HAVE I DEVELOPED THIS WRONG?!

I shot a roll of Ilford Black and white film with a camera I have never had issues with before. I develop and scan my negatives myself however I am new to it!

I developed my negative which started with loading it in the changing bag, rinsing the film in the tank, developing it with the CineStill DF96 Developer + Fix Monobath at the right time and temperature. I gave the film a final rinse with water but I was concerned that the water was maybe too hot but didn't think this would affect the negatives and maybe it doesn't.

 

When I looked at the negative some looked barely exposed and just didn't look right (as attached in the photos), some were better than others on the roll but they gave me all different terrible results.

 

I was wondering if anyone knows what the cause of this was?

 

Camera light meter broke, underexposing them all?

 

A light leak in the changing bag or camera?

 

wrong temperature for the rinse?

 

Thank you look forward to the responses!

 

Drive Photo link:

Meet Google Drive – One place for all your files

Can you attach the file(s) here ? I cannot access Google Drive.

 

Many thanks

Pictures attached.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you. From looking at the images, and the negs, to my eye they look unerexposed. What camera did you use, and is the battery for the meter fresh ? Also is there any corrosion within the battery chamber ?

XP2 is a C-41 film, which is designed to be used with C41 chemistry.

 

You can use more ordinary black and white developers, but that leaves some

questions about the results you should expect.

 

C41 films have a low gamma (contrast) by design. They are printed or scanned to

correct for that. This makes them much less sensitive to exposure mistakes in

the camera, and much more sensitive in printing (or scanning).

 

Looking at the pictures of the negatives, though, they are still very underexposed.

 

As well as I understand DF96, the temperature used affects the suggested EI value,

but you don't say what time or temperature you used.

 

Otherwise, I recommend using a regular black and white film with DF-96, and

use C41 chemistry with XP2 until you have some more experience with each.

 

It is not light leak in the changing bag, which would result in dark negatives.

 

It is very unlikely the wrong rinse temperature, though that can affect the look

of the negatives, it doesn't change the density, unless your rinse is so warm

that you dissolve the gelatine. C41 runs at 38C, or about 100F, which is higher

than usual black and white films, so can survive pretty warm water.

 

That leaves either the meter or camera.

 

There are many C41 labs around, though. Have them do the next roll.

I used a Canon EOS 500, I mainly used the aperture priority mode. it says the battery isn't low and I can't see any corrosion. ar all the frames signs of underexposed frames or any light leaks?

I don't see XP2 on the DF96 instruction sheet:

 

https://www.fotoimpex.com/shop/images/products/media/63120_5_PDF-Datasheet.pdf

 

while many films are not designed to process up to the higher temperatures listed,

XP2 is designed for 38C. You might try that.

Normal C41 negatives look underexposed compared to other films, so it isn't

as easy to judge as you might expect.

 

Are you scanning with a scanner set for color negative (C41) films?

I have a Epson scanner and scanned with the B&W Negative setting.

You might try the color negative setting. Then adjust the color balance so it looks right.

XP2 is a C-41 film, which is designed to be used with C41 chemistry.

 

You can use more ordinary black and white developers, but that leaves some

questions about the results you should expect.

 

C41 films have a low gamma (contrast) by design. They are printed or scanned to

correct for that. This makes them much less sensitive to exposure mistakes in

the camera, and much more sensitive in printing (or scanning).

 

Looking at the pictures of the negatives, though, they are still very underexposed.

 

As well as I understand DF96, the temperature used affects the suggested EI value,

but you don't say what time or temperature you used.

 

Otherwise, I recommend using a regular black and white film with DF-96, and

use C41 chemistry with XP2 until you have some more experience with each.

 

It is not light leak in the changing bag, which would result in dark negatives.

 

It is very unlikely the wrong rinse temperature, though that can affect the look

of the negatives, it doesn't change the density, unless your rinse is so warm

that you dissolve the gelatine. C41 runs at 38C, or about 100F, which is higher

than usual black and white films, so can survive pretty warm water.

 

That leaves either the meter or camera.

 

There are many C41 labs around, though. Have them do the next roll.

 

Thank you, I didn't know C-41 films needed different chemistry. I will steer away from developing this for the time being and see if this still results in my next roll.

Why not just use Tri-X and D76 ?

When the sun is in frame, or more accurately in metering range, the meter will read

high, and result in underexposure. But that only applies to ones with the sun in frame.

Normal C41 negatives look underexposed compared to other films

They look underdeveloped, but not underexposed - big difference.

 

When properly processed in C-41, the gamma (contrast) and D-max are slightly lower than a conventional silver-image film, but that's the same with colour negatives too. However, the shadow detail can be clearly seen, just at a lower density.

 

That's not the case with the OP's negatives. There's quite a high D-max on a few of the frames, but no shadow detail at all. Now whether that's due to the monobath processing, plain old underexposure, or developing a chromogenic film with a B&W process, I can't say. And I doubt that anyone else can either.

