[JohnMc]

Was the section of film in the top photo exposed - left out of the film canister but not on the take up spool - for noticeably longer than the section of film in the bottom photo? A light leak hittin film on the take up spool typ will make a pattern of sorts. A massive leak would have not spared the end of the roll unless conditions/environment changed significantly.


Changing cameras could rule in/out a problem with the first body, as could some photo tape and/or foil wrapping the body and applied immediately after loading the film, which you have done in as low a light as possible.


Is the last full frame seen in the top photo the same as the top full frame seen in the second photo? It's hard, for me at least from here, to discern whether the series of little white dots seen in photo 1 & 2 are reflections or not.

If it were the camera, can you explain the difference in the two ends of the roll by the conditions/environment/duration you and the camera were in?


Still, being able to see the whole roll presented, say as a contact sheet, sans reflections and with consistent exposure across the frames/roll would enable better evaluation. The most important parts here are the sprocket and between frame areas over the length of the roll for being able to determine any density changes.

[pres589]

Was the section of film in the top photo exposed - left out of the film canister but not on the take up spool - for noticeably longer than the section of film in the bottom photo? A light leak hittin film on the take up spool typ will make a pattern of sorts. A massive leak would have not spared the end of the roll unless conditions/environment changed significantly.

- No. I took the roll of film out of the canister and put it in the camera within a minute. I tried to not advance any more film than necessary to get the film positively wound around the take-up spool before closing the door on the back of the camera. I would guess about six inches of film was exposed to daylight through this process.

Changing cameras could rule in/out a problem with the first body, as could some photo tape and/or foil wrapping the body and applied immediately after loading the film, which you have done in as low a light as possible.

- I'll grab one of my other cameras and do this ASAP. If I get the same results (and I'm thinking I will) then that would mean it's definitely in the handling/processing on my part.

Is the last full frame seen in the top photo the same as the top full frame seen in the second photo? It's hard, for me at least from here, to discern whether the series of little white dots seen in photo 1 & 2 are reflections or not.

- The little white dots are most likely residual water drops. I took those after the film had hung for maybe half an hour and wasn't completely dry. If it helps I'll try to scan the negative on a copier here at work tomorrow and put together another series of photos like the three I shared last night.

If it were the camera, can you explain the difference in the two ends of the roll by the conditions/environment/duration you and the camera were in?

- Not sure what you're asking exactly. Film loaded in my house with overhead lighting on. All shots taken outside a couple of hours before sunset, so decently bright sunlight but not brightest outdoor conditions. Metered to EI 400, most shots were at 1/1000 per the auto-exposure system on the camera and f8 to f11 on the lens. What I'd consider pretty bright out. I loaded the film Tuesday evening and left the camera on the counter. Next day around 6 PM I shot the whole roll in about 15 minutes outdoors. Brought it back inside and rewound the roll and took it out with no film out of the cassette. All shots taken in very similar outdoor light over a short period of time.

Still, being able to see the whole roll presented, say as a contact sheet, sans reflections and with consistent exposure across the frames/roll would enable better evaluation. The most important parts here are the sprocket and between frame areas over the length of the roll for being able to determine any density changes.

- Understood. I'll try to get a scan of the whole roll tomorrow. Thinking about it, I could cut it into 6 frame lengths and put the whole thing into a sleeve for negatives and scan that all at once.

[JohnMc]

By film canister I mean the container that you load in the camera, not the packaging container. You had indicated you had the film loaded for a day before you shot any pic's. Depending, you can get a very dense area on the film in under 1/1000th of a second through the lens. The same could happen in lesser/different conditions while just sitting on a kitchen counter for a day, or a couple minutes, more or less, dangling about in a darkened bathroom.


The only thing I think I'm seeing is that the first of the roll, more than what I believe is the leader and first two frames - what would have been out of the canister when first loaded but no exposures made - received light that it shouldn't have and more than the end of the roll did at some point that would most likely have be after being in the camera ie the not quite dark-enough-room.

