What went wrong with this film??

[micromoogman]

The whole (almost) roll shows a dark border at the bottom edge. Could you tell by the picture what's wrong? Haven't noticed on any other film taken with that camera.
Leica IIIB
Voigtlander 25/4
Delta 400
Xtol

[Nachkebia]

Love the image though, don`t have a clue whats wrong with film :)

[kaiyen]

dark on positive...means light on negative...means you didn't put enough developer in the tank.

allan

[eric]

Is it C41 process film? Or roll tank developed? I have 2 guesses, both are proably wrong.
Kinda...I say kinda because it's not the typical kind, looks like agitation marks. OR your camera could have a light leak on the back cover on top. Can you take a roll and point the camera to the sky and then point it to something middle grey? Then develop again.


Or could you scan the negative and keep it as a negative image (including the entire frame.

[micromoogman]

Delta 400 with xtol in a tank. But I think it must be a light leak...there are 8 visible spotsm most likely the sprocket holes in the film... But it's a strict bottom loader and where did the light come from in that case :confused:

[eric]

Delta 400 with xtol in a tank. But I think it must be a light leak...there are 8 visible spotsm most likely the sprocket holes in the film... But it's a strict bottom loader and where did the light come from in that case :confused:

Hmm, that is strange. Ag marks usually come on both ends of the sproket holes, yours is only one. And they are mostly in the highlight areas.

But it will be pretty bizarre for a bottom loader to have those. Unless, its spooling the other way around.

[VictorM.]

It looks like not enough developer in the tank. Or you have poured the developer in after loading the film and stopped near the top and then continued.

[kaiyen]

Victor,
Unless development time was really short, starting, stopping, then restarting shouldn't yield that dramatic underdevelopment just on the edge like that.

I'm glad someone else chimed in with insuffiicent developer. I felt like my post got lost. But perahps it still did...

allan

[John Shriver]

I can't be a light leak, since it would have to be a dark leak to make dark areas on the print. Dark doesn't leak, only light.

Almost certainly too little developer. Are the edge markings faint on that edge compared to the other one?

If it weren't for the sprocket pattern, it could be cruft on the edge of one of the shutter curtains.

[Ronald M]

Insufficient developer solution or agitation.

Always drop loaded reel into the prefilled tank unless it is plastic.

[micromoogman]

The markings at the edge are as clear as on the other side. It must be too little developer in the tank... Or if the film moved up slightly on the barrel in the tank. It's one of those cheap Paterson tanks. Thank you all for input!

dark doesn't leak... :) maybe they could come up with a film that is dark sensitive? That would be something :D "Load the film in extreme daylight"

[micromoogman]

As it came up, how about this for a light leak? Not a RF pic but anyway... beat it if you can :)

[VictorM.]

"The markings at the edge are as clear as on the other side. It must be too little developer in the tank... Or if the film moved up slightly on the barrel in the tank. It's one of those cheap Paterson tanks. Thank you all for input!"

There's a plastic clip that fits over the tube that holds the reels. It's supposed to keep the reel from moving up the tube. I've had a set of 'cheap' Patterson plastic tanks and reels since 1971! They still work well. I sold my stainless tanks.

[kbg32]

I found the plastic Paterson tanks and reels to be horendous when I first started to learn how to develop film, though some people love them. I never had a roll come out without some problem in a plastic tank. Patersons are notorious for causing air bubbles and leaving undeveloped spots on film. Loading and processing in stainless steel tanks are not that problematic. Once you master it, it becomes second nature.

[dadsm3]

Always ensure you put a second empty spool on top of the lower one in a Paterson 2-reel tank. I also use 350ml of dev/stop/fix instead of the recommended 300ml for one reel.

[chris91387]

how does the writing along the sprockets look? the the letter/numbers top and bottom of the roll match each other? this could help decide whether or not their was enough developer in the tank.

can you scan the entire piece of film and post?

p.s., steel tanks and reels are my preference as well.

[micromoogman]

Here comes a part of that film... Btw, if it was too little dev. in the tank, why do you see the sprocket holes in the pics? Shouldn't it be an all darkish border?

[chris91387]

very strange, looks like it fogged above each sprocket hole.

- chris

[wtl]

Here comes a part of that film... Btw, if it was too little dev. in the tank, why do you see the sprocket holes in the pics? Shouldn't it be an all darkish border?

you agitated the tank during developing so the film edge still got wet but not enough chemical and duration to develop the part fully.

[VictorM.]

very strange, looks like it fogged above each sprocket hole.

- chris

That 'fogging' is overdevelopment caused by too much agitation.

[micromoogman]

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.

[kaiyen]

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

[micromoogman]

If you read my earlier post you'd see that's what I suggested.

[kaiyen]

If you read my earlier post you'd see that's what I suggested.


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]

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]

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

[Fred]

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]

As I noted before, it cannot be a light leak. That would be a BRIGHT area on the print. Dark doesn't leak.