Odd developing problem

[bill_leigh]

<p>I recently developed 2 rolls of 35 mm Delta 400 in a Phenidone/Ascorbic acid developer that I mix myself. I've been using that combination for several years, and I did a clip test before developing the rolls to make sure the developer was fine, and it looked perfectly normal.<br>

When I looked at the developed film, some of the shots at the beginning of the rolls, which would have been in the middle of the developing tank looked normal. The shots starting perhaps halfway thru the rolls to the end were developed as positives, with some shots sort of halfway between negatives and positives, almost as if they had been solarized.<br>

Looking thru the archives, I know that this is sometimes a desired outcome, but I really wanted negatives, so that I could print them.<br>

Does anyone have any idea what could have happened?<br>

There are no signs of light leaks. I recently replaced the plastic lid on the tank and had used it before, so I know it isn't leaking light. I used the normal full amount of developer. As I mentioned above, the developer worked fine on a short part of the film leader.<br>

I'm stumped. Suggestions?</p>

 

[frank.schifano]

<p>Very odd. Can you post a picture of this, 'cause honestly I can't imagine something like this happening. All I can think of is that perhaps the film wasn't wound on to the reel properly and did not get enough fresh developer in those areas, but I'm really reaching with that one.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Sometimes a severely underexposed negative will look positive if you hold the emulsion side up and tilt it at the right angle to an overhead light. By reading your description I think that your film was somehow exposed to light while being loaded into the camera. Did you check your camera for a light leak? Did you bulk load this roll? </p>

[bill_leigh]

<p>It will not be until tomorrow night that I can scan the negs and post images of a good neg and a bad neg.</p>

<p>I considered that the phenidone solution was bad, so I mixed up new and subsequent rolls are fine, but then the clip test for these rolls was fine as well.</p>

<p>I have bulk loaded some Delta 400, and I'd need to look at the negs themselves to check on this for these rolls. However, due to paranoia around bulk loading film, I usually load it inside of a black changing bag. Also, I saw nearly identical behavior on both rolls in the tank. I find it hard to believe that I'd be that consistent in making the same mistake on 2 different rolls. I've been using the same camera for a few years now and no rolls before or after have exhibited this behavior, and again, since I saw the same thing on both rolls, I find it hard to believe I'd see the same light leak in both rolls and no others.</p>

<p>I'm aware that sometimes underexposed negs will look positive at an angle, so to make sure, last night I printed contact sheets, and sure enough, the shots at the beginning of the roll look OK, but the shots at the end of the roll printed as negatives.</p>

<p>I could well believe that I screwed up somewhere, but having the same behavior for 2 different rolls, developed at the same time in the same tank, to me implies that something happened in the developing process.</p>

<p>As I said it is very weird behavior. I appreciate the feedback.</p>

 

[Alan Marcus]

<p>Check on the web to get a clarification on Solarazation Effect. When a photographic material receives gross overexposure a reduction in density often occurs. Solarazation often occurs if the film or paper receives a fogging exposure during the developer stage of processing and developing continues. Solarazation has a brother the Sabattier Effect. A partial image reversal if during developing the action of the developer is arrested by water bath or otherwise and then continued. Most common is an unsafe safelight inspection. Its difficult to determine which caused the partial reversal. The difference between the two effects is solarzation is due to very high exposure levels either in the camera or during processing. Likely these effects were the forerunner of modern direct positive film and developing methods</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p >Let me add that two types of developing action exist. The most common one is reduction. The developer is a reducing agent with an affinity for oxygen. The developing agent seeks out those silver crystals that have be exposed and reduces (splits) them into their two component parts metallic silver and a halogen. The metallic silver remains embedded in the gelatin binder to form the image. The halogen, dissolves into the waters of the developer. Physical development is when silver ions are in solution in the developer. A condition that can occur if the developer has been used and is near exhaustion particularly in a fine grained developer as one of the constituents is a silver solvent. During physical development silver from the developer solution is deposited back on the film. It ahears to silver salts regardless if they have been exposed or not. This causes a partial reversal that falls under the definition of the Sabattier Effect. First described 1859 by H. de la Blancher in L’Art du Photographer journal France.</p>

[rick_allen5]

<p>What type of tank are you using? It may be possible that if missing a portion of your plastic tank, you are getting light into the center of the tank, causing a reversal process.</p>

[bill_leigh]

<p>I'm beginning to wonder if it might be the partial developer exhaustion that Alan mentioned. Looking at the scanned images (below), they look incompletely developed. The tank is a stainless steel tank, with a brand new plastic lid, so I doubt it is a light leak. The film was bulk loaded, but I've used film bulk loaded at the same time with no problems.<br /> The images below were scanned as positives (thereby no reversal) and look exactly as they appear when I just look at the negs themselves. The images were separated by only a single other shot, on the same roll of film.<br /> The image on the left is a beach scene, and is clearly a negative. The image on the right is a black cat on an oriental rug and it is sort of a positive. The center of her eyes, where I would expect a reflection if it were a true positive, is black, but the fur is definitely black.</p>

<p>However, in both cases, the image on the film looks very thin and very grainy. Any additional suggestions would be appreciated.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[don_mckeith2]

<p>Since you have a dark bag,run off a few frames of the bulk film and shoot it in a different camera----,and run off some different film and shoot it in the same camera ----process both in the same developer. Then at least you'll know where to look for the problem.</p>

<p>-Don</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I'm thinking that there might be some chemical contamination of the developer. I'd recommend mixing up a new batch of developer.</p>