pepeguitarra
Well-known
Hi: After the luck I had with my first roll, I was excited. However, after two more rolls, I have not been able to get decent photograph. What am I doing wrong? Here are some shots that show some parallel marks. Can you tell what is that? Is it the development? the Fixing? Is it the camera? the curtain? speed?
Tmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-003 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Tmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-002 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
IlfordDELTA400-TmaxRS-2n061 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
IlfordDELTA400-TmaxRS-2n060 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
It appears like most of the shots with that problem were outside. I was using an M2 with Summicron 50/2 DR. Some other shots in the same roll include:
IlfordDELTA400-TmaxRS-2n058 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Tmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-011 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Tmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-007 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Tmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-006 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
I used:
Developer: TmaxRS (stock, 1:4) for 11min @ 68F
Fixer: Ilford Rapid Fixer
Stop Bath: Kodak (1:19)
Scanned: Epson Perfection V600
Film: Tmax 100
Tmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-003 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrTmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-002 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrIlfordDELTA400-TmaxRS-2n061 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrIlfordDELTA400-TmaxRS-2n060 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrIt appears like most of the shots with that problem were outside. I was using an M2 with Summicron 50/2 DR. Some other shots in the same roll include:
IlfordDELTA400-TmaxRS-2n058 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrTmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-011 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrTmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-007 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrTmax100-M2-Cron50mmDR-006 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrI used:
Developer: TmaxRS (stock, 1:4) for 11min @ 68F
Fixer: Ilford Rapid Fixer
Stop Bath: Kodak (1:19)
Scanned: Epson Perfection V600
Film: Tmax 100
monopix
Cam repairer
Looks like bromide drag to me. What agitation are you using?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
pepeguitarra
Well-known
First 1 minute: Inversion and rotations slowly for 30 seconds.
After 30 seconds (complete first minute): inversion and rotation for 5 secs, repeat for the 11 minutes.
Then, dump the developer and fill in the stop bath. Agitate for 30 seconds (same way) and let it rest for 30 seconds. Dump the stop bath.
Pour the fixer and do 30 secs of agitation, 30 secs of rest, then 5 secs every 30 seconds, till the end of the 5 minutes. Damp fixer and proceed to rinse for 10 minutes. One minute with distilled water and drops of Photoflow, moving up and down the reel. Then, pull it out, squeegee it and hang.
monopix
Cam repairer
If you look at the Kodak data sheet, you'll see that they recommend more vigorous and more frequent agitation than you are using so that would be my first recommendation.
I'm not familiar with the TMax developer but looks like the RS version is a developer to be used in a replenishment system. You might be better with the normal version used as one shot. It also seems that most people recommend a 1:9 dilution so that could also be an issue.
I'm not familiar with the TMax developer but looks like the RS version is a developer to be used in a replenishment system. You might be better with the normal version used as one shot. It also seems that most people recommend a 1:9 dilution so that could also be an issue.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Looks like surge marks to me. How vigorous are you agitating? If it's anything like a cocktail shaker it's too much.
I've never experienced bromide drag using conventional development and times, op says he inverts every 30 sec. that's more than enough agitation, most people invert at 1 min regardless of developer.
The marks show sprocket holes but are also randomized showing to me what looks like turbulence within the tank.
I've never experienced bromide drag using conventional development and times, op says he inverts every 30 sec. that's more than enough agitation, most people invert at 1 min regardless of developer.
The marks show sprocket holes but are also randomized showing to me what looks like turbulence within the tank.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
One thing I did different from the first time: I used a 300 ml (1 reel) plastic tank instead of a 550 ml (2 reels) tank with an empty reel. The instructions called for 450ml of developer. I only used 300ml of developer. Could this be the problem? Not enough developer?
Steve M.
Veteran
I agree. Definitely surge marks on some of the negs. I never heard about having to hurry the film into the developer and never did it either.