It takes folks at minimum 20 minutes to get their night vision running well. Have you tested your darkroom by sitting in there for a good 1/2 hour or so?

[pres589]

The only thing I think I'm seeing is that the first of the roll, more than what I believe is the leader and first two frames - what would have been out of the canister when first loaded but no exposures made - received light that it shouldn't have and more than the end of the roll did at some point that would most likely have be after being in the camera ie the not quite dark-enough-room.

- I completely agree; I can make out frames in that area but they're faint and the film is quite exposed there making it difficult to make them out. And it's across the film face, from the very edge to the other edge, across the sprockets etc etc. That's another reason why I don't think it's the shutter hanging open too long. The end of the roll, the last 8 or so frames, look basically perfect. So unless my camera is acting badly for the first 1/2 of a roll before slowly correcting itself across many rolls and months of use, this doesn't seem like a camera issue really. I still want to verify that with use of a different camera to see how this comes out.

It takes folks at minimum 20 minutes to get their night vision running well. Have you tested your darkroom by sitting in there for a good 1/2 hour or so?

- I haven't sat there that long, no. But like this last time, I spent about five minutes, I believe, just hanging around in there waiting for my eyes to adjust and any light leaks in the room to become apparent. I didn't see any during the duration of my time in there (usually takes me a few minutes to get a roll of film out of the cassette and onto a reel and into a tank with the lid screwed on). I can try to spend that sort of time in there before doing anything with the film. I've also read about placing a white card on something dark, like a dark cloth, and spending some time waiting to see if it becomes apparent or not. If I cannot see it after a good amount of time in there, then it's probably safe for film.

I'm thinking about shooting two rolls of film. One through another camera and develop the same way that I have been. That should test the camera by providing a back to back test of just that variable. The other would be to shoot a roll through the XR7 but develop it in the dark; I would get the film into the tank in the dark, then run the developer section of the process as well as the stop bath in the dark, to test the tank and my general methods. Hopefully I can find time to do this soon, maybe even this evening after work.

Not sure if I'm seeing anything else to really test based on the exchange so far. I'll need to start taking good notes on each negative as to which is which.

Thanks.

[pres589]

Quick update. I shot a roll just now with my Chinon CE-4 and it came out basically the same. I didn't have to examine it, it's like the others, no change there. Okay. That was developed by me getting the film into a dev tank in my darkroom and then all of the real development work, chemicals & rinsing, done in a normal room with normal lighting.


Took a second roll shot with my XR7 and did the development work in the darkroom. Film rewound, transfered to the development tank, developer step and stop bath step of development all done in the dark. Not a lot of fun but doable. I used a timer on my phone, with my phone hidden in the medicine cabinet, to tell me when to dump the developer and do a stop rinse. Here's how that came out;



This is the start of the roll. I took 12 shots of the car to tell me that this was where the roll starts, making sure there's no question about that.



This is the end of the roll. 12 shots of flowers in front of my house.

The film is still wet so there's some visible shiny spots to be ignored. I was not expecting this to have been the outcome and wasn't all that optimistic about this. But here we are. Somehow it seems like I'm getting light into the development tank on all of the rolls I've been processing since I moved. I really don't understand that. I'm screwing the lid on tight (without going crazy on the thing) and the cap is nearly water tight (these tanks aren't exactly perfect about that). I really want to get this figured out because doing this work in the dark isn't a lot of fun. Do I buy a new tank and see how that goes?

[JohnMc]

Trust me, 5 -10 minutes is nowhere near long enough for 99+% of peoples eyes to get 'comfortable' in darkness. Most instances I recall with results like I think I'm seeing on your rolls comes from under a door or perhaps the edge of a window depending on how you're handling/managing the film and its spooling. Think through your process and about how/where that one end could get a bit of light and the other end doesn't. There's an intersection there, somewhere.

---------- Post added 08-10-22 at 04:51 PM ----------

Quick update.... Do I buy a new tank and see how that goes?

