A query re light leak

<p>Hi<br>

Earlier in, I think the leica forum I posted a query re apparent light leaking on developed b&w film. It was suggested that I had light leaking shutter curtains (Iit was an old IIIf - which did indeed light leak. So I've had it consigned for repair. Last weekend I developed two rolls of FP4 from 2 different cameras (a zorki 5 and a pentax SP 1000), both of which showed the same problem. It appears to be light leakage onto the film from the sprocket holes. I'll attach a photo. These were both working cameras when I last used them, and indeed, the pentax had been 'in' for a routice service and check only a few weeks ago. I then wondered if it my be my processing or a problem with the film tank. One of the sides of the developing reel has dark coatings, and despite multiple washing, soaking in vinegar, soaking in caustic, and now soaking in hypo clearing agent, still has that hypo smell when its dry.<br>

Am I barking up a wrong tree here.<br>

The photo is native, uncorrected, scanned on a Epson V700. Not all negatives from both cameras were so affected, some perfectly uniform in density.<br>

Any ideas or assistance greatly appreciated.<br>

Regards, Arthur, Apiarist1</p><div></div>

<p>I should say that the photo was from the pentax, with a jupiter 9 lens, and its a photo my beautiful wife (LOL, a late age marriage). Uncorrected, no dust removal. Any ideas apperciated.<br>

Arthur (apiarist1)</p>

<p>Now that is a weird pattern.<br /><br />If it's related to developing, it might be bromide drag. <br />What was your developing routine?<br /><br />It looks like the 'leaks' are feathering out from the bottom of the camera. So my search would start down there. <br />Is the leak visible on the edge of the film, near the sprocketholes or just on the film frame?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Hi Rick,<br>

Didn't think to look. The increased negative density starts beyond the film frame to the inside of the sprocket hole, not to the very outer edge of the film. Processing is pretty straightforward - presoaking, Ilfosol 1:14, for 71/2 minutes, 10 secs agitation every minute, followed by double rinsing in tap water, no stop bath, then fixing. in a tank (film loaded in a bag). Washed in tap water. So, I'm wondering if there may be something going on, as you suggest, with the base of the camera (it occurred on two cameras, separately, though). I'm thinking that I'll put a roll of C41 film through one of them tomorrow, probably the pentax) and have it commercially developed, just to eliminate my own development process.<br>

I can pull the zorki 5 shutter crate out of the camera pretty easily and check its shutter for light tightness; the pentax, I'm not sure about. Don't know the procedure for that.<br>

Thanks for the advice.<br>

Regards, Arthur, Apiarist1.</p>

<p>Looks like bromide drag to me. What type of developing tank are you using? Please describe your agitation.</p>

<p>If I understand bromide drag, it comes below highlights, where there is exposed AgBr to be developed. That normally shouldn't happen on the sprockets. Agitation every 30s is usual, but 60s isn't so far off.</p>

<p>On the other hand, during fixing, fixer byproducts (silver thiosulfate complex) are also produced and, as with bromide drag, fall down the negative if there isn't enough agitation. You don't mention fixer times or agitation.</p>

<p>If it is during fixing, you should be able to refix. Either too short a time, or weak fixer, could cause such fixer effect. Normally, under fixing gives a whitish look to the negative, but maybe not so easy to see. I would try refixing with fresh fixer, and with every 30s agitation during fixing.</p>

<p>Bromide drag or not bromide drag, I like the image very much. The pose, a natural pose and the shades and of course the film grain to me, like seeing a painted canvass in life, instead the same object, subject photographed in high quality. It has more natural and artistic look then a super high-tech digital print. Yes, Arthur, your wife is beautiful, just crop out the unwanted areas, print it (4x6) or (4x4) and frame it, put up on you desk, or where ewer you find a place for it.</p>

Well like the other.. the appearance is bromide drag.. but your reference to sprocket holes made me think of a problem I

made ...

 

Are these commercial rolls of film or home spun from a 30m/1100ft roll? I leaked light into the bulk loader and I had a

similar effect for the rest of the film in the the loader..

<p>Are you agitating by rotation or inversion? If the former, try the latter; I had similar problems with an un-recalled developer, years ago.</p>

<p>Whoever developed your film over agitated it, hence the washed out areas directly down from the sprocket holes. I've seen this so many times it's not funny.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p> I leaked light into the bulk loader and I had a similar effect for the rest of the film in the the loader..</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

If you exposed the top of a tightly wrapped roll, such as in a bulk loader, I think it could do that. That is, the shadows of the sprocket holes. If tight enough, it wouldn't go so far down, but the outside turn or so, maybe 5 to 10 frames, should also be exposed.

 

But you say it doesn't go to the edge of the film.

 

Can you post a scan of the whole strip? Scan without the film holder, and wide enough to include the edges of the film.

 

Also, scan the emulsion side in non-transparancy mode, so we can see what it looks like that way.

 

 

 

 

 

<p>Thanks for that advice (and particularly you, Bela - I showed it to my wife (we are a late marriage). I think she is enamoured with you, and has instructed me to do as you suggest). I am beginning to think it's my poor processing, as you, Steve, suggested, overagitation and poor fixing as Glen suggested. My processing may have been poor. I didn't invert, but swirled, and let it sit in fixer (Glen thanks for that), with only intermittent agitation. I'll post a scan of the negative - my only worry is that the overexposure seems to creep beyond the picture frame, at least to the inside of the sprocket hole.<br>

And thanks - I'm putting a colour negative film thru the pentax tomorrow and will have it commercially developed. If there are no problems, I'll do the same with the zorki, for more abundant caution.<br>

Thanks, Arthur</p><div></div>

<p>There's something I don't underestand about the streaks in the photo and in the negatives - the image of your wife is not affected by them, as they do not come down over her head or face. Yet the streaks extend below her, on either side of her face. What was the background she was photographed against? Yes, I do realise that there seems to be a problem at the edges of the negatives, and I can't explain that, either, but if the problem were caused by agitation during development, then wouldn't the streaks have been apparent on the subject's head and face as well?<br>

<br />Sometimes the mysteries in photography and life just keep on, well, dare I say it, developping?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's something I don't underestand about the streaks in the photo and in the negatives - the image of your wife is not affected by them, as they do not come down over her head or face.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The streaks are white, and so mostly not visible over the whiteness of the face. I believe that they are barely visible at the hairline. </p>

<p>In my humble inexpert opinion, I would go for a change in agitation method. The Ilford guide to processing says to invert 4 times after the developer has gone in then, 4 inversions each minute after that.<br>

I read an inversion as inverting the tank and back again. Tap the tank after the inversions to get rid of any air bubbles.</p>

<p>Just over anxious regarding agitation. Half as much agitation, and we wouldn't be able to see the shadow of sprocket holes. Fortunately you didn't lose valuable image of trophy wife, which is how I always describe mine. It makes her happy, and it's true. xxx</p>

<p>Swirling is usually not enough for agitation, and moreover, it makes for a difference between film in the center of the spool and film in the outside.</p>

<p>Did you get a different streak effect in the beginning and end of the roll? That would clinch the cause as agitation.</p>

<p>In my experience (about 50 years developing B&W) usually these streaks are caused by inadequate agitation, rather than too much. </p>

<p>Thanks all<br>

It was my processing, confirmed by a commercially processed colour neg roll. And do I feel a goose - never heard of bromide drag, didn't think about my agitation practise. But that was it. After 3 decades of intermittent b&w developing, think I've just got sloppy. But thanks for that. I've re-visited my old manuals and texts. <br>

Regards, Arthur</p>