Developing fault

[jpay]

Hello, A friend has asked me if I could post this to see if anyone knows the cause...

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...790070301_782190300_22680626_1011576161_n.jpg

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...710430301_782190300_22680338_1905456552_n.jpg

Sorry it's not the actual picture but would appreciate it if you could follow the link through and help us out.

Was taken on Ilford Pan 400, pushed to a higher ISO and left in the dev little bit longer than suggested but is a common technique and never resulted in this.

Anyone?

 

[robhooley167]

Hard to tell... Looks to me like the emulsion has flaked off in the dark areas and the lighter areas have been overdeveloped

Could you post a photo of the negative itself?

 

[EdMoss]

Would have said chemical contamination but as it's followed along the lines of the image that's a new one to me.
Email Matt at AG and see what he thinks, sorry can't be more help without seeing the neg.

 

[donut]

looks like double exposure on them as well

 

[freecom2]

Could be a scanning problem as well - looking at the negative will rule out a lot of things.

 

[sparty]

I don't know what happened but I absolutely love the effect on the first photo!

 

[s162216]

Looks almost like the 'sabbatier effect' that you can get if you expose prints to light whilst they are developing, it is apparently possible to do the same effect with negatives as well if their exposed to light during development.

Could the tank have a 'light leak' in it? I'm just thinking that if during the developer stage a tiny amount of light got in and exposed a bit of the developing film and turned it positive...

Looking at them again, I'm now pretty certain that is whats happened, look at the outline around objects in the pictures, theres black lines which are called 'mackie lines' and these appear as black in negatives and white in prints which have been re-exposed during development. Especially look at the person entirely reversed in the first one to see what I mean.

 

[freecom2]

^^^ I might be proved wrong, but I don't think fogging looks very much like that IMO.

 

[s162216]

Its not "fogging" because its already been partly developed so you don't get fogging in the traditional sense like in camera with bad seals - if its already partly developed, when paper/film is exposed to light it reverses the tone so iyou get white 'positive' blacks and 'mackie lines' which are areas of high density, around the edges of objects. These are white on prints and black on printed negatives.

What I'm suggesting is that some light may have gotten into the tank partway through developing, the uneveness of the effect is another reason I think it may be that, its exceeding difficult apparently to evenly re-expose it.

 

[Joenail]

I think Samuel's right about the sabbatier effect. Might be worth searching about the interweb to find an example of it done on film.

Posting a picture of the actual negative would be a lot more helpful though!

 

[s162216]

I have found a few examples here:

http://speckyboy.com/2009/02/23/24-examples-of-stylish-sabatier-or-solarised-effect-photography/

Some are prints using the 'sabatier effect' and others are 'solarised' which is the correct terminology for doing it on a negative. Most though are digital sadly, this one probably illustrates it the best, look at the black mackie lines around the rails:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgdaniel/201478843/

Theres also some examples here, especially the first picture:

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/wljeme/Chapt1.html

Not quite as extreme as the pics we're discussing, but you can see the black 'mackie lines' on the right edge of the statue.

 

[freecom2]

Apologies, interpreted your first post on it wrong. Again, pictures of the neg are probably the most important.

 

[sparty]

I have found a few examples here:

http://speckyboy.com/2009/02/23/24-examples-of-stylish-sabatier-or-solarised-effect-photography/

Some are prints using the 'sabatier effect' and others are 'solarised' which is the correct terminology for doing it on a negative. Most though are digital sadly, this one probably illustrates it the best, look at the black mackie lines around the rails:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgdaniel/201478843/

Theres also some examples here, especially the first picture:

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/wljeme/Chapt1.html

Not quite as extreme as the pics we're discussing, but you can see the black 'mackie lines' on the right edge of the statue.

The original poster's accidental 'sabatier' is much better than all those deliberate ones!

 

[offline]

I seem to remember someone posted a roll where the film wasn't loaded correctly on a spiral and the film touched itself, creating pockets so the dev/fix don't act evenly. There was a similar effect to the OP's examples, with the fault strangely following lines on the image.

I don't remember if it was this forum or another though!

 

[Boofle]

I can't really make up my mind because there seem to be two different things going on here... There seems to be solarizing on one hand, but the "double exposures" suggest that maybe the film has touched itself in some points, as the poster above me has pointed out. Nice effect in any case!