We crossed. Not familiar with your tank. Some of the plastic tanks require and easily lost fill/agitating tube to be light tight. Looks like that's (new tank) going to be your path forward.

[pres589]

My tanks are the one and two 35mm versions of this;

amazon.com : Universal Compact Developing Tank 2 Spiral Reel for Processing 120 135 126 127 B/W Film Camera Film Processing Equipment : Electronics?tag=pentaxforums-20&

They both seem to be doing this. I'll go looking for the fill/agitation tube. I may still have them. I know I'm not currently using them. I thought they were optional as I'm not using them for agitation! I'll probably be getting actual Patterson tanks if I can't sort this out.

[JohnMc]

Is the fogged end the first end loaded on the reel - ie closest to center?

[pres589]

Is the fogged end the first end loaded on the reel - ie closest to center?

Yes. The best part of the roll is towards the walls of the tank. Which I think corresponds pretty well with your suggestion that I need the fill tubes installed or I'm going to have issues like this.


I found the fill tubes, by the way, so I'll try a test roll with one of them installed tomorrow.

[JohnMc]

Hope that's all it is, good luck. Back to processing though as I don't recall seeing it mentioned, do you use a water pre-soak before developer? It's something that while not strictly necessary can help smooth over other common processing issues from tempering the tank to air bubbles. It's especially helpful when you use shorter developing times, tanks that leak when inverted, or processing temperatures that are more than a few degrees from ambient.

[TwoUptons]

Years ago I had a Patterson tank funnel part crack, and it leaked after that, but you couldn’t see the crack unless you tweaked it just right.
And it didn’t impact film development if you changed chemicals in a dark room. At the time, we were using it in a newspaper darkroom, so we normally did all the developing there, with only a dim light, so it snuck up on us…

I also had one crack the tank itself, but then it leaked fluid as well, so that was far more obvious (and messy).

-Eric

[pres589]

UPDATE: FIXED

It was the fill/agitation tubes being left out. I just developed a roll of film out in the open air like I would but with the fill tube in place. No problems. Film looks excellent.


Thanks to everyone, especially JohnMc, for helping me figure this out.

[JohnMc]

Glad you were able to solve it. Now the hard part comes.

[BandeauRouge]

Quick update. I shot a roll just now with my Chinon CE-4 and it came out basically the same. I didn't have to examine it, it's like the others, no change there. Okay. That was developed by me getting the film into a dev tank in my darkroom and then all of the real development work, chemicals & rinsing, done in a normal room with normal lighting.


Took a second roll shot with my XR7 and did the development work in the darkroom. Film rewound, transfered to the development tank, developer step and stop bath step of development all done in the dark. Not a lot of fun but doable. I used a timer on my phone, with my phone hidden in the medicine cabinet, to tell me when to dump the developer and do a stop rinse. Here's how that came out;



This is the start of the roll. I took 12 shots of the car to tell me that this was where the roll starts, making sure there's no question about that.



This is the end of the roll. 12 shots of flowers in front of my house.

The film is still wet so there's some visible shiny spots to be ignored. I was not expecting this to have been the outcome and wasn't all that optimistic about this. But here we are. Somehow it seems like I'm getting light into the development tank on all of the rolls I've been processing since I moved. I really don't understand that. I'm screwing the lid on tight (without going crazy on the thing) and the cap is nearly water tight (these tanks aren't exactly perfect about that). I really want to get this figured out because doing this work in the dark isn't a lot of fun. Do I buy a new tank and see how that goes?

this is normal for Arista EDU film n 400 iso... at least for me

its not good, but people love the film. I think it is a bad batch we have been getting. was yours in the new tan/brown colored box?

in your last section of negative with the flowers, see at teh very end the nearly clear frame? i gt those randomly through teh film. Its worse with arista edu 400 iso in 120 format. I can get entire rolls to develop like that.

Ive gone to delta 400, had a few bad frames today. not sure why but ill figure it out.