Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-06-2010, 12:36 PM   #16
Pentaxian
titrisol's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In the most populated state... state of denial
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,094
now that I see the negative.... never seen that before
I hope is one of those magical mistakes that you can not repeat but make the analog photography so wonderful

05-07-2010, 07:31 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
QuoteOriginally posted by Jimfear Quote
As Nesster said, it is not random and that would count out something with the developer.
I would disagree. Depleted developer will not be random but will be a function of exposure and negative density. This is why agitation is important. I remember seeing some odd results in an old darkroom guide
05-07-2010, 11:12 PM   #18
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I would disagree. Depleted developer will not be random but will be a function of exposure and negative density. This is why agitation is important. I remember seeing some odd results in an old darkroom guide
This is true...the denser areas may exhaust the developer while the thinner areas may not. I would vote for inadequate agitation, wrong dilution, film poorly wound on reel, or too many rolls without replenishment.


Steve
05-08-2010, 12:45 AM   #19
Veteran Member
Jimfear's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 576
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I would disagree. Depleted developer will not be random but will be a function of exposure and negative density. This is why agitation is important. I remember seeing some odd results in an old darkroom guide
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
This is true...the denser areas may exhaust the developer while the thinner areas may not. I would vote for inadequate agitation, wrong dilution, film poorly wound on reel, or too many rolls without replenishment.

Steve
hmm... but could depleted developer really result in this? Looking at the roll this does not confine to highlights, it appears from shadows to highlights. The developer was a fresh mix at the right dilution, agitation was according to specifications. It would be that the film had jumped off the reel in some way then, seemed fine when I pulled it out.

Personally I think there is something wrong with this specific roll, as the other roll that was in the same tank, at the same time, with the same chemicals came out fine. But then again both rolls were from the same 10-pack, and should be the same batch of film if I'm not very very VERY unlucky.

I hope the same as titrisol, that this was a magical mistake that just happened and no one knows why.


Digitalis, do you mean that the negative can block up if developed at too high or too low temperature? Or if the temperature changes during development?

05-08-2010, 11:43 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,464
Where on the roll did this fall, and how close to either end of the roll is this? I can't help but notice the example shot, when we see the negative, is near the end of the roll and in fact very curly in just the right directions to have possibly muddied things up, and even produced some of the odder effects at the bottom.

Also notice the darkening at the edges:

Are other frames like this?

Theory: (which may even reconcile a lot of the others floated, between solarizing and fixer and developer, and etc... ) Bad chemistry maybe, but possibly a glitch loading the reel means that some of that film was actually stuck to itself in spots: it got some developer which then essentially formed some suction. Mostly keeping the developer from refreshing itself even with agitation, also not taking on enough stop, also, insufficiently fixing.

So, this happens, maybe everything looks OK. You take the lid off the tank and rinse. The developer is mostly depleted, but still a bit active, having been stuck between the turns of the film reel... (also keeping most of the stop and fix out in the process: basically what you have is some good developer, but not enough of it, getting in there, but no more, and that's all.) And in certain places, according to the curl, it catches some light and solarizes-ish from light coming in, until it's finally washed away.., or the developer fully depletes itself while the film's hanging to dry....

Now, with re-fixing, you've stabilized it, but damage done.

The strange 'bokeh' would be there because that's where the active ingredients of the developer 'stuck' first.


Something like that, maybe?

I suppose, too, that it's possible, if this had happened with a faster film, things might look a lot worse. Not sure. Action plan, load reels more carefully.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-08-2010 at 11:59 AM.
05-08-2010, 11:43 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Jimfear's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 576
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
Where on the roll did this fall, and how close to either end of the roll is this? I can't help but notice the example shot, when we see the negative, is near the end of the roll and in fact very curly in just the right directions to have possibly muddied things up, and even produced some of the odder effects at the bottom.

Also notice the darkening at the edges:

Are other frames like this?

Theory: (which may even reconcile a lot of the others floated, between solarizing and fixer and developer, and etc... ) Bad chemistry maybe, but possibly a glitch loading the reel means that some of that film was actually stuck to itself in spots: it got some developer which then essentially formed some suction. Mostly keeping the developer from refreshing itself even with agitation, also not taking on enough stop, also, insufficiently fixing.

