What the *@!??

[FujiLove]

I read a darkroom book a while back where the author tried to produce an example of reticulation. Despite subjecting the (modern) film to crazy changes in temperature there was hardly any evidence of it and he basically gave up. So unless this emulsion has a very old fashioned recipe, it's much more likely to be bubbles in the developer.

 

[BLKRCAT]

How are you guys agitating so hard to induce foaming! That's crazy, when I agitate it's very gentle. I don't do the cocktail shaker method.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I read a darkroom book a while back where the author tried to produce an example of reticulation. Despite subjecting the (modern) film to crazy changes in temperature there was hardly any evidence of it and he basically gave up. So unless this emulsion has a very old fashioned recipe, it's much more likely to be bubbles in the developer.

Pretty sure that was mentioned in one of Roger's and Frances's books actually.

 

[Moto-Uno]

^^ If you're not getting froth in your developer , then you're not agitating the film , but
the best part of this is B&W will give an image with pretty much any regime we chose .
Peter

 

[Pioneer]

I use the method advocated by Kodak in their little online pdf. It shows agitation by inverting the tank in the hand. It then describes doing that 3 times in 5 seconds then tapping the tank on the counter or table 4 or 5 time to clear bubbles. This is my standard agitation method and has been for many years. Doing this always creates a froth of bubbles in the tank but it has never caused a problem for me until now.

The proof will be in the pudding. Hopefully my next batch of negatives will not have this problem. I'll know by tonight.

Thank you all.

 

[Pioneer]

Ok. They have been scrubbed in a vinegar solution then rinsed in hot, hot water. If they are not clean now my wife says I have to use ammonia (phew) and will have to do that in the bowl outdoors.

I have mixed up a liter of Mirasol solution which I will use from now on. (I wonder how long I can use this in solution?)

One thing for sure. If this does fix it, I will use a separate bowl to douse my film from now on. That mirasol is some slick stuff. I put 3 milliliters in 1 liter and it was still very slick on my fingertips. Took a bit to get it rinsed off my fingers as well so I can imagine how it would quickly build up in the tank. Especially since my mixing technique before was to dribble a drop or two...or three...or six into the tank to dose the film. Certainly not very scientific.

Ah well, live and learn.

 

[Highway 61]

How are you guys agitating so hard to induce foaming! That's crazy, when I agitate it's very gentle. I don't do the cocktail shaker method.

Agreed. The agitating purpose is to bring some fresh developer on the film surface. There is no need to shake the tank like crazy. More, turning the tank upside down gently while rotating the tank on its base at the same time by changing hands is better than keeping it in the same hand and just twist one's wrist.

I'm with others suggesting that the film was developed in the regular foam coming from strong agitation, with either no developer enough in the tank or too much free space in the tank above the upper wheel.

As for the Mirasol solution : you can keep it and re-use it for a very long time, actually as far as it's still clear with no visible precipitates and as far as you get clean negatives with no drying stains (which are something benign and easily removable with a microfiber cloth). Of course, you must stock it in a glass bottle so that you can inspect it.

The Mirasol solution has to be poured in the open tank once you have fully rinsed the film. Do not shake or agitate the tank with the Mirasol solution in it, only tap the tank bottom to make the bubbles go up. Leave the fully submerged film(s) about 10 minutes in the solution until all the visible foam has gone away, then hang it for drying without wiping it in your usual drying dustfree place.

And, yes, using a dedicated bowl for preparing the developer is a good thing. It will also prevent for some fixer residues to get in the new developer.

 

[Pioneer]

You guys make this sound as if I am using a paint shaker or something.

Something is causing the pattern on the film. I am still not absolutely certain what is causing it.

I have to start somewhere. So on the assumption that there may be a build up of mirasol in the tank which is interfering with development somehow, I have chosen to start by cleaning everything.

Under the principle that one should choose one variable at a time I have decided to stick with my normal agitation routine, which definitely is not akin to shaking the cocktail shaker.

I guess we'll see.

Thank you for answering some of my questions Highway 61.

As for there not being enough developer in the tank, anything is possible. Good Lord knows I have made enough silly mistakes in my day, this could be another one.

 

[traveler_101]

Agreed. The agitating purpose is to bring some fresh developer on the film surface. There is no need to shake the tank like crazy. More, turning the tank upside down gently while rotating the tank on its base at the same time by changing hands is better than keeping it in the same hand and just twist one's wrist.

I'm with others suggesting that the film was developed in the regular foam coming from strong agitation, with either no developer enough in the tank or too much free space in the tank above the upper wheel.

