vania_plemiannikov

Hello everyone,

 

I have some issues with my developments lately and don’t know if it comes from the camera or my development process. I have almost systematically 2 overexposed parallel lines (see photos), one on each side of the frame (left and right with hasselblad), but sometimes only one. Do you have any idea what these can be ? There is nothing visible between the frames but it clearly follows a direction from one frame to the next. It keeps coming rolls after roll all in HC110 B with development times between 7 and 9 min. The intensity of the artefact seems to vary and it mainly shows on even middle gray/light surface (ie sky, snow, etc.).

 

The hasselblad repair service thinks it's process related I do too since I get it from different lenses/back/body/film but only from my hasselblad cameras so far. Not the fujis. I have developed films for a very long time and my agitation method has been problem free for the last decade. I use mainly stainless steel tank with hewes reels but tried the paterson system and got the problem too except this one time when I use two reels in a 3 reels tank for greater agitation. But since the problem is not 100% systematic I can't be sure and this is not normal that I should need to do this...

 

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

 

It's not x-rays or drying marks. I tried a pre water bath for 2min with no effect. Picture of the film itself would be pointless as this is too subtle to show on picture.

 

I would really appreciate some technical insight if possible as I am loosing my mind over this. And getting tired of wasting good film shooting the sky...

 

Many thanks in advance !

 

Hi everyone,

 

I am taking my SWC Hasselblad and some HP5+ to Norway this xmas and was looking for some good recommendation regarding exposure time at f/4.5 and nominal speed, as well as bracketing interval (no more than 2).

 

I would really appreciate the advices of the wise and experienced !

 

Many thanks!

 

Vania

So it’s getting confusing,. I finally purchased a metal box like that (Coffre habitat en acier 60 litres) to put all my archival negative boxes, thinking I will cover it with a plastic cover. The box painting process is lacquered in a oven and it smells of paint quite a bit… So now I am worried that the fumes (the painting smell) will affect the negatives somehow… Do you think it might be a problem ? I don’t want to take any risk.

 

This is driving me nuts. What system should I go with? plastic with no air in which I could drill a few holes eventually, or lacquered metal with painting smell?…

 

Thank you for your help! I am leaving in two days so advise would be much appreciated!

Hello,

 

I will be away from my lab for quite a while, and I am very concerned about what could happen to my negatives. Decades of work… They are all stored in archival print files sleeves inside archival cardboard binders. But what if there’s a leak, flood or whatever in my absence… I can’t figure out the best strategy for storing the binders.

 

I am considering storing them in Muji polypropylene boxes (MUJI Online - Welcome to the MUJI Online Store.) with a plastic drape on top, but I am afraid plastic containers like that don’t let a lot of air in and that it might develop some mold or other nasty things… I once found a film and contact print that turned completely solid like cardboard inside one of these boxes. It was among others photographic material that were ok, so I couldn’t figure out what happened…

 

Am I being paranoid? Any suggestions?

 

Any knowledgeable opinion would be most welcome !

 

With all my thanks.

 

Vania

It´s kidda fun that because you think

you're too clumsy to take advantage of

a brilliant little feature it would make it

dumb... You should trust yourself a

little more and try to use it, which I

personally did countless times over the

last years without the slightest issue.

On the other hand when I travel around

I always forget/loose my release cable,

which made me love that lever a lot! To

each his own I guess.

Thanks all!

A shame really!

Thanks for the info.

Same for the 503cw or should I look for

that one instead?

Hello,

I'm considering replacing my 503cx from the

early 80's with a newer 501cm because of a

fair deal I found. The body feels much nicer

and I've been wanting that gliding mirror a

lot! But something I really liked about the cx

was the lever on the release button that

keeps the shutter open without the need of a

cable release. Immensely useful in my

opinion and I used it a lot! Is that option

gone with the newer models? Both the

501cm and 503cw. Do you now have to

carry around a cable for very long

exposures? Or is there some sort of T

mode?

Thanks for your help.

Vania

Again thank you very much! This is some extremely useful piece of information to me. I really appreciate!

<p>Brilliant! Thanks alot!</p>

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I'm trying to decide which long focal lens to buy in order to be able to do some 1:2 close-up, and still be able to remain at a workable distance to my subject (at least 80 cm but 1m sounds better...). This last part is very confusing as I can't find any useful info to help me understand how extension tubes affect the lens minimum distance to the subject...<br>

My choice would be between the 120 macro, 150cf(i-e), 160cb and 180cf(i-e).<br>

As I would also like to use the lens for occasional landscape shots, the 150, being lighter and smaller than the rest of them (except for the 160 but which is said to show a less pleasant bookeh), seems to be the better choice. But how can I calculate how close to the subject I'll end up and with which tube for 1:2 shots ?<br>

Thank you for you help!<br>

Vania</p>

<p>Charles,<br>

I fear you are right and using only one film for 2 reels could solve some problems, but it is such a waste of time to develop only one roll at a time and it makes it hard to keep up with the working flow... Anyway I'm confident I should be able to get proper development using my equipment the way it was intended to be. Hope I'm not dreaming...</p>