 

All I can advise the OP to do is follow the instructions for the film and don't mess with 'iffy' monobath processing. Otherwise there's no telling where the fault lies. It could be in the camera metering, or the processing, but until regular tried-and-tested, and manufacturer recommended procedures are followed, nothing can be eliminated.

They look underdeveloped, but not underexposed - big difference.

 

When properly processed in C-41, the gamma (contrast) and D-max are slightly lower than a conventional silver-image film, but that's the same with colour negatives too. However, the shadow detail can be clearly seen, just at a lower density.

 

(snip)

 

I suppose, but, especially on ones with the orange mask, it isn't so easy to tell the difference.

 

Also, most of us have looked at more underexposed negatives than underdeveloped ones,

unless one is really bad with development.

 

The first thing one notices with underexposed negatives is the low D-max.

 

So, yes, the shadow detail is there, but I suspect that you have to look at least a little

carefully to see it. Or eyes are not so logarithmic as to easily measure density.

 

There is high D-max on some of the OP negatives, but some also have the sun in frame.

 

I tried to see if I thought that matched up, but wasn't sure about it. With sun in frame,

you can get high D-max, even on underexposed negatives.

The first thing one notices with underexposed negatives is the low D-max.

Glen, you're obviously not understanding what D-max means. It means: The maximum density that a film is capable of producing in a given developer, and at a given development time and temperature. It can be seen on the fully fogged leader of 35mm film, and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject brightness or camera exposure.

 

D-max is a good indicator of whether a film has been under, or over-developed. And the fact that frames with the sun in them have a good strong density, tells us that the development was adequate.

 

What we're seeing on the OP's film looks like severe underexposure. But, with the fact that the film wasn't processed as it should be, and the use of a non industry-standard developer... who knows?

 

P.S. The edge lettering and frame numbering are also clearly visible. Another good indicator that it's simply underexposure to blame. However, I'd still strongly recommend using a tried-and-tested proper developer, rather than some monobath gimmick.

Edited April 25, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

I did know the meaning of D-max, but at that time I was thinking about the maximum density on the specific negative.

 

After not so long, you get used to what a good black and white negative looks like. If it is mostly clear,

with some light gray, and no dark black, then it is underdeveloped or underexposed.

 

But the low gamma of C41 films makes this harder to see by eye.

 

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1909/product/704/

 

Ilford specifically recommends against other than C41 processing.

 

Monobath is kind of an interesting idea for ordinary black and white films, but pretty

strange to try for C41 films.

 

I notice that Ilford has their usual warning about ISO and foot speed, and the XP2 has

the unusual shape on the D-H curve that some of their other films have, with no real straight

line section. Curved all the way up.

 

It is supposed to work at EI 800 with real C41 processing, not a good idea otherwise.

Monobath is kind of an interesting idea for ordinary black and white films....

But do you want to risk your films to an 'interesting idea'? Or would you prefer to put your confidence in mainstream developers that are well-documented and known to work reliably?

 

The mixture of fixer and developer in a monobath has a strong solvent effect on the halide crystals, which induces 'physical' development - i.e. the deposition of dissolved silver onto development sites.

 

It seems reasonable that this might result in weakly exposed crystals being dissolved, while strongly exposed ones get more than their fair share of deposited silver. In other words, exaggerated contrast, which is what we seem to be seeing in the OP's film.

 

Just a theory. But there must be a good reason why monobaths aren't very popular. I mean, if they were as good as separate dev&fix processing, everyone would be using them. Wouldn't they?

But do you want to risk your films to an 'interesting idea'? Or would you prefer to put your confidence in mainstream developers that are well-documented and known to work reliably?

 

The mixture of fixer and developer in a monobath has a strong solvent effect on the halide crystals, which induces 'physical' development - i.e. the deposition of dissolved silver onto development sites.

 

It seems reasonable that this might result in weakly exposed crystals being dissolved, while strongly exposed ones get more than their fair share of deposited silver. In other words, exaggerated contrast, which is what we seem to be seeing in the OP's film.

 

Just a theory. But there must be a good reason why monobaths aren't very popular. I mean, if they were as good as separate dev&fix processing, everyone would be using them. Wouldn't they?

I've tried monobaths a couple of times and have been massively disappointed both times, so I agree that conventional developer/fixer chemistry is well worth the little extra effort involved for the better results you get.

I wrote:

Monobath is kind of an interesting idea for ordinary black and white films....

 

 

But do you want to risk your films to an 'interesting idea'? Or would you prefer to put your confidence in mainstream developers that are well-documented and known to work reliably?

 

(snip)

 

Interesting doesn't mean that I would want to use it very often.

 

Which so far, is never.

 

I have wondered, though, about DIafine.

 

For many years my favorite developer, after I learned about it from my grandfather when I was 10.

