View Full Version : Development Issues in Shadows
All, I have some questions regarding the photos provided below. The first image, developed last night, shows some funny shadow areas on the front end of the rightmost car. The second photo has overall issues in the shadows. Can anyone tell me what's going on. I *think* I may be agitating too much but would like additional thoughts. I normally develop Neopan 400 in D76 for 7.5 minutes. Pour in developer, which takes about 10 seconds, and then agitate until 30 seconds. Then 5 inversions every minute. This is not the first time I have noticed this but it is hit or miss. Some negatives come out ok, some look like the ones below. I scan on my Epson v700 (if that matters). Thoughts???
Development Problem (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photozed/5107372939/) by photozed (http://www.flickr.com/people/photozed/), on Flickr
Development Problem (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photozed/5107965794/) by photozed (http://www.flickr.com/people/photozed/), on Flickr
Inadequate agitation, not excessive agitation. The latter is almost impossible unless you set up absolutely even agitation patterns -- effectively impossible with an invert/twist cycle. The 'hit or miss' is because it's right on the edge of inadequate, i.e. it's adequate sometimes. 'Excess agitation' as a source of streaking is one of the great myths of the internet.
Thanks Roger. Shows I still have a bit to learn. I will look into better agitation techniques.
Well just to be contrary, the first image appears to have absolutely zero problems on front end of car except under exposure. Looks like exposure was set for background and not foreground.
Second image looks like very flat contrast(except some almost specular bits) so either the subject was like that or it is under developed. But if it was under developed the cupboard doors would be black and they are grey. I suspect under development combined with poor scan which doesn't illustrate what neg really looks like.
Agitation? Probably not an issue here.
I'm seeing clear streaks in the second picture, which is why I suggested inadequate agitation.
possibly. I'm not entirely sure about second image. Looks like a fogged print but could be under development with some agitation streaks. Possibly bad fixing. Were both images from same roll?
Yes both from the same roll. First photo is exposure 5 while the second is exposure 17.
Also, the fixer is fresh and total fix time was around 4.5 minutes.
well, if those are surge marks from sprocket holes, then your inversions are causing them. That is usually from turning the tank over too slowly so that you get flow through sprocket holes and across film which gives extra dev causing lines. Invert tank faster. I move tank in parabolic curve without stopping. At top of curve, where liquid becomes momentarily weightless, I invert quite quickly and continue movement down as developer falls to bottom of tank. And repeat. 5 inversions is plenty, I usually only do three.
To me both pictures are underexposed or underdeveloped, or both. Or scanned incorrectly. That you have streaks is as Roger says another matter. There are probably as many inversion techniques are there are people developing film. I donīt do 135 film, but with 120 film I seem to get it right. I hold the tank in both hands and and rotate it away from me as far as I can without twisting my wrists off, and back. I can do 4 in 10 seconds. Between each inversion sequence I rotate the tank 90 degrees (as seen from top to bottom) so that the next inversions are not twisting the tank along the same axis. Oh, and not to forget to give the tank a good knock against the counter after each inversion sequence.
I would probably go with the underexposed or underdeveloped (or both) option. Scanning doesn't seem to be an issue because I got several nice images from the same roll (and same scanning). I'm going to shoot some more today and use the advice received here.
Especially the garage scene is difficult. Backlit as it is. You may be asking too much of the film/developer combination. A compensation developer that has both good highlight and shadow control would help, rather than one that enhances contrast. A compensation developer will inhibit highlight development to allow shadow details to develop before the highlights blow. Which often means a two bath developer.
I can only see the second shot. It is underexposed, and the agitation is insufficient/uneven, which as
Roger pointed out, brings forth the streaking. Dilute the developer 1+1 for longer dev time, and agitate cnsistently throughout - the problem should go away on properly exposed frames.
D-76 should always be diluted, otherwise the development times are way too short and you get things like streaks and such. Develop for 6-7 minutes at least, with more agitation than the book says, especially with 120 film. And I agree that both pics are underexposed. I was never a huge fan of Neopan, either, even though most shooters rave about the stuff.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.