Overexposed lines on negative

[kmac]

You said that you sent some films to a pro lab and the lines weren't in those films, so perhaps you'd better send all your films there in the future, that is if you want to keep using film.

[James G. Dainis]

If you load one film on top of another film do the streaks line up over each other?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Enhanced "Hand" - Quite weird

[ATTACH=full]1418397[/ATTACH]

 

 

Screen shot from OP's web page. Edge markings are not fully developed, the film could be expired by decades, or development time was too short and perhaps weak developer.

[ATTACH=full]1418398[/ATTACH]

And those large 'bubble' markings also visible exclude the possibility of a light leak.

[royfisher]

Weird hand but it's a reflection in the picture. Or a ghost : ).

What that reflection of your hand taking its own selfie says to me, as someone who is trying to analyze the film processing anomalies, is that I can't believe anything in that picture. What is actually there on the film and what isn't? The image of your hand takes up *half* of the frame; your phone covers a little more than that and adds some ghosting of its own (or does it?) and other bits and pieces of itself. The leprechaun's hat buckle, for example, is perhaps the lens bezel (or is it some type of chemical stain?).

 

You've identified four potential stages for the source of the problem: film, camera, processing, and washing and drying. Have you made any attempts to methodically isolate which one is the culprit?

 

Have you examined the film with a loupe? A real one, not a cell phone app. That should reveal definitively whether the streaks are light leaks or liquid marks, or perhaps some of both.

Edited February 23, 2022 by royfisher

[glen_h]

Only one I can think of is not pouring uniformly.

 

That is, if you stop pouring for a few seconds, and then continue.

[Dustin McAmera]

How is the film hung up? Might there be some corrosion product from metal clips that has run down with the water and acted as an intensifier? I should say (before anyone else does) that I think this is a daft and improbable suggestion, but the obvious answers seem to have been shot down already.

[vania_plemiannikov]

How is the film hung up? Might there be some corrosion product from metal clips that has run down with the water and acted as an intensifier? I should say (before anyone else does) that I think this is a daft and improbable suggestion, but the obvious answers seem to have been shot down already.

I let a film dried horizontally, same issue so it's not that nor any kind of drying marks. The only thing that seems to work so far is an initial 1 minute agitation instead of 30s. It's almost gone but still slightly perceptible.It also tells that this is happening in the early stage of development. It's not the pouring either since I just dipped the film in a filled tank with the same issue.

[Rick Helmke]

Shoot a roll and send it to me, just a test roll, and let me see if the problem persists. If it does that will narrow the possibilities.

 

Rick H

[vania_plemiannikov]

Shoot a roll and send it to me, just a test roll, and let me see if the problem persists. If it does that will narrow the possibilities.

 

Rick H

It's very kind of you but I gave some films to a lab with no issue already.

[vania_plemiannikov]

Someone posted this link on another forum :

Having issues: defeat streaky development in 2017 — ERIK GOULD PROJECTS

This tends to confirms the origin of the streaks as being link to chemical reaction when introducing the developer and/or during the first seconds. As stated already I have tried both type of tanks Paterson and steel tank with and without pre-soak, pouring the developer in the tank (including the Paterson type) and dropping the reels in the developer in the dark, as well as with or without the Paterson twizzle stick (worst results by far!) But none of these had any effect. So the defect is happening anyhow, unless I agitated for the first minute. This maybe due to the active nature of HC110 as dilution B and I definitely should try a higher dilution as suggested before.

I sort of conclude that there is nothing wrong and that I just have to agitate for the first minute with this developer now. I am just very surprised that it is happening now after more than 10 years of use... This does match the recommendation of "Way beyond monochrome" and Steve Anchell's 'Darkroom cookbook" :

« Agitation is an integral part of film development. It prevents chemical defects from occurring, builds contrast in the negative, and has a direct effect on image sharpness. The first benefit, preventing chemical defects, is accomplished within the first minute of development. This is because there are certain irreversible chemical defects that can begin within that time. If allowed to begin, they become worse during the course of development. The solution is continuous agitation for the first 50 to 60 seconds. »

Thanks all for the suggestions!

[vania_plemiannikov]

I don't get perfectly even negatives though (when shooting a grey card) but I will work on that.

[glen_h]

Weird hand but it's a reflection in the picture. Or a ghost : ). Ilford films lately have a weak marking I noticed and Panf actually has no marking at all. All films brand-new and giving me proper density. Just streaks.

Pan F+ is well known for poor latent image keeping.

 

The edge marking disappears after some years.

 

I suppose that should also mean less age fogging, though I don't know of any tests for that.

 

There are a lot of films that can keep the latent image for decades, so I am not quite

sure why that is.

