Development problem?

freecom2

freecom2

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,326
Edit My Images
No
Help! First time developing using a changing bag, so I thought I'd test with a roll of 120 before developing 'important' stuff. Phew that I did, rather the errors came up now!

Fomapan 100, T-Max Dev, Ilford Rapid Fixer, Fotospeed Rinse Aid

Is the black part due to uneven development, too much agitation (agitated 3-4 times every 30 seconds), not fixed for long enough or possibly a light leak in the (new!) changing bag? It's towards the end of the roll (12 exposures), there are no edge markings.

DSC_0986_1024.jpg


(bigger version here)
 
Hmm, I'm thinking it may have been loaded onto the reel incorrectly?
 
Uneven development is way more subtle unless you're totally out of the ball park on following procedures. A better picture with the negative on a light table or against a bright white background would be easier to judge your results.

A light leak is probable as well as loading the film on the reel where there was no gap between wraps. This can happen with the stainless steel reels which usually take some practice loading.
 
I will do that - I only finished developing it at 4:25pm! :) it's unlikely to be a camera light leak to the best of my knowledge, I've already run several rolls through my Yashica Mat with no ruined negatives at all.

It was using a plastic Paterson reel, if that helps?
 
It looks more light leak-ish(changing bag or otherwise) than incorrect reel loading to my eyes. My experience is with 35mm though.
 
Last edited:
I have to say my first reaction was "did the back of the camera open?" but not having shot a Yashica Mat, i'm not sure how easy that would be...
 
To the best of my knowledge, the back never opened. It's locked in - you turn a wheel which moves forwards and backwards a 'catch', if that makes sense.

Actually, this picture (of a newer 124G, but same thing) explains far more clearly: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sachnguyen/5062425725/

I've just inspected the changing bag and I can't find any possible source of light leaks. Besides, this is a massive bit - the completely black part is probably 10cm long, and the bit that is sort of half-damaged is another 10cm.
 
Oooh this is quite interesting, I shone a bright light through the supposed 'black' bits and I can actually see an image. Do I need to fix it again?
 
Fixing issues are usually stains that can appear sometime later or in the case of films like T-Max not remove all the a magenta dye leaving it with a pinkish color.

Shoot another test roll.
 
I'm PRAYING it isn't the camera - I've got 8 rolls from the Yashica to process, that's a lot of film to c*** up... :(

Need to get another roll of film then, it seems. Also, the T-Max Dev (which is clear) came out a lovely shade of blue, which it seems is the anti-halation layer from the Fomapan. It was fantastic!
 
Ah yes the first time I developed fomapan I was wondering why my developer had gone blue!
 
The part of the film that is fogged were pictures that were taken in really really bright sunlight. I'm thinking it might possibly be a light leak that has managed to keep itself away up until now...?

Here is a quick scan, to me it looks pretty much like a classic case of fogging?
img011.jpg
 
Well that last shot definitely looks like classic light leaks - particularly as you say the camera was in bright sunlight.

Remember the image is recorded on the film upside down and flipped left to right, so looking at the back of the camera (from the user position) you have a leak all down the right side and corner leaks on the left side. Should help you see where the leaks are.

This is a TLR with no mag back or darkslide? If that's the case it's a simple matter of resealing the back - doddle of a job.
 
Someone on APUG suggested that when the roll was taken out, the backing paper may not have been wound tightly enough - certainly plausible IMO, since the Fomapan backing paper wouldn't stop moving! Thinking about it, that shot (with the shed) was not taken in bright sunlight, and many of the negatives that came out fine were.
 
***The part of the film that is fogged were pictures that were taken in really really bright sunlight. I'm thinking it might possibly be a light leak that has managed to keep itself away up until now...?

Here is a quick scan, to me it looks pretty much like a classic case of fogging?***

...........the lomo crowd would love that shot, it might even win a lomo comp ;)
 
freecom2 said:
Someone on APUG suggested that when the roll was taken out, the backing paper may not have been wound tightly enough - certainly plausible IMO, since the Fomapan backing paper wouldn't stop moving! Thinking about it, that shot (with the shed) was not taken in bright sunlight, and many of the negatives that came out fine were.
Click to expand...
Equally plausible then.

