Need help, stand dev or camera problem

[haffy]

Hi,

I did shoot some pictures with my friends Nikon F4 and developed the film (Kodak Portra 400BW) in R09 "Rodinal" stand development, the film had been in the camera for like 5 years..).
I do not know if there is a problem with the camera or the development, this is how I did the stand dev (never done it before).

1+100 R09 "Rodinal" + Water (2,5 ml R09 and 246,5ml water).
30 sec of aggrigation bumped against table to remove bubbles and let it stand for 60 min.
30 sec of ilford stop.
5min of rapid fixer ilford (dubbled and a little more of clarifier time).

As I have shoot a couple of pictures with my new Leica M6 and does not know if this is beacuse of the camera or the stand development I am afraid of developing the rolls as they are important to me..

 

[MartinP]

Clearly, the film was not completely in the chemicals during processing.

Possible reasons...

a) The amount of developer was not correct for the size of tank -- check this with an empty reel and water, in daylight.

b) The reel moved upwards on the centre-column during your initial agitation -- place a rubber band around the centre column, just above the reel, in order to prevent it moving.

c) Poltergeists -- these don't exist.



Note: using that particular film will leave you with negs that are almost unprintable in a darkroom due to the base colour. I'd recommend standard black and white film, or try the Ilford XP2 Super film which can be developed in any C41 line or lab, and which can be easily printed at home as the base has no tint. Also, the film in your picture looks massively over developed.

 

[haffy]

Ye, it looks like a water-level-mark. But the tank said 250 ml for 1 film.. Hmm. Will try another tank for the other two rolls (can I dev one 800 and one 1600 ISO film in the same bath?)
Why I used a Portra 400BW in this was by mistake, did not know I have shoot one of those , did not even know they existed and it looked ike a tri-x in my eyes 🙂

 

[Dwig]

...2,5 ml R09 and 246,5ml water...

I agree that it looks like not enough chemical solution in the tank.

I've never encountered a conventional reel & tank combo that will properly cover a roll of 35mm film with significantly less than 450ml/8oz., and most plastic tanks require somewhat more (~600ml).

 

[MartinP]

I've never encountered a conventional reel & tank combo that will properly cover a roll of 35mm film with significantly less than 450ml/8oz., and most plastic tanks require somewhat more (~600ml).

I've no idea of the tanks available in North America, but in Europe many people use plastic Paterson or Jobo tanks. The Paterson uses 290ml for one roll of 135, though the arithmetic is easier when using 300ml. The Jobo needs about 255ml as a minimum and is really about the smallest possible size for 135. Are your volume measurements for 120 rollfilm?

 

[Matus]

If your tank (Jobo I guess) says that 246ml is enough chemistry than it probably means that it is enough for rotary development, as that is what most tanks are designed for. If you use stand or inversions by hand you will need about the double of that volume (I am guessing here based on my experience with Jobo tanks). Just put the empty spool inside the tank and pour in water until you see there is enough - and than measure the volume.

 

[haffy]

I've no idea of the tanks available in North America, but in Europe many people use plastic Paterson or Jobo tanks. The Paterson uses 290ml for one roll of 135, though the arithmetic is easier when using 300ml. The Jobo needs about 255ml as a minimum and is really about the smallest possible size for 135. Are your volume measurements for 120 rollfilm?

Yes thats the one, Jobo.. Says 250 on the tank. And it was 135mm film.

 

[haffy]

If your tank (Jobo I guess) says that 246ml is enough chemistry than it probably means that it is enough for rotary development, as that is what most tanks are designed for. If you use stand or inversions by hand you will need about the double of that volume (I am guessing here based on my experience with Jobo tanks). Just put the empty spool inside the tank and pour in water until you see there is enough - and than measure the volume.

You may have a point there, rotation.. That may be true. I am running the final try now with another tank (600ml for 2 rolls of film), and I am trying to develop one 800 ISO and one 1600 ISO Tri-X films.. Hope this works.
And I use 6ml R09 for this.

 

[MartinP]

Ye, it looks like a water-level-mark. But the tank said 250 ml for 1 film.. Hmm. Will try another tank for the other two rolls (can I dev one 800 and one 1600 ISO film in the same bath?)
Why I used a Portra 400BW in this was by mistake, did not know I have shoot one of those , did not even know they existed and it looked ike a tri-x in my eyes 🙂

Just to check . . . did the film look like this all the way along? If so, then it really was most likely as everyone has said, the film slipped too high or the chemicals filled too low.

Lots of people do attempt pushing ISO400 film in Rodinal, but try to give more than 3ml of concentrate per roll (possibly using more liquid with just one roll in a multi-roll tank to achieve this) as once it is exhausted you won't get any more contrast, no matter how long you leave it in there.

Also, Rodinal is a developer which is a little slower than the film-rating usually - do you have another developer you can use instead? To be on the safe side, perhaps DDX or Microphen would be more effective for 'pushing' and in less time too (with normal agitation etc).

Good luck!

 

[haffy]

Just to check . . . did the film look like this all the way along? If so, then it really was most likely as everyone has said, the film slipped too high or the chemicals filled too low.