If the tank calls for 450 ml of developer and you only used 300, that is your problem, along w/ over agitation, but the lack of proper fill probably caused the chemicals to rush through the sprocket holes leaving the surge marks and uneven developing. My preference is to use a 2 reel tank like you did the first time w/ an empty reel on top because you can agitate it hard and the empty reel will keep you safe from surge marks because it disrupts the flow back. Still, bop the tank hard on a piece of wood on the counter top and use a gentle swirley motion w/ your arms to agitate to avoid issues.
If the tank calls for 450 ml of developer and you only used 300, that is your problem, along w/ over agitation, but the lack of proper fill probably caused the chemicals to rush through the sprocket holes leaving the surge marks and uneven developing. My preference is to use a 2 reel tank like you did the first time w/ an empty reel on top because you can agitate it hard and the empty reel will keep you safe from surge marks because it disrupts the flow back. Still, bop the tank hard on a piece of wood on the counter top and use a gentle swirley motion w/ your arms to agitate to avoid issues.
monopix
Cam repairer
I think the OP said he agitates 5 seconds every minute - unless I misunderstood what he wrote. Maybe he can clarify.
This is what Kodak Says (but, of course, you know better than Kodak).
"Agitate once every 30 seconds. Drop the loaded film reel into
the developer and attach the top to the tank. Firmly tap the
tank on the top of the work surface to dislodge any air
bubbles. Provide initial agitation of 5 to 7 inversion cycles in
5 seconds, i.e. extend your arm and vigorously twist your
wrist 180 degrees as shown below.
Then repeat this agitation procedure at 30-second
intervals for the rest of the development time."
monopix
Cam repairer
Almost certainly. Some tanks specify 300ml for a single 35mm film but if yours says 450ml, then that's what it needs.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Here's what I saw. No mention of 1 minute agitations except after the first initial minute.
Looking at your copy and paste from kodak it looks like the recommend 30 sec agitations which I guess is fine. Makes sense that there could be surging if you are shaking the tank around that much.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
Thanks everyone, after the first minute, I agitated 5 seconds every 30 seconds, for the remaining 10 minutes. Again, my "agitation" was very slow and continuous movement inverting and rotating at the same time. I did hit the top of the counter to dislodge any air gaps.
The formula at the Massive Dev Chart says 450ml. Since I was going to use the 300ml tank, I only used that amount. Definetely, it is not the concentration what we should have in mind, but the actual quantity of the developer. Lesson learned. The first time, I did follow the instructions in the data sheet from Kodak, which calls for vigorously shaking the tank. However, I heard advices that suggested that I threw the instructions away and use certain amount of time and a different solution.
I will go back to the instructions and do as they say.
The formula at the Massive Dev Chart says 450ml. Since I was going to use the 300ml tank, I only used that amount. Definetely, it is not the concentration what we should have in mind, but the actual quantity of the developer. Lesson learned. The first time, I did follow the instructions in the data sheet from Kodak, which calls for vigorously shaking the tank. However, I heard advices that suggested that I threw the instructions away and use certain amount of time and a different solution.
I will go back to the instructions and do as they say.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
As you have already heard, those marks are almost certainly surge of developer through sprocket holes during development.
From the description of your agitation protocol, I don't think its causing the marks. There is substantial latitude in agitation schemes that all result in adequate development without surge marks. I'm rather certain its not the problem here.
Too little developer is the main suspect. I've seen it myself. Without enough developer to fully immerse the film (even just barely to the top edge), you'll get signs of developer surging through the sprocket holes from either inversion or rolling agitation methods. So I think that's your only problem here. Easy solution.
As an aside. I saw above mention of tapping the developing tank hard [on a counter], presumably to dislodge air bubbles. While tapping the tank to dislodge air bubbles is fine and appropriate, I would discourage doing it hard. Its possible to dislodge some emulsion with hard impacts, especially if the film has been pre-wetted or has been in the developer for a while. Only need light taps right after pouring the developer in the tank and that's it.
And in the same vein, I read above about "vigorous" arm-twisting agitation, and "coctail shaker" agitation.
