Two films in a tank, only one comes out with a development error – why? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InDo longer stopping and fixation times have any influence on the quality of the film?B&W Negative Tray Developing: Uneven DevelopmentNegatives came out very thinWhy did only the last picture I took actually come out when developing a 35mm film roll?Why's there a round ring on my developed 35mm film?Why are there multiple white spots on photos taken with a Praktica IV camera?How do different developing fluids affect black and white film?Uneven tank development
Geography at the pixel level
Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?
Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?
How to manage monthly salary
Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?
Where to refill my bottle in India?
Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long?
What is the most effective way of iterating a std::vector and why?
Should I use my personal e-mail address, or my workplace one, when registering to external websites for work purposes?
Can someone be penalized for an "unlawful" act if no penalty is specified?
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
FPGA - DIY Programming
Does the shape of a die affect the probability of a number being rolled?
If a Druid sees an animal’s corpse, can they Wild Shape into that animal?
How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?
What is the closest word meaning "respect for time / mindful"
Resizing object distorts it (Illustrator CC 2018)
If I score a critical hit on an 18 or higher, what are my chances of getting a critical hit if I roll 3d20?
Is there a symbol for a right arrow with a square in the middle?
Is this app Icon Browser Safe/Legit?
Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?
Worn-tile Scrabble
What are the motivations for publishing new editions of an existing textbook, beyond new discoveries in a field?
Two films in a tank, only one comes out with a development error – why?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InDo longer stopping and fixation times have any influence on the quality of the film?B&W Negative Tray Developing: Uneven DevelopmentNegatives came out very thinWhy did only the last picture I took actually come out when developing a 35mm film roll?Why's there a round ring on my developed 35mm film?Why are there multiple white spots on photos taken with a Praktica IV camera?How do different developing fluids affect black and white film?Uneven tank development
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
10
I recently developed two 35mm films together in a tank. One, and only one of them, came out with artefacts on most (but not all) of the exposures – spots of uneven development that seem to originate from the film sprocket holes. Here's one frame from the roll for illustration:
(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 Apr 5 at 9:11
KahoviusKahovius
1437
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.
|
show 3 more comments
10
I recently developed two 35mm films together in a tank. One, and only one of them, came out with artefacts on most (but not all) of the exposures – spots of uneven development that seem to originate from the film sprocket holes. Here's one frame from the roll for illustration:
(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 Apr 5 at 9:11
KahoviusKahovius
1437
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
Apr 5 at 9:48
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
Apr 5 at 9:59
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
Apr 5 at 13:13
4
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
Apr 5 at 13:46
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
Apr 5 at 14:27
|
show 3 more comments
10
10
10
I recently developed two 35mm films together in a tank. One, and only one of them, came out with artefacts on most (but not all) of the exposures – spots of uneven development that seem to originate from the film sprocket holes. Here's one frame from the roll for illustration:
(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 Apr 5 at 9:11
KahoviusKahovius
1437
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 artefacts on most (but not all) of the exposures – spots of uneven development that seem to originate from the film sprocket holes. Here's one frame from the roll for illustration:
(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 Apr 5 at 9:11
KahoviusKahovius
1437
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 Apr 5 at 9:11
KahoviusKahovius
1437
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.
edited Apr 6 at 19:50
Kahovius
asked Apr 5 at 9:11
KahoviusKahovius
1437
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 Apr 5 at 9:11
KahoviusKahovius
1437
asked Apr 5 at 9:11
KahoviusKahovius
1437
1437
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
Apr 5 at 9:48
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
Apr 5 at 9:59
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
Apr 5 at 13:13
4
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
Apr 5 at 13:46
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
Apr 5 at 14:27
|
show 3 more comments
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
Apr 5 at 9:48
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
Apr 5 at 9:59
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
Apr 5 at 13:13
4
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
Apr 5 at 13:46
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
Apr 5 at 14:27
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
Apr 5 at 9:48
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
Apr 5 at 9:48
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
Apr 5 at 9:59
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
Apr 5 at 9:59
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
Apr 5 at 13:13
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
Apr 5 at 13:13
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
Apr 5 at 13:46
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
Apr 5 at 13:46
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
Apr 5 at 14:27
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
Apr 5 at 14:27
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
12
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 Apr 5 at 9:58
tfbtfb
43118
4
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
Apr 5 at 13:32
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
Apr 5 at 14:26
Many thanks for your answer, @tfb! I'll make sure to pay more attention to loading the film properly next time. @Alan Marcus: thanks for the suggestion! I tried re-fixing today. The negatives didn't improve visibly, however.
