What the *@!??

[Pioneer]

Does anyone know what this is? I have eliminated the scanner, the lens, and the developer. I suspect it may be from inadequate agitation, but I really don't know.

The table top does not look like that.

 

[farlymac]

I've seen that before, but can't for the life of me remember what causes it, Dan. Could be heat damage before developing, or wrong temp while developing. Or even bad film (you don't mention what film it is, some were notorious for defects). Is the entire roll like that, or just in places?

PF

 

[xia_ke]

Looks to me like air bubbles in developing.

 

[Jake06]

Does it make a clean line across the centre of the frame, or is it just harder to see in the shadows?

It could be that you used the wrong quantities of chemicals for the size of the tank, and therefore the top half was developed by bubbles instead of being completely immersed.

Only other thought is that it could be some sort of drying marks. Maybe give the negs another wash in plain water and see if anything changes?

 

[Pioneer]

It is on the entire roll for the past two rolls but it occurred on another roll prior to this. This is the Street Pan 400 I have been shooting but I have other rolls, just as recent, that have no problems.

It has been hot but I have been able to keep my processing solutions between 68 to 74 degrees which has never created a problem in the past. I have also shot and developed some TriX, HP5 and TMX stored at the same temperatures.

I'm baffled. I have another roll and I will develop it this evening. It is very difficult to see on the negative, requires a magnifying glass, so it is not obvious when it comes out of solution.

I have made two recent changes, one in slowing down my agitations, and two by moving from Photo Flo to Tetanal Mirosol for my anti wetting solution. Obviously I am also using different developers as I test this film but this has happened with at least two different developers.

 

[Pioneer]

It is appearing on just one third of the negative so I will check my solution levels. I hadn't though of developing by bubbles but I guess it may be possible. As I remember, one set was developed in beutler together in the same tank with 600ml of solution. The tank calls for 550ml. The other was developed in my Jobo 1500 series tank with 250ml.

Tried washing the film again but nothing changed.

Contacted Plustek and updated software and cleaned the scanner, no change. It is on the negative.

I initially thought I was seeing fungus and I gave all 5 lenses a good inspection but they are in fine shape.

 

[michaelwj]

How timely.
I was just mulling over the spots I've got on some negs I just developed and they look similar to Pioneers, but just less of them. I can't see them on the neg.. It's consistently across the last batch I developed yesterday, never seen it before...
The fixer/stop were a bit old? I've had them for about a month but not unusual.
The film got hot over late summer? This is before exposure and its always hot, so again not unusual.

Film was my usual Fomapan400@250 developed in LQN at 20 deg.

This is a crop, about 1/4 linearly of the film size.

 

[Pioneer]

I am beginning to suspect ghosts may be following us around. 😀

 

[aizan]

looks like reticulation to me.

 

[Pioneer]

looks like reticulation to me.

Certainly a possibility. The film is 80 to 90 degrees F and I am pouring 68F developing solution over it. But if so I would expect the entire frame to be affected, not just part of it.

I understand reticulation to be an actual fracturing of the emulsion, but when I examine the film under a microscope it doesn't look fractured. In fact, the pattern so obviously reproduced on the scanner is very difficult to see. It is actually easier to see when I examine the negative under a strong light, not while against a light box like you would expect. I can't see it all from the emulsion side. I would think reticulation would become more obvious under the magnification of the scope.

Maybe I'm adding too much of the wetting agent?

 

[Pioneer]

I'll see if I can get my copy stand set up tomorrow and photograph the negative with my macro lens. Maybe that will allow us to see it on the negative itself rather than just the scan.

 

[aizan]

hmm...maybe you've got some mirosol residue messing up the development.

 

[michaelwj]

So I washed mine again. This time it wasn't so much of a wash but an active scrub on both sides of the neg between my thumbs and forefinger under running water for a minute or two.
The issue for me is far reduced. I think with some more active washing the problem will be eliminated. Original on left, scrubbed on right.

If I think back, what I normally do is get a bit of dish washing liquid and put it into the final rinse, and in this case I remember there were more bubbles than usual. That I could scrub it off leads me to believe that it was some residue, even though it was not visible at all on the negatives - I don't have a magnifying glass though 🙂

Pioneer, can you try a real wash, rather than a rinse, and see if you can scrub it off? Ideally on a negative of no value (I possibly jumped too quickly to the conclusion that they're not all Pulitzer's). I'd be interested to see if we both simultaneously stumbled across the same f-up.

 

[Pioneer]

hmm...maybe you've got some mirosol residue messing up the development.

You know aizan. That is certainly a good thought. I was going to do some developing tonight but instead I am going to give my reels and tanks a good scrubbing and then let them dry for tomorrow.

 

[thereabouts]

Does anyone know what this is? I have eliminated the scanner, the lens, and the developer. I suspect it may be from inadequate agitation, but I really don't know.

The table top does not look like that.

This looks extremely similar to this on the APUG forum. The general opinion seemed to be reticulation.

A Close up of that image.

 

[williaty]

It's the film ending up above the liquid developer in the foam that sits in the air above the liquid. I just fought this a month or two ago. Mine looked just like yours.

In my case, the problem was that I was using an AP tank WITHOUT the c-clip meant to hold the reels in place. I was developing a single roll of 120 at a time, which puts only a single reel in the tank. My agitation was aggressive enough that the reel was being shaken up to the top of the tank. However, I was setting the tank down gently so as to not make so much noise that I woke my wife up. So the aggressive agitation slung the reel to the top of the core but the gentle set down wasn't causing it to fall back to the bottom of the tank. The result was the about half the roll looked normal because it was "underwater" but the top half of the roll was up in the foam on top of the liquid and got those weird spider web effects.

This was completely resolved by using the c-clip meant to be used with this tank that locks the reel in place so it can't slide around no matter how hard you shake it.


So now all you have to do is to figure out how you're getting your reel up into the foam at the top of the tank.

 

[Pioneer]

That looks exactly like mine Williaty. I don't have any clips but I have noticed that the reels will move around in the tank from time to time.

I am pretty sure I can come up with a pin to keep them down. I'll get the tanks cleaned up and then come up with a way to keep them in place.

Thanks.

 

[Larry H-L]

I think Williaty has the answer, but one other possibility could be condensation on the negatives before it was shot.

Do you keep film in a fridge or freezer? If so, it must warm to room temperature inside the plastic container before removing it from the container, especially in humid weather, or you risk moisture forming on the emulsion, causing a similar mottled pattern.

 

[sepiareverb]

film not submerged in developer is my guess as well.

 

[sreed2006]

Pioneer, it sure looks like foam to me. I think williaty nailed it.

I have had problems with foam, too, and it looks just like your picture.

If the tank calls for 550ml, I add another 100ml just to make sure the reel is covered and those horrid little bubbles cannot be in contact with the film. Even that did not solve it with Caffenol on a 120 roll. I think I did not rinse the tank well enough, and some of the photoflow from the last tank use was still in the tank, leading to foam, but I am not certain where all the foam came from.