 

For HC-110, my usual is dilution B. (But for TP2415 it is dilution F.)

 

But most of my shots are not so uniform, as to make such stripes easy to see.

But then again, most are 35mm, so maybe it is different.

 

Just wondering, how do you store films after shooting an before developing?

Something like a rubber band on the roll might leave an impression that shows

up under certain development conditions.

[vania_plemiannikov]

Pan F+ is well known for poor latent image keeping.

 

The edge marking disappears after some years.

 

I suppose that should also mean less age fogging, though I don't know of any tests for that.

 

There are a lot of films that can keep the latent image for decades, so I am not quite

sure why that is.

 

For HC-110, my usual is dilution B. (But for TP2415 it is dilution F.)

 

But most of my shots are not so uniform, as to make such stripes easy to see.

But then again, most are 35mm, so maybe it is different.

 

Just wondering, how do you store films after shooting an before developing?

Something like a rubber band on the roll might leave an impression that shows

up under certain development conditions.

Funny somebody asked me about the rubber band already so it must be a common thing but I never heard of it before or felt I needed it... my films are quite tightly sealed. And I would need to cary buckets of them around ;-)

[glen_h]

Funny somebody asked me about the rubber band already so it must be a common thing but I never heard of it before or felt I needed it... my films are quite tightly sealed. And I would need to cary buckets of them around ;-)

 

The other one you are not supposed to do is pull extra hard to tighten up the paper at the end.

The paper shouldn't be loose, but not much tighter than when it spools in the camera.

[rodeo_joe1]

I invert the kodak way for the first 30s then 5 sharp inversions in 5s every 30s.

That's good for cocktail shaking, not good for film agitation!

 

And I'm pretty sure that Kodak have never recommended such a technique.

 

Slooow down. You need to give the air space in the tank time to bubble past the film - that's what acts to mix stale developer, clinging to the film, with fresh.

 

One inversion in 5 seconds is sufficient. Two inversions taking 8 to 10 seconds at 30 or 60 second intervals is pretty standard.

But don't do the inversions in slo-mo. Quickly invert the tank, hold it upside down for a slow count of two, or until you feel the air-bubbling cease, and then quickly right the tank again.

 

Over-filling the tank so that there's no airspace is also a bad thing, and impedes agitation. Use the recommended amount of solution and no more.

[rodeo_joe1]

This is an accidental posting. Sorry!

But why no way for poster to delete?

[vania_plemiannikov]

That's good for cocktail shaking, not good for film agitation!

 

And I'm pretty sure that Kodak have never recommended such a technique.

 

Slooow down. You need to give the air space in the tank time to bubble past the film - that's what acts to mix stale developer, clinging to the film, with fresh.

 

One inversion in 5 seconds is sufficient. Two inversions taking 8 to 10 seconds at 30 or 60 second intervals is pretty standard.

But don't do the inversions in slo-mo. Quickly invert the tank, hold it upside down for a slow count of two, or until you feel the air-bubbling cease, and then quickly right the tank again.

 

Over-filling the tank so that there's no airspace is also a bad thing, and impedes agitation. Use the recommended amount of solution and no more.

 

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 ?

 

Thanks!

[vania_plemiannikov]

That's good for cocktail shaking, not good for film agitation!

 

And I'm pretty sure that Kodak have never recommended such a technique.

 

Slooow down. You need to give the air space in the tank time to bubble past the film - that's what acts to mix stale developer, clinging to the film, with fresh.

 

One inversion in 5 seconds is sufficient. Two inversions taking 8 to 10 seconds at 30 or 60 second intervals is pretty standard.

But don't do the inversions in slo-mo. Quickly invert the tank, hold it upside down for a slow count of two, or until you feel the air-bubbling cease, and then quickly right the tank again.

 

Over-filling the tank so that there's no airspace is also a bad thing, and impedes agitation. Use the recommended amount of solution and no more.

 

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 ?

Thanks

[rodeo_joe1]

Do you use both type of tanks ? With the same agitation pattern ?

Thanks

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!

[chris_autio]

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.

[jim_gardner4]

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.

[vania_plemiannikov]

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.

Does it with different camera/lenses...

[vania_plemiannikov]

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.

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...

[rodeo_joe1]

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.

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.

 

Let me repeat... for the Nth time. IT'S THE AIRSPACE BUBBLING THROUGH THE TANK DURING INVERSION THAT DOES THE WORK OF AGITATION.

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.

Edited April 29, 2022 by rodeo_joe|1

[jim_gardner4]

I have no idea where this daft figure-of-eight affectation has come from - although I suspect it's from ill-informed YouTubers.

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.