So, this happens, maybe everything looks OK. You take the lid off the tank and rinse. The developer is mostly depleted, but still a bit active, having been stuck between the turns of the film reel... (also keeping most of the stop and fix out in the process: basically what you have is some good developer, but not enough of it, getting in there, but no more, and that's all.) And in certain places, according to the curl, it catches some light and solarizes-ish from light coming in, until it's finally washed away.., or the developer fully depletes itself while the film's hanging to dry....

Now, with re-fixing, you've stabilized it, but damage done.

The strange 'bokeh' would be there because that's where the active ingredients of the developer 'stuck' first.


Something like that, maybe?

I suppose, too, that it's possible, if this had happened with a faster film, things might look a lot worse. Not sure. Action plan, load reels more carefully.

As I said earlier I am not sure if it was loaded perfectly onto the reel, but I do think so.

This happens all over the roll from frame one to frame 38. But always in the bokeh. Some shots that don't have a lot of bokeh are fine though.

The fist picture I showed does look like something has stuck together, but when the whole roll shows the same effect in more or less noticeable form. You'll understand from the picture below that this cannot be just because the film has stuck together, it's far to precise for that.

Here's another one where it's quite noticeable. Darker shades seem to be the most effected. This is not just harsh bokeh, this lens usually gets it quite smooth. If you look at the fallen tree you can see layers of shades running parallel where there should be a smooth transition and nice bokeh.




And an example with no bokeh and also no strange effect.

05-09-2010, 11:21 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,464
Hrm, well, actually, I can detect signs of mild solarization on the one that's not supposed to have any, ...at least on this monitor, which isn't very good. Maybe look closely at the upper part of the wall on the right.

It seeming more pronounced around dark bokeh may just be because there aren't sharp edges, making what'd normally flow together kind of blotchy... ...it does seem less likely the whole roll was poorly-loaded, though.


What kind of tank were you using? Perhaps there was a bit of a light leak near the top or bottom, or the lid let some light in, only really affecting the top or bottom roll over the course of development... I'm still pretty sure depleted chemistry is involved, or it's a light-interacting-with chemistry matter.

Here's an alternate theory, ...if it was a Paterson type tank, and used mostly the spinny agitation thing, perhaps the end of one of the film rolls adhered to the tank wall, or otherwise got stuck. meaning that reel didn't want to turn?

Then you could have chemical depletion without even knowing it, perhaps.
05-09-2010, 06:19 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
not sure this will help but it does give examples of most developing errors

Olympus Microscopy Resource Center: Photomicrography - Black & White Film Processing Errors

05-10-2010, 06:34 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Jimfear's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 576
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
What kind of tank were you using? Perhaps there was a bit of a light leak near the top or bottom, or the lid let some light in, only really affecting the top or bottom roll over the course of development... I'm still pretty sure depleted chemistry is involved, or it's a light-interacting-with chemistry matter.

Here's an alternate theory, ...if it was a Paterson type tank, and used mostly the spinny agitation thing, perhaps the end of one of the film rolls adhered to the tank wall, or otherwise got stuck. meaning that reel didn't want to turn?

Then you could have chemical depletion without even knowing it, perhaps.
I use a Paterson tank yes. I'm sure there is no light leeking in to the tank. Normal agitation was used.

So if this is to be a chemical problem one roll would have had to be agitated different from the other, which I must say doesn't sound very likely.

Could something like this happen if the roll was exposed to heat before development? Black camera bag in the sun kind of thing?


Thanks for the link Lowell Goudge, did not help me with my problem but it was an interesting read anyway.
05-10-2010, 09:59 AM   #25
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
to me it seems that the issue really is present in all the shots.

If you look at the building there does not seem to be any detail in any one specific tonal field, it is almost as if this was scanned with something like 4 bit depth of shades, very large areas of uniform illumination.

that could easily be depletion of the developer. loss of detail would be one of the issues.

I think it is easier to spot in the shots with shallow DOF because in the bokeh region where detail falls off to somewhat uniform blobs of tone you see it as blobs

In areas with high DOF you see the sharp lines in the areas with contrast and nothing in the larger fields of almost uniform illumination and tone.

