micromoogman
Well-known
It was done according to Ilford specs, 4 turns the first ten seconds every minute. Turns, not shakes, always the same procedure with that film...never failed before, or after this film.
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Okay.
First, the spindle in the middle of a paterson style tank is not flat. it moves up and down as you turn it. so it's possible you had the spindle at the "up" part and the film was out of the developer in that position.
Second, I recommend against the Ilford rotation-only method. I suggest you invert and rotate instead. It only takes one instance of inadequate agitation to suggest you need to switch.
Finally, the sprocket hole development could easily be from surging as you rotated. As the reel moved up and down on the spindle, when it was down there was enough dev and it surged through at a higher speed.
allan
First, the spindle in the middle of a paterson style tank is not flat. it moves up and down as you turn it. so it's possible you had the spindle at the "up" part and the film was out of the developer in that position.
Second, I recommend against the Ilford rotation-only method. I suggest you invert and rotate instead. It only takes one instance of inadequate agitation to suggest you need to switch.
Finally, the sprocket hole development could easily be from surging as you rotated. As the reel moved up and down on the spindle, when it was down there was enough dev and it surged through at a higher speed.
allan
micromoogman
Well-known
If you read my earlier post you'd see that's what I suggested.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
micromoogman said:
I'm not exactly sure what you suggested. You said 'turns.' I assume you meant rotations, not inversions.
anyway. just trying to help.
allan
micromoogman
Well-known
I suggested, just like you do, that the film had moved up, either under agitation or when putting it in the tank, on the tube and therefore not had fully contact with the developer. It sounds plausible. And by turns I meant, to turn it up side down and continue in circular manner, revolve or invert? I think we mean the same thing. Thanks for the help.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Ah, I see that you implied that. But don't blame it on the paterson tank being cheap! It's designed that way so that as you spin it you get some vertical agitation along witht he rotational (using the rotating stick).
allan
allan
Fred
Feline Great
Looks to me like a dev problem as others have stated. Not a light leak. The III IIRC does not have any hinge on the back like the M does (happy to be corrected here) for the light to leak at the top of the film (the bottom of the image). So at least the camera should be fine.
John Shriver
Well-known
As I noted before, it cannot be a light leak. That would be a BRIGHT area on the print. Dark doesn't leak.