Welcome to the world of medium format film. You've actually learned a bundle already. :D
 
Brian, rather than lomo specifically I actually thought it looked like an extra vintage photo! I'm sure someone appreciates that look... but I don't, haha, I like my negatives nice and unfogged.

CT - the scary thing is that this is a test roll after I shot 8 rolls of film (I've shot some on this camera before, so I didn't think twice about it). I'm going to get some more Fomapan tomorrow hopefully and do another test roll or two, just to see if I can nail down why this is occurring rather than what is (unfortunately) just speculation.
 
freecom2 said:
Someone on APUG suggested that when the roll was taken out, the backing paper may not have been wound tightly enough - certainly plausible IMO, since the Fomapan backing paper wouldn't stop moving! Thinking about it, that shot (with the shed) was not taken in bright sunlight, and many of the negatives that came out fine were.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking...unlikely, the big blast is too far up the roll, that point is four frames on to the spool, maybe 5 or 6 wraps, I'd expect the last foot of that roll to be blasted but it isn't.
For a while I thought the suddenness of that main blast and then the tapering of it suggested a sticky shutter, but I don't see how that could happen with that particular camera.
I think its already been mentioned, light leak either in the camera or changing bag, it appears that light leaked under the backing paper towards the end hence the really black edges fading towards the middle of the last few frames.
 
The thing against the backing paper theory (for me) is that the fogging is confined to the two corners on one side of the shed image.
 
Just for information's sake - the exposures in question were frames 9-12.

I'm now itching to shoot some more test rolls, want to get to the bottom of this :( I may also dev a roll of 35mm in the same bag, same tank and same chems combination, just to see whether I can rule out a variable (camera/film).
 
Shot a test roll and dev'd it in the same solution + same fixer (decided to reuse the dev, it's too expensive!), same film and same camera. Haven't examined them closely, but the negatives seem good. I didn't change anything. Glad to see a nice roll, but still no idea what must've happened to the first!

I also find the backing paper quite cool... (it's the black one): http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/5417800389/
 
Last edited:
freecom2 said:
Shot a test roll and dev'd it in the same solution + same fixer (decided to reuse the dev, it's too expensive!)...
Click to expand...

Good to hear. How much working solution of the T-Max developer did you mix? A liter is good for about 12 rolls.

When I use to use re-use developers like that, it always gave me concern when I approached the useful capacity and I felt I had a roll with some really good shots on it. Should I not take a chance and mix a new batch? Or not waste it and go the advertised amount.

Then there was the shelf life concern. Again, if I went a period without shooting as was near the end of the useful shelf life should I risk it or make a new batch? It was an easy decision when I felt the shots were just the usual stuff but hard when I really anticipated the results of what I expected to be decent.

I finally solved that personal, inner strife dilemma by going with long shelf life, one-shot developers. :cool: YMMV
 
AlanSmithee said:
Good to hear. How much working solution of the T-Max developer did you mix? A liter is good for about 12 rolls.

When I use to use re-use developers like that, it always gave me concern when I approached the useful capacity and I felt I had a roll with some really good shots on it. Should I not take a chance and mix a new batch? Or not waste it and go the advertised amount.

Then there was the shelf life concern. Again, if I went a period without shooting as was near the end of the useful shelf life should I risk it or make a new batch? It was an easy decision when I felt the shots were just the usual stuff but hard when I really anticipated the results of what I expected to be decent.

I finally solved that personal, inner strife dilemma by going with long shelf life, one-shot developers. :cool: YMMV
Click to expand...

:thumbs: I shoot so intermittently at the moment, going one-shot for developers is pretty much the only way I'm happy with things. :( It's also why I'm likely to knock colour developing on the head after we get through the travelling holga route, unless I suddenly start to get out much more frequently.
 
AlanSmithee said:
Good to hear. How much working solution of the T-Max developer did you mix? A liter is good for about 12 rolls.
Click to expand...

It was 100ml for 500ml - 1+4. The negatives look a little bit washed out, a bit grey - any chance that is just a characteristic of the film? It's the first time I've used this film, and the first time I've shot (to develop myself) ISO 100 film. It is cheap Foma film after all rather than my usual Kodak T-Max 400, so maybe it's just the money speaking? I've seen some more contrasty negs using the Fomapan 100 + T-Max Dev combination, but there's no reason why there hasn't been post-processing, and I am scanning on a cheap scanner as well.

