How stupid am I, where did I go wrong?

[LukasB]

I've just "developed" two Rolls of Tri-X that I cannot remember the speed at which they were shot due to how long ago I shot them. (I know, stupid. I am marking all films now.)

Water is coming out of the Taps at home 24C. So I thought perhaps, okay... if I look up how I could Stand Develop at 24C - I drew the conclusion of:-

HC-110 1:100 (606ml total.)
45 Mins stand development
15 sec agitation at beginning of development

Fixed using 1:4 diluted Tetenal Superfix. (600ml)

The negatives went around the spools in my Tank no issues whatsoever. I usually have some difficulty doing this but I do not know if this had anything to do with it.

Long story short - I have two rolls of film with almost no images. I had thought they were fresh rolls until I saw that each one had about 1 + 1/2 images at the start of the Rolls.

Any ideas?

 

[waileong]

The cake is already baked. What ideas do you want?

 

[LukasB]

The cake is already baked. What ideas do you want?

If anyone has ideas as to how I've ended up with nothing. What in my process looks incorrect?

 

[Highway 61]

For thirty-three years I have been developing Tri-X exposed @400 in D76 1+1 for 12'30" @20C +/- 1C and I never faced any problems like this one.

Well, there are stupid people like me who prefer to concentrate on what the photographs tell as photographs.

And there are creative people experimenting and making art with Tri-X exposed @various speeds then souped in the whole esoteric developers catalog and mastering the wonderful stand development technique. 😀

 

[LukasB]

For thirty-three years I have been developing Tri-X exposed @400 in D76 1+1 for 12'30" @20C +/- 1C and I never faced any problems like this one.

Well, there are stupid people like me who prefer to concentrate on what the photographs tell as photographs.

And there are creative people experimenting and making art with Tri-X exposed @various speeds then souped in the whole esoteric developers catalog and mastering the wonderful stand development technique. 😀

I don't usually stand dev, nor do I usually shoot Tri-X. HP5+ HC-110B is my preferred method.

I'm hoping my idiocy has at most very little to do with it.

 

[Highway 61]

I don't usually stand dev, nor do I usually shoot Tri-X. HP5+ HC-110B is my preferred method.

HP5+ and Tri-X can be said to be the same stuff. Very clever is the experienced photographer who will be able to say which is which if exposed properly and developed as they should in a suited developer. The best film of the two is the one you can buy for less pesos at the moment.

 

[Rob-F]

Lucas B, I have only ever used my Nikor tanks and stainless reels that are entirely hand-loaded (they, too, can be difficult at times); so I know nothing about a tank with rollers. But I feel pretty safe in guessing that the problem had nothing to do with your exposure method or the exposure index you chose, and everything to do with a problem loading the tank. I think so because of the frame that was half developed and half not. The film must have failed to advance into the developer beyond that point; having to do with the uncertainty you encountered with those rollers. Something about the loading process seemed wrong to you. I'm about to put my money on that being the problem, but there is one question before we can be sure: was the entire roll fixed and cleared normally? Or did the bad part of the roll not get cleared?

 

[LukasB]

HP5+ and Tri-X can be said to be the same stuff. Very clever is the experienced photographer who will be able to say which is which if exposed properly and developed as they should in a suited developer. The best film of the two is the one you can buy for less pesos at the moment.

Being an Englishman, that tends to be the Ilford variant.

 

[zuiko85]

Don't have any idea what went wrong but,........
When I do dumb things like this I quickly bury the mistake in the trash so nobody finds out.

 

[Highway 61]

Something about the loading process seemed wrong to you. I'm about to put my money on that being the problem, but there is one question before we can be sure: was the entire roll fixed and cleared normally? Or did the bad part of the roll not get cleared?

Agreed and simple to sort out. In case of a loading problem the film footage with no image at all should be opaque (not developed, not fixed, because enrolled on itself with no space for the chemicals between the rolls). If it's cleared normally with the film name and indexes black and visible alongside the sprockets holes it's a developing problem.

 

[LukasB]

Agreed and simple to sort out. In case of a loading problem the film footage with no image at all should be opaque (not developed, not fixed, because enrolled on itself with no space for the chemicals between the rolls). If it's cleared normally with the film name and indexes black and visible alongside the sprockets holes it's a developing problem.

Both rolls have the Kodak TX 400 along the edges. Would this indicate that the film was not developed long enough? There are a few black lines appearing every so often along the edge of the Rolls - but I usually get that.

a fixing issue?

 

[Godfrey]

Both rolls have the Kodak TX 400 along the edges. Would this indicate that the film was not developed long enough? There are a few black lines appearing every so often along the edge of the Rolls - but I usually get that.

a fixing issue?

IF the edge markings are properly developed and the exposures are blank or very very thin, then the film was exposed at too high an ISO setting for the development that it was given.

