Strange Tri-X Adonal negative damage -- can anyone help identify?

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by vince-p, Nov 8, 2010.

  1. I've only been processing for a couple of months and decided to try Rodinal (Adonal "original Rodinal formula). I've made plenty of mistakes in my learning process but this I've never seen before: like some kind of chemical was eating at the emulsion.
    There are three photos in a row, bracketed: final one, too dark, has no damage. First one entirely damaged and the second partially.
    Canon P with 50/1.8, not that this matters. Tri-X, not too old; processed same day in 1:40 dilution at 68F for 10-3/4 minutes agitated by two or three turns of the Paterson stick every 30 seconds; one minute Kodak stop bath agitated whole time; nine minutes of Kodak fixer agitated intermittently. Hung to dry overnight; cut and sheathed this morning.
    Here are the photos. Any suggestions are MOST appreciated.
    00XeAx-299913684.jpg
     
  2. oops. here are more:
    00XeB0-299915584.jpg
     
  3. and final one
    00XeB5-299917584.jpg
     
  4. Accidental mix up: the first image is the most damaged; the second is only on the right side.
     
  5. Scanning error? Thing is we need more information. Did you scan them yourself? What scanner? Settings of the scanner? Optical enlargement then scanned from the print? Digital enlargement then scanned from the print? ... Etc.
     
  6. Scanned on Nikon Coolscan IV using Vuescan on Windows 7 machine (vuescan or similar the only way to use Coolscan IV on Windows 7 machine as Nikon has no IV driver for Windows 7)
    Machine has been doing an excellent job since I got it about two weeks ago. Flatbed I was using prior was hopeless.
     
  7. Was the computer connected to the internet via a cable or DSL modem while the scanning was in progress? I always set the firewall to block all mode or disconnect the lan cable during scanning or photo editing. I do not need or want all that background stuff trying to do its thing while I'm scanning or editing.
     
  8. Charles I was thinking the same thing That Scanner seems to not like EM.
     
  9. Whaz EM?
    I was of course doing many things at once. Direct LAN hardwire connection to Interzone, as I like to call it. But the scanner did 28 other photos this evening without this problem.
    Plus you can see the mottled or dotted damage right on the neg, now that I stop and actually think. So that eliminates the issue I guess.
    I still want to know what EM is.
     
  10. It looks a bit like it could be the emulsion is crinkling up... Scanning wise, did you turn off digital ICE?
    It seems only to affect the light areas of the neg... Maybe its some crazy reticulation?
     
  11. EM= Electro magnetic
     
  12. This looks like film blistering to me (emulsion blistering) and not something I have ever gotten, although I have tried various chemicals in the past. But the odd thing would seem to be if it wasn't uniform throughout the whole roll you developed.
    Were these frames, and ones damaged, in one part of the roll--front or back end? Or are others like this throughout?
     
  13. Digital ICE is off. These are panels 7, 8, and 9. 10 was underexposed and I did not scan it. 11-17 I also did not scan (negs looked boring). 1-5 (six was a misfire) are fine; and 18-32 are fine. the last four frames were not exposed. I'll preview/scan 11-17.
    Contrary to one remark the problem is intense in the darker parts of the image, such as the underside of the overpass on the right side.
    Also, in the image where the blistering is more widespread there is a shape to it in the lighter parts, an arbitrary geometrical portion that was not touched. This implies some foreign material or some chemical mishap but I cannot figure out what it might have been.
     
  14. I would see if frame 5 shows any issue, even six if it has something there to look at, then 11, as it appears 10 was fine.
    This seems to point to something maybe getting on the film in this area--don't know how unless you were loading the reel near some powdered chemical or dropped the film to the floor at some point in the loading of it. If it had been at the end of the roll, I might wonder about some contaminate in your development tank that hit those areas before it became more dilute as it migrated.
     
  15. Emulsion problem. Imho the film was not properly and unevenly hardened at factory.
    Try with another roll from the same batch number...
     
  16. Emulsion problem with Tri-X? Not a very likely scenario if you ask me. In all the years I've been using Kodak films I've NEVER seen an emulsion defect like this that wasn't my fault. To tell you the truth, I've never seen any emulsion defect with Kodak films period. That doesn't mean it can't happen; but is it reasonable to assume that's the problem? I think not. Chasing that one down is likely a waste of time. Look elsewhere. I'm guessing this is mechanical damage due to rough handling, a far more likely cause of the problem.
     
  17. Well, folks, Photo.net just e-mailed me a message from Jerry Breault which for some reason they're inquiring if I think it's spam, but it ain't; it is quite pertinent. It says this:
    << Are you sure it's not a double exposure? As I look at look at the right side of the first photo I see a structure that resembles a window frame, that makes the mottled area look like a photo of something made from cement >>
    -- which shows some fantastic eyes on his part because, now that he says it, I understand that is what it is, though I have no idea how I accomplished it. Actually, I have a vague idea but it involves something boneheaded so I'd rather not discuss it.
    I'm sorry to put you all to the trouble now that I know how I effed up; however it was very interesting. I was glad at least that I wasn't the only one baffled; and while it's stupid to do a double exposure and not realize it, I'd rather that, which is a rare accident, than having screwed up the processing, which I'm working so hard to be at least reliable at.
    Feel free to curse me out now. I won't complain to the authorities.
     
  18. And by the way, that Rodinal is quite grainy compared to Xtol or divided D76. I'll have to look up ways to minimize the grain. That long lasting bottle and mix-as-you-use thing is so convenient.
     
  19. And by the way, that Rodinal is quite grainy compared to Xtol or divided D76. I'll have to look up ways to minimize the grain.​
    A solution: Switch to HC110
    The email spam caution comes up on gmail all the time on emails from other members via the site email a member system.
     

Share This Page