What went wrong?

wickerman

wickerman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
809
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I had my first go at developing a film a at home yesterday. I have attached scans of 3 photos's straight off the scanner. All the pictures on the film have the banding on the left of the frame.


The film was Ilford Delta 100 developed in Ilfotec DD-x for 12 mins at 20c on a Paterson spiral roll.

The camera was a Rolleiflex 2.8f, the last film that was developed professionally about 2 weeks ago didn't have this problem so I don't think it's the camera.

Does anyone have any idea as to what may have caused this?


Rolleiflex 006 by wickerman6, on Flickr


Rolleiflex 007 by wickerman6, on Flickr


Rolleiflex 005 by wickerman6, on Flickr
 
The film travels vertically in a Rolleiflex doesn't it?

If so, it means that this banding would have been on the top/bottom edge of the film when it was being developed. This is leading me to think that you didnt put enough chems in the tank to develop the film in. Most tanks say to put 500ml in for one roll of 120 but it's usually best to put in 550-600ml in to make sure this doesn't happen
 
Yes, the banding would have been at the top or the bottom of the edge of the film.

I used 500ml of chemicals. I'll try 600ml next time and hopefully this will solve the problem.

Thanks for the advice.
 
I'll bet this was in a Paterson Super System 4 universal tank right?
 
wickerman said:
Indeed it was. :)
Click to expand...

No need to have any more chemicals. Just put a rubber band on top of the reel when you put it on the column, that ensures it won't move and cause that banding.

The older System 4 tanks came with a stopper to do this, but the newer Super System 4 doesn't come with this included.
(I had this exact same problem a few months ago)
 
Did we agitate ??

I only say this because I've never had this problem with SS4, had it with other older probably less accurate or non metric tanks but SS has always been spot on @ 500ml, maybe I've just been lucky or...subconsciously generous..:lol:

Could the spool have ridden up or not been at the bottom of the spindle a bit...:shrug:


edit......you snooze you looze jox
 
Last edited:
As a side issue, those are sweet looking negs.

Orange filter ??
 
joxby said:
Did we agitate ??
Click to expand...

Yep, using the twiddle stick thing back and forth for the first 5 seconds and then 4 inversions during the first 10 secs of each minute thereafter. :)
 
joxby said:
As a side issue, those are sweet looking negs.

Orange filter ??
Click to expand...

No filter, straight out of the scanner with no adjustments.
 
wickerman said:
Yep, using the twiddle stick thing back and forth for the first 5 seconds and then 4 inversions during the first 10 secs of each minute thereafter. :)
Click to expand...

It would've probably risen up as you inverted it. Trust me, it's the spool moving up - the second I started using a rubber band, the underdeveloped parts disappeared and they haven't returned since.
 
freecom2 said:
It would've probably risen up as you inverted it. Trust me, it's the spool moving up - the second I started using a rubber band, the underdeveloped parts disappeared and they haven't returned since.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll give this a go next time.
 
freecom2 said:
It would've probably risen up as you inverted it. Trust me, it's the spool moving up - the second I started using a rubber band, the underdeveloped parts disappeared and they haven't returned since.
Click to expand...

An alternative to a rubber band is to cut an old plastic 35mm film canister to length ( cutting off the bottom) and slip it onto the spindle above the film reel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top