<p>Yes I should invest in some newton glass thing for the scan to keep the negs flat and even but as I don't use the scanner for anything else than contact print replacement, I can't justify the spending yet...<br /> So it's not the syrup as it just happend with PMK also but only on 3 frames (out of 12) and for the first time. The only thing I did differently was using a pre-soak. I usually don't do it with PMK but I guess was in automatic mode and mindlessly poured water in the tank. It seems strange to me that a pre-soak could do that as it is suppose to help getting even developments.<br />On the other hand I got a clean even development with HC-110 and the only thing I did differently to the ones that gave me the white stipe was using a 2% acetic acid stop bath instead of plain water. Development time was 12 min for 1:66 dilution. Long enough so an acid stop bath was not needed, so there again it is quite surprising...<br />Does it make sense to anyone that either a pre-soak or water stop bath (I used water with PMK also) could result in that over-exposed white stripe ?<br />Thanks.<br />V.</p>

<p>Pretty fast since it was a one reel tank. Maximum 10 sec to pour out the dev and start the rinse. I don't use a stop bath since my times are always quite long (more than 12 minutes). I change the water 6-7 times in a minute.</p>

<p>Thanks. I do use a pre-wet and the working solution was made around 10 min before pouring it, although I did stir it mildly. No x-rays.</p>

<h2 >Problem solved... another one arise...</h2>

 

 

<blockquote >Hello all,<br /><br />First let me thank you all for your inputs (right or wrong), they really cheered me up and helped me remain coherent and methodical about all this (as opposed to feeling doomed and making the same mistakes again and again).<br /><br />So definitely an under-agitation problem in two ways :<br /><br />1st. Not enough inversions during the first 30s/1min. And maybe after that but I need to test for this and know if, with proper agitation at first, I can slow down afterwards to gain back some control over contrast and grain. As well as see if I can use semi-stand (3min intervals) agitation again which I find very rewarding.<br /><br />2nd, and probably most important, I didn't apply enough force during my inversions. They needed to be more brisk. Kind of like trying to empty a yoghurt pot (well maybe not as much but you get the idea). This is probably more true with stainless steel tanks than with the Jobo ones which offers a better flow of the chemistry (hence the fact that my problem was more obvious with the ss tanks).<br /><br />Well now that I get a perfectly even development a new problem arose <img title="Sad" src="http://www.apug.org/forums/images/smilies/newones/sad.png" border="0" alt="" /> :<br />It happened before and when I mentioned it I thought it was due to my testing of extremely slow agitation. Unfortunately it was not and it happened again with my new proper and energetic method on my last test roll.<br />As you can see on the picture there is a thick white line going across the image showing over development. I darkened it and added contrast to make it more obvious. It is continuous on all frames as if a drop of developer acting more intensely crossed the whole film. But the direction of the line in the developing tank is parallel to the ground and the lid.</blockquote>

 

 

<p><img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3046413/trix_HC110_1%2B70_15m007.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It only happened twice and only in my recent agitation testings. Since then, I just finished developing one of my week end film in PMK and there is nothing of the sort.<br />What the two developments had in common was<br />1. The use of HC-110 freshly diluted from syrup. Can it be possible that this is due to one drop of syrup than didn't dissolve well ? Is sounds like a stretch especially considering the direction of the line (parallel to the ground). Does HC110 needs time after dilution in order to dissolve properly (I've just started using this developer so I'm not familiar with it) ? Or maybe a good shake ? I only stir it.<br />2. I didn't use my usual demineralized water but just plain tap water for one and plain tap water filtered with a Brita for the other.<br />Appart from that I'm clueless... <img title="Wondering" src="http://www.apug.org/forums/images/smilies/newones/wondering.png" border="0" alt="" /><br /><br />Can that artifact still be due to some improper agitation ?<br /><br />Again thank you all for your help, and I hope someone has an idea about this one...<br /><br />Vania</p>

Only on 6x6 never happend on 35mm but I rarely use that format. Never on 6x4,5 either... Agirating more seems to help but I'm not

there yet...

<p>So less agitation doesn't solve the problem, it actually makes it even worst... Now on top of it I have uneven development streaks in the middle of almost every frames. Some sort of over-developed line that could look like on of those tracks airplanes leaves in the sky.<br>

This is really crazy. I've been developing my own films for more than ten years I even took care of a b&w photo lab for a year and never, ever had any problems before! Now for the last couple of months I can't get anything developed properly. It's just one problem after another.<br>

So I'll try extreme vigorous agitation, something like 1 complete inversion per second, and see what happens.</p>

<p>No change in film, alway TX400 and FP4+</p>

<p>Thanks Charles, this is VERY informative!<br>

So 2 things changed. 1st is film format : I always used 120 but went from 6x4,5 to 6x6, and oddly enough my 6x4,5 don't show that problem. I think it is due to the fact the affected sides (left and right on 6x6) would correspond to the top and bottom of a 6x4,5 negative where it won't show as much (or at all). So no help there.<br>