I was originally thinking of going down the Rodinal route - surely the king of one shot long life developers - but T-Max seems to dev especially well in T-Max Dev.
 
The T-Max does well in Kodak's newer Xtol too. I've never used that film so I really can't say. I take it you've read the Kodak's T-Max Dev Data Sheet? It is a time compensating developer when used without T-Max RS replenishment meaning you need to start increasing the dev time after X-number of rolls on the mix. But they give the compensation in number of rolls per gallon and I don't know if that extrapolates to smaller volume of mixed working solution.

In wet printing, you can often tell if your negative was too thin or thick by the grade of paper you needed to reproduce good tones. Similarly, when I scan, I can tell by the low/high curve settings I had to adjust if the negative was in the ball park based on negatives of the past.
 
Last edited:
AlanSmithee said:
The T-Max does well in Kodak's newer Xtol too. I've never used that film so I really can't say. I take it you've read the Kodak's T-Max Dev Data Sheet? It is a time compensating developer when used without T-Max RS replenishment meaning you need to start increasing the dev time after X-number of rolls on the mix. But they give the compensation in number of rolls per gallon and I don't know if that extrapolates to smaller volume of mixed working solution.

In wet printing, you can often tell if your negative was too thin or thick by the grade of paper you needed to reproduce good tones. Similarly, when I scan, I can tell by the low/high curve settings I had to adjust if the negative was in the ball park based on negatives of the past.
Click to expand...

I dislike powder developers, I find liquid to be much more versatile - thus why I'm dev'ing with a bottle of T-Max. Yeah, it says on the side of the bottle as well, 1 minute extra for every 4 more films you process. I'm not entirely sure if it does extrapolate, this is only the second roll I've dev'd with it... and back to the problem that you and Mark were talking about in the first place!

Having scanned a few more of the pictures and they seemed to come out better, am I to assume that the flatter, less contrasty negatives were mostly due to incorrect/off light readings?
 
freecom2 said:
Having scanned a few more of the pictures and they seemed to come out better, am I to assume that the flatter, less contrasty negatives were mostly due to incorrect/off light readings?
Click to expand...

Quit possible. A clue would be the nature of the light/scene compared to the others. Just keep plugging away at it. In time you'll build up a good base of experience. Maybe one recommendation would be to focus on two films for a while. A slow and fast film to build a good understanding of them before branching out and trying some others. And that goes for the developer too. That way you are not in a constant state of learning and when you need to take a dependable shot, your confidence in the outcome will be tempered with experience.
 
AlanSmithee said:
Quit possible. A clue would be the nature of the light/scene compared to the others. Just keep plugging away at it. In time you'll build up a good base of experience. Maybe one recommendation would be to focus on two films for a while. A slow and fast film to build a good understanding of them before branching out and trying some others. And that goes for the developer too. That way you are not in a constant state of learning and when you need to take a dependable shot, your confidence in the outcome will be tempered with experience.
Click to expand...

The darker scenes tend to be far sharper and better exposed - scenes with some sky are probably messing with my poor Leningrad light meter. I think I'll go back to T-Max 400 at some point, I wanted a 100 film to try and have more leeway with shutter speeds (max is 1/500 then 1/250, so not much flexibility), and I've still got 2 rolls of Acros 100 to develop so if I like those I may pick that up as the 100 film to go forward with - but I certainly agree with you, trying to have some consistency would probably be beneficial.

I tend to meter with a DSLR normally, just happens that I was lazy for this test roll. Also, done some searching, at working solutions people have been using T-Max Dev between 4-10 rolls. I might dump after 4, that works out to about 33p per roll which is pretty reasonable. If Kodak's own data is to be believed though (and I don't doubt it... I just don't particularly want to test it) and 12 really is a possibility, that brings it down to 11p per roll which is excellent value.
 
Despite T-Max developer being out for so many years, it's still a bit hit and miss with regards to the information out there.

Kodak writes "The capacity of this developer with normal processing is approximately 48 rolls of 135-36 or 120 film per gallon (or equivalent), with time compensation." So a gallon is ~4.5 litres, is that 4.5-5 litres of working solution is good for 48 rolls? Because then on the bottle it says:

"5L working solution
1L - 4 films
+1 min - 4 films
+2 min - 4 films = 12 films"

Since that is a rough extrapolation, is that 12 films for 1L of working solution, 48 films for 5L of working solution? If so, since I'm using 500mL of working solution that should equal 6 films, but if I dev 4 to be on the safe side, that makes the process economical without entirely exhausting or coming close to ruin negatives. I know the whole, "pictures/film are priceless, don't ruin your negs by overusing dev", but I'm just testing after all.