– Kahovius
Apr 6 at 19:58
1
PRACTICE with an old strip of film in the light, then in the dark . It should be loose feeling in the reel, give it a gentle push in towards the reel after every turn around the reel to see if it is binding up. You should be able to push it in and out a few millimeters. If it does not have the "right feel" then back it out a little and retry. After much practice and experimenting you will know the "right feel"
– Alaska man
Apr 6 at 22:01
add a comment |
-1
Agitation... read about it, different films and developers need different amounts. Plastic reels and tanks aren't as good as SS for flow.
answered yesterday
DavepixDavepix
1094
OP mentions using FP4 and Fomapan in DDX. Your sentence is a non-answer with an unbacked assertion (plastic is worse than steel for flow). The neg looks like it was touching - a problem that aggressive agitation may actually make worse. Why not expand your answer to include what the proper agitation is for FP4 and DDX and how that would solve the negative-touching problem?
– Hueco
yesterday
Plastic is not as good as Stainless for flow, that is a fact not an assertion. Proper agitation is noted in the instructions for your film, I am not an encyclopedia, read your instructions. Additionally, the film was likely wet before loading as it stuck together and has characteristic marks. Solve the touching problem, get some good straight stainless reels and tanks and learn to load them.
– Davepix
7 hours ago
The Stack Exchange network would be completely useless if everyone answered in one word followed with the phrase, read about it. That's not really how anyone learns nor does it provide any value for future readers. I'll take your assertion at face value - you still haven't described how better agitation would overcome botched loading, regardless of reel type. tldr; your answer could be drastically improved. That's why I downvoted it. (It is customary for a downvote to come with an explanation. There, you have it.)
– Hueco
6 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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
12
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 Apr 5 at 9:58
tfbtfb
43118
4
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
Apr 5 at 13:32
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
Apr 5 at 14:26
Many thanks for your answer, @tfb! I'll make sure to pay more attention to loading the film properly next time. @Alan Marcus: thanks for the suggestion! I tried re-fixing today. The negatives didn't improve visibly, however.
– Kahovius
Apr 6 at 19:58
1
PRACTICE with an old strip of film in the light, then in the dark . It should be loose feeling in the reel, give it a gentle push in towards the reel after every turn around the reel to see if it is binding up. You should be able to push it in and out a few millimeters. If it does not have the "right feel" then back it out a little and retry. After much practice and experimenting you will know the "right feel"
– Alaska man
Apr 6 at 22:01
add a comment |
12
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 Apr 5 at 9:58
tfbtfb
43118
4
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
Apr 5 at 13:32
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
Apr 5 at 14:26
Many thanks for your answer, @tfb! I'll make sure to pay more attention to loading the film properly next time. @Alan Marcus: thanks for the suggestion! I tried re-fixing today. The negatives didn't improve visibly, however.
– Kahovius
Apr 6 at 19:58
1
PRACTICE with an old strip of film in the light, then in the dark . It should be loose feeling in the reel, give it a gentle push in towards the reel after every turn around the reel to see if it is binding up. You should be able to push it in and out a few millimeters. If it does not have the "right feel" then back it out a little and retry. After much practice and experimenting you will know the "right feel"
– Alaska man
Apr 6 at 22:01
add a comment |
12
12
12
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 Apr 5 at 9:58
tfbtfb
43118
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 Apr 5 at 9:58
tfbtfb
43118
answered Apr 5 at 9:58
tfbtfb
43118
answered Apr 5 at 9:58
tfbtfb
43118
answered Apr 5 at 9:58
tfbtfb
43118
43118
4
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
Apr 5 at 13:32
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
Apr 5 at 14:26
Many thanks for your answer, @tfb! I'll make sure to pay more attention to loading the film properly next time. @Alan Marcus: thanks for the suggestion! I tried re-fixing today. The negatives didn't improve visibly, however.
– Kahovius
Apr 6 at 19:58
1
PRACTICE with an old strip of film in the light, then in the dark . It should be loose feeling in the reel, give it a gentle push in towards the reel after every turn around the reel to see if it is binding up. You should be able to push it in and out a few millimeters. If it does not have the "right feel" then back it out a little and retry. After much practice and experimenting you will know the "right feel"
– Alaska man
Apr 6 at 22:01
add a comment |
4
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
Apr 5 at 13:32
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
Apr 5 at 14:26
Many thanks for your answer, @tfb! I'll make sure to pay more attention to loading the film properly next time. @Alan Marcus: thanks for the suggestion! I tried re-fixing today. The negatives didn't improve visibly, however.
