Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I really like the look of Tri-X when I stand develop for one hour in Rodinal at 1+100 exactly as per the recommendations by P Lynn Miller in a previous thread. The tones are excellent with nice smooth grain but the development appears to be uneven with the image tending to burn out towards the edge on one side. ... it's not apparent on all shots but really bad on some! I'm using 500ml of solution with a minute's initial slow agitation and nothing after that ... and I'm using a Paterson tank with plastic reels.
Any suggestions?
[edit] ... It seems to be more noticable when there's an area of fairly high exposure towards the top of the frame, or on the right in the case of portrait orientation.
Any suggestions?
[edit] ... It seems to be more noticable when there's an area of fairly high exposure towards the top of the frame, or on the right in the case of portrait orientation.
Last edited:
mich8261
Well-known
is Rodinal lighter than water? By that I mean is it possible that it floats to the surface of the tank and therefore affects film at the top?
Sparrow
Veteran
I would have expected to see drag marks from the sprocket holes if it’s chemical. What are the edges like?
Could it be light getting in at some point?
Could it be light getting in at some point?
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Forget the "lighter than water" concept. These chemicals are in solution -- their concentration is uniform in the liquid. Keith: are you sure that this isn't a shutter problem? The "top" of your negative is the bottom of the film at the film gate. May I ask, what kind of camera are you using and does the shutter travel horizontally (e.g. M2) or vertically (e.g. G2)? Does this problem happen with other developing schemes (I presume not, as you think it is a problem only with stand developing)?
EDIT: Having read some of the posts below, I think there could be merit in the not-quite-enough-developer theory. I'd add to my questions: is the depth of developer in the tank sufficient to really cover the film?
EDIT: Having read some of the posts below, I think there could be merit in the not-quite-enough-developer theory. I'd add to my questions: is the depth of developer in the tank sufficient to really cover the film?
Last edited:
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
I would think Rodinal's compounds will all be soluble in water, making an even solution where nothing is going to float.
Keith, I don't see much wrong in the first photo, the second clearly seems over developped or "under fixed" at the right side.
What could cause trouble perhaps is that oxygen from the air dissolves a bit from the surface and spoils one of the essential compounds ?? I would try filling the tank to a higher level. That is of course only possible with tanks holding more than one trayl
Keith, I don't see much wrong in the first photo, the second clearly seems over developped or "under fixed" at the right side.
What could cause trouble perhaps is that oxygen from the air dissolves a bit from the surface and spoils one of the essential compounds ?? I would try filling the tank to a higher level. That is of course only possible with tanks holding more than one trayl
Papercut
Well-known
Not including myself, I know at least 8 photographers here in the Bay Area who regularly use Rodinal stand development (1+100, and usually two hours with no additional agitation, but there's some variation in method as it's quite forgiving). And I've never seen or heard of this fault due to Rodinal or stand development. I too would suspect either a mechanical problem (shutter) or an insufficiently filled tank.... or ....was it outdated film? (Stab in the dark)
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
Also how many reels are you doing at a time? You say 500mm per reel, is that one reel at a time?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The camera can't be the issue because it happened the previous time and that was from a different camera. The film is fresh Tri-X and it was a new batch of fixer. I generally just do one roll at a time in the Paterson tank which is the model that can take two 35mm reels or one 120 ... 290ml is the minimum amount required to do one 35mm roll so 500ml should have the solution well above the level of the reel! I never have this problem when I do normal development with conventional agitation so it's a bit strange ... it is a particularly nasty looking batch of Rodinal that is getting towards the end of the bottle and has gone rather dark and is forming residue on the inside but everything you read about the stuff reckons this doesn't really matter a damn ... maybe they're wrong? The only thing I can think of is that the developer has gone a little weird and because the level of the solution is well above the top of the film there is a lot more developer bias above the film than below it ... and thinking about the way I load my reels and put them in the tank the over developing is happening on this side of the film if that makes sense.
Actually Stewart's comment about drag marks from the sprocket holes is interesting because recently I used some of this Rodinal to develop a roll of C41 and let it stand for three hours ... there were definite shadows from the sprocket holes on that roll!