Then again if it's 48 for 4.5L, that is about 10 for 1L, which is 5 for 500mL.

*head explodes*

p.s. I've just sent an email to Kodak support, hopefully they will be able to clear it up. Supposed to get a response within 48 hours, although they probably are more used to hearing about broken digital cameras and photo frames... their drop down product list also didn't have B&W chemicals under the 'Film, Processing and Darkroom' category, despite the fact that Kodak makes... HC110, D76, XTOL, T-Max Dev, T-Max RS, D19!
 
Last edited:
That's a very good point Mark - and that explains the data. 1L of working solution = 12 films (that's on the side of the bottle), so ~4L (1 US Gallon) would therefore = 48 films, which is what their technical data says. All fits into place.

I'm assuming it's a US gallon, since Kodak is an American company.
 
Another developer that can be mixed in small volumes to be effectively used as a one-shot developer, last years on the shelf in concentrate form, is liquid and pretty economical is HC-110.

I don't know what you would pay for it over there but I converted it to what I could buy it for and it comes out to about 0.16£ per roll for the typical dilution "B" and 0.08£ per roll for the unofficial dilution H.

And over the long run, that value is more realized than a re-use developer because you can easily stop shooting film for a while and your re-use developer reaches shelf life. And when it comes to pushing the film, you don't have to figure out the various times based on what roll you're on with that T-Max. So pushing should be more consistent.

This of course ignores whether or not you like the characteristics the developer produces.
 
Having dev'd a few more rolls:
T-Max 400 in T-Max Dev is once again excellent, really lovely
Fomapan 100 in T-Max Dev is pretty bland, low contrast, and the film is curly as a perm
Acros 100 in T-Max Dev is in the middle

So much for my foray into ISO100 film. T-Max 400 is also by far the sharpest, and grain is almost invisible. May try T-Max 100 I guess.
 
freecom2 said:
Having dev'd a few more rolls:
T-Max 400 in T-Max Dev is once again excellent, really lovely
Fomapan 100 in T-Max Dev is pretty bland, low contrast, and the film is curly as a perm
Acros 100 in T-Max Dev is in the middle

So much for my foray into ISO100 film. T-Max 400 is also by far the sharpest, and grain is almost invisible. May try T-Max 100 I guess.
Click to expand...

Rollei Retro 100 and Fomapan 100 in Rodinal come out very well so dont write ISO 100 off just yet :p
 
Yeah, I've seen lots of excellent Fomapan 100+Rodinal combinations in the I Shoot Film group on flickr. However, since I've still got to get through this big 1 litre bottle of T-Max Dev, I'm not buying any new developer for a while. Besides, ISO 400 film gives a bit more flexibility, maybe enough, and I've bought 10 rolls of T-Max 400 recently anyway :)

It scans incredibly well as well, very flat. I just dev'd another roll of Acros which came out better than the other roll, negs were nice enough.
 
I also bought a roll of T-Max 100 and a roll of Tri-X - to see if the 100 has similar characteristics to the 400 film. If so, the perfect 100 + 400 combo for me!

Weirdly, I still haven't tried any film from Ilford at all, either 35mm or 120, but they are more expensive than most Kodak offerings which makes it difficult to justify.
 
freecom2 said:
I also bought a roll of T-Max 100 and a roll of Tri-X - to see if the 100 has similar characteristics to the 400 film. If so, the perfect 100 + 400 combo for me!

Weirdly, I still haven't tried any film from Ilford at all, either 35mm or 120, but they are more expensive than most Kodak offerings which makes it difficult to justify.
Click to expand...

Ilford Pan-F is definitely worth trying, excellent tone reproduction but its a tad slow at ISO 50
 
It just wouldn't be versatile enough for me - f/3.5 (and I don't like the lack of sharpness that wide anyway) max aperture on the TLR. Maybe for landscape purposes it'll be okay but I tend to do all walkaround shots. I meant more their 100/125/400 offerings, although I have heard good things about Pan-F. Tempted to try Delta 3200 in medium format, although quite why I'm not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top