Home Developing Help! Bromide Drag, Agitation, or Fixer Problems??

Hi all,

I've recently begun attempting to home develop my black and white 35mm negatives. I have had pretty consistent streaks of---what looks to me like--overdevelopment.

I've attached a particularly bad example, plus the negative strip (sorry that one's not of great quality).

So far I've processed 7 rolls, and all have had varying degrees of this problem.

-They were all done with Kodak D76 (at varying dilutions) and Kodafix at various process times, including push processing on two. I have re-mixed my developer twice and fixer once. No change.

-I have used tap water, tho no one else in my town has had this problem, nor can tell me what it might be.

-I have tried four different tanks (both Patterson and SS) and used inversion and stand processing. When agitating I do 30 seconds to begin, and have tried both 5 sec every 30, as well as 10 sec every 60. When I agitate I twist and invert at what I would call a 'steady' pace. While two rolls seemed a little better, there weren't any corresponding details between the two (one was stand and one agitated, different dilutions, and different batches).

-There is no problem with my camera as I've had rolls from it professionally processed with zero issues.

-I have done my loading in two different bags, in dark rooms, and while my 'chemical station' is my kitchen sink, I have done all developing at night with minimal to no light. I do not believe this to be a light leak of any kind.

From what I can gather on forums, this is either Bromide Drag or a problem with my Fixer (this post is the only which suggests a fixer problem but it looks so much like what I'm having problems with: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/107-film-processing-scanning-darkroom/189097-example-exhausted-fixer.html)

I don't actually understand why people online keep saying Bromide Drag because whatever is going through the sprocket holes seems to be overdeveloping the film in those comet-trail-like areas, and Bromide is a byproduct of the chemical process which inhibits development and is actually what causes developer to lose potency over uses.

The only success I've had is with 120 film, so it's obviously a lot to do with the sprocket holes in the 35mm.

Also, I have a temp control set up with a Sous Vide machine, so even though I know it's not a big deal for B+W but temperature has been exactly 68.

Either way there isn't much online which seems very clear. Some people say too vigorous agitation and some say not enough. Some say to stop top loading the chemicals and instead dunk, but the Patterson loads from the bottom and made no difference.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, this is driving me crazy! I've wasted too much film in a short time (including two rolls of Neopan).

Waiting on some TMax developer in the mail before I can try anything else.

Thanks!

I think bromide drag isn't this extreme. I bet you have some sort of a light leak around the sprocket holes. You state you don't have this problem with 120 film but, are you using a 120 camera with a 35mm film adapter?

I forgot to add that is this effect consistent with a whole roll of film? Maybe light is getting in your developing tank if you are taking out the agitator that rotates the reel while developing so, through that center hole light maybe hitting the edge of the film where it is propagating through between the sprocket holes.

It looks very much like a light leak in the camera. Can you shoot another roll or two in a different camera? That may narrow the possibilities. You may have some kind of a light leak in your darkroom when loading film on a reel. This isn’t bulk loaded film is it? There aren’t that many things I can think that would cause this problem.

Rick H

So as a reference for anyone else who has this problem:

I posted this on multiple sites, and had two people on another forum suggested adamantly that it was probably actually a problem with my fixer.

I just grabbed one strip of the afflicted negatives, put them in a tank and fixed them for about 10 min just to see what happened. viola, it appears to be fixed (no pun intended). The 'comet trails' are gone! I'll have to scan them to be totally sure but it looks like it's solved.

I deliberately used negatives from about a month ago, just to see if it would still work.

No idea yet exactly what I was doing wrong before, maybe more agitation during fixing, but as of now it seems to have been solved.

So, if anyone else is having this issue let this be a reference of a possible cure, because I couldn't find much of anything else out there.

I think bromide drag isn't this extreme. I bet you have some sort of a light leak around the sprocket holes. You state you don't have this problem with 120 film but, are you using a 120 camera with a 35mm film adapter?

 

I forgot to add that is this effect consistent with a whole roll of film? Maybe light is getting in your developing tank if you are taking out the agitator that rotates the reel while developing so, through that center hole light maybe hitting the edge of the film where it is propagating through between the sprocket holes.

thanks for the reply, figured it out, i think. See above.

