Agitation or shutter? Problems with 120 film.

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I have just finished my first semester of photography. I did quite well, and turned out some images I am quite proud of. I have learned the basics of film development, but I have encountered a problem I can't readily solve at the moment. This course was primarily 35mm, but I was allowed to use medium format and turned out some good images on those. Never really any development problems that baffled me.<br>

Unfortunately my TLR camera broke, but I just replaced this with a Hasselblad 500 cm medium format SLR. I shot a roll of this today, and then immediately developed the film since it was the last day to do this in the lab for this semester. The negatives had some dark streaks along what would be the bottom of the photo when printed. Looking over the roll, the outer edges of most of the frames seem dirty or wobbly.<br>

In trying to assess what is going on, I realized I am confused as to the orientation of the film and how the shots are oriented on the film plane. Looking at the negatives, holding them out horizontally, the images are sideways. The top of the frame is on the left. I thought; why are the images sideways when the film runs horizontally like this? Could someone explain the orientation of the image in relation to the film while running through the camera? I am getting a bit confused.<br>

So, looking at a couple frames which I will attempt to upload, there is a dark, muddled streak along the bottom of the frame. Looking at the negative as it would be loaded on the steel reel I used, it runs vertical, that is from one side of the spiraled reel to the bottom. But there also seems to be a bit of darkness running along the bottom (or side of the frame) in some images.<br>

Could this be an agitation or development issue? If so, I will be greatly relieved. I just bought this camera, and want to make sure it is in good working order before the 14 day trial expires. I was wondering if it could be the shutter release in the film magazine.<br>

I took a second roll right after, and these turned out fine it seems. I tried to agitate more evenly, but even thoughtI have this better roll, I am wondering if this is a sporadic problem that the camera is having or just my ineptness with developing.<br>

If anyone could help me, I would REALLY appreciate it. Thanks so much.<br>

Bad negatives:<br>

<img src="http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/cocoguitar/Negative1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/cocoguitar/MeonCarNeg.jpg<br>

Also, here is some information on particulars with the problem roll:<br>

Shot on Tri-X, shot 400 ISO. Developed in D-76 at 1:1 for 11 minutes. Agitated for first minute, sat for second, and then 5 inversions every minute after. This has worked for every other roll I have done this way, 35 or 120.</p>

<p>Here are two images that turned out on the second test roll. On the second, the vertical line is from my stupid scanner.<br>

<img src="http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/cocoguitar/SmallSculpturedownsized.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/cocoguitar/StairsatArts2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It's a development issue and I would suggest that you change you agitation regime to six inversions in the first 30 seconds, then one inversion every 30 seconds after that.</p>

<p>Cody,</p>

<p>Your problem is local overdevelopment of the film edge(s) caused by uneven agitation.</p>

<p>I had a big headache with agitation problems like yours when I first took up medium format years ago. I ended up exposing roll after roll under the enlarger and developing with different agitation schemes to find what gave even development overall. This is what I found:</p>

<p>First, make sure you are not overfilling your tank. If you fill completely to the top, the developer will not mix as well during agitation and it will create areas of surge at the edge(s) (usually the top edge which is the bottom of the image). Put empty reels in your tank, fill it up with water until the reels are submerged by about an eighth of an inch or so. Measure how much fluid this is and use that amount of developer when developing.</p>

<p>Second, I found I really needed to agitate a lot more with 120 film than 35mm film. Six inversions in the first 30 seconds is not too much. After that, I did two rapid and vigorous inversions every 30 seconds thereafter. If you end up agitating a lot more than you used to, you may have to shorten your development time a bit (maybe 10% to start). Don't be afraid to really shake things up; it's not a cocktail, but it does need thorough mixing. Err on the side of too much agitation to start with (it might not even be too much).</p>

<p>Hope this helps,</p>

<p>Doremus Scudder</p>

<p>Cody,</p>

<p>Especially on used gear, the Hasselblad magazines can leak light if their seals are not replaced over time. They will do so at the edge next to the dark slide, that is where the problem begins.</p>

