Duh, Glad It Was Outdated Film

[mark_farrell]

<p>After a long break from film I've started shooting some B&W again and doing my own processing. Processed a couple of 35mm rolls and they came out good so I decided I'd try some outdated (1981) 120 Tri-X in a Mamiya 645 ProTL I bought recently. As it was old film and I was more or less testing the camera, the shots weren't anything special.</p>

<p>Well I set about developing it following the same procedure I had used for the 35mm Tri-X, including the same measured quantities of chemicals in the tank. Well the 8 ounces was fine for the 35mm, but when I hung the roll of 120 up to dry and looked at it, the under developed portion of the film along one side told me the story pretty quickly.<br>

Lesson learned for next time......</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Somewhere in the archives here is a thread in which we confess our darkroom goofs, blunders, boners (that one ain't fittin' for a family forum) and D'oh! moments. I've had quite a few of my own, including omitting the spindle/axle doodad from a plastic tank/reel set the first time I used one. Lovely fogging.</p>

<p>I wish I could sticky that thread permanently. Makes for fun reading and is coincidentally instructive too. <em>(Is "instructive" a word or did I just D'oh! again?)</em></p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Instructive is a word - an adjective.<br /><br />If you can find it, it would be a very good and instructive thread to pin. Please do it. I would suggest titling the thread, "Lessons Learned" .</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>Did you use the same tank to develop the 35mm roll as your 120 roll? If yes, then "you should always fill your tanks to capacity volume wise.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<blockquote>

<p>Did you use the same tank to develop the 35mm roll as your 120 roll? If yes, then "you should always fill your tanks to capacity volume wise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nonsense. There is no need to do that provided you have allowed a sufficient amount of developer to do the job. There is no advantage to using more developer than necessary once the minimum requirements are met.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>There <em>is</em> an advantage to <em>not </em>filling it full, and that is to allow for better agitation and flow of chemistry over the film.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Hey Lex I found the thread and I was the one who started it.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00ULvA</p>

[mark_farrell]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Did you use the same tank to develop the 35mm roll as your 120 roll? If yes, then "you should always fill your tanks to capacity volume wise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Besides other comments above, another reason I would avoid filling the tank, is that eventually the chemicals become waste and if I can use less for a process, it's less that goes somewhere into the environment. With the exception of the goof I made here, I have always just used enough chemicals to cover the film reel. Worked this way years ago for me, so I haven't altered the process.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I think that processing B&W is more eco friendly than what it takes to make Digital cameras you change out every other year. Most developers turn to salts by the time they get to the water treatment plant much like bleach just not as bad.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>I have done that before! I wrecked what could have been a good roll of 120 film because I used a plastic tank rather than my usual Stainless steel. Well it wasn't a TOTAL waste since 2/3 of the film developed fine! This was just a few years ago and I should have known better...<br>

THen there was the Christmas Eve when I thought XTOL was fixer! I blame the wine....</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Hey, thanks, Larry. I re-stickied that thread from last year. We don't have any way to permanently sticky a thread so it'll drop off again in a week or so. Meanwhile, maybe a few more folks will add their stories to that thread.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Well I bet in a year we have made many more mistakes... :)</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Hi Lex,</p>

<p>I do not see the thread re-stickied. Should it not appear at the top of the B&W Photo forum?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Nuts, apparently even a moderator can't re-sticky an old thread. That's one of the few drawbacks to photo.net's older design - it didn't anticipate the features some folks would want as the web matured.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Well here it is again for those who missed it. Maybe you can just start a new thread Lex and put this link in it. Just explain that we think it is time for new screw ups.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00ULvA</p>