It looks very much like a light leak in the camera. Can you shoot another roll or two in a different camera? That may narrow the possibilities. You may have some kind of a light leak in your darkroom when loading film on a reel. This isn’t bulk loaded film is it? There aren’t that many things I can think that would cause this problem.

 

Rick H

Thanks for the reply, figured it out, i think. See above.

You should use the same agitation regimen for both developing and fixing.

Two other comments:

1. Published 'recommended' fixing times seem far too short IME, and are only applicable to absolutely fresh fixer. Fixing for 10 minutes should be pretty standard - even with rapid fixer. It's very difficult to over-fix a film, but very easy to under-fix one.

2. There are some absolutely nonsensical agitation techniques shown in online 'instructional' videos. No need for 'figure-of-eight' wrist motions, slo-mo inversions or other daft callisthenics. All that's needed is a fairly swift turning upside-down of the tank; hold it there for a couple of seconds and then right it just as quickly.

What does the agitation is trapped air bubbling through the tank spiral, and ever-so-slowly tipping the tank over doesn't get those air bubbles going. Nor does any fancy wrist motion improve the agitation.

So don't overfill the tank and leave no air-space. Just tip the tank upside down any old which-way you like as long as it's done fairly quickly. After a couple of seconds, turn it upright in the same fashion, and then give the tank a quick knock on a padded surface to dislodge any stuck air-bells.

Not bromide drag, more likely fogged film due to improper camera loading / unloading or unsafe darkroom.

About bromide drag: The developer, which is mainly water, causes the gelatin based film emulsion to swell. This action opens the gelatin structure allowing easy entry and exit of fluids. Developer infuses and goes to work. It reduces exposed silver salt by splitting these crystals into their two component parts. One part is silver; the other is a halogen (bromine / chlorine / iodine) (halogen Swedish for salt maker). The reduced silver is now metallic and as such is opaque. This opaque silver is what comprises the black & white image. The liberated halogen component is water soluble and is dissolved into the waters of the developer. Agitation is the mechanical action that sets up ebb currents in the fluid. This is the action that forces spent developer out to be replaced by fresh.

Should there be no agitation, spent developer replacement will occur but at a reduced rate. At locations on the film where substantial exposure occurred, a puff of spent developer surrounds the site and its presence shields the site from receiving fresh developer. This site will display reduced density as compared to neighboring sites. The puff of spent developer is laden with bromide (halogen). This acts as a restrainer. However the halogen rich spent developer is heavier than the fresh stuff. In a stagnant tank, it slowly sinks under the influence of gravity. As the cloud of spent developer drifts downward, it induces ebb currents. Actually this is localized micro-agitation. Areas below this highly exposed spot get agitated. These sites gain density. To identify bromide drag, dots or periods are exposed along with edge printed data. If bromide drag is present, these dots display a faint comet-like tale, a streaking plus density.

Let me add, in high speed roller transport film processors we would expect that the traveling film self-agitates. Wrong – we find that the developer tends, in time, to move with the film. Thus high speed film machines work in a stagnant tank. The countermeasure is -- spray developer at the film from nozzles to set up a counter-flow.

If it's not processing related Alan, how come the OP reports that re-fixing the film removes the 'fogging'?

FWIW. I used film for over 40 years, and lost count of the number of 35mm films I must have processed by hand in a variety of tanks - plastic, stainless, dip 'n' dunk, you name it. In all that time and with all that film, I can't remember a single case of visible 'developer drag' from the sprocket holes. This makes me a complete sceptic about the phenomenon.

However, other people report it, and it's a listed fault in text books. So what have I been doing right that other people have done wrong? Hard to say, apart from not following any weird and wonderful agitation technique.

Just turn the tank upside down without even thinking about it! Or lift the cage and drain it... or give the spiral a spin with its 'twizzle stick'... or let the rotary processor do its thing.... whatever. Agitation shouldn't be difficult or follow any stupid ritual. You're just mixing fresh developer/fixer with stale. I really don't see any difficulty.

