Two films in a tank, only one comes out with a development error – why?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
8
I recently developed two 35mm films together in a tank. One, and only one of them, came out with these artefacts on most (but not all) of the exposures:
(Negative digitized using a digital camera; you can just about discern the film sprocket holes behind the improvised white mask.)
I'm new to film processing, having developed ~10 films so far; I have never encountered this problem before, but it looks to me like an agitation issue. The procedure was as follows:
- Loaded two 35mm films in a Jobo tank, one reel on top of the other. The films were Ilford FP4+ rated at EI64 and Fomapan 100 rated at EI100. The film with the problem is FP4+; Fomapan came out perfect. I don't remember which film was on top.
- Developed in 1:4 Ilfotec DD-X for 8 minutes in 20°C, following Ilford's recommended agitation routine (4 inversions spread out over 10 seconds every 1 minute), except that at one point I had a bit of a lapse of attention and there was 1½ minutes between two successive agitations (and then only ½ a minute before the next one).
- Stopped in Ilfostop.
- Fixed with 1:4 Ilford Rapid Fixer, 2 or 3 minutes.
- Washed using Ilford's "fill tank with water, invert n number of times, pour water out, repeat, repeat and repeat" method.
My specific questions:
- What caused this artefact, and why does it appear on one film only?
- Would the order in which the films were loaded have an effect? Is the damaged one more likely to have sat at the bottom or at the top?
- What can I do to avoid this sort of thing in the future?
developing 35mm darkroom
asked 18 hours ago
KahoviusKahovius
412
New contributor
Kahovius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
8
I recently developed two 35mm films together in a tank. One, and only one of them, came out with these artefacts on most (but not all) of the exposures:
(Negative digitized using a digital camera; you can just about discern the film sprocket holes behind the improvised white mask.)
I'm new to film processing, having developed ~10 films so far; I have never encountered this problem before, but it looks to me like an agitation issue. The procedure was as follows:
- Loaded two 35mm films in a Jobo tank, one reel on top of the other. The films were Ilford FP4+ rated at EI64 and Fomapan 100 rated at EI100. The film with the problem is FP4+; Fomapan came out perfect. I don't remember which film was on top.
- Developed in 1:4 Ilfotec DD-X for 8 minutes in 20°C, following Ilford's recommended agitation routine (4 inversions spread out over 10 seconds every 1 minute), except that at one point I had a bit of a lapse of attention and there was 1½ minutes between two successive agitations (and then only ½ a minute before the next one).
- Stopped in Ilfostop.
- Fixed with 1:4 Ilford Rapid Fixer, 2 or 3 minutes.
- Washed using Ilford's "fill tank with water, invert n number of times, pour water out, repeat, repeat and repeat" method.
My specific questions:
- What caused this artefact, and why does it appear on one film only?
- Would the order in which the films were loaded have an effect? Is the damaged one more likely to have sat at the bottom or at the top?
- What can I do to avoid this sort of thing in the future?
developing 35mm darkroom
asked 18 hours ago
KahoviusKahovius
412
New contributor
Kahovius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
The films were both exposed in the same camera, yes? With similar storage/handling before/after exposure? Any other differences between the films before you got to the point of starting development?
– osullic
17 hours ago
1
Now that you mention it, I do remember that when I opened one of the film canisters, the film seemed to be "sticking to itself" in a way I had never experienced before. I don't know if it was the FP4 or the Fomapan, but I suspect the first. I didn't think much of it at the time – just thought this was characteristic of this type of film (which I had never processed before). Apart from that, same camera, storage and handling and both films exposed maybe a week apart. I should perhaps also add that the films went through airport security (carry-on bag) between exposure and development.
– Kahovius
17 hours ago
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
14 hours ago
4
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
13 hours ago
1
If one of the films was 'odd' out of the can, then it's likely the Foma. I love Foma (particularly the papers) but their film bases are not as good as Ilford's: they're often a significant pain to load.
– tfb
12 hours ago
add a comment |
8
8
8
I recently developed two 35mm films together in a tank. One, and only one of them, came out with these artefacts on most (but not all) of the exposures:
(Negative digitized using a digital camera; you can just about discern the film sprocket holes behind the improvised white mask.)