Quite simply: too vigorous. I wouldn't suggest agitating such that bubbles and/or froth are formed. Not even close. Most of us use smooth, gentle, but deliberate tank inversions or sometimes toroidal "rotations". It sounds like you already have good agitation technique.
BTW, I rather like a number of your example images. You're obviously exposing well and using good development times and agitation schemes. Just add some more developer...
From the description of your agitation protocol, I don't think its causing the marks. There is substantial latitude in agitation schemes that all result in adequate development without surge marks. I'm rather certain its not the problem here.
Too little developer is the main suspect. I've seen it myself. Without enough developer to fully immerse the film (even just barely to the top edge), you'll get signs of developer surging through the sprocket holes from either inversion or rolling agitation methods. So I think that's your only problem here. Easy solution.
As an aside. I saw above mention of tapping the developing tank hard [on a counter], presumably to dislodge air bubbles. While tapping the tank to dislodge air bubbles is fine and appropriate, I would discourage doing it hard. Its possible to dislodge some emulsion with hard impacts, especially if the film has been pre-wetted or has been in the developer for a while. Only need light taps right after pouring the developer in the tank and that's it.
And in the same vein, I read above about "vigorous" arm-twisting agitation, and "coctail shaker" agitation.
Quite simply: too vigorous. I wouldn't suggest agitating such that bubbles and/or froth are formed. Not even close. Most of us use smooth, gentle, but deliberate tank inversions or sometimes toroidal "rotations". It sounds like you already have good agitation technique.BTW, I rather like a number of your example images. You're obviously exposing well and using good development times and agitation schemes. Just add some more developer...
Ronald M
Veteran
This works with SS tanks. Do not know about plastic. I suspect the large headroom does not allow developer to recover the fast enough. If 300 covers the reel, probably ok. Measure with water. But then you get all kinds of weird turbulence as developer comes down.
No such thing as surge marks otherwise continuous machine agitation would not work.
MARKS OF ANY KIND ARE CAUSED BY INCOMPLETE DEVELOPER REPLACEMENT IN THE THIN AREAS.
Agitation must be vigorous and random to avoid above. As developer runs over film edges for as long as that takes, it is not random and first 30 sec are critical.
I also recommend dropping reels into a prefilled tank to avoid problems.
With a plastic, you MUST USE THE FUNNEL so the tank fills bottom up and the film get a nice even dunk. Then rotate with twiste. Then cap and invert for balance of time. Rotate 90 degrees as you set it down as this helps to make it random. Two inversions in 30 sec or 4 every 60 will be fine.
If you had the instructions, they will say this.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
Update: New development
Update: New development
I just finished developing a roll of Neopan 100 Acres using the same TmaxRS developer, for 5:15min @68F. This time, I used the 550ml Paterson tank full of TmaxRS stock (1:4). The only difference was the agitation. This time, I used the agitation recommended by Chris. The camera is a Canon P and the lens is a Nikkor PC 50/1.4. I have gotten great results with they combo before (and sent the film to a lab.) Here is what I got:
Neo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS012 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Neo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS010 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Neo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS007 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Neo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS004 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Neo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS001 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr.
I seems like the problem persists. I am now inclined to suspect of the quality of the developer. I bought the concentrate about three months ago and kept it in my wood shop, subject to high 80s and low 50s degrees F. About three weeks ago, I prepared the solution and left it in the same place. Could this developer have gone bad? Tomorrow, I will try another roll of Tmax 100 with Rodinal, and hope to post late in the afternoon. Any additional comments on what can be the cause of this weird development?
THanks, Pepe.