Good afternoon.

Finally I found answers for my questions.

Thans alot for useful topic.

Good job.

Cheers

Greg

It would be easier to say seeing the edge of the film, and also with reflected light.

Unfixed silver bromide is close to white, easy to see as different from black metallic silver.

In a scan, we can't tell them apart.

The edge, outside the image area, also makes it easier to tell light leak from bromide drag

and underfixing.

I am not all that good at agitation during fixing, and have never had this problem.

Also, T-grain films fix slower than cubic grains, so easier to underfix.

You didn't say which film, but did mention TMax developer.

OK . . . So, the OP solved his problem but I don't understand the cause. Bromide Drag, it seems, should only happen with stand development. Agitation, even minimal, should resolve that problem but, in any case, it wouldn't be resolved by fixing.

So . . . what is really going on here?

BTW: I seriously doubt "bromide drag" is a thing that occurs except in a very few, very specific, combinations of films, developers and even exposures. But, what do I know after 40+ years . . .

So . . . what is really going on here?

I'm also baffled by the mechanism that causes 'bromide drag' or in this case it appears to be fixer drag.

Only thing I can suspect is that the OP neglected to agitate the film (sufficiently) during fixation, and also didn't fix for long enough.

I always wondered about sprocket hole bromide drag.

Bromide drag comes from developing grains, but around the sprockets they are

not exposed, so normally not developed.

But in the case of fixer, fixing products do come out around the sprockets, and,

with no agitation and barely enough fixing, could cause the indicated effect.

The OP didn't say, but TMax is known for needing more fixing time than

other films.

I often don't agitate enough during fixing, but usually keep it in toward the

high end of the time range given. Maybe longer for TMax.

Bromide Drag, to the extent that it is an issue, should have nothing to do with sprocket holes. Sprocket holes, however, ARE clearly involved in agitation issues and short development or short fix time issues.

Over the last 40 years, I have read just about everything that I could find by Adams, David Vestal, Gordon Hutchins and many, many, others. They have describe numerous potential problems with film development and I have only recently heard about bromide drag. Adams often discussed stand development where developer exhaustion is actually the desired chemical action and this risk is never discussed.

Why?

Bromide Drag, to the extent that it is an issue, should have nothing to do with sprocket holes. Sprocket holes, however, ARE clearly involved in agitation issues and short development or short fix time issues.

 

Over the last 40 years, I have read just about everything that I could find by Adams, David Vestal, Gordon Hutchins and many, many, others. They have describe numerous potential problems with film development and I have only recently heard about bromide drag. Adams often discussed stand development where developer exhaustion is actually the desired chemical action and this risk is never discussed.

 

Why?

In photofinishing / motion picture film processing is done in a roller transport machine operating at high-speed. Keeping the developing, bleaching, fixing, washing etc. on specifications is a fulltime job. Speeds can exceed 100 feet per minute. Believe it or not, fluids tend to travel with the film. Essentially the film is in a stagnant tank. Recirculation pumps, via nozzles, direct jets of fluid in a counter flow direction. Edge printing has dots (periods); we check these for comet-like tails to detect bromide drag.

In photofinishing / motion picture film processing is done in a roller transport machine operating at high-speed. Keeping the developing, bleaching, fixing, washing etc. on specifications is a fulltime job. Speeds can exceed 100 feet per minute. Believe it or not, fluids tend to travel with the film. Essentially the film is in a stagnant tank. Recirculation pumps, via nozzles, direct jets of fluid in a counter flow direction. Edge printing has dots (periods); we check these for comet-like tails to detect bromide drag.

That's nice but I don't see how that applies to small tank development in any meaningful way and would explain why the authors that I mention don't seem to have been concerned with the problem. I don't believe however that this is REALLY like a stagnant tank. Not all of the developer dragged along with the film or the process wouldn't work well. As I noted, Adams and others have talked about stand development, real "stagnant tanks", without discussing the issue. My guess is that it may have been seen in the type of processing that you describe but also may be limited to those machines (which can also have many other problems, which is why maintaining the chemistry is a full time profession) that don't apply to small tank processes. Someone, at some point, may have cross contaminated the vernacular and introduced bromide drag to this sub-culture of processing.

