[Todd Adamson]

I've been doing some of my own developing now for several months, using rodinal. It's pretty dependable, seems like I can't really screw it up. Til now, the only minor issue I've had was getting the fix level a little low, so I had some edge effects, but they were no big deal. But I developed a roll last night, and just scanning it now. The scans are all messed up.....very posterized. I'm hoping someone has seen something like this and can tell me what the problem is. I guess it's possible it's the scanner, but I suspect the developing process somehow. It was Rodinal 1:25, for 10 minutes, with agitation for 5 seconds every minute. I've done this many times, and never seen anything like it. Same bottle of Rodinal, always. The film is LegacyPro 100, and is from a 12-pack out of which I've used 7 or 8 rolls already, with no issues.

As far as I can determine, there's only one difference with this batch, though it didn't strike me as important: The tank and reel. I've been using a cheapo plastic setup, but I got a Kindermann stainless steel tank with two reels on eBay this week, and used those. The tank and reels arrived clean, but were obviously not new. I washed them thoroughly in soap and hot water, then rinsed them thoroughly before use. Any possibility the new tank could have anything to do with this? Other ideas?

Full frame plus crop below:

[Todd Adamson]

So, I've just carefully inspected a couple of the negatives with a loupe, and I can definitely see those rough transition lines on them. So it's not the scanner.

[BillM]

LegacyPro 100

See same here Todd.Image here is 100 legacy pushed to 800 iso.
In my case,image is underexposed to begin with,maybe a full stop.
Developed with a 'magic elixar' of 50% D-76 & 50% semi-expired E-6 first developer.
When processed,did so at (believe 71.5f,cant access notes) rather than standard,
for me, 68f.Did get a bit careless extrapolating time.Rather than 'crunching the numbers',
kind of took an arbitrary stab at processing time vs. chemical temperature.
Several years ago,made the decission to never run any B/W above 68f.
Changed my mind,can see what happens here.

To largest extent,believe "poppy got a little sloppy" here, with time vs. temperature.

What really is interesting,is how simular images are when your rodinal
and my "monster mash" are compared.

Am wondering about and not able to pin down other varible(s)...
Aggitation? rotary used here ...maybe too aggresive for temperature
Cross-contanimation? Normally pretty good about cleaning,"stuff happens" though
Developer viability? D-76 mixed close to 5 months.Well sealed,but old none the less.
Used illford rapid fix,always been consistant,easily obtainable for me.But, as with my
D-76,has been 'around' for awhile.Again, a question of viability.
Used a stop bath,white vinagar(5%) dilluted 1:4 with water.Should know better I guess.

Edit: jumping betwix images,anomilies apparent on high lights of both.

[Todd Adamson]

Thanks, Bill. I'm certainly not very experienced, but I thought Rodinal was not to picky about temp? These were pushed two stops.....shot at 400. My agitation was 5 quick inversions each minute. I did the exact same thing very recently:

Finishing Off a Roll

The results there were nice. It's very possible there was a difference in temp between that roll and the one I just did, but I don't know because I never monitor that.

[Todd Adamson]

I also push the LP 400 to 1600, with the same protocol, and have done that a few times:

Neopan 400 Pushed Two Stops

[BillM]

thought Rodinal was not to picky about temp?

Have limited experience with rodinal,last dating back quite some time ago.
Always been somewhat a given by me that thermal descrepencies with rod'
were fairly tolerant.Have some bad memories of what I call high-temp B/W
processing,temps above 68f.In those cases was almost always D-76,with
a few HC' sessions thrown in to boot.Legacy is new to me,have much
experience and "a liitle pain to gain" as I shoot with it more and more.
Very much spoiled by this rotary setup,have neglected alot of B/W shooting
only because jobo makes C-41,E-6 processing so effortless.With recent past
experience,see that Im going to have to pay better attention to details regarding
B/W.. Stand processing is something else altogether,never done it.Really looking forward to 'unplugging'
and trying.That little 3 wire-cable umbilica is a hard thing to cut.
Do have my patterson "shined up" and ready to go,thats a start.

[Todd Adamson]

I'm wondering if old fix could cause this? I'm using Clayton RF19 Rapid Fix. The stuff I used as been recycled for at least 4 or 5 rolls, and this recycled dilution has been stored for 2 months or more. I don't time my fix, but rather I just fix a scrap of film concurrently in a small dish, then let the roll in the tank fix for a minute or two longer after that's done. This time I noticed the fix seemed to take longer.....maybe 3 minutes or more for the scrap. But it did ultimately clear, so I wasn't too worried about it.

I just developed another roll, which I will scan later today. Same protocol (1:25, 10 minutes, etc), same tank and reel, but I used fresh fixer, and it fixed the scrap in just a few seconds. Unfortunately this roll isn't the same film.....it's Ilford FP4 125. The first 12 frames were shot at box speed, the rest were shot at 500. So at least I'll have the box speed vs 2-stop push experiment.

[ChrisPlatt]

Interesting. It looks almost like a solarization effect.
I've messed up many a roll in processing at home but I've never seen this.
I'd probably post these over at APUG for their expert opinion...

Chris

[Todd Adamson]

Thanks, Chris. I went ahead and posted there.

[Todd Adamson]

Fast response from some APUG peeps, and they seem to think it's the fix:

Horrible result with Rodinal

[stevebrot]

fix for a minute or two longer after that's done

Should be 2x the time to clear.

Another possibility might be exhaustion of the hardening component of the fixer with physical loss of the wet emulsion during wash (unlikely, but possible).


Steve

[Todd Adamson]

Thanks, Steve.

physical loss of the wet emulsion during wash

I know nothing about how likely this might be, but just looking at the image, IMO, this explanation makes a bit of sense. It sort of looks like sections have actually peeled off, no?

[Todd Adamson]

Well, here's the first scan from the roll developed today. I guess it's probably the fix, because that's the only thing ab out the development I changed here. This was a different film (Ilford FP4), so it's still formally possible it was an issue with the film, but that seems doubtful.

[BillM]

exhaustion of the hardening component of the fixer with physical loss of the wet emulsion during wash

Sounds plausible,using in-tank film washer at high pressure could literaly 'blow'
emulsion off of base,in conjunction with expired or depleted fixer sounds likely.
Does look somewhat same in scanned image as some old Tri-x I had in a sleeve for about 30 years.
Pulled strip from sleeve and part of emulsion remained behind.
There's no indication on newer negative with 8x loupe,on old Tri-x its visable and quite apparent.
Was constant agitation in my case,interesting difference.
Like the bit about solarization,we're haunted by the spirit of man-ray.

[ChrisPlatt]

T-grain films will exhaust fixer faster than conventional grain films.
A marginal batch could adequately fix FP4 but might not suffice for Legacy Pro 100.

Chris