2nd is the ss tank. One of my theory is that it takes so long to pour the developer in a ss tank (15-20sec with the time needed to put the small cap back on) compare to the Jobo (5-10s) and that it may favor uneven development. This is why I tried using the jobo again and realize that the problem was less but definitely there too and with the blotches that made me use ss tank in the first place.<br>

I also uses 5min pre-soak always.<br>

I definitely agitate faster than you description. The fact is that I wait for an extremely brief moment after an inversion before going upright. I invert as recommended in the film darkroom cookbook. One complete inversion with a twist down and up is about 2sec, and I do 4 per 10sec. And I always change the direction of the twist.<br>

I will try your method. Do you agitate that slowly during the first minute also or more vigorously?<br>

As for no air are you certain it is the way to go ? It seems agitation would be more efficient with some air inside.<br>

Finally can you please describe how you fill you ss tank and how long it take for a 2 reels ? I really feel like it's taking me way too much time, almost 20 sec.<br>

Again thank you. V.</p>

<p>Thanks. I use 450ml per roll so there is a little air left. If it's over agitation what would be a proper "rythme" of inversion. Larry you mention 4 inversion for 10s which is what I do. What that too much is it what you do now to solve the over agitation problem? and when you say 4 inversion do you mean 4x down and up ?</p>

<p>Hello,<br />I have been struggling with uneven development issues for some time now and wasted so many films and money in test rolls, but I still have no clue about what is going on. Hope some of you can help.The sides of my negs are over-developed and the effect is much more visible in bright highlights, more specifically the sky area when it’s a clear blue day. When I use stainless steal tank and reels this phenomena seems amplified. With the Jobo plastic tank and reels, it is limited in size to the border of the negative but come with some big black blotches.The camera is not the cause of this because different cameras give the same problem.I've tried different developers also (D-76, HC-110, Perceptol, PMK, Prescysol) and only the tanning developers seem to lessen the problem.I thought about agitation but I’ve developed films for years and never had this issue before… Nevertheless it seems like the most probable cause but leaves me totally clueless. I’ve tried more and less agitation but to no effect. When I invert my tank I always twist it to allow lateral flow of the developer. And I always switch directions. 10 seconds is 4 complete inversions (down and up). And agitation every 30s or 1min or semi-stand (every 3min) doesn’t change much. Although less agitation seems to worsen the problem I can’t say for sure and the difference is small.Here are some examples of my test rolls :<br /><br /> <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3046413/fp4%2B%4080N-1D761%2B1SS10min006.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3046413/trixHC110F15min016.jpg" alt="" /><br>

and the film that made me aware of the problem:<br>

<br /> <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3046413/ArChi049.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><br /> Hope someone can help.Thanks.Vania</p>

<p>Wow!!! thanks Tak for the such precise answers... I couldn't have hoped for better! I'm sorry, I'm just seeing that my post has been answered, for some reason I didn't get email notification. But thank you very much for the time you took.<br>

Just one question though. In your first post when you say that at 1:1 it will be 10 cm away from the lense do you mean in front of the glass, or the hood?<br>

Thanks alot<br>

Vania</p>

<p></p>

<p >Hi all,</p>

<p >I own a Rollei 6008i2 and I’m trying to find the appropriate lense I need for close-up work. I’m having a very hard time dealing with macro numbers ratios, magnification, etc. I read countless articles on this forum and tried to find books on the subject but I still don’t have a clue about what this all means…</p>

<p >To make a long story short, what I’m looking for is a macro lense that will allow me to fill my 6x6cm with either</p>

<p >1. real size subject, 6cm long (1 :1 that part I get !). That would be on seldom, which means I could deal with extension tube(s) for that (I own a 9 and a 17cm tubes).</p>

<p >2. about 12cm subject (1 :2 that part I get also !!!) on a very regular basis which means I would like to achieve this without tubes and at a reasonable distance from the subject.</p>

<p >3. subjects about 14-24cm long (that would be 1:?-1 :? I dont understand how to calculate this… duh !). I guess this is less of a problem but still…</p>

<p >One of my main concern is not to be to close to the subject so I won’t cast a shadow. I’m guessing more than 1 meter away. But… I hate long lenses and how they flatten perspective.</p>

<p >So I’m hoping the 90mm Apo-Symmar is right for me but the investment is so huge, even on ebay, that I want to be sure it fits my needs.</p>

<p >Could people that own one give me feed back on close-up work, please ? What extension tube or tubes do you need to achieve 1:1 magnification ? How close to the subject do you have to be ? How confortable is it to shoot at 1 :2 ? How does it work for close-up portraits ?</p>

<p >And to the math guys out there, how do I calculate how big an object can be in order to fill my 6x6 neg for a given lense ??? and distance ???</p>

<p >Thank you for your help.</p>

<p >V.P.</p>

<p >P.S. What's the font used on these forums? I love it!</p>

 

 

<p>DON'T! Send it to Bronica/Tamron they'll fix it for you. Although you shouldn't have to pay for that fix since they sold so many cameras with that issue (including mine). Try to bargain. Good luck</p>