Adams often discussed stand development where developer exhaustion is actually the desired chemical action and this risk [from drag] is never discussed.

 

Why?

Probably because he has the photo material laying flat in a tray so there is no directional tendency for the byproducts (including bromide ion).

When someone shows examples of "bromide drag" it's usually in a "directional" situation - perhaps a piece of photo material held in a vertical position or where there is a continuous motion in one direction (such as a continuous processor).

Todd and Zakia's "Photographic Sensitometry" shows an example, while pointing out that such streaks are normally a result of byproducts from a high-density area being carried over into a lower-density area.

When I've worked with setup of cine processors (continuous) we've always made it a point to specifically test for such effects by running pairs of sensitometric test strips (step wedges) set in opposite directions. That is, one leads with the high-density steps, the other with the low-density steps. If there is any directional flow pattern the processed wedges will not match. Once you get well set up turbulator bars, etc., you can get really consistent processing - certainly better than with roll film in a hand tank. (Unless someone should turn off the circulation pumps, in which case streaking will almost certainly occur.)

Anyway, since this problem went away with refixing it obviously was not due to bromide drag.

Ps, as a note, my more technical books don't seem to use the term "bromide drag" either. They tend to refer to "streaking," with some explanations of factors involved.

Well . . . Adams didn't only use tray development but also processed in tank and shot with 120 and 35mm systems.

Did he ever attempt "stand development" with, say 120 roll film in a conventional film tank (where the reel is standing on end)? I've never done the experiment, but suspect "bromide drag" would result.

I haven't read that much of Adams' but I suspect that he was more knowledgeable, technically, than what comes through in his three best-known books. My guess is that his writing was mostly limited to what he wanted to teach, so that if he didn't recommend a specific technique then probably wouldn't feel the need to give cautions about same. (I'm specifically thinking about attempting stand development on a film reel in a conventional tank.)

...Hutchins in BTZS tubes which simulated the continuous processing of roller transport systems.

I'm not real familiar with BTZS tube processing, but I'm guessing not much like what we generally call "roller transport processors." These would be the self-feeding mini lab style processor. They have an effective roller squeegee effect as the film feeds through between the rollers. (You would not expect these to be subject to "bromide drag.")

Vestal processed in tanks...

I have one Vestal book, The Craft of Photography, 1975, which is nearly all I've read from him. Here's an excerpt, which clearly is about the same issue - "bromide drag" - but he doesn't specifically state this. Page 97, related to agitation, says, "Some of the chemical byproducts of development are heavy and tend to sink towards the bottom of the tank during the development. Since they also affect density, they would cause streaks across the negative if there were no agitation."

I think that Vestal is being smart by saying it this way, not using the word bromide because he's probably not certain that is the exact culprit. So he simply refers to byproducts and everything is covered.

Personally, I don't like the term "bromide drag" either, but if you use the term then people in the business generally know right away what you're talking about. I see the thing as a combination of getting fresh developing agent to the surface of the film as well as flushing away byproducts.

One other note - not all developing agents are equally sensitive, so this can also be a factor.

To go back to the OP's original post . . . This isn't bromide drag. It's not even related to development, it seems to have been an issue with fixing. He wasn't using a roller transport machine and the problem wasn't related to agitation because it occurred if he agitated or let the tank stand. So . . . I will continue having an issue with the idea of bromide drag.

Adams does discuss the reasoning behind stand development, which is that developer gets exhausted at high exposure sites and this lowers image contrast. So, the collection of developer agents would occur at the these areas. So, let's say that it is bromide and it does drip down the film inside the tank. This would result in streaks of underdevelopment not the over development that the OP posts about.

We are not in a situation where bromide drag would be expected and we don't appear to see the correct results that would be caused by bromide drag and the solution isn't consistent with bromide drag either (since after fixing the under development caused by bromide drag wouldn't be able to be resolved.)

Does anybody have any interest in determining what really did happen?