– Kahovius
Apr 6 at 19:58
1
PRACTICE with an old strip of film in the light, then in the dark . It should be loose feeling in the reel, give it a gentle push in towards the reel after every turn around the reel to see if it is binding up. You should be able to push it in and out a few millimeters. If it does not have the "right feel" then back it out a little and retry. After much practice and experimenting you will know the "right feel"
– Alaska man
Apr 6 at 22:01
4
4
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
Apr 5 at 13:32
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
Apr 5 at 13:32
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
Apr 5 at 14:26
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
Apr 5 at 14:26
Many thanks for your answer, @tfb! I'll make sure to pay more attention to loading the film properly next time. @Alan Marcus: thanks for the suggestion! I tried re-fixing today. The negatives didn't improve visibly, however.
– Kahovius
Apr 6 at 19:58
Many thanks for your answer, @tfb! I'll make sure to pay more attention to loading the film properly next time. @Alan Marcus: thanks for the suggestion! I tried re-fixing today. The negatives didn't improve visibly, however.
– Kahovius
Apr 6 at 19:58
1
1
PRACTICE with an old strip of film in the light, then in the dark . It should be loose feeling in the reel, give it a gentle push in towards the reel after every turn around the reel to see if it is binding up. You should be able to push it in and out a few millimeters. If it does not have the "right feel" then back it out a little and retry. After much practice and experimenting you will know the "right feel"
– Alaska man
Apr 6 at 22:01
PRACTICE with an old strip of film in the light, then in the dark . It should be loose feeling in the reel, give it a gentle push in towards the reel after every turn around the reel to see if it is binding up. You should be able to push it in and out a few millimeters. If it does not have the "right feel" then back it out a little and retry. After much practice and experimenting you will know the "right feel"
– Alaska man
Apr 6 at 22:01
add a comment |
-1
Agitation... read about it, different films and developers need different amounts. Plastic reels and tanks aren't as good as SS for flow.
answered yesterday
DavepixDavepix
1094
OP mentions using FP4 and Fomapan in DDX. Your sentence is a non-answer with an unbacked assertion (plastic is worse than steel for flow). The neg looks like it was touching - a problem that aggressive agitation may actually make worse. Why not expand your answer to include what the proper agitation is for FP4 and DDX and how that would solve the negative-touching problem?
– Hueco
yesterday
Plastic is not as good as Stainless for flow, that is a fact not an assertion. Proper agitation is noted in the instructions for your film, I am not an encyclopedia, read your instructions. Additionally, the film was likely wet before loading as it stuck together and has characteristic marks. Solve the touching problem, get some good straight stainless reels and tanks and learn to load them.
– Davepix
7 hours ago
The Stack Exchange network would be completely useless if everyone answered in one word followed with the phrase, read about it. That's not really how anyone learns nor does it provide any value for future readers. I'll take your assertion at face value - you still haven't described how better agitation would overcome botched loading, regardless of reel type. tldr; your answer could be drastically improved. That's why I downvoted it. (It is customary for a downvote to come with an explanation. There, you have it.)
– Hueco
6 hours ago
add a comment |
-1
Agitation... read about it, different films and developers need different amounts. Plastic reels and tanks aren't as good as SS for flow.
answered yesterday
DavepixDavepix
1094
OP mentions using FP4 and Fomapan in DDX. Your sentence is a non-answer with an unbacked assertion (plastic is worse than steel for flow). The neg looks like it was touching - a problem that aggressive agitation may actually make worse. Why not expand your answer to include what the proper agitation is for FP4 and DDX and how that would solve the negative-touching problem?
– Hueco
yesterday
Plastic is not as good as Stainless for flow, that is a fact not an assertion. Proper agitation is noted in the instructions for your film, I am not an encyclopedia, read your instructions. Additionally, the film was likely wet before loading as it stuck together and has characteristic marks. Solve the touching problem, get some good straight stainless reels and tanks and learn to load them.
– Davepix
7 hours ago
The Stack Exchange network would be completely useless if everyone answered in one word followed with the phrase, read about it. That's not really how anyone learns nor does it provide any value for future readers. I'll take your assertion at face value - you still haven't described how better agitation would overcome botched loading, regardless of reel type. tldr; your answer could be drastically improved. That's why I downvoted it. (It is customary for a downvote to come with an explanation. There, you have it.)
– Hueco
6 hours ago
add a comment |
-1
-1
-1
Agitation... read about it, different films and developers need different amounts. Plastic reels and tanks aren't as good as SS for flow.
answered yesterday
DavepixDavepix
1094
Agitation... read about it, different films and developers need different amounts. Plastic reels and tanks aren't as good as SS for flow.
answered yesterday
DavepixDavepix
1094
answered yesterday
DavepixDavepix
1094
answered yesterday
DavepixDavepix
1094
answered yesterday
DavepixDavepix
1094
1094
OP mentions using FP4 and Fomapan in DDX. Your sentence is a non-answer with an unbacked assertion (plastic is worse than steel for flow). The neg looks like it was touching - a problem that aggressive agitation may actually make worse. Why not expand your answer to include what the proper agitation is for FP4 and DDX and how that would solve the negative-touching problem?