<p>Two questions:</p>

<ol>

<li>Are you using stainless steel reels and tanks or plastic ones?</li>

<li>Have you been pre-soaking your film with a water rinse before you develop it?</li>

</ol>

<p>I have been developing 120 film for more than 30 years. I've not experienced the problems most people show here with uneven development . The only thing I can suspect is that it is the plastic reels and development without pre-soak.</p>

<p>After that effect is overcome, the approach to agitation effects contrast, primarily on high values of the print - increasing density depending on the type of developer used and the length of time in the solution.</p>

<p>Give us more information to help you.</p>

<p>". . . Could someone explain the orientation of the image in relation to the film while running through the camera? "</p>

<p><strong>Film orientation</strong>: look carefully at this photo of a Hasselblad: http://www.photo.net/equipment/hasselblad/501cm-kit-blumenthal Or, just look at yours.</p>

<p>Notice the spools run the film vertically. The spools are held in a horizontal position, with the film flowing from the top to the bottom. This means that the top edge would appear along the side of a negative that points toward a spool.</p>

<p>[if you were to turn the camera on its side (not common, because of the shape of the framing of a 6X6) then the top of the frame would appear along an edge of the negative strip, perpendicular to the spools.]</p>

<p>Since in most cases, the top edge will fall along a side with a spool, it's either one or the other. The top is likely to appear on the left for two reasons: film and image orientation. Film orientation shows us that the emulsion side of the film will be hit by the light first. Image orientation shows us that the image will be upside down as it exits the lens (we see the image right side up through many viewfinders, because they were designed to show us the image this way).</p>

<p>Upside down, striking the emulsion side first, on a side with a spool, in a camera where the full spool is on top and the takeup spool is on the bottom: all of this together will put the top of your frame on the left side of film, when seen through the glossy film base.</p>

<p>When you lay a piece of film down, or hold it, after development, it will have a natural bow to it. [Transverse plane, a bow in cross-section.] The rough, concave side is the emulsion side. The smooth, convex side that we often look through is actually the back of the film; the smooth film base; we see through this base, through the emulsion, when commonly looking at a negative.</p>

<p>When you look through a piece of film so that its image appears normal; you are actually looking through the back of the film. Your eye is on the same side the lamp will be when light shines through the negative during printing.</p>

<p>To see for yourself a camera's image orientation (upside down), place the camera in a dark environment, pointing it at a moderately bright household lamp. Lock the shutter open on bulb. Door of the camera or film back removed (check procedure for your camera). Place a thin sheet of paper along the film plane. Look at the image that shines slightly through the translucence of the paper. Look at the structure of the camera. You will see, if you don't understand, why the top of the frame is on the left side of the negative as you look at it later.</p>

<p>By the way, the image orientation on the film is often unimportant to later processing. We print the negative so that the emulsion side of the film faces the emulsion side of the print paper. Other than that, we could rotate the print paper any way we wanted; or feed the negative into the enlarger's negative carrier either side first. As a practical matter, when we focus the enlarger, we will see the image projected onto the easel. If we don't like the direction, we can just change the feed of the negative carrier or the position of the print paper.</p>

<p>That first image sure looks like a light leak. Is that bright snow in the background? Note that the problem area bleeds a bit outside the defined frame area. I reversed things to make it more obvious.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Conrad,</p>

<p>You've convinced me. This looks a lot more like a light leak or excessive flare and not developing issues! Although getting the right agitation scheme is important, it's not the culprit here and Cody should be looking for other causes of his problem besides agitation Also, the orientation of the image on the negative is not correct for edge surge overdevelopment. My error. (sorry Cody for the misleading post.)</p>

<p>This problem could be a light leak at the back or around the darkslide hole, but it could also be a strong light source or refection just outside of the area of view. Cody, if this doesn't show up regularly, I'd assume the latter. However, if you see this a lot, your film back probably needs a repair.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Doremus Scudder</p>

