View Full Version : What did I do wrong?
Hello. I recently developed a couple of rolls of Tri-X in DDX and the negatives came out a bit cloudy and covered with vertical stripes lining up with the perforation holes. Might anyone know how I screwed up? Thanks in advance!
(Here's a sample: not a great image, but shows the stripes well)
sleepyhead
03-17-2009, 05:05
Are you sure that they line up with the sprocket holes? the spacing seems abit variable in the example you provided.
I have to confess that I've not seen anything EXACTLY like this streaking problem before. If the stripes DO line up with the sprocket holes then it could be an agitation during development problem. But this usually shows up stronger near the edges of the film, while your stripes are strong in the centre as well...
I'm wondering about your fixing step. Are you sure that the fixer ws fresh? You could try sacrificing a test frame and stick it in dish of fixer for a while - do the streaks on the film look at all brown-ish or purple-ish or pink-ish? If so, they should disappear on re-fixing. Rinse with water as usual afterwards.
My third hypothesis is some kinda light leak from the back of your M body - again if the streaks line up with the sprocket holes perhaps the problem is with your camera back/pressure plate assembly...
like2fiddle
03-17-2009, 05:26
I think probably initial agitation a little too aggressive.
I think probably initial agitation a little too aggressive.
Looks to me like in-camera light leaks from bad seals entering
through film sprocket holes.
What is the camera and condition of its seals?
David William White
03-17-2009, 10:44
Refix the film. Today.
shadowfox
03-17-2009, 10:47
Hello. I recently developed a couple of rolls of Tri-X in DDX and the negatives came out a bit cloudy and covered with vertical stripes lining up with the perforation holes. Might anyone know how I screwed up? Thanks in advance!
(Here's a sample: not a great image, but shows the stripes well)
If the "cloud" on the negatives are opaque (some people describe it as "milky"), then the fixer is not reaching those parts of the film.
If you suspect the camera, shoot a throw-away color negative film and give it to a minilab to develop, if you still see the stripes and this time it's orange when scanned, then it's a light leak from behind the film (i.e the back or bottom of the camera).
Do the stripes appear in all of the frames, or just some?
A light leak seems unlikely - it would involve a series of roughly equally spaced leaks. Were there any unusual things about developing this roll - problems feeding onto the reel, etc., etc.?
Do the stripes appear in all of the frames, or just some?
A light leak seems unlikely - it would involve a series of roughly equally spaced leaks.
Why? Light leaking through rotten seals would not produce
uniform leaks. These days rotten seals are common on
older 35mm cameras and newbies often don't know they
should be replaced. It's a very likely reason for the effect
shown in the OP. Leaky seals around the film chamber do
produce effects that look just like that.
David William White
03-17-2009, 20:32
No, these 'light leaks' are from light coming through the sprocket holes while the film is wound on the developing reel after it has been insufficiently fixed. It looks 'mechanical' and one would first think of the camera, but the effect is generated while the film is in the reel.
Refixing will clear the negatives. Either mixing up a fresh batch, replenishing the fixer straight from the bottle, or (last), just fixing longer. I've refixed film after days and it has cleared the streaks. Also need to mention that there is no danger of over-fixing.
Hope the original requestor takes just 10 minutes to refix before selling his camera.
D.
This has an appearance that is consistent with many descriptions and examples of bromide drag - uneven development from under-agitation in the development step. Google for the term and you will find a lot of discussion and examples.
eg http://www.flickr.com/photos/heliophile/2226476625/
This has an appearance that is consistent with many descriptions and examples of bromide drag - uneven development from under-agitation in the development step. Google for the term and you will find a lot of discussion and examples.
eg http://www.flickr.com/photos/heliophile/2226476625/
Chris, that was my first thought too. But, the lines seem way too uniform for bromide drag. And, as mentioned they seem to line up with the sprocket holes. Looks like a light leak... :confused:
david said it all...just refix
Chris, that was my first thought too. But, the lines seem way too uniform for bromide drag. And, as mentioned they seem to line up with the sprocket holes. Looks like a light leak... :confused:
I can't think how an M2 could leak light in a way that would cause that pattern associated with the sprocket holes. When you study the M-cameras closely in that department, you see they designed it so that's almost impossible. I have had this effect only once myself, and that was stand development for 1 hour with Rodinal 1+100, with no agitation after the initial agitation on filling the tank. And in that case, the streaking was tied to the sprocket holes. Since then I've done several rolls with semi-stand development, with mild agitation at 30 minutes, with good, even development.
I can't think how an M2 could leak light in a way that would cause that pattern associated with the sprocket holes. When you study the M-cameras closely in that department, you see they designed it so that's almost impossible. I have had this effect only once myself, and that was stand development ...
yeah, that's why I was wondering (:confused:) about the explanation myself. But, if he has agitated during development, even semi-stand, the uniform streaking seems a rather improbable case. The agitation should create an uneven bromide drag. I usually add in a bit more developer solution than the prescribed amount.
like2fiddle
03-18-2009, 04:14
I still say they look like surge marks from agitating. Another possibility might be exhausted developer.
Thanks everyone for their helpful suggestions. The answer doesn't seem a straightforward one, so perhaps some more detailed information is in order.
sleepyhead - Yes, the stripes line up exactly with the perforation holes.
KenD - Yes, all the frames show some striping, though some are more noticeable than others. Ditto milky-ness
And here's a tracing of my development steps:
Camera was M4-2, using Tri-X rated at 400. No problems with light leaks before.
1. Developer was fresh DDX 1+9 for 12.5 minutes, with 3 agitations after the first minute and 1 agitation every three minutes after
2. Stop bath for 30s
3. Fixer was Ilford diluted to 1+9. I agitated ~20 times for the first minute then a couple of times every minute for a total of 5 minutes. I had used the batch once the day before.
4. Wash (Ilford method)
5. Hypoclear 2mins
6. Wash (Ilford method)
7. Photoflo for 30s
8. Hang to dry
I just tested the same batch of fixer using a strip from a bulk spool. It cleared entirely in 5 mins.
Here are a couple more samples.
68414
The milky-ness and striped-ness are more noticeable on this one than the other below. The milkiness look beside her left arm is also milky looking on the negative.
68415
To show the spectrum, this one shows the least of the effect.
David William White
03-18-2009, 05:15
You tested the fixer, but you didn't try refixing the film! You are supposed to use double the clear time of a test strip.
Just drop the film in a bowl or tray of fixer (skip the reel) and wash. You don't need to agitate the fixer, either.
This has an appearance that is consistent with many descriptions and examples of bromide drag - uneven development from under-agitation in the development step. Google for the term and you will find a lot of discussion and examples.
eg http://www.flickr.com/photos/heliophile/2226476625/
I tend to agree on that.
Once I did some experiments on develop times for Neopan ACROS 100.
Until then I only developed this film with continuous agitation and I got tired of it (and wanted to try to have less contrasty results :) )
So I cut off a roll into 5cm pieces and development tests in an open tank.
in one of the tests I let the film strip lay down in the developer without any agitation for reasonable time (that was one of the last test for the experiment, so I knew approximately the dev times)
I'm telling you all that because that film slip has the same marks as shown here.
According to what matt wrote:
"1. Developer was fresh DDX 1+9 for 12.5 minutes, with 3 agitations after the first minute and 1 agitation every three minutes after"
that is way too little agitation, to my knowledge.
Try to agitate more.
Ilford fix should be mixed 1:4 for film, 1:9 for paper only.
David William White
03-18-2009, 09:02
Ah, there you go!
Now get off your a** and refix.
spyder2000
03-18-2009, 11:45
The first sample you posted looks like mechanical damage to the film. The last two samples look a little less but can be explained if those exposures are the early ones on the roll.
Assess your film handling technique. Dou you handle your film cartridge after removal from the camera? As in hold the spool ends between your fingers and then rotate the canister? If so, there is your problem. The film gets folded back on itself in the cassette and the marks you see are stress marks which will not be removed by refixing. The marks line up with the sprocket holes becausethe film is weaker at those points and that is where it bends.
That roll of film would have felt 'different' while being loaded onto the processing reel.
Ilford fix should be mixed 1:4 for film, 1:9 for paper only.
Yes - I've made that mistake in the past, and fixed for 10 minutes instead of three.
Ah, there you go!
Now get off your a** and refix.
Thanks for the kick in the pants!
I just finished re-fixing and the stripes and cloudiness are GONE! The zebras are now just white horses (or black horses when printed ;)
I'll be getting them re-scanned tomorrow and will post the "after" images when I get 'em.
Thanks again for the help and encouragement. I'm really keen on quite a few of the images and was really worried they were done for.
Follow up question: Is it ever possible to "over-fix" film?
crawdiddy
03-18-2009, 18:41
I was going to go along with ChrisN, our buddy from Canberra. I've had similar results which went away after I started agitating more vigorously (Previously I was using a swirling motion of the tank, but still holding the tank upright; I began using inversions, which corrected the problem.)
The required agitation can depend on the type of reels in use. When I was using aprons, less agitation was required, and did not result in sprocket-hole stripes. When I switched to stainless steel reels, more agitation was required. I think it's because the steel coils block the circulation of developer more than the scalloped, or crinkled edges of the aprons. And the sprocket holes allowed slightly more circulation, thus resulting in uneven development.
Anyhoo, apparently it was a Fixer issue. Different step, but essentially the same root cause.
The required agitation can depend on the type of reels in use. When I was using aprons, less agitation was required, and did not result in sprocket-hole stripes. When I switched to stainless steel reels, more agitation was required. I think it's because the steel coils block the circulation of developer more than the scalloped, or crinkled edges of the aprons. And the sprocket holes allowed slightly more circulation, thus resulting in uneven development.
The rolls were developed in steel reels. You might be onto something...
David William White
03-18-2009, 18:52
Excellent! I was so worried about those poor negatives, and look forward to seeing fresh scans.
About over-fixing: No real worry there. All the fixer can remove is the unexposed & undeveloped emulsion. In a recent thread here I actually left both a 4x5 neg and a print in full-strength fixer for 3 days with arguably no effect. So 10 minutes, 20 minutes, an hour won't make a difference.
David.
Thanks for the kick in the pants!
I just finished re-fixing and the stripes and cloudiness are GONE! The zebras are now just white horses (or black horses when printed ;)
I'll be getting them re-scanned tomorrow and will post the "after" images when I get 'em.
Thanks again for the help and encouragement. I'm really keen on quite a few of the images and was really worried they were done for.
Follow up question: Is it ever possible to "over-fix" film?
Thank God that was the fix and not the development :)
Everyday you learn something new (I mean "me")
And regarding the "Over-fix" question:
I cannot find it, but lately there was a discussion here on the same issue.
(maybe someone would help me find it :D)
The conclusions I've got is that you can only over-fix when you take your fixing to the extremes - more than 10 times the suggested time of the manufacturer.
I'm fixing with the Tetenal fixer and used to have fixing times of double than the suggested, without any problems.
As a rule of thumb, the sufficient fixing period is double the time it takes the emulation to get cleared from the celluloid.
Take the lead of an undeveloped film (the piece you cut before rolling the strip on the reels), drip a single drop of fixer on it and start measuring the time.
Stop the timer when you see the place with the drop is absolutely clear.
The fixing times is the double of what you measured.
And as I said before, higher than that is not a problem (unless you give it an overnight experience :p)
Oh, and don't forget to agitate...
David William White
03-19-2009, 08:53
I think you may be referring to this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69502
Sir Roger put an upper safe limit of 10x clear time. I'm showing it can much higher (with Ilford Rapid Fix) without worrying.
D.
Got the fresh, post-re-fix scans this afternoon. Here are a couple "After's" from the earlier "Before's."
684466844768448
I should have the batch posted to the web soon.
David William White
03-19-2009, 22:44
Vast improvement!
Vast improvement!
Thanks!
Here's a link to the batch of "Before's":
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattandhiscatt/sets/72157615580196967/
And here's a link to the batch of "After's":
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattandhiscatt/sets/72157615666078484/
sleepyhead
03-20-2009, 01:18
Got the fresh, post-re-fix scans this afternoon. Here are a couple "After's" from the earlier "Before's."
684466844768448
I should have the batch posted to the web soon.
Glad to hear it - so it was my hypothesis #2 - the fixer.
I can't think how an M2 could leak light in a way that would cause that pattern associated with the sprocket holes.
Oops -- I missed that it was an M2. My mistake. :)
dufffader
03-20-2009, 07:28
With a fresh sample of Ilford's rapid fixer I have gone up to 8 mins without any issue. But I did read issues with overfixing if you overdo it. I've never accidentally done it so far.
David William White
03-20-2009, 07:44
Hey, Matt: That's a great collection of moments you've captured. Great to see the before and after sets. Hopefully this will help others. Better to take action instead of hand-wringing about agitation and bromide drag and all that fluff.
Duffader: No worries -- see the thread I referenced.
Overfixing usually dont cause a problem - but if you use a fine grain film or thin emulsion film you can get an "etching" effect that removes or "blurs" very fine details. You really have to "stew" it though to get this.
I use a roller agitator for my fixing (it is very boring to stand there and flip the 5 reel tanks). It is one of the old Uni-Rollers that has a back and forth rotation (2 turns on direction, then switches to two turns the other direction). It also has a slight "wobble" in the long direction that ensures an even flow across the negative.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.