it.
No 'streamers' in 40+ years -- as one would expect from the theory. Read any serious book on development theory: Coote, Glafkides, Clerc, Haist, you name it. Ignore internet 'experts'.
Over-agitation really is a myth unless it is a constant swirl in the same direction.
Cheers,
R.
10 sec/minute, about 6 agitations in those 10 seconds. Invert & twist the tank simultaneously. Leave plenty of air space in the tank: think of shaking (a) a full bottle of orange juice and (b) one with a glass poured out from it.
No 'streamers' in 40+ years -- as one would expect from the theory. Read any serious book on development theory: Coote, Glafkides, Clerc, Haist, you name it. Ignore internet 'experts'.
Over-agitation really is a myth unless it is a constant swirl in the same direction.
Cheers,
R.
Peter^
Well-known
Thanks, Roger, I'll try your technique.
oftheherd
Veteran
I almost always use D-76 1/1 in my 35mm development, no matter the film. Regardless, unless it has been a developer that suggested otherwise, I have always used 5 inversions per 30 seconds, with 2 to 4 taps and a twist after the agitation cycle. No streaks for me in many years.
wgerrard
Veteran
Trust me, not doing that is easier than you might think. I recently started using steel tanks after finally figuring out how to load the reels. You can't see when the tank is full, so I just kept pouring until it overflowed.But, of course, if the tank is full the developer won't have enough room to move during agitation. So, I measured the amount of liquid needed to cover the reel and that's the amount I prepare. That leaves a little bit of room for movement. The next tanks I buy will have more room.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
I know only too well from personal experience that you are dead right.
Solution (if you will forgive the pun): tilt tank about 10-15 degrees from vertical when filling. Or better still, do it the clever way, as you do: MEASURE how much you need (225 ml single, 425 ml double, in all my SS tanks).
You don't need bigger tanks. Honest.
Cheers,
R.
wgerrard
Veteran
I also figured out that it's a bit silly to try to brew up exactly 225 ml, or whatever, of developer, etc. So, I advise mixing up a batch that's a bit over the limit and then measuring it precisely in another cylinder.
Good to know and I'll take your advice on tilting the canister.