I'm new to film processing, having developed ~10 films so far; I have never encountered this problem before, but it looks to me like an agitation issue. The procedure was as follows:
- Loaded two 35mm films in a Jobo tank, one reel on top of the other. The films were Ilford FP4+ rated at EI64 and Fomapan 100 rated at EI100. The film with the problem is FP4+; Fomapan came out perfect. I don't remember which film was on top.
- Developed in 1:4 Ilfotec DD-X for 8 minutes in 20°C, following Ilford's recommended agitation routine (4 inversions spread out over 10 seconds every 1 minute), except that at one point I had a bit of a lapse of attention and there was 1½ minutes between two successive agitations (and then only ½ a minute before the next one).
- Stopped in Ilfostop.
- Fixed with 1:4 Ilford Rapid Fixer, 2 or 3 minutes.
- Washed using Ilford's "fill tank with water, invert n number of times, pour water out, repeat, repeat and repeat" method.
My specific questions:
- What caused this artefact, and why does it appear on one film only?
- Would the order in which the films were loaded have an effect? Is the damaged one more likely to have sat at the bottom or at the top?
- What can I do to avoid this sort of thing in the future?
developing 35mm darkroom
asked 18 hours ago
KahoviusKahovius
412
New contributor
Kahovius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I recently developed two 35mm films together in a tank. One, and only one of them, came out with these artefacts on most (but not all) of the exposures:
(Negative digitized using a digital camera; you can just about discern the film sprocket holes behind the improvised white mask.)
I'm new to film processing, having developed ~10 films so far; I have never encountered this problem before, but it looks to me like an agitation issue. The procedure was as follows:
- Loaded two 35mm films in a Jobo tank, one reel on top of the other. The films were Ilford FP4+ rated at EI64 and Fomapan 100 rated at EI100. The film with the problem is FP4+; Fomapan came out perfect. I don't remember which film was on top.
- Developed in 1:4 Ilfotec DD-X for 8 minutes in 20°C, following Ilford's recommended agitation routine (4 inversions spread out over 10 seconds every 1 minute), except that at one point I had a bit of a lapse of attention and there was 1½ minutes between two successive agitations (and then only ½ a minute before the next one).
- Stopped in Ilfostop.
- Fixed with 1:4 Ilford Rapid Fixer, 2 or 3 minutes.
- Washed using Ilford's "fill tank with water, invert n number of times, pour water out, repeat, repeat and repeat" method.
My specific questions:
- What caused this artefact, and why does it appear on one film only?
- Would the order in which the films were loaded have an effect? Is the damaged one more likely to have sat at the bottom or at the top?
- What can I do to avoid this sort of thing in the future?
developing 35mm darkroom
developing 35mm darkroom
asked 18 hours ago
KahoviusKahovius
412
New contributor
Kahovius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 18 hours ago
KahoviusKahovius
412
New contributor
Kahovius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 18 hours ago
KahoviusKahovius
412
New contributor
Kahovius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 18 hours ago
KahoviusKahovius
412
asked 18 hours ago
KahoviusKahovius
412
412
New contributor
Kahovius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Kahovius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Kahovius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
The films were both exposed in the same camera, yes? With similar storage/handling before/after exposure? Any other differences between the films before you got to the point of starting development?
– osullic
17 hours ago
1
Now that you mention it, I do remember that when I opened one of the film canisters, the film seemed to be "sticking to itself" in a way I had never experienced before. I don't know if it was the FP4 or the Fomapan, but I suspect the first. I didn't think much of it at the time – just thought this was characteristic of this type of film (which I had never processed before). Apart from that, same camera, storage and handling and both films exposed maybe a week apart. I should perhaps also add that the films went through airport security (carry-on bag) between exposure and development.
– Kahovius
17 hours ago
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
14 hours ago
4
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
13 hours ago
1
If one of the films was 'odd' out of the can, then it's likely the Foma. I love Foma (particularly the papers) but their film bases are not as good as Ilford's: they're often a significant pain to load.
– tfb
12 hours ago
add a comment |
1
The films were both exposed in the same camera, yes? With similar storage/handling before/after exposure? Any other differences between the films before you got to the point of starting development?
– osullic
17 hours ago
1
Now that you mention it, I do remember that when I opened one of the film canisters, the film seemed to be "sticking to itself" in a way I had never experienced before. I don't know if it was the FP4 or the Fomapan, but I suspect the first. I didn't think much of it at the time – just thought this was characteristic of this type of film (which I had never processed before). Apart from that, same camera, storage and handling and both films exposed maybe a week apart. I should perhaps also add that the films went through airport security (carry-on bag) between exposure and development.
– Kahovius
17 hours ago
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
14 hours ago
4
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
13 hours ago
1
If one of the films was 'odd' out of the can, then it's likely the Foma. I love Foma (particularly the papers) but their film bases are not as good as Ilford's: they're often a significant pain to load.
– tfb
12 hours ago
1
1
The films were both exposed in the same camera, yes? With similar storage/handling before/after exposure? Any other differences between the films before you got to the point of starting development?
– osullic
17 hours ago
The films were both exposed in the same camera, yes? With similar storage/handling before/after exposure? Any other differences between the films before you got to the point of starting development?
– osullic
17 hours ago
1
1
Now that you mention it, I do remember that when I opened one of the film canisters, the film seemed to be "sticking to itself" in a way I had never experienced before. I don't know if it was the FP4 or the Fomapan, but I suspect the first. I didn't think much of it at the time – just thought this was characteristic of this type of film (which I had never processed before). Apart from that, same camera, storage and handling and both films exposed maybe a week apart. I should perhaps also add that the films went through airport security (carry-on bag) between exposure and development.
– Kahovius
17 hours ago
Now that you mention it, I do remember that when I opened one of the film canisters, the film seemed to be "sticking to itself" in a way I had never experienced before. I don't know if it was the FP4 or the Fomapan, but I suspect the first. I didn't think much of it at the time – just thought this was characteristic of this type of film (which I had never processed before). Apart from that, same camera, storage and handling and both films exposed maybe a week apart. I should perhaps also add that the films went through airport security (carry-on bag) between exposure and development.
– Kahovius
17 hours ago
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
14 hours ago
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
14 hours ago
4
4
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
13 hours ago
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
13 hours ago
1
1
If one of the films was 'odd' out of the can, then it's likely the Foma. I love Foma (particularly the papers) but their film bases are not as good as Ilford's: they're often a significant pain to load.
– tfb
12 hours ago
If one of the films was 'odd' out of the can, then it's likely the Foma. I love Foma (particularly the papers) but their film bases are not as good as Ilford's: they're often a significant pain to load.
– tfb
12 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
8
This looks to me as if you have botched loading the film onto the spiral, so that two wraps of the film were touching or very close to each other. When that happens you tend to get marks on the negs where developer hasn't really reached them properly.
(I tend to get this with 5x4 negs processed in a mod54: huge negs like that are very flexible so if you agitate too much they can come out of the slots and end up resting on each other.)
answered 17 hours ago
tfbtfb
3344
2
I concur. This is a film loading error. I don't think you can save the damaged frames but -- do try re-fixing in normal room light. This procedure might provide some improvement. Do try!
– Alan Marcus
13 hours ago
This is a good suggestion: if the dev didn't get to the frames then probably the fix did not either, so it is worth dunking them in fix for a bit to make sure they really are fixed, if you intend to keep them. As Alan says you can do this in white light.
– tfb
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Kahovius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106389%2ftwo-films-in-a-tank-only-one-comes-out-with-a-development-error-why%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
8
This looks to me as if you have botched loading the film onto the spiral, so that two wraps of the film were touching or very close to each other. When that happens you tend to get marks on the negs where developer hasn't really reached them properly.
(I tend to get this with 5x4 negs processed in a mod54: huge negs like that are very flexible so if you agitate too much they can come out of the slots and end up resting on each other.)
answered 17 hours ago
tfbtfb
3344
2
I concur. This is a film loading error. I don't think you can save the damaged frames but -- do try re-fixing in normal room light. This procedure might provide some improvement. Do try!
– Alan Marcus
13 hours ago
This is a good suggestion: if the dev didn't get to the frames then probably the fix did not either, so it is worth dunking them in fix for a bit to make sure they really are fixed, if you intend to keep them. As Alan says you can do this in white light.
– tfb
12 hours ago
add a comment |
8
This looks to me as if you have botched loading the film onto the spiral, so that two wraps of the film were touching or very close to each other. When that happens you tend to get marks on the negs where developer hasn't really reached them properly.
(I tend to get this with 5x4 negs processed in a mod54: huge negs like that are very flexible so if you agitate too much they can come out of the slots and end up resting on each other.)
answered 17 hours ago
tfbtfb
3344
2
I concur. This is a film loading error. I don't think you can save the damaged frames but -- do try re-fixing in normal room light. This procedure might provide some improvement. Do try!
– Alan Marcus
13 hours ago
This is a good suggestion: if the dev didn't get to the frames then probably the fix did not either, so it is worth dunking them in fix for a bit to make sure they really are fixed, if you intend to keep them. As Alan says you can do this in white light.
– tfb
12 hours ago
add a comment |
8
8
8
This looks to me as if you have botched loading the film onto the spiral, so that two wraps of the film were touching or very close to each other. When that happens you tend to get marks on the negs where developer hasn't really reached them properly.
(I tend to get this with 5x4 negs processed in a mod54: huge negs like that are very flexible so if you agitate too much they can come out of the slots and end up resting on each other.)
answered 17 hours ago
tfbtfb
3344
This looks to me as if you have botched loading the film onto the spiral, so that two wraps of the film were touching or very close to each other. When that happens you tend to get marks on the negs where developer hasn't really reached them properly.
(I tend to get this with 5x4 negs processed in a mod54: huge negs like that are very flexible so if you agitate too much they can come out of the slots and end up resting on each other.)
answered 17 hours ago
tfbtfb
3344
answered 17 hours ago
tfbtfb
3344
answered 17 hours ago
tfbtfb
3344
answered 17 hours ago
tfbtfb
3344
3344
2
I concur. This is a film loading error. I don't think you can save the damaged frames but -- do try re-fixing in normal room light. This procedure might provide some improvement. Do try!
– Alan Marcus
13 hours ago
This is a good suggestion: if the dev didn't get to the frames then probably the fix did not either, so it is worth dunking them in fix for a bit to make sure they really are fixed, if you intend to keep them. As Alan says you can do this in white light.
– tfb
12 hours ago
add a comment |
2
I concur. This is a film loading error. I don't think you can save the damaged frames but -- do try re-fixing in normal room light. This procedure might provide some improvement. Do try!
– Alan Marcus
13 hours ago
This is a good suggestion: if the dev didn't get to the frames then probably the fix did not either, so it is worth dunking them in fix for a bit to make sure they really are fixed, if you intend to keep them. As Alan says you can do this in white light.
– tfb
12 hours ago
2
2
I concur. This is a film loading error. I don't think you can save the damaged frames but -- do try re-fixing in normal room light. This procedure might provide some improvement. Do try!
– Alan Marcus
13 hours ago
I concur. This is a film loading error. I don't think you can save the damaged frames but -- do try re-fixing in normal room light. This procedure might provide some improvement. Do try!
– Alan Marcus
13 hours ago
This is a good suggestion: if the dev didn't get to the frames then probably the fix did not either, so it is worth dunking them in fix for a bit to make sure they really are fixed, if you intend to keep them. As Alan says you can do this in white light.
– tfb
12 hours ago
This is a good suggestion: if the dev didn't get to the frames then probably the fix did not either, so it is worth dunking them in fix for a bit to make sure they really are fixed, if you intend to keep them. As Alan says you can do this in white light.
– tfb
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Kahovius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
Kahovius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kahovius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kahovius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106389%2ftwo-films-in-a-tank-only-one-comes-out-with-a-development-error-why%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
The films were both exposed in the same camera, yes? With similar storage/handling before/after exposure? Any other differences between the films before you got to the point of starting development?
– osullic
17 hours ago
1
Now that you mention it, I do remember that when I opened one of the film canisters, the film seemed to be "sticking to itself" in a way I had never experienced before. I don't know if it was the FP4 or the Fomapan, but I suspect the first. I didn't think much of it at the time – just thought this was characteristic of this type of film (which I had never processed before). Apart from that, same camera, storage and handling and both films exposed maybe a week apart. I should perhaps also add that the films went through airport security (carry-on bag) between exposure and development.
– Kahovius
17 hours ago
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
14 hours ago
4
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
13 hours ago
1
If one of the films was 'odd' out of the can, then it's likely the Foma. I love Foma (particularly the papers) but their film bases are not as good as Ilford's: they're often a significant pain to load.
– tfb
12 hours ago