 

The opposite of monobath, it has the ability to develop some grains that wouldn't be developed

by more ordinary, or mainstream, developers. It seems to be about as popular now as 50 years ago.

Ordinary (mainstream) developers are a compromise between overdeveloping the more exposed

grains, and underdeveloping the less exposed grains. Diafine reduces this compromise, so

should have become (more of) a mainstream developer by now.

 

(Maybe the same for monobath.)

 

I first learned about monobath from an article in Popular Science, along with a device to

develop 35mm film inside the cartridge. (I suspect best for 20 exposure rolls.)

I only figured out recently that monobath has the big advantage that it doesn't depend

on time, as the time to get to different parts of the film could be very different.

 

But yes, presumably the monobath fixer fixes some grains before they have a chance to develop.

Some grains will be partially fixed while the other side is being developed.

 

By the way, did you know that T-grains develop and fix only from the (thin) edge?

That is why they take longer to fix, I am not so sure what that does to development time.

Ordinary (mainstream) developers are a compromise between overdeveloping the more exposed

grains, and underdeveloping the less exposed grains.

What!?

Honestly Glen, sometimes you do come up with some strange ideas that go against every text book ever written on the subject, by the likes of Dr Mees and the chemists at Ilford.

 

It's science Glen. Not arcane alchemy or magic.

 

Individual 'grains' (halide crystals) are either reduced to metallic silver or not. That's dependent on the electron dislocation caused by exposure, not by preferential treatment in the developer.

What!?

Honestly Glen, sometimes you do come up with some strange ideas that go against every text book ever written on the subject, by the likes of Dr Mees and the chemists at Ilford.

 

It's science Glen. Not arcane alchemy or magic.

 

Individual 'grains' (halide crystals) are either reduced to metallic silver or not. That's dependent on the electron dislocation caused by exposure, not by preferential treatment in the developer.

 

The comparison is supposed to be the way Diafine works compared to others.

 

Diafine does work, and (similar to stand development) has the ability to give more development to

shadows, without overdeveloping the highlights.

 

From the Diafine point of view, other developers overdevelop the highlights, or underdevelop the shadows,

yet that seems not to bother non-Diafine users. That is what the statement was supposed to mean.

 

Presumably not against every text book, if any mention Diafine. (I don't read many photography text books,

so maybe none mention it.)

 

I now have Diafine, HC-110, and TMax, to use depending on how I decide to do each roll.

Diafine does work, and (similar to stand development) has the ability to give more development to

shadows, without overdeveloping the highlights.

Yes, it's just a 'compensating' divided developer that lets the developing agents clap out in the highlight regions. So the actual mechanism is to underdevelop the most heavily exposed areas, not to preferentially develop the shadows.

 

I suppose it could be argued it's just a matter of perspective, but let's be technically correct about the mechanism at play.

 

Such development, and almost any other two-bath or compensating development, can be very difficult to wet-print. Although scanning can cover up a multitude of sins.

 

I managed to scavenge a fairly complete list of Diafine's ingredients from the Materials Safety Datasheets they have to submit to some regions. They don't get away with just saying 'Trade Secret' in some parts of the world!

 

Basically, it's a fairly standard P-Q Carbonate alkali developer; divided into an acidulated developer bath, followed by a carbonate/bicarbonate alkali accelerator.

 

Some people claim to get similar results from divided D-76, which wouldn't surprise me. Except the moderate alkalinity of the borate accelerator in D-76 is probably going to need a longer time in the second bath.

 

Incidentally the submitted MSDS attempts (deliberately or by error) to obfuscate the formula by stating that both baths contain TSP (Trisodium Phosphate). That makes no sense, since it would counteract the citric acid that's a component of part A. More likely it contains STP (Sodium TriPhosphate) a common chelating agent to counteract water hardness.

 

This is supported by the MSDS for Acufine, which appears to be simply a single-bath version of Diafine. The MSDS for Acufine quite clearly states it contains Sodium polyphoshate. Or Sodium Hexametaphosphate (Calgon) depending on which revision of the MSDS you read!

I don't see XP2 on the DF96 instruction sheet:

 

https://www.fotoimpex.com/shop/images/products/media/63120_5_PDF-Datasheet.pdf

 

while many films are not designed to process up to the higher temperatures listed,

XP2 is designed for 38C. You might try that.

 

Someone else told you XP2 is a C-41-process film, meaning it is is B&W film made for developing in a color chemistry. This was so you could take your B&W film to any photofinisher who processed color negative films. You are mixing up too many variables to know what happened.

 

If you want to take B&W photos, use normal B&W film and develop it in normal B&W developer.

Yes. If you want to try something unusual, do it one at a time.

 

Using usual black and white film in unibath is unusual.

 

Developing C41 film in usual black and white films is unusual.

 

Developing C41 film in unibath is doubly unusual. Don't do that!

When it doesn't work, you don't know which unusual condition causes the problem.