<p>Thanks for all the help everyone. It is all very much appreciated. These rushed shots were taken out in bright snow. And I used stainless steel reels, not plastic ones, and I don't do a pre-soak. Our professor never mentioned a pre-soak, so I am unaware of its purpose.</p>

<p>Are repairs like this expensive? I already paid quite a bit for this camera and am worrying now. I found it odd that this one roll had these leaks, and the second didn't. Also, I just realized that after I scanned this, I didn't flip it horizontally to show the true orientation. This is reversed. Where would the light be coming from? From the slit where the darkslide goes?</p>

<p>Looking at the back film carrier, I understand the film orientation. Thanks for the explanation, John.</p>

<p>Generally, bright snow would be the first place you might discover a light leak. I don't know anything about the 'blad backs, but dark slides are sealed with velvet or some kind of compliant seal. It's always bad practice to insert or withdraw a dark slide in direct light- it should be done shielded by your shadow or a card or something. At least that's how I've always done it for large format. If the back seals to the body with felt or foam seals, examine them and replace where necessary. This is usually an inexpensive diy job. If the seal is by a complex mechanical path (labyrinth) that should be good unless the parts aren't being pulled together tightly. Also check the pressure plate to be sure the film is properly against the film gate. No doubt there are some 'blad experts here who can give you something much more specific. I wouldn't worry too much as all this stuff is repairable unless it's actually cracked or broken. You might also try a post in the medium format forum.</p>

<p>Is the picture of the lady the first or last frame on the roll? If it is, the problem may not be a light leak in the camera, but an inadvertent leak while loading or unloading the roll.</p>

<p>I do not have a 'blad, but I have managed similar things while unloading my Bronica S2A. You have to keep that paper backing tight, especially in bright light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...I don't do a pre-soak. Our professor never mentioned a pre-soak, so I am unaware of its purpose."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pre-soaking serves little or no purpose with rollfilm development. It's often discussed and recommended on forums without clarification of the benefits, which are, frankly, of dubious value other than with sheet film development and older style emulsions. At this point in your experience it's best to avoid adding any step that isn't specifically in the instructions from the manufacturer or your course of study.</p>

<p>For now, stick with the standard development techniques specified on the Kodak or Ilford sites, depending on which film you use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"without clarification of the benefits"...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The pre-soaking technique conditions the emulsion for the developer and helps to dissolve the anti-haliation coating of the emulsion, which is present in all emulsions you will use in your camera, old or contemporary manufacture.</p>

<p>It also greatly serves to bring all the tank and reels to the same temperature, which aids in being consistent with the development process.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>For now, stick with the standard development techniques specified on the Kodak or Ilford sites, depending on which film you use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fortunately, Kodak and Ilford don't punish those who color outside the lines if you get my drift. You will learn a lot here on what to do and not do... but unfortunately opinions don't necessarily solve problems!</p>

<p>Cody you are doing a fine job from what you are showing here on your quest to make better photographs.</p>

<p>OK . . . I am tired this morning, but . . .<br>

The first image posted here is a negative. On a negative, don't light leaks show up as darker areas? What is showing here is lighter, not darker. This clearly looks like a development problem to me.<br>

Am I missing something?<br>

Ed</p>

<p>Thanks again for all your thoughtful responses. I am overwhelmed by the assistance at this forum. I have since replaced the light seal on my Hasselblad. It was clear that the old was was well worn and that it might have contributed to light leaking in. I have another test roll done outside in snow developing at a lab, and I will see how those come out tomorrow. I have noticed a couple odd things in Polaroids too though, but it could very well have been an error on my part when pulling the Polaroid out. I might post a new thread on these Polaroid artifacts, a couple on expired film so I wasn't too concerned, but another light patch on what should have been a clean shot.<br>

I will update this thread as I figure out the problem as a future reference for others.</p>

<p>Cody</p>