As for the Mirasol solution : you can keep it and re-use it for a very long time, actually as far as it's still clear with no visible precipitates and as far as you get clean negatives with no drying stains (which are something benign and easily removable with a microfiber cloth). Of course, you must stock it in a glass bottle so that you can inspect it.

The Mirasol solution has to be poured in the open tank once you have fully rinsed the film. Do not shake or agitate the tank with the Mirasol solution in it, only tap the tank bottom to make the bubbles go up. Leave the fully submerged film(s) about 10 minutes in the solution until all the visible foam has gone away, then hang it for drying without wiping it in your usual drying dustfree place.

And, yes, using a dedicated bowl for preparing the developer is a good thing. It will also prevent for some fixer residues to get in the new developer.

According to Tom A. the first one minute of Tri-X in D-76 should be "shake, rattle and roll"! After that firm but controlled inversions. That produces some froth. What about 90 seconds of continuous inversions with stop bath of vinegar and water? That produces quite a bit of froth for me. But I have never seen anything like this on developed film.

I doubt it has anything to do with anything Pioneer is doing or isn't doing. It has go to be the film. What is "Street Pan 400"? Pray tell.

 

[Highway 61]

According to Tom A. the first one minute of Tri-X in D-76 should be "shake, rattle and roll"!

According to decades of practice, and advices from the old darkroom masters (now the Tri-X and D76 combination seems to have existed forever you know), the first one minute of Tri-X in D76 is continuous agitation followed by some firm taps of the tank bottom on the workbench (here the steel tanks have their main advantage over plastic ones, which can break over time), but by no means should this be confused with preparing a cocktail in a shaker to impress the customers at the Waldorf Astoria lounge.

 

[traveler_101]

I take "shake rattle and roll" to mean "get moving" and "keep going" - no pauses in your routine. If we want to stick to bar tending, a bit like a Martini "stirred not shaken." Here is the source of Abrahamson's metaphor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa4FH9mbDGU

 

[pepeguitarra]

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.

It looks like dust in the sensor!

Wait!. That is film. Ok. I give up.

 

[Pioneer]

Ok. So far so good. I developed a roll of Street Pan 400 (which, BTW, is Bellamy's new emulsion being sold through Japan Camera Hunter, and maybe others.)

I did my normal agitation routine (Beutlers) and the fillm seems to have come out fine even though I am being mistaken for my favorite bartender it seems.

I will be developing a second roll this evening and posting tomorrow so if everything holds up I will determine this one resolved, though from the sounds of it there are those who do not believe that froth can be caused by agitation.

It is certainly a good thing that film does not have to be developed EXACTLY the same way by everyone or there would probably be a bunch of us who would certainly have failed the exam.

I did consider it could be a film problem, but all the film I am using came from the same lot (as is everyone else's I would assume.) Since I have used and developed over 40 rolls so far, and all but three rolls have turned out fine, and I have not heard of any similar problems from other users, then I have to "cough, cough" believe it may, possibly, perhaps, potentially, imaginably, feasibly...be a user error.

At least that is the route of inquiry I am following at this time.

If you believe me to be mistaken in this, and I could certainly be in error, feel free to buy some of the film and try your own route of investigation.

 

[sreed2006]

I am so glad you have a sense of humor, Pioneer.

 

[Pioneer]

I am so glad you have a sense of humor, Pioneer.

Oh...I suspect I can get a bit sharp at times. Particularly if I have managed to steal the key to the beer locker from the wife. :angel:

...either that or just fall asleep.

 

[williaty]

For what it's worth, I had to come up to the level of enthusiastic agitation I used based on proper sensiometry. When I developed with the passive twisting-tipping method, my CI on TX and PX was way too low. My professor told me to start shaking it like a cocktail shaker and suddenly I was getting absolutely beautiful results with a bang-on CI and gorgeous prints.

 

[JP Owens]

It has been years now since I had a darkroom, and chemistry was cheap back then, but I always avoided a lot of problems by using a generous amount of chemistry in the tank, and using D76 1 to 1, one shot, and consistently following Kodaks agitation recommendations. Never was very adventuresome in processing B&W.

Fortunately, Tri-X was very forgiving. Even the 1 minute dunk in Dektol, print it wet we used to do on deadline yielded grainy, but useable negatives.

 

[Pioneer]

I was told once, though I have no idea whether or not it is true, that to change out old developer for new takes a bit of agitation. There is a tension at the surface of the film that has to be overcome. That is why Kodak's recommendations for agitation made sense to me at the time.

I have never used a densitometer to check my negatives but my uncalibrated eyeball tells me that is better to put a little bit of muscle into the agitations than to wimp out.

Besides, wimping out was never my style...