Strange wavy artefacts after processing. Please help diagnose.

[jesse_chilcott]

<p>I first got these artifacts a few months ago. It ruined the whole roll of film. I process my film outside in the shade using a plastic Patterson 3 roll drum. It was quite hot that day and very bright outside. I Googled around and didn't find any real info on it so I just forgot about it. It just happened again today.<br>

Information that may or may not be important:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>I shot both rolls with a Leica MP (which has a cloth shutter). </li>

<li>The lens was changed while the second roll was in the camera. I'm unsure if I changed lenses during the first roll.</li>

<li>I process the film outdoors, and both days were bright and warm.</li>

<li>I processed both rolls at 20C (68F) exactly</li>

<li>I agitated softly for 10 seconds out of every minute.</li>

<li>The film was Tri-X shot at 320 ISO</li>

<li>The developer was X-Tol 1+1</li>

<li>I put in 10mm extra developer per roll</li>

<li>Neither roll went through an Xray machine</li>

<li>I store my chemistry in 1 ltr cola bottles. I store the bottles in a dark place. I know for the second roll the bottle was half empty and had been unused for about three weeks</li>

<li>The film is in date and stored in a fridge</li>

<li>I processed the second roll with another roll that didn't show the artefacts, although it seemed a bit dark around the pin holes. The roll with the artefacts was on top of the other roll.</li>

<li>My agitation process involves tiping the drum a few times during the initial agitation and then using the spool thingy to gently rotate it back and forth every minute.</li>

</ul>

<p>I suspect that it may have something to do with the heat rising in the developer tank, but I'm unsure. It takes a bout 10 minutes for the heat from the sun to warm my chemistry up 1 degree Celsius and I process in the shade. I have also been doing this for some time with experiencing this issue.</p>

<p>I am unsure what is causing this. If anyone has idea please share it. Thank you very much.<br>

An example from the first roll: <a href="

<img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6111/6317287763_bb6a1e047d_z_d.jpg" alt="" /><br>

An example from today's roll: <a href="

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6593133145_731668ec6a_z_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[michaelging]

<p>It sounds like you are doing things right. If I had to guess, I would think the bottom photo is a light leak from somewhere and I am guessing the tank from the look of the marks. The top photo looks like over agitation around the sprocket holes. I saw this same problem, when I used to use a Patterson tank. </p>

[jesse_chilcott]

<p>Thanks Michael. What tank would you recommend over patterson?</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Nikor stainless steel are the most durable, reliable, and light-tight tanks you can get. Of course, you can't buy them new. Best if you buy a set that you know was always together, as lids aren't all exactly the same size, and they'll leak if they aren't a good match. Yeah, you have to learn how to load them, but that's not a hard learning curve, it's just a matter of getting the tactile feel of how to do it.<br>

Or, your Paterson's (one T, by the way) may work fine if you use them indoors. Looks like the sun was refecting it's way through the light traps.</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p>The blemish pattern suggests fog. I believe your technique of developing outdoors in daylight is the adversary. It is difficult to get across how much brighter daylight is as compared to a brightly illuminated indoor setting. That's because the human eye is able to adjusts and compensate. Likely your outdoor work area is a thousand fold brighter, even in the shade, as<br />compared to darkroom with lights on.<br>

I suggest you move your developing activity indoor, likely this problem will fade away . </p>

[jesse_chilcott]

<p>Thanks Alan. It was really bright on both days. The thing is, I have been processing film like this for years with no problems. The only difference is that recently I exchanged my old Patterson tank for a slightly larger one in used condition so I could process 110 size film. I suspect that this tank isn't handling the bright light as well as the other one.<br>

For the last year I have been living at a share house, which has no facility to process film inside. Perhaps I will just pay to get my film processed at the local darkroom or process myself at night. </p>

 

[jesse_chilcott]

<p>Thanks John, I shall start hunting for a Nikor tank. I think they were the ones we used at school (15 years ago).</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Looks like the sign of static, or even radiation through an airport. Is that possible? </p>

[jesse_chilcott]

<p>Neither roll was taken through an airport, nor exposed to an X ray machine. I was unaware that static could fog film. Even so, I really don't put the film in an environment that could cause much static.</p>

[russ_kerlin]

<p>My vote is that it is an agitation issue. The wave pattern is simply too regular to likely be a light leak. Also, a light leak would be darker, not lighter. <br>

