Weird development problem (xtol+ilford)

[lemos]

Hi gang,

I've just had a weird development problem that got me really mad :bang:


I've developed with the following setup:

• ilford panf+ 50 135mm
• xtol stock (7 minutes)
• some ilford fixer (5 minutes)
• water as a stop bath

and the things is, only the two last frames look usable, the rest of the film seems very underexposed (e.g. almost transparent). I can't see the film guide information anywhere along the film btw.


is there an explanation for this? The fixer is old, but as I understand correctly, it usually withstands easily, and xtol also has some months on it already.

Could this be related with the chemicals, or did I ALMOST FOR CERTAIN let some light hit the film while loading the reel? While I was loading it, a very very faint light got through 🙁.

Any explanation to put my mind at ease would be greatly appreciated.


thanks!

 

[MartinP]

Well, underfixed film generally looks a little bit creamy. Sort of like having a bit of the film-base colour left on it. Fogging due to light would show as a grey tone; either even over the film or, more usually, in a shape corresponding to a camera light-leak or the shape of the reel, depending on when/where the leak occurred.

If the film just doesn't have much of a developed image on it then we could think the developer might be suspect, but having a couple of reasonable frames sounds odd. Were they perhaps very over-exposed in the camera ?

Unfortunately, the wisest solution (pun intended) might be to throw away the developer and fix, then start afresh with your next roll.

 

[Trius]

Sounds like exposure failure to me. Have you used this batch of XTol previously with success?

 

[gb hill]

Acording to Massive Dev. Chart 50 PanF 1+1 with Xtol is nearly 8 min. Could be a factor but any question at all on my chemicals being old & I trash it. Also I use a changing bag to insure no light reaches my film. Better luck next time around, happens to all of us!

 

[erik]

Could be two things: underexposure or under development (perhaps caused by developer exhaustion. Xtol can fail without any outward indication. You can do a test to check that out. Fog from some light leak would show excess density, not less, so I think you can rule that out. I gave up on xtol because of stuff like this.

 

[lemos]

I had some trouble loading the reel, and had to actually push it down the spiral using my fingers, as it wouldn't hold the film to push it. Does that help? Kind of weird that only the last 2 frames were OK.

Perhaps I didn't had the ISO dialed down correctly, or something. I remember changing it near the end to see what kind of readings I would get with a 1600 film.

meh.

 

[Turtle]

could be an Xtol failure, but thats unlikely unless horribly stored. Mine lasts 3-4 months in a half full bottle and a year in a full one.

Xtol stock at 7 mins should have been fine. i recc:

Test same dev stock on some heavily exposed film for recc dev time to ensure it has plenty of guts left in it. If it works fine, sounds like an exposure failure.

 

[MartinP]

Note that Lemos also mentioned that the 'frame guide information' wasn't visible on the film. I was assuming this is the numbering and the text on the edges of the film ? If that isn't there then it would be a strong indication of a development problem.

Except for curiosity, it is usually simpler to get rid of chemicals that are suspect as most of the cost, and all of the effort, lies in the film.

Good luck !

 

[degruyl]

Note that Lemos also mentioned that the 'frame guide information' wasn't visible on the film. I was assuming this is the numbering and the text on the edges of the film ? If that isn't there then it would be a strong indication of a development problem.

Except for curiosity, it is usually simpler to get rid of chemicals that are suspect as most of the cost, and all of the effort, lies in the film.

Good luck !

I concur. If you can't see the frame guide info, and the film is not pitch black (remember: it is a negative) it is bad developer.

Weird that you had two good frames, though. They must have been seriously overexposed.

 

[lemos]

it's very weird :|

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi gang,

I've just had a weird development problem that got me really mad :bang:


I've developed with the following setup:

• ilford panf+ 50 135mm
• xtol stock (7 minutes)
• some ilford fixer (5 minutes)
• water as a stop bath

and the things is, only the two last frames look usable, the rest of the film seems very underexposed (e.g. almost transparent). I can't see the film guide information anywhere along the film btw.


is there an explanation for this? The fixer is old, but as I understand correctly, it usually withstands easily, and xtol also has some months on it already.

Could this be related with the chemicals, or did I ALMOST FOR CERTAIN let some light hit the film while loading the reel? While I was loading it, a very very faint light got through 🙁.

Any explanation to put my mind at ease would be greatly appreciated.


thanks!

Clapped out dev. No edge markings = worn out dev; 2 frames OK = heavy overexposure on those frames; clear film shows that NO light got through while loading, or it'd be fogged.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BillBingham2]

Temp of the solutions during the magic part (souping)?

How old was the developer? What was it's color when you used it? Might have oxidized before use.

What about the previous roll, was it OK?

The last two look somewhat usable, where they all exposed in about the same settings? Batteries OK in the camera? Were the first ones outside and the last two indoors?

B2 (;->

 

[lemos]

thank you all for the input, I'll just blame xtol, as apparently it turns bad without changing colour (will do the paper test though). thanks!