Overexposed lines on negative

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by vania_plemiannikov, Feb 17, 2022.

  1. This is an accidental posting. Sorry!
    But why no way for poster to delete?
  2. Thanks for sharing ! This is interesting to me. Less agitation is basically what ilford recommended when I contacted them but in practice I have to say that this only made things worse for me. But I started inverting slo-mo as you say. So far the only 2 changes that gave the most satisfying result (although not perfect) comes with more agitation.

    First one is agitating for the full 1st minute. This is now a necessity or else I get streaks 100% of the time.

    The second one is using only enough chemistry to cover the reels. 400ml in metal tank. This gives much more even development. Paterson would be the recommended 500ml but I can't get streak free development with those Paterson tanks anymore. My guess is that I can't produce enough agitation but maybe the slo-mo or too many inversions are to blame next test I'll try it your way.

    Up to now the most satisfying results have come with 4 inversions with a rotation twist in 5s every 30s. If I do less or at a slower pace or just invert without rotation some form of streaking appears. Perhaps this is mostly visible because I shoot a grey card for my tests but still, it's there. In any case it's way much better but still not perfect.

    I am curious, what is your initial agitation method ? What type of tank/reels do you use ? What developer(s) do you use and what is your typical development time ?

  3. So after more testing your inversion method works great with Paterson tanks. With a 3 minutes presoak and 1 minute initial agitation. Then 1 sharp inversion/rotation and back in 5s every 30s. Very even development, no streaks !
    Does not seem to work so well with metal tanks though where 3-4 inversions/rotations per 5s seem to provide more even development.
    Do you use both type of tanks ? With the same agitation pattern ?
  4. Late reply, but I use only SS tanks these days. However, in the past I've used Jobo and (yuk!) Paterson plastic tanks. Same inversion technique used with same - streak free - results.
    In fact I haven't changed my agitation method in the last 50 years with no adverse effects visible on any of the hundreds of films developed.

    An airspace above the film is essential for proper inversion agitation!
  5. These are similar across each neg, which suggests it is the exposure, not the processing causing these streaks. Look carefully at lens. Yes, and why the handprint so small on the negative? Were you shooting through a glass pane? ... which could cause a change of exposure like these. Try a polarizer and see if it is magnified or lessened after processing.
  6. Vania, I feel for you. I had the same problem on 35mm years ago and tried everything to sort it which took about 6 months. I used to use Patterson type tanks with the twizzle stick, constant agitation for first 30 secs, then 10 secs every minute. This method had worked well for me for many years then just stopped working and produced exactly what you have. I eventually determined it was the chemicals spinning round faster/slower at some points than others. I now use stainless tanks and reels and while I almost always use medium format now, the odd roll of 35mm goes through the same process which is; No pre soak. Ilford ID 11 1+1 for around 10 minutes. Pour in tank, agitate gently BUT IN A FIGURE 8 MOTION for 10 secs, couple reasonably sharps taps on bench, then 10 secs every minute IN A DEFINATE FIG 8 MOTION. The tank probably gets 4 revolutions in the 10 secs. Pour dev out, pour stop in, rotate once or twice, pour stop out, pour fix in, invert/rotate same as dev for 3-4 mins, pour fix out, wash in tank at same temp as other chemicals for 10 ish mins. Put 4ml of wetting agent in tank, take film off reel and holding one end in each hand, pass length of film through water/wetting agent bath, hang on clip (the type with 2 pins in) until dry. No steaks. For 5x4 I use Jobo drum on the wheel type processor but also rock left right to ensure the chems move all round not just in one direction.
  7. Does it with different camera/lenses...
  8. Thanks a lot for the detailed description! I use roughly the same method except I invert while rotating as described in Adams book. I will look out this figure 8 motion as I am not sure how this works. I thought I solved the issue by using minimal amount of chemistry to just cover the reels and 1 minute initial agitation but it's back again. I have seen a couple of very experience printers running top darkrooms here in Paris and none of them can figure out what's wrong. It's quite despairing...
  9. I have no idea where this daft figure-of-eight affectation has come from - although I suspect it's from ill-informed Newby YouTubers.
    Never used such a technique in over 50 years of streak-free developing, and see absolutely no purpose in it. It wasn't even a 'thing' on anyone's radar until a few years ago.