– Hueco
yesterday
Plastic is not as good as Stainless for flow, that is a fact not an assertion. Proper agitation is noted in the instructions for your film, I am not an encyclopedia, read your instructions. Additionally, the film was likely wet before loading as it stuck together and has characteristic marks. Solve the touching problem, get some good straight stainless reels and tanks and learn to load them.
– Davepix
7 hours ago
The Stack Exchange network would be completely useless if everyone answered in one word followed with the phrase, read about it. That's not really how anyone learns nor does it provide any value for future readers. I'll take your assertion at face value - you still haven't described how better agitation would overcome botched loading, regardless of reel type. tldr; your answer could be drastically improved. That's why I downvoted it. (It is customary for a downvote to come with an explanation. There, you have it.)
– Hueco
6 hours ago
add a comment |
OP mentions using FP4 and Fomapan in DDX. Your sentence is a non-answer with an unbacked assertion (plastic is worse than steel for flow). The neg looks like it was touching - a problem that aggressive agitation may actually make worse. Why not expand your answer to include what the proper agitation is for FP4 and DDX and how that would solve the negative-touching problem?
– Hueco
yesterday
Plastic is not as good as Stainless for flow, that is a fact not an assertion. Proper agitation is noted in the instructions for your film, I am not an encyclopedia, read your instructions. Additionally, the film was likely wet before loading as it stuck together and has characteristic marks. Solve the touching problem, get some good straight stainless reels and tanks and learn to load them.
– Davepix
7 hours ago
The Stack Exchange network would be completely useless if everyone answered in one word followed with the phrase, read about it. That's not really how anyone learns nor does it provide any value for future readers. I'll take your assertion at face value - you still haven't described how better agitation would overcome botched loading, regardless of reel type. tldr; your answer could be drastically improved. That's why I downvoted it. (It is customary for a downvote to come with an explanation. There, you have it.)
– Hueco
6 hours ago
OP mentions using FP4 and Fomapan in DDX. Your sentence is a non-answer with an unbacked assertion (plastic is worse than steel for flow). The neg looks like it was touching - a problem that aggressive agitation may actually make worse. Why not expand your answer to include what the proper agitation is for FP4 and DDX and how that would solve the negative-touching problem?
– Hueco
yesterday
OP mentions using FP4 and Fomapan in DDX. Your sentence is a non-answer with an unbacked assertion (plastic is worse than steel for flow). The neg looks like it was touching - a problem that aggressive agitation may actually make worse. Why not expand your answer to include what the proper agitation is for FP4 and DDX and how that would solve the negative-touching problem?
– Hueco
yesterday
Plastic is not as good as Stainless for flow, that is a fact not an assertion. Proper agitation is noted in the instructions for your film, I am not an encyclopedia, read your instructions. Additionally, the film was likely wet before loading as it stuck together and has characteristic marks. Solve the touching problem, get some good straight stainless reels and tanks and learn to load them.
– Davepix
7 hours ago
Plastic is not as good as Stainless for flow, that is a fact not an assertion. Proper agitation is noted in the instructions for your film, I am not an encyclopedia, read your instructions. Additionally, the film was likely wet before loading as it stuck together and has characteristic marks. Solve the touching problem, get some good straight stainless reels and tanks and learn to load them.
– Davepix
7 hours ago
The Stack Exchange network would be completely useless if everyone answered in one word followed with the phrase, read about it. That's not really how anyone learns nor does it provide any value for future readers. I'll take your assertion at face value - you still haven't described how better agitation would overcome botched loading, regardless of reel type. tldr; your answer could be drastically improved. That's why I downvoted it. (It is customary for a downvote to come with an explanation. There, you have it.)
– Hueco
6 hours ago
The Stack Exchange network would be completely useless if everyone answered in one word followed with the phrase, read about it. That's not really how anyone learns nor does it provide any value for future readers. I'll take your assertion at face value - you still haven't described how better agitation would overcome botched loading, regardless of reel type. tldr; your answer could be drastically improved. That's why I downvoted it. (It is customary for a downvote to come with an explanation. There, you have it.)
– Hueco
6 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
Apr 5 at 9:48
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
Apr 5 at 9:59
What kind of reels are you using?
– Blrfl
Apr 5 at 13:13
4
Can you describe the specific error in text, to make it easier for people with similarly problems to find in the future?
– mattdm
Apr 5 at 13:46
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
Apr 5 at 14:27