I think I'll shoot a roll this afternoon and try using a fresh bottle of Rodinal and see if it makes any difference! Thanks for the suggestions all!
Actually Stewart's comment about drag marks from the sprocket holes is interesting because recently I used some of this Rodinal to develop a roll of C41 and let it stand for three hours ... there were definite shadows from the sprocket holes on that roll!
I think I'll shoot a roll this afternoon and try using a fresh bottle of Rodinal and see if it makes any difference! Thanks for the suggestions all!
Last edited:
ChrisN
Striving
Keith, I've done a couple of rolls with 500cc of developer solution for 1 roll of film in Paterson tank, at 1+100 and even 1+200. I found that I do need to give the tank a gentle swirling for 30 seconds (not an inversion, just pick it up and swirl it gently like you would with a coffee cup) at the 30-minute mark. I think the developer needs just a little mixing at that point to avoid the uneveness from local exhaustion. That probably goes against the theory of stand development but it seems to work ok.
Joao
Negativistic forever
Hi
It happened to me also. Sometimes – but not always - it matches the sprocket holes. It never happened since I added a couple of inversions after one hour.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/3174491099/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/3174491019/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/3174490931/
As the clear stripe is always in the same border of the roll I cannot find any explanation, except for uneven concentration of the developer. Note that I use home-brewed paRodinal – if that makes a difference. My suggestion is to try a couple of inversions after one hour or two, and check what happens.
Regards
Joao
Edit: I saw Chris post only after I've replied, but the sugestion goes in the same sense
It happened to me also. Sometimes – but not always - it matches the sprocket holes. It never happened since I added a couple of inversions after one hour.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/3174491099/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/3174491019/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/3174490931/
As the clear stripe is always in the same border of the roll I cannot find any explanation, except for uneven concentration of the developer. Note that I use home-brewed paRodinal – if that makes a difference. My suggestion is to try a couple of inversions after one hour or two, and check what happens.
Regards
Joao
Edit: I saw Chris post only after I've replied, but the sugestion goes in the same sense
Last edited:
notraces
Bob Smith
Give the tank at least a full inversion around the 30 minute mark - you should see things smooth out -- two inversions wouldn't hurt at that point - at 1+100 Rod is just about exhausted by then...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Something has just occured to me ... I seem to be getting slight over development generally when using 1+100 stand which could have a little to do with my tendency to shoot 24 frame rolls most of the time. If the developer is being used to exhaustion when developing 36 frames with this method only having 24 in the tank would definitely change the balance I'd imagine ... perhaps with the 24's I should cut it back to 1+150 to compensate?
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
I had some development errors when I first tried out stand developing and Rodinal. Most of the problems I was experiencing such as streaks from sprocket holes to one side of the frame being more developed than the other were solved when I added more agitation after pouring the developer.
Now I already agitate pretty gently, so I decided to fully invert the tank and let the developer move around. I do it in a rolling motion. That solved most of my problems. Perhaps more agitation could help alleviate these developing hiccups. Say a 90 seconds of inversion agitations? Maybe one more inversion a few minutes into the development?
Also I use a Paterson 3 reel tank that holds up to 1000ml of liquids. I've done Rodinal 1+100 with 3 rolls of film and have great success so far. Roughly 3.3ml of Rodinal per roll.
Now I already agitate pretty gently, so I decided to fully invert the tank and let the developer move around. I do it in a rolling motion. That solved most of my problems. Perhaps more agitation could help alleviate these developing hiccups. Say a 90 seconds of inversion agitations? Maybe one more inversion a few minutes into the development?
Also I use a Paterson 3 reel tank that holds up to 1000ml of liquids. I've done Rodinal 1+100 with 3 rolls of film and have great success so far. Roughly 3.3ml of Rodinal per roll.
Last edited:
Cale Arthur
---- ------
Keith, i hate to ask this, as i don't wish to appear insulting, but have you looked at the negatives to see if they are actually more dense in the offending area? I'm wondering if this anomaly could be scanning-related, more than a development issue. I refer you to a conversation that Tom A and i had on what appears to be a very similar subject (link).
