Weird mottled look on negatives - what went wrong?

[olliewtf]

Hi all,

Check out this horror show.

This is Pan 400 in RO9. I did 2 rolls in that patterson tub and it has only affected one roll, along one edge running the length of it more or less. This has happened to me before a few months back. Would like to suss it before i develop any more rolls! (does seem to be in the negative fyi)

someone suggested air bubbles, but I was using 600ml solution (so not on the low side) and rasping the tank after agitation to prevent this. Also the effect extends across nearly half the negative - thats alot of bubbles!

My thoughts are that maybe i still had photo flo residue in the tank (though ti was bone dry) and maybe thats where the bubbling is coming from. How do I thorougly clean the tank and reels to prevent this if this is the case?

thanks!

 

[Steve M.]

Could be a developer issue. I had some R09 that went bad after just a few months, and other people reported this on the old APUG site.

The thing is, it could be a lot of things. If it were me, in order to eliminate variables, I would go w/ fresh, new developer.

FWIW, I learned the hard way to always develop one roll of film at a time. Just in case. It's a little less convenient, but we're talking a small amount of time really, and when things do go wrong they don't get multiplied.

You can get the old photoflo out of the tank with hot soapy water and a toothbrush or dish scrubber. I had to give my plastic reels the toothbrush treatment now and then to prevent photoflo build up. It was causing my film to hang up when loading onto the reel.

 

[Ted Striker]

Was the developer foamy when you opened the tank?

 

[olliewtf]

It was a fresh batch of rodinal, just opened.

There was a little foam I think. But a very small amount. So surprising its covered half the neg.

Last time this happened I think it was the same, maybe more foamy - and the results were also more dramatic.

Is it fair to pin this on photoflo and me not cleaning the tank and reels properly after use? Thats my current theory anyhow! I shouldnt need to increase the amount of mixture should I, 600ml is more than adequate?


thanks all!

 

[Filter Factor]

What is your agitation frequency and duration? I do agree that 600ml should be much more than minimally sufficient for just a single roll. What is the full capacity of your tank?

Cheers, Robert

 

[olliewtf]

To clarify - 2 rolls. this affected only one, and Im assuming the one on top. 600ml for both rolls. Its a standard patterson tank and this should be adequate afaik.

agitation for first 30 secs then 10 secs every minute - this particular recipe was 1+25 for 5 minutes. I did have to re-fix the film as my fixer was clearly spent, so off it went back in the tank with fresh mix.

 

[Ted Striker]

I get tremendous foam when I develop my film in Paterson tanks. Enough to spill out of the tank once I remove the lid, but have never seen anything like what you are seeing. I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

[Larry H-L]

It could be foam, but like Ted, I've never seen it that bad.

Is it possible that the film was exposed to moisture / condensation before it was developed? If the film was cold, and then exposed to a warmer and humid environment, some of the emulsion could get sticky on the roll or in the camera, and leave weird markings.

 

[znapper]

Was the developer foamy when you opened the tank?

I think he would have zero photos if he did that =)

The agitation-scheme and procedure is the important factor (as well as a fairly clean tank)

Do you shake the tank like a drink-shaker?
Do you use the stick and swirl very quickly?
Do you do the twist and rotate, method? (I use this and never had a single issue with bubbles or unevenness, 1 minute 45 second mark https://youtu.be/vKVKOnexIY0?t=105 )

How fast are you doing your agitation?

Stick should be avoided, because it keeps the film and developer at the same level at all times, developer can get separated, just like any drink, having more concentrate at the bottom and less at the top (and possibly froth)

 

[olliewtf]

in response to znapper - option 3, the twist and rotate. I do it a bit quicker than that, but this time i actually did it a little softer than I usually would, as i noticed i was a bit over zealous! Ive developed at least 20 films using the same method so im surprised that my process would be that sensitive to agitation, considering im generally doing it exactly like how ive seen in a number of tutorials.

Again, I didnt notice loads of foam - though successful processes have zero foam. Still. with 600ml liquid the foam surely wouldnt rub against nearly half the negative, surely the liquid line would be higher than that - if you follow my convoluted thinking?

 

[Filter Factor]

I too have gotten bubbles from the previous residue of Photoflo, but that of course is why we rap or jar the tank to dissipate them. Hard to believe there could be that much foam, if any. I don't even get that much foam when I do my Photoflo rinse.

If the developer here wasn't Rodinal, I would call into question possibly inadequate mixing - some undissolved particles clinging to the film perhaps. But of course Rodinal is a liquid (and not a syrupy liquid like HC-110) so that is not an issue here.

Cheers, Robert

 

[olliewtf]

Well this is a mystery.

To clarify, tank was rapped. after each agitation. I mean, it wasnt slammed down, more gently tapped. but that should do it surely!

all input greatly appreciated, keep it coming!

 

[znapper]

in response to znapper - option 3, the twist and rotate. I do it a bit quicker than that, but this time i actually did it a little softer than I usually would, as i noticed i was a bit over zealous! Ive developed at least 20 films using the same method so im surprised that my process would be that sensitive to agitation, considering im generally doing it exactly like how ive seen in a number of tutorials.

Again, I didnt notice loads of foam - though successful processes have zero foam. Still. with 600ml liquid the foam surely wouldnt rub against nearly half the negative, surely the liquid line would be higher than that - if you follow my convoluted thinking?

Probably the film (if you do the same when you fix).
To influence the film that hard, you would have to see foam coming out when you poured out the dev. (in my opinion)

 

[mbisc]

Looks to me like you maybe had too little developer in the tank

 

[olliewtf]

600ml solution - i put 26ml of rodinal in, a little too much really. interesting theory but im not convinced it would affect just the one roll on the soup?

I think im just gonna have to go ahead and process the next batch, clean the tank first maybe also pre soak the film and pay more attention to everything.

 

[newsgrunt]

bubbles. one reason why I never let photo flo touch my reels (not that this is the cause but it wouldn't help)

 

[olliewtf]

Interesting. Only issue is I live in London and the water is hard as... erm... concrete? Nah but it really is a pain. Maybe I should do this in a separate container.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I use the very cheap Sainsbury's spring water for developing as my water is hard beyond belief just west of London. It's from the Highlands and very soft.

Can't help with the problem I'm afraid, never had anything like it.

 

[randy stewart]

I think the problem is in the film itself, perhaps hot storage or ??? Photoflo has nothing in it to cause a chemical contamination, and he says the tank was filled. My first reaction was stains from exhausted fixer, but then why only one film of two loaded?

 

[xayraa33]

Hmm, it looks like what Trevor James Constable use to capture on IR film, and what he surmised was the ominous presence of enormous amoeba-like animals inhabiting the earth's atmosphere.

According to Trevor James Constable, these creatures could be the size of a coin or as enormous as half a mile across.