    Not some esoteric Yogic wrist exercise!

    Just turn the tank swiftly upside down; recite to yourself the phrase "bubble bubble" (or count to two, it's optional) then right the tank again swiftly and tap the tank on the bench. Do that a couple of times every agitation cycle. No need for wrist calisthenics.

    And BTW, a pre soak is unnecessary and might well be contributing to the streaking.

    Developed over 50 years ago using the simple non figure of 8 method described above.
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2022
    robert_bowring likes this.
  10. If you don't know where it came from probably best not to guess as you could be wrong. In this case it's a description of inversion and twisting at the same time.
  11. And still totally unnecessary.
  12. Unless you have a tank that can't be inversed without spilling.
    Sliding the tank, back and forth, or in a figure of eight, is an old method. One that works.
    Though air bubbling through the liquid works (and creates air bubbles that may stick to the film, so a few firm taps after inversion are advisable), it is not the only correct or only effective way to agitate. What is needed is to create a flow in the liquid that washes away used up developer and byproducts from the film and streams fresh developer to the film. Almost any uneven motion of the tank will do that.
    Want even less of the wrist calisthenics? Stop inversion agitation, and start sliding.
    jim_gardner|4 likes this.
  13. Dustin McAmera

    Dustin McAmera Yorkshire, mostly on film.

    I bought a Post Office coat like that from a government surplus shop when I was a student. I doubt I looked that good in it though, and I got sick of being asked directions to places.
    Bettendorf and rodeo_joe|1 like this.
  14. I like the portrait a lot :)
    Thanks for hanging in there and your concern! I have adopted your method and thought it got rid of the problem but the streaks came back with a vengeance. It is incomprehensible I have tried changing all variables but still get them.
  15. Ask a friend to dev your film in their tanks, using their chemicals, while you watch.
  16. Water, or any other low-viscosity fluid, has inertia. Not only that but it's 'shape shifting' and tends to stay still in space even though its container is moving around it. So slopping the tank from side to side, or rotating the tank around the developer, definitely isn't a good way to agitate. The slopping from side-to-side method especially, since it can cause standing waves that agitate some areas and not others.

    You've only got to look at how poor a job of agitation those old 'swizzle stick' tanks do, to realise that a unidirectional rotary motion isn't a good idea.

    Also, try to invert a tank without rotating it. It's nearly impossible. Just tip any cylindrical container upside down and observe which side your fingers stay on. If it's the right when you start the inversion, they'll be on the left when the thing is fully inverted. Any liquid inside will try to stay upright and non-rotated, so will have a swirling action imparted anyway.
  17. I sort of did that already. Gave some films to develop to a pro lab that came out with no issue. They are from the same trip than the ones that showed the problem initially. They all have streaks except for the one develop in the pro lab with the same developer as me (HC110). And the guy was kind enough to take the time to show me how he processes his films. His inversion rotation-method was the same as mine. I did not see him actually develop the films though and that might be difficult to obtain... As for friends I don't have any proficient in theses matters.
  18. Strangely enough all the still lives I shoot in doors are streak free probably because they are against a white or black background and the streaks only really show in the skies/snow or large smooth zones vi-vii. Well it's my guess but I don't know left from right anymore.
  19. Vania, are you still using that cr*ppy plastic Paterson tank?
    There was a weird issue came to light (sorry for pun) several years ago, where the dye used in making some plastic developing tanks wasn't perfectly opaque, and allowed some deep red and IR to penetrate to the film; causing random fogging patterns.
    A very long shot, but a possibility.

    In any case, a change to a stainless tank and reel definitely wouldn't hurt.
  20. Using stainless steel too. I have different tanks with hewes reels. There's no difference with the paterson regarding the current problem...

Share This Page