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Keith,
Can you confirm that you developing only 1-24exp roll at a time?
A few things to keep in mind...
1. The water and Rodinal needs to be ambient temperature...
2. Remember the weather is getting cooler here in Australia, so you may need to extend development times...
3. Be sure to use a few minute pre-soak with water of ambient temperature to bring the tank, reel and film to ambient temperature...
4. Make sure the you have stirred the Rodinal into the water for at least a minute...
I have not have any trouble with uneven development with 35mm film, only with 120 roll film when pushing to extremes. FYI, I use a Jobo 1520 tank with plastic Jobo reels.
Can you confirm that you developing only 1-24exp roll at a time?
A few things to keep in mind...
1. The water and Rodinal needs to be ambient temperature...
2. Remember the weather is getting cooler here in Australia, so you may need to extend development times...
3. Be sure to use a few minute pre-soak with water of ambient temperature to bring the tank, reel and film to ambient temperature...
4. Make sure the you have stirred the Rodinal into the water for at least a minute...
I have not have any trouble with uneven development with 35mm film, only with 120 roll film when pushing to extremes. FYI, I use a Jobo 1520 tank with plastic Jobo reels.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Yes only one at a time in regard to the 24 frame rolls.
I've been very careful to do exactly as you suggested in the thread a while back in regard to pre-soak and using ambient temperatures etc and I stir the hell out of the Rodinal!
I have a 36 frame roll in the tank as we speak that I shot about an hour a go on a pleasant walk ... so hopefully I'll know if I'm on the right track this evening.
I'd never thought about a scanner issue but it seems unlikely as it's only occuring when I use this method.
I have my fingers crossed for the latest roll!
icamp
Member
To me this looks like exhaustion of the dev,it is not consistant on all frames,the dev will wear out faster in larger areas of higher density,which could explain why its not on all frames.
Maybe its a typo..cutting back to 1:150 is increasing the dilution which i think will exhaust the dev faster,maybe your EI needs adjusting, if you shot at 200.
Maybe its a typo..cutting back to 1:150 is increasing the dilution which i think will exhaust the dev faster,maybe your EI needs adjusting, if you shot at 200.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
The idea of no agitation goes against all logic to me.Is this just laziness or are there some benifits to be had?Remember that this is not magic ,its a chemical reaction ,there are by products which may mask the film if they are not moved away.There will also be a temperature gradient if you are not standing this in a water bath.Also there is more reaction on the denser parts of the negative and so the active parts of the developer will be used up there and not replaced without agitation.
At the moment I find this method very strange and is the first Ive heard of it,am going to look into it now so may be back later to eat my words because at the moment it looks daft,....................Neil.
At the moment I find this method very strange and is the first Ive heard of it,am going to look into it now so may be back later to eat my words because at the moment it looks daft,....................Neil.
ChrisN
Striving
Neil, I know very little about developing, but I gather the principle of stand development is that it is intended to avoid over-developing the highlights (blowing out the highlights to pure white) by exhausting the developer immediately adjacent to the film at the sites corresponding to the brightest highlights ie the most dense parts of the negative. If the developer is regularly agitated the developer is constantly refreshed against the negative, whereas you want it to actually become exhausted, and therefore stop development. Timing is therefore much less critical. Semi-stand is a refinement, with just a little agitation to promote even development.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Keith,
It's very simple: Plastic bad, stainless steel good.
Seriously, try this .... Expose a 24 exposure roll of TX normally. Include frames with light areas at the top of some frames. Make sure those frames are distributed through the roll. Develop in Rodinal 1:100 for 20 minutes. If there is no problem, then the issue was probably time/agitation, PERHAPS old Rodinal, though I doubt it.
If the problem persists, it's those damn Paterson reels.
It's very simple: Plastic bad, stainless steel good.
Seriously, try this .... Expose a 24 exposure roll of TX normally. Include frames with light areas at the top of some frames. Make sure those frames are distributed through the roll. Develop in Rodinal 1:100 for 20 minutes. If there is no problem, then the issue was probably time/agitation, PERHAPS old Rodinal, though I doubt it.
If the problem persists, it's those damn Paterson reels.
Last edited: