 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / July 2007Darkening on the endge of the neg - 120
Any hint what is causing the edges of the neg to be darkened? Example, three b&w pictures at the top of the page. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.chant/gallery/Iceland/ It's not a light leak as the darkening only occurs on exposed areas, not between them. Details: FP4+ exposed at 80ASA 10.30 min in Rodinol 1:50 at 20 degC Agitated 10 sec every minute. I'm wondering if it is something to do with agitation. Any ideas? Pete  Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk BTW - painfully aware of the serious faux pass with the vignetting lens hood. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Any hint what is causing the edges of the neg to be darkened? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's not a light leak as the darkening only occurs on exposed areas, not > between them. Could still be a light leak through the shutter, but it's not characteristic of that (too linear). If it was from processing you wouldn't expect it to be in the same place on each frame. I wonder if it could have something to do with a temperature difference between the film and the camera body when you were shooting. > Could still be a light leak through the shutter, but it's not > characteristic of that (too linear). If it was from processing you > wouldn't expect it to be in the same place on each frame. I wonder if > it could have something to do with a temperature difference between the > film and the camera body when you were shooting. Don't think it was the camera. Its a Mamiya TLR, so its a leaf shutter, I would have through that would produce a slodge or arc rather than any edge effect. Also, although there were Icebergs it was not actually that cold. At the time I took those shots I think I was wearing a T-shirt and a very thin jumper. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > > Could still be a light leak through the shutter, but it's not > > characteristic of that (too linear). If it was from processing you > > wouldn't expect it to be in the same place on each frame. Except, of course, if it's on the edge like you said - for some reason I was thinking it was next to the spools. :-\ > Its a Mamiya TLR, so its a leaf shutter, I would have through that would > produce a slodge or arc rather than any edge effect. Also, although there > were Icebergs it was not actually that cold. At the time I took those > shots I think I was wearing a T-shirt and a very thin jumper. As everyone else said - agitation. I think I need a new brain. > As everyone else said - agitation. I think I need a new brain. It just probally needs a rest and a service. Perhaps the light seals are going... ;-) Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Could still be a light leak through the shutter, It would be light, not dark. > I wonder if > it could have something to do with a temperature difference between the > film and the camera body when you were shooting. Oh, I am so happy I hung around here long enough to finally read the silliest posit. You win! > > Could still be a light leak through the shutter, > > It would be light, not dark. It says "darkening on the edge of the neg" - exposure to light makes a developed negative darker, no? > > I wonder if > > it could have something to do with a temperature difference between the > > film and the camera body when you were shooting. > > Oh, I am so happy I hung around here long enough to finally read the > silliest posit. You win! Ta. > It says "darkening on the edge of the neg" - exposure to light makes a > developed negative darker, no? Yes. I messed up. Sorry. >> Oh, I am so happy I hung around here long enough to finally read the >> silliest posit. You win! >> > Ta. I have not read nor heard Ta for decades. It's good, Mate. -- jj who left England in 1968 :) > Any hint what is causing the edges of the neg to be darkened? > Example, three b&w pictures at the top of the page. > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.chant/gallery/Iceland/ I assume SS tank/spiral reel, no extra space in the tank - the reel isn't sliding in the tank. I agree, looks like an agitation problem to me. Either: o Too much: the turbulence at the edge of the film is developing the film at the edges faster than the middle. o Too little: the developer in the middle of the film is becoming exhausted. I would guess too little. Dilute Rodinal exhausts pretty quickly. There are those that swear by/at ultra dilute Rodinal and 'stand' development to get a sort of unsharp mask effect from developer exhaustion. I've never tried this with 120, but with 35mm the development is even enough across the film. About 10 quick inversions and a bit of a quick twist back and forth - taking 5 seconds or so in total - every 30 seconds is my agitation method. Everyone has their own, I am sure. I use D-76 or HC-110 for 120 HP/FP/TMX/TX/Delta. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > I assume SS tank/spiral reel, no extra space in the tank - > the reel isn't sliding in the tank. Patterson plastic tank. Slight update it was HP5+ developed for about 10:30 at 20 degC > I agree, looks like an agitation problem to me. Either: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > o Too little: the developer in the middle of the film is > becoming exhausted. Odd that I have not seen this before. > I would guess too little. Dilute Rodinal exhausts pretty > quickly. There are those that swear by/at ultra dilute Rodinal > and 'stand' development to get a sort of unsharp mask effect > from developer exhaustion. I've never tried this with 120, > but with 35mm the development is even enough across the > film. I could try going for 1:25, I suspect from a bit of look at the massive dev chart and a bit of guestimation / interpolation that 5:20 might be about right. I ought to do the sums properly. > About 10 quick inversions and a bit of a quick twist back > and forth - taking 5 seconds or so in total - every 30 seconds > is my agitation method. Everyone has their own, I am sure. > I use D-76 or HC-110 for 120 HP/FP/TMX/TX/Delta. Although that may be possible using the plastic snap on lid it appears to me that the tank is not made for that kind of agitation. It does have a thing you stick in it to twiddle the reel. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> I assume SS tank/spiral reel, no extra space in the tank - >> the reel isn't sliding in the tank. > > Patterson plastic tank. [...] >> About 10 quick inversions and a bit of a quick twist back >> and forth - taking 5 seconds or so in total - every 30 seconds [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the tank is not made for that kind of agitation. It does have a thing > you stick in it to twiddle the reel. Are you agitating with the "twiddler"? That pretty much explains it. The one time I tried using the twiddler in my cheap knock-off of a Patterson tank, I got uneven development, too. I didn't think it would work, and it didn't. I only agitate by inversion; the cheap Patterson clone was retired because the lid didn't make a very good seal. I mostly use stainless tanks/reels now, though I still have an ancient plastic Unicolor tank/reel for when I need it. Dana > Peter Chant wrote: > > > I assume SS tank/spiral reel, no extra space in the tank - [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Are you agitating with the "twiddler"? That pretty much explains > it. Agreed. The problem is likely over/under-agitation - as the reel is twirled new developer enters/flows through the flanges to the edge of the film and the developer in the center of the film never gets exchanged. The edges of the film get more agitation than the center. As to over Vs under, it depends on how you look at it. The Paterson tank isn't made for inversion agitation with a 120 reel in it though you could try it. I recommend getting a stainless steel reel and tank. The go for a few farthings on ebay. Honeywell-Nikor, Kinderman and Hewes are the makes to get. The Japanese all-s.steel clones work but they don't survive drops very well so beware bent reels and dinged tanks. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > Agreed. The problem is likely over/under-agitation - as the reel is > twirled new developer enters/flows through the flanges to the edge > of the film and the developer in the center of the film never gets > exchanged. The edges of the film get more agitation than the center. > As to over Vs under, it depends on how you look at it. See your point - you are just moving the stale developer futher along the film. > The Paterson tank isn't made for inversion agitation with a 120 reel > in it though you could try it. I can - I see what you mean, little air space, I suppose the developer would move around. > I recommend getting a stainless steel reel and tank. The go for a > few farthings on ebay. > > Honeywell-Nikor, Kinderman and Hewes are the makes to get. The > Japanese all-s.steel clones work but they don't survive drops > very well so beware bent reels and dinged tanks. Thanks. It looks like not this week on ebay though, at least in the UK, will keep a useful eye out. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > The Paterson tank isn't made for inversion agitation with a 120 reel > in it though you could try it. Hi, For the past 10 years or so, I've been using Paterson tanks for 3x120 reels, using inversion agitation and have never had any problems of any kind. Works for me! Why do you claim that "The Paterson tank isn't made for inversion agitation with a 120 reel" ????? Cheers, Bogdan Signature________________________________________________________________ Bogdan Karasek Montréal, Québec bogdan at bogdanphoto.com Canada www.bogdanphoto.com "I photograph my reality" ________________________________________________________________ > Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: > > The Paterson tank isn't made for inversion agitation with a 120 reel > > in it though you could try it. > For the past 10 years or so, I've been using Paterson tanks for 3x120 > reels, That sounds like a very different Paterson tank: mine takes 2x35mm or 1x120. About 7" tall, black, blue plastic top, white reels ... > Why do you claim that "The Paterson tank isn't made for inversion > agitation with a 120 reel" ????? There is a large head-space above the 120 reel and the reel isn't held in position. I don't know that it would slide up and down if it is put onto the whirly-thingy post, but the reel isn't held to the center post with a positive mechanism but just slips on with a bit of friction. > using inversion agitation and have never had any problems of any kind. I have never tried inversion 120 with a Paterson, so my concern is theoretical: o The large head-space allows liquid to slosh. o The reel can slip to the top of the post and then be left 1/2 out of the developer or 'hang' in the middle of the tank. Filling the tank to the very top would mitigate the above. Loose reels and part full tanks give problems with S. Steel. It just doesn't seem that inversion 120 was a priority in the design of the tank. > Works for me! No arguments - I bow to your experience. > "I photograph my reality" If I could find mine I might take a picture of it. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > > Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: > > > The Paterson tank isn't made for inversion agitation with a 120 reel [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > developer or 'hang' in the middle of the tank. > ================================ My Paterson tank comes with a circular clip that slides down over the centre post and holds the reel(s) in position; it (they) can not move, once this is done. I've been inverting Paterson tanks containing several 120 rolls for decades, with no problems whatever. > My Paterson tank comes with a circular clip that slides down over the > centre post and holds the reel(s) in position; it (they) can not move, > once this is done. I have to confess to egg on my face... My 'Paterson' tank was a freebee that came with something else. I have only used it a few times to develop 127 film shot with an Empire Baby camera - where uneven development would never be noticed. I just looked at it again, and it isn't a Paterson, it is a clone of an older model Paterson System-4/not-super. Except that my clone doesn't have the small 'C' clip for holding the reel in place for inversion processing. Mystery explained. "Never mind." - Emily Litella SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > My Paterson tank comes with a circular clip that slides down over the > centre post and holds the reel(s) in position; it (they) can not move, > once this is done. > > I've been inverting Paterson tanks containing several 120 rolls for > decades, with no problems whatever. Though probally at least 20 years old I think mine is the latest design. No clip but I suspect friction holds stuff in place. Perhaps a dry (wet) run with water and no film would be prudent. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Are you agitating with the "twiddler"? That pretty much explains > it. The one time I tried using the twiddler in my cheap knock-off [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > seal. I mostly use stainless tanks/reels now, though I still have an > ancient plastic Unicolor tank/reel for when I need it. Well, it looks like I will put the lid on and try inversion. I suspect Nicholas's example is probally a place to start unless anyone has any other pointers. Unless I want a stanless steel cage that can take by the looks of it two dozen reels and goes in a gallon tank it looks like I can't get stainless steel kit here at the moment! Not even ebay! Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > About 10 quick inversions and a bit of a quick twist back > and forth - taking 5 seconds or so in total - every 30 seconds > is my agitation method. Everyone has their own, I am sure. > I use D-76 or HC-110 for 120 HP/FP/TMX/TX/Delta. OK, tried this, sort of (could not manage 10 inversions in 5 sec) and it worked fine (though twiddle development was usually fine). No sign of darkening near the edge. Must be prepared to splash around a little developer as despite taking care a little leaked from the Paterson tank. Maybe I was being a bit keen with my inverting. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: > > About 10 quick inversions taking 5 seconds or so > OK, tried this, sort of (could not manage 10 inversions in 5 sec) I did some time trials: I do about 7 inversions / seconds. The exact number doesn't matter as long as it is done consistently roll to roll. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: >>> About 10 quick inversions taking 5 seconds or so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > exact number doesn't matter as long as it is done consistently > roll to roll. This might be controversial, but I use MINIMUM agitation - as little as I can get away with. However, I also use highly dilute Rodinal so that I have long development times. The exception is with scenes with little tonal range where I use D76 1:1 and sweat it out with two inversions every 30 seconds, no slop in the reels (I stick a bottle cap over the top reel to keep it from sliding. Anyone who has not tried stand-developing to control high contrast scenes might be enlightened by the process. Try it with a good, slow 120 film. I used it for Agfa 100. Dilute Rodinal 1:150. Two 120 reels in a two-reel tank. Pour it in, rap out the bubbles and go away for an hour. Or 40 minutes. It doesn't make much difference. The developer expires in the process. >...> > >10 quick inversions taking 5 sec every 30 sec >...> > (could not manage 10 inversions in 5 sec) >...> 7 inversions / 5 seconds. > This might be controversial, but I use MINIMUM agitation I think it's a case of whatever floats your reels. Advice is all over the map. The more experience I get the closer I stick to - oh, the horror of it - just what the manufacturer says. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus: >>...> > >10 quick inversions taking 5 sec every 30 sec >>...> > (could not manage 10 inversions in 5 sec) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The more experience I get the closer I stick to - oh, the > horror of it - just what the manufacturer says. Gee, you don't suppose *they* would be qualified to instruct how to use their product, woodja? Nah ... SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Anyone who has not tried stand-developing to control high contrast > scenes might be enlightened by the process. Try it with a good, slow 120 > film. I used it for Agfa 100. Dilute Rodinal 1:150. Two 120 reels in a > two-reel tank. Pour it in, rap out the bubbles and go away for an hour. > Or 40 minutes. It doesn't make much difference. The developer expires in > the process. Have FP4 - have Rodinal - been meaning to try it. Is it good for general use or just special cases (i.e. not for your limited tonal range example)? Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Any hint what is causing the edges of the neg to be darkened? Failure to clean the wetting agent completely from the reel before using it again. If wetting agent adheres to the reel, then when the developer hits it, it causes the developer to penetrate the emulsion more completely, thereby developing the parts of the film nearest the reel more quickly than the rest. You might try adding a little stop bath to the rinse water -- the acid in the stop bath will neutralize the alkiline wettine agent. Then rinse the reel in water until you can no longer smell any trace of stop bath :-) I don't know if I'm right about this, but at least it's a plausible theory :-) Peter Chant spake thus: > Any hint what is causing the edges of the neg to be darkened? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'm wondering if it is something to do with agitation. *Definitely* an agitation issue. How about sacrificing a few rolls of film and experimenting with different agitation methods? Find the one that yields the most even development. Would be worth the time and expense. SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Any hint what is causing the edges of the neg to be darkened? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'm wondering if it is something to do with agitation. Looks like agitation to me, or perhaps an incomplete fill in the tank. Do you used a daylight tank? How do you agitate? Dana > Looks like agitation to me, or perhaps an incomplete > fill in the tank. Do you used a daylight tank? How > do you agitate? Yes, the Patterson one. I twiddle the thingy to rotate the spiral, 10 seconds every minute. Perhaps making up 600 ml of developer rather than the 500 suggested on the bottom of the tank might help. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> Looks like agitation to me, or perhaps an incomplete >> fill in the tank. Do you used a daylight tank? How [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Perhaps making up 600 ml of developer rather than the 500 suggested on the > bottom of the tank might help. Here's a simple experiment. Put the reel into the tank, with no film in it, and fill the tank with 500ml of water and see how submersed the reel is. If it's just at the top of the reel, that's not really enough; add more water so the reel is more than 5-10m submersed, and measure the total amount. But, I tend to think you'd be way better-off with a stainless tank that you can invert. Switching to agitation-by-inversion will probably influence the development time (probably shorten it a bit), so you'll want to run a test roll after the switch. Dana > Here's a simple experiment. Put the reel into the tank, with > no film in it, and fill the tank with 500ml of water and see > how submersed the reel is. If it's just at the top of the > reel, that's not really enough; add more water so the reel > is more than 5-10m submersed, and measure the total amount. With the recommended 500ml the reel was submersed by about 8-10mm. However, for no good reason I used hot water. That resulted the hot water heating the remaining air in the tank when shaken and the top popping off showering me and the kitchen in water - fortunately. Good reason to get a tank with a more secre lid. Looks like there is enough space to give a fair bit of mixing with inversion. > But, I tend to think you'd be way better-off with a stainless > tank that you can invert. Switching to agitation-by-inversion > will probably influence the development time (probably shorten > it a bit), so you'll want to run a test roll after the switch. > > Dana Cheers to all who responded in this thread - most helpful. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> Looks like agitation to me, or perhaps an incomplete >> fill in the tank. Do you used a daylight tank? How [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Pete Inversion agitation may cure the problem as suggested by others. However, be aware that you may still get a bit of overdevelopment at the edges of the film with inversion due to the increased turbulance at the edges of the film. Inversion agitation does seem to produce more uniform development end to end. Twiddle type agitation can also cause bromide streaking near the center of the film. I've tried both the 10 second agatation every minute (Ilford recommendation) and 5 seconds every 30 seconds (Kodak recommendation) and don't see any significant differece with roll film. However, I have a Nikor sheet film tank which has a more restricted flow pattern and with that the longer agitation intervals does seem to produce more uniform results. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > development end to end. Twiddle type agitation can also > cause bromide streaking near the center of the film. OK, not quite up on the term bromide streaking but the one time I've had apallingly stained / streaked film was when I tried reversal. Perhaps when feeling brave again I ought to try it again using inversion. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> development end to end. Twiddle type agitation can also >> cause bromide streaking near the center of the film. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pete Bromide streaking is caused by partially exhausted developer being moved along the surface of the film and causing reduced development in line with dense areas. Some developers are more prone to do this than others depending on the nature of their reaction products. I've been using inversion tanks for many years so have not had this problem with them, however, I have had it when developing sheet film in print drums. The drums were agitated on a motor base. There was plenty of agitation along the rotational axis but nearly none sidways. The cure was to agitate manually and make sure to agitate sideways enough to get fresh developer to all parts of the negatives. Reversal development has other sources of problems. Incomplete bleaching will cause problems, the streaking could have originated from the bleach step. Reversal development is development to completion so its usually pretty much immune from agitation variations unless they are very bad. I am writing about B&W reversal but color reversal also has a set of vices all its own. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com Over agitation. The reels should not move in the tank with inversion. The bubble you leave in the top of the tank is sufficient to agitate. An aside - I let newly mixed developer "settle down" for half an hour before I use it from stock solution. Nope, makes no difference to the energetic quality of the developer but it helps ME settle down. If it helps at all, a colleague of mine and I have this happen at least once a year, and we each have forty-plus years of experience. What can I say, we f*uck up sometimes. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.