Update: New development
I just finished developing a roll of Neopan 100 Acres using the same TmaxRS developer, for 5:15min @68F. This time, I used the 550ml Paterson tank full of TmaxRS stock (1:4). The only difference was the agitation. This time, I used the agitation recommended by Chris. The camera is a Canon P and the lens is a Nikkor PC 50/1.4. I have gotten great results with they combo before (and sent the film to a lab.) Here is what I got:
Neo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS012 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrNeo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS010 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrNeo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS007 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrNeo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS004 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrNeo100Acros-CanonP-TmxRS001 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr.I seems like the problem persists. I am now inclined to suspect of the quality of the developer. I bought the concentrate about three months ago and kept it in my wood shop, subject to high 80s and low 50s degrees F. About three weeks ago, I prepared the solution and left it in the same place. Could this developer have gone bad? Tomorrow, I will try another roll of Tmax 100 with Rodinal, and hope to post late in the afternoon. Any additional comments on what can be the cause of this weird development?
THanks, Pepe.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
How are you loading the film? Are you loading it in a darkbag or in a "dark" room. I don't think these artefacts look like light leaking in to your darkroom but its worth asking.
What is your regiment in terms of cleanliness. How are you cleaning your equipment after you use it? Perhaps you're getting some chemical contamination.
I cant really think of any other reasons for problems like this to be caused off the top of my head without seeing your variables.
What is your regiment in terms of cleanliness. How are you cleaning your equipment after you use it? Perhaps you're getting some chemical contamination.
I cant really think of any other reasons for problems like this to be caused off the top of my head without seeing your variables.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
Thanks BLKRCAT, I use a changing bag and clean properly. I have researched after your post about cleaning and will double my efforts. I will be developing couple of rolls tonight. I will post them tomorrow. I am going to be strict on every single detail, and I will be using Rodinal for a change.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Good luck. If its worth any merit, the last selection of images does have a very interesting effect to them. Almost remind me of those darkroom prints people do where they splash developed on their prints rather than soaking them.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ronald,
Simply not true. The agitation must be not only continuous, but also even. I have had surge marks from developing 8x10 inch in a Paterson Orbital tank with the motor base (= continuous machine agitation). If the developer is moving freely in some areas, and not in others, the areas in which is is not moving will be under-developed. The areas in which it is moving freely (surging) will be properly developed or (conceivably) over developed.
Like everyone else, I'll back inadequate developer quantity in this case.
Cheers,
R.
Hi,
Very odd markings- in all 5 of the pics above there are areas of good development and exposure and then the cloudy areas scattered about; I notice on your flickr page there are a few which exhibit the same cloudiness- Tmax and a super XP2.
I think it's a developer problem and nothing to do with surge or wrong agitation; as I wrote earlier I just do Stand Development now, so there is no agitation.
I have never seen that sort of marking, but I don't use the same films as you do.
I'm going to keep looking for info.
:::added:::
On the negatives, it'll all be reversed (!) so maybe you have a light leak somewhere as the light bits are totally overexposed and black on the negative. Perhaps you have light leaks in the tank, or the bag you use.
Very odd markings- in all 5 of the pics above there are areas of good development and exposure and then the cloudy areas scattered about; I notice on your flickr page there are a few which exhibit the same cloudiness- Tmax and a super XP2.
I think it's a developer problem and nothing to do with surge or wrong agitation; as I wrote earlier I just do Stand Development now, so there is no agitation.
I have never seen that sort of marking, but I don't use the same films as you do.
I'm going to keep looking for info.
:::added:::
On the negatives, it'll all be reversed (!) so maybe you have a light leak somewhere as the light bits are totally overexposed and black on the negative. Perhaps you have light leaks in the tank, or the bag you use.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
Habemus Papa!!!!!!!
Habemus Papa!!!!!!!
Finally, I completed a roll and it looks fine (with exception of couple of shots that show water drop?). I am not done scanning, but here is the first batch:
1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9003 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9012 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9007 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9004 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9002 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Comments on what I did differently in the next post.
Habemus Papa!!!!!!!
Finally, I completed a roll and it looks fine (with exception of couple of shots that show water drop?). I am not done scanning, but here is the first batch:
1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9003 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9012 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9007 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9004 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr1Neo100Acros-CanonP-ROH9002 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrComments on what I did differently in the next post.