Keep better records in the future. An easy thing to do is to write the ISO setting you're going to use on a film onto the tongue of the film with a marker or grease pencil just before you load the film in the camera. After the film is done and you're developing it, you cut the tongue off and load it onto a reel ... and then read the tongue before you process it so you know what process you're supposed to use. 😀

G

(I make this very simple now: All my films get 8 minutes development in HC-110 diluted 1:49 with continuous agitation. For each film, I've got adjusted Exposure Index settings that I set on the meter or camera before I shoot. That way I don't have to mark anything, I just know that everything gets processed the same way.)

 

[Pioneer]

If the TX 400 developed along the film edges then it would indicate to me that the film developed, and fixed, normally. Is it possible that your first inclination, that there were no images on the film, the correct one? Except of course there was one and a half images recorded at which point you pulled the rolls early or your camera didn't work as you suspected.

Were the images at the start or the end of the roll? Though I try not to admit it I have shot almost entire rolls of film with the lens cap still in place.

I have also rewound film early with the intent of reusing it at a later date because I needed a different type of film at that moment. Then, if it sits long enough, and I failed to put a note on the film canister, I can't remember what I did later on. This would also explain why you weren't sure what film speed you had used.

Just rambling of course. Thinking about things I have been able to accomplish in the past thanks to my perfect 64 year old male memory. 😀

 

[mpaniagua]

Don't have any idea what went wrong but,........
When I do dumb things like this I quickly bury the mistake in the trash so nobody finds out.

++1 The faster I forget about it, the better 🙂

Regards

 

[BLKRCAT]

Whats the density like on the edge markings?

Copy and paste from photo.net**

In normal "office lighting" place a newspaper or other printed matter on a table top. Hold
your negative in your hand at half arms length, slightly above the printed material, and try
to see the type.

If you can easily read the type, too thin.
If you can't see it, too dense.
Just barely make out the type, just right.
*snip

If the markings are too thin then you didn't soup it long enough. Just because you have edge markings doesn't mean that the film was developed properly.

Ive never stand developed with HC110 so I can't help you there but the general rule with stand is that you do 1:100 for an hour, not 45 min.

Though I can relate because when testing with Eastman 5222 I found that it developed perfectly stand for about 25 minutes so the 1:100 1 hour rule doesn't always apply. It is possible to over develop with stand.

 

[Beemermark]

24C is HOT

 

[Ronald M]

Film development is all about doing the same time after time after time. Cheating will get you in trouble.

Check out the camera. Did the film go through? Is the shutter working properly?
Is the fully exposed leader from loading the camera dark? If so it is not a chemical problem.

Ice water cools developer fast. So does a glass bottle. Glass and stainless are better at heat transfer than plastic.

The film can always have pulled off the take up reel. Watch rewind as you advance.
I always take the slack out when loading and make sure the sprocket holes are engaged top and bottom. Then close the back.

I also used some plastic cassettes that jammed after 12 exposures. These were new and happened in multiple M cameras. Tossed in the bin.

 

[p.giannakis]

Are you sure that the camera you used works correctly? Shutter opens properly at every click?

 

[x-ray]

If it's cleared normally with the film name and indexes black and visible alongside the sprockets holes it's a developing problem.

No. If the edge identification is developed and look normal then Its NOT a development issue. Developed black edge markings are an indicator the development was ok. This is not an absolute as under development can reveal edge markings but it would also develop up a flat or faint image where the film is exposed. Visible edge markings are always an indication at least partial development took place.

If you have one full and one half frame and the frame that's partial has a distinct demarcation then it's likely you have a shutter problem. If you had two complete frames and no others I'd say there's a problem with the film advance or shutter.

Since edge markings are ok there's no development or fixing problem.

 

[SaveKodak]

The edge code being present indicates that development took place. The more faint the edge code, the more you can tell if it was severely under-developed. I once bungled my dilution so badly that I was basically using water, and I had no edge code.

Thin negatives with clear edge code would indicate to me under exposure.

Your development technique is an "experimental" one. My advice would be to standardize your process in camera and in tank. Stand development is one of those techniques that magic bullet chasers tend to adopt when they could be focusing on the content of the photographs themselves. Getting a solution to 68F is not difficult, and standard times for 400 speed films are generally short. If you want sharper images, shoot TMAX or Delta (especially if you're scanning).

Here's an essay that I tend to think of when I hear about stand-dev: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

For years, I looked for miracle cures to save my crummy prints. I tried every film, lens and developer I could get my hands on (I still have a weakness for lenses, but I’m getting better). I'd read stuff like: "I just bought a 135mm f5.6 Ektakron (with the red dial) and I can't believe the difference! I'm throwing away all my old negatives and starting over!", or "You must try developing TMQ in D41-MicroGoop. I have, and my prints GLOW IN THE DARK". Of course I'd run right out and buy a red-dial Ektakron or ten gallons of glow-in-the-dark developer, and guess what? One more magic bullet, same pictures, slightly less disposable income.

The sad truth is that there are no magic bullets, no single-shot miracle cures. Good prints are the result of many incremental improvements. Furthermore, gross errors in one area can completely mask improvements in other areas. To see lots of improvement, you have to make lots of changes. Not just any changes, but the RIGHT ones.

That was probably off topic anyway because my back-of-napkin prognosis in this case is still under exposure.