It almost has the same effect as using edge preserving noise reduction. total loss of detail in areas of fine detail and very hard pronounced tonal edges
05-10-2010, 12:55 PM   #26
Veteran Member
Jimfear's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 576
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
to me it seems that the issue really is present in all the shots.

If you look at the building there does not seem to be any detail in any one specific tonal field, it is almost as if this was scanned with something like 4 bit depth of shades, very large areas of uniform illumination.

that could easily be depletion of the developer. loss of detail would be one of the issues.

I think it is easier to spot in the shots with shallow DOF because in the bokeh region where detail falls off to somewhat uniform blobs of tone you see it as blobs

In areas with high DOF you see the sharp lines in the areas with contrast and nothing in the larger fields of almost uniform illumination and tone.

It almost has the same effect as using edge preserving noise reduction. total loss of detail in areas of fine detail and very hard pronounced tonal edges

Maybe not the best of examples, detail is not readily visible in that picture. I'll give you another.

If this would be a result of depleted developer, shouldn't it confine to the highlights then as that's where developer depletes the quickest. If the developer was depleted in the whole picture I'm sure it would show a drastically more pronounced effect right?

Here you can see detail in the wood in different tonal ranges, clearly visible zoomed in, a little less so at this size but it's there. Also the sky is making a nice transition from dark to light.

05-10-2010, 12:59 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ferguson, Mo.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,348
B&W development

Hi Everybody,
Had something like this happen with C-41 process, had a phonecall come
right at end of development,dumped tank, let stand, untempered and mostly
drained, came back a minute later and fixed. Was more pronounced than this
because of less temperature lattitude.
05-10-2010, 03:41 PM   #28
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
QuoteOriginally posted by Jimfear Quote
Maybe not the best of examples, detail is not readily visible in that picture. I'll give you another.

If this would be a result of depleted developer, shouldn't it confine to the highlights then as that's where developer depletes the quickest. If the developer was depleted in the whole picture I'm sure it would show a drastically more pronounced effect right?

Here you can see detail in the wood in different tonal ranges, clearly visible zoomed in, a little less so at this size but it's there. Also the sky is making a nice transition from dark to light.

except for the vignetting at the corners, that is a good shot and does not seem to suffer from any of the problems.

The point I was making above is that the other shots really do look like a very low color depth interpretation of an image.

Depletion would happen fastest in dark areas, where the most silver density has to be developed and removed,
05-11-2010, 12:54 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Jimfear's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 576
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
except for the vignetting at the corners, that is a good shot and does not seem to suffer from any of the problems.

The point I was making above is that the other shots really do look like a very low color depth interpretation of an image.

Depletion would happen fastest in dark areas, where the most silver density has to be developed and removed,

Yes as I said earlier the whole roll seems to have less contrast than the other roll I did. Makes for quite dull and uniform shades.

Are you sure about the darker areas depleting quicker? If I understand the theory of developing right highlights need more developer as there is more silver-halide crystals that need to be turned into silver there, leaving behind a dark dense part on the negative.

Or are you talking about the dark areas of the negative? In that case we are on the same page
05-11-2010, 06:54 AM   #30
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,762
QuoteOriginally posted by Jimfear Quote
Yes as I said earlier the whole roll seems to have less contrast than the other roll I did. Makes for quite dull and uniform shades.

Are you sure about the darker areas depleting quicker? If I understand the theory of developing right highlights need more developer as there is more silver-halide crystals that need to be turned into silver there, leaving behind a dark dense part on the negative.

Or are you talking about the dark areas of the negative? In that case we are on the same page
That kind of seemed different from my understanding as well. The developer turns the most exposed portion to metalic silver first, exhausting itself in the process. If left long enough, it would turn the unexposed portions to silver as well. The dark areas of the photo (clear areas of the film) have had the least change from the developer and are cleared away by the fixer.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
rolls, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Developing B/W film with C-41 ftpaddict Pentax Film SLR Discussion 21 05-27-2014 06:47 PM
Stupid 120 film developing question - paper back removal. ytterbium Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 04-11-2012 01:17 PM
1 hour film developing irishwhite Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 9 06-15-2010 08:45 AM
Film chemical/developing question/problem JahJahwarrior Pentax Film SLR Discussion 13 10-29-2008 05:55 PM
cost of film developing Gooshin Pentax Film SLR Discussion 16 08-25-2008 04:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top