Question about developing sheet film

[Pirate]

That sounds like what the paper was. One mystery solved!

The problem I had with my 3x4 negatives that looked like it was melted and running a bit, is gone. The negatives are clean and flat (but I think I under cooked them as they are a bit dark). I can't find any traces of it on the roll of 135 either. I know I'm not going nuts.....

 

[Doug]

The effect you saw may just have been on the surface, as the emulsion does swell a bit when wet, not evenly. If your negs are a bit dark, then they might be over-developed (or over-exposed), not under.

 

[Pirate]

The negs look darker all around, as if not enough was removed to show the picture. I'll know more tomorrow after I show my photographer buddy and he can tell me what I did wrong when he sees them. I'm still learning, but loving it.

 

[Pirate]

Oh, I did the same shots with my M3 and measured everything with my Gossen, so I'm sure the exposure was good, it's just my developing.

 

[Doug]

The negs look darker all around, as if not enough was removed to show the picture....

But your 35mm negs don't look darker all around, just the sheet film? Perhaps a light leak in the holder...? I'll be interested to hear what your photog buddy has to say!

 

[johannielscom]

Me too, and I'm looking forward to see the scans!

 

[Pirate]

I didn't even think about light leaks.

8 negatives from 4 film holders. All the negatives look even, so, I'm ruling out the film holders, for now. When the rain stops, I'll shoot from the rest of the holders.

Possible times of light intrusion:

1, when I loaded the film, it was in the bathroom, no windows, and a little light coming from under my door. This would have effected all the 7 holders I loaded. I have three left to shoot.

2, when I developed the first 4 holders, I had a red light digital clock in the bathroom with me. The door was better sealed, so I'm only thinking the clock from this time.

I will most certainly post what he has to say tomorrow. His scanner does 135 and 120, but I don't see why it wouldn't do a 3x4 sheet also.

 

[Pirate]

The scans. All images are just as scanned. I did no editing what-so-ever. All the scratches and peeling and such is due to my inexperience with developing. I will get better. The ones not labeled 3x4, where shot with my Leica M3 and 50mm F1.1 Voigtlander Nokton.


Shot with the 3x4 Speed Graphic, Efke 100 ISO

Shot with the 3x4 Speed Graphic, Efke 100 ISO

Shot with the Leica M3, Rollei Pan 25 ISO

Shot with the 3x4 Speed Graphic, Efke 100 ISO

Shot with the Leica M3, Rollei Pan 25 ISO

Shot with the Leica M3, Rollei Pan 25 ISO @ F1.1 and 1 second.

Shot with the Leica M3, Rollei Pan 25 ISO

Shot with the Leica M3, Rollei Pan 25 ISO

Shot with the 3x4 Speed Graphic, Efke 100 ISO

 

[Pirate]

And here's the link where I wrote the descriptions ......

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o92/Pirate_FDP/Real%20Film%20shots/

My buddy said most of it looked like it was underdeveloped. The roll of Rollei Pan 25 scanned with no trouble. The roll of Tri-X and Ilford HP5 would not scan. The scanner said it was too dark. I can make prints from them but can't scan them to the computer.

Tonight I have a roll of Ilford FP4 125 for testing. I'm going to cut the roll in half and develop half by the book, and then add a few minutes (after checking the results) to the second half-roll. It's a learning experience but it's worth it.

I also have another roll of Rollei Pan 25 to develop, this time from my Nikon F5 to see how computerized metering makes it look different to my manually, Gossen enhanced, metering. I might add an extra minute to that roll.

Stay tuned, more to come!!!