I've never been enamored with the little twirly thing on the Paterson tanks. Good agitation is absolutely critical (unless doing stand development), and other than a Jobo processor, nothing is better than full tank inversions with a twisting motion (to assure developer moves around spiraled film).</p>

 

[bethe_fisher]

<p>It looks like a light leak in both cases. Does the tank have a center post that you didn't use? Since you changed to a different tank, I'd suspect it's the culprit. Processing outside is probably the reason as well. I don't see why you feel it's necessary to do it outside just because it's either a rented house or others live there - you can still keep the chemicals away from other people without endangering your photos. <br>

Static can happen if you put the film on the reel in dry conditions. I don't know if that's what happened here, but it can happen. If you're using a changing bag, you won't see the static.</p>

[richardsperry]

"The wave pattern is simply too regular to likely be a light leak"

 

He is using a drum to develop.

 

If there is a light leak and he is rolling the drum on a surface, say a table outside...I think the pattern would look just like

that.

 

I kinda think it is a cool effect. Maybe he could perfect the technique and produce some unique art photography.

[larrydressler]

<p>Double Helix I would swear if it was not X-ray damage it is the DNA of real film. :) If it was a light leak in the processing tank it would be over more than just one area.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I am inclined to the light-leak theory. That said, I have used Paterson tanks and reels for 30 years without a hitch. I am going to venture that the leak is not a single source: it looks like some sort of intereference pattern to me. I gues all you can do is examine the tank in minute detail and look for any sign of a crack or such like.</p>

[jesse_chilcott]

<p>Hey folks. I am thinking the film may have actually gone through an X ray. I forgot to mention that I buy my film from the US and have it shipped to my place in Australia. I guess it is possible the Australian Customs have Xrayed my shipment and damaged the film. However, Only a two rolls so far seem to have this defect. Also, it is possible that the earlier roll was from a previous shipment. I have been doing this for a few years as film in Australia is restrictively expensive and it has never been a problem. <br>

I feel that it is unlikely that it is x ray damage, but my earlier statement about not going through an xray machine is most likely false.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Cargo shipment X-rays can be pretty strong.</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>The little twirly thing is a likely culprit. The first thing I throw away when I get a new tank. Still,the best example I have seen of what may be "bromide drag".<br>

Try inversion agitation and report back.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>If it is possible that it was an x-ray, that would definitely be my guess. They DO have sine curve like fogging patterns and it clearly explains why these particular rolls might be fogged when others have never been despite using the same equipment and technique. Bromide drag does not look like this, at least definitely not like the first photo. It is some sort of light leak, and based on the perfect wave pattern, very likely to be x-ray. Just because not all the rolls from the shipment are affected does not exclude it -- they could have only x-rayed part of the shipment, they could have been partially shielded by something or they could have been x-rayed separately before they were packaged and sent to you etc. X-rayed film can also be affected differently depending on the orientation of the film vis a vis the x-ray. So if two rolls were long side to the beam while another was short side, the effects can be very different. Also, you are going to see the results more on shots with less exposure (i.e. the dark ones you showed), so if you pushed this film or shot it in the dark, the effects would be much more noticeable than in a roll where most of the subjects were shot in daylight and got more uniform exposure.</p>

[jesse_chilcott]

<p>Ok so here is my plan of attack. I will take the next five or so rolls to my local darkroom. The darkroom operator is a master of his art, so if it happens with him then it is definitely X ray damage. In the mean time I will buy a new tank based on the negative comments about Patterson tanks.<br>

I really, really want it to not be X ray damage because it kinda renders the 40 or so rolls of 135 and the 10 rolls of 110 in my fridge too unreliable to use. All this is making me seriously consider an M9.<br>

I doubt it is Bromide drag. I used to agitate my film quite hard but now I do it very gently because I think I get a finer grain. I know I could agitate the film much faster than I do and still not get any drag.<br>

Thank you very much for your help everyone. I have always lurked on this forum, and this is the first time posting. I really appreciate how helpful this community is and I look forward to participating in many further discussions.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"In the mean time I will buy a new tank based on the negative comments about Patterson tanks."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd suggest waiting until after seeing the results from the other darkroom tech.</p>

<p>There's nothing inherently wrong with Paterson tanks. Nor is there anything inherently flawed with rotary agitation techniques using the twist paddle or automated drum rollers.</p>