Lots of people do attempt pushing ISO400 film in Rodinal, but try to give more than 3ml of concentrate per roll (possibly using more liquid with just one roll in a multi-roll tank to achieve this) as once it is exhausted you won't get any more contrast, no matter how long you leave it in there.

Also, Rodinal is a developer which is a little slower than the film-rating usually - do you have another developer you can use instead? To be on the safe side, perhaps DDX or Microphen would be more effective for 'pushing' and in less time too (with normal agitation etc).

Good luck!

Yes it did look like that all the way around.
Hmm, I have read somwhere that people are using 3,5ml for Rodinal, maby that is more correct when pushing like this, will look for more info on this.
Hopefully this development will suffice and give something to work with.

Yes I have ilford dd-x but did not like the characteristics of it, and have looked allot for somthing more sutable, and Rodinal looks like the stuff. Great tonality and grain, and the time (stand dev) suits me 🙂

 

[MartinP]

Yes thats the one, Jobo.. Says 250 on the tank. And it was 135mm film.

This is indeed the volume it says on the tank. I have, probably, the same tank (Jobo 1510) in front of me now - it lists 140ml for rotation or 250ml for inversion and that should be just enough to cover the film. If you measured the volume correctly (not using 140ml by accident) then the spool must have moved on the core.

 

[haffy]

MartinP I have the Jobo 4312, can not be much of a difference.

Is this true?

So if every film soups for the same time, that means you can develop two different brands or ISO’s in the same tank. Take that one step further, if you can soup a roll of Tri-X 100, and a roll of the same film pushed two stops in the same tank… that means you can actually change what ISO you shoot at mid roll. I’ll repeat that; you are no longer bound by one of the biggest advantages digital has over film, you can change ISO on the fly. This is huge.

Found it on this site. http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

 

[twhittle]

Looks to me as your camera is doing something funny.

When I develop film I always look out for how dark the markings near the sprocket holes are. Looks like they are fully developed on this film, that wouldn't have happened if the chemicals only developed up half way.

 

[MartinP]

MartinP I have the Jobo 4312, can not be much of a difference.

Ooo, an antique! 😉 I used to use a 4313 multi-reel tank and changed over because the 15 series use the same sized reels with easier filling/emptying. Your tank is also multi-reel too I think? -- I'd strongly suggest the rubber-band trick to stop the reel moving, as the older tanks used to have a plastic clip which can slip (or be completely missing).

On the developing question, according to my understanding (limited, as I was schooled in Applied Physics, not Chemistry) . . . and I hope it won't be controversial for stand developing enthusiasts, but any specific developer/film will just give one ISO film-speed.

DDX, Microphen or Diafine etc. will give slightly more real speed than Rodinal or other high-acutance developers, and some new technology developers supposedly give more real speed than DDX. However, the emulsion doesn't magically collect more light-photons if you leave it in some specific developer for longer. What you can change with time is the contrast and the density (and the fog), but whatever low amount of light doesn't affect the emulsion, simply doesn't affect the emulsion. The changes with pushing are to increase the overall density 'a bit' and the apparent contrast 'a bit' (as highlights build faster and longer than shadows). The couple of stops of exposure at the bottom of the underexposed film curve are made more usable for sure, and the effect can look very attractive - but there is no magic-wand.

In old newspaper darkrooms, pushing might be tried with very active paper-developers at higher temperature and with very short times, so that might be a graphically 'different' look you could experiment with.

Stand development also has yet another slightly different behaviour because there is less fresh developer reacting at the film-surface. This can potentially cause irregular-density problems depending on the combination of film, developer, developer by-products and so on, but Rodinal seems to have fewer problems than most other developers when used like this and so is often mentioned. Usefully, the contrast range would typically still be reduced if the exposure was standard, so that is also useful to make high-contrast scenes more printable - however, lower temperature (18C) with time compensation (use the standard compensation chart from Ilford as a starting point), 1:50 dilution and gentle agitation does a better job in controlling highlight build-up with Rodinal in my (limited) experience.

For a couple of years, I have been using APX100 with Rodinal and different temperatures, agitation and EI to suit different purposes - I haven't yet tried testing for a replacement film as I have about sixty rolls left. My usual developer for any other films is ID11, or occasionally Microphen.

 

[leicapixie]

Definitely appears film not fully covered by chemicals.
Read one must use minimum of 5cc's of Rodinal per film.
The small tank could be a hindrance in stand development.
i use a 500cc steel tank for stand development.One reel and one empty.
My small tank uses 300ml. A lil less. so not possible 5ccs of Rodinal.

i'm curious about Portra B/W film. Thought it was C-41 Process. Is the orange mask less than in a color film? i've developed C-41 film in Rodinal and the orange mask a major problem. I bought citric acid to remove.
i can see image quite nicely! well what's there.

 

[MartinP]

I vaguely recall (as I wasn't ever going to use it) that the Portra black and white film was an alternate packaging for the Kodak BW400. Or maybe it is/was supposed to be the 'professional' version? The masking is/was supposed to make Kodak's C-41 b+w easier to print for normal 'one-hour' type labs.

 

[GaryLH]

I would suggest a simple experiment before your next go at this. Put the number of reels u plan to use in the tank. Fill it w/ water. Empty the water into a measuring device to c how much is required. W/o film, it will require less, but better have a bit more than not enough.

Gary