What is this about?! (Film/developing question)

Jimfear · 05-05-2010, 12:53 AM

Hi

I recently developed two rolls of Ilford PanF+ in Tetenal Neofin Blue, both rolls at the same time. On one of the rolls I got a really strange effect that I don't like very much. In shadow areas of bokeh there are really harsh edges between shades, kind of like a digital picture with not enough bit depth.

Does anyone know how this happened? Or if it is something wrong with the film, the other roll developed at the same time is fine.

See foreground bokeh?!

Thankful for all and any input.

titrisol · 05-05-2010, 09:21 AM

Quite strange, it looks solarized ... maybe poorly fixed?
Is the roll milky? if so fix it again for a couple of minutes and should be fine

lithos · 05-05-2010, 10:32 AM

Is it a scanned neg and do you have ICE turned on? If so, turn it off for BW film. (Although, judging by the scratches, it's off.)

But yeah, other than that, fix the fixer.

Also, oo! A kitty!

Nesster · 05-05-2010, 10:52 AM

Is it this way, on the same edge, for the entire roll? If so, maybe you poured too little fixer in the tank. (Go ahead, ask me how I know about that, only I poured in too little developer...)

Sluggo · 05-05-2010, 01:02 PM

> "like a digital picture with not enough bit depth"

Go with that thought. If the negatives look okay to the naked eye (not way too dense or too thin), then my guess is that the problem is in the scan step. Probably the analog gain setting is quite a bit off for some reason, so the raw scan data is shifted toward white, and then during level adjustment step (which is perhaps automatic?) there isn't enough bit depth left to recover the detail, at least in the brighter parts of the picture, so you get isobars.

Not that I can begin to guess the underlying cause, but my next steps would be (1) try different scan software if you have anything available, and if that doesn't make a difference (2) scan on a friend's hardware and see if it looks any better. I bet you a nickel the negative doesn't really have the defect we see here.

GeneV · 05-05-2010, 02:33 PM

Normally, when ICE is on it does not remove the dirt, but does make the negative look solarized. However, it does so on the whole negative. That looks like a fixing problem to me where the film did not clear. Really, you need to look at the negative and see if this area is cloudy.

Nesster · 05-05-2010, 04:46 PM

In my experience, ICE will make the dark areas block up and lumpy; this doesn't look like that.

Jimfear · 05-06-2010, 12:12 AM

Thanks for all the input!

If a poorly fixed negative looks something like this it could very well be it. I noticed my fixer was on it's last re-run before I change it. The film in itself does not look milky but I noticed that this roll had less contrast in the pictures than the other roll I developed, which is strange as it was in the same tank with the same chemicals. I'll try to fix it again with fresh fixer. If it helps I'll be the happiest guy on the planet!

Originally posted by Nesster

Is it this way, on the same edge, for the entire roll? If so, maybe you poured too little fixer in the tank. (Go ahead, ask me how I know about that, only I poured in too little developer...)

I had enough chemicals, this appears a little here and there on the roll. Mostly in bokeh areas. Btw I have also been a little overly optimistic with developing a 120 roll once...

Originally posted by Sluggo

> "like a digital picture with not enough bit depth"

Go with that thought. If the negatives look okay to the naked eye (not way too dense or too thin), then my guess is that the problem is in the scan step. Probably the analog gain setting is quite a bit off for some reason, so the raw scan data is shifted toward white, and then during level adjustment step (which is perhaps automatic?) there isn't enough bit depth left to recover the detail, at least in the brighter parts of the picture, so you get isobars.

This was my initial though also, already a bit grumpy for thinking I'd have to re-do the scans I was not very pleased to find this:

Jimfear · 05-06-2010, 12:50 AM

Well I tried to fix it again and I'm sorry to report that there was no change at all. Whatever it is, it's there permanently.

**Lowell Goudge** · 05-06-2010, 02:24 AM

Is it possible that you did not agitate the developer enough when processing. It almost seems like the developer was locally depleted creating the harsh edges.

I have not tried much B&W development lately as I sold my darkroom when I went digital, maybe a mistake but too late now.

Nesster · 05-06-2010, 04:05 AM

Hm, maybe that's a lens effect, and you should patent/copyright whatever it is that's going on in your lens, this could be big with the Holga crowd

I'd discount development as it is localized on the negative - front bokeh - and not around the edges or randomly smeared. Looks like you're getting flare in that area as well

By the way, do you think this sort of bokeh (I presume from a K-x) in b&w would look like yours?
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31601-takumar-...ml#post1032784

Jimfear · 05-06-2010, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Is it possible that you did not agitate the developer enough when processing. It almost seems like the developer was locally depleted creating the harsh edges.

I have not tried much B&W development lately as I sold my darkroom when I went digital, maybe a mistake but too late now.

As Nesster said, it is not random and that would count out something with the developer.

Originally posted by Nesster

Hm, maybe that's a lens effect, and you should patent/copyright whatever it is that's going on in your lens, this could be big with the Holga crowd

I'd discount development as it is localized on the negative - front bokeh - and not around the edges or randomly smeared. Looks like you're getting flare in that area as well

By the way, do you think this sort of bokeh (I presume from a K-x) in b&w would look like yours?
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31601-takumar-...ml#post1032784

Haha, something for the Lomography crew for sure. I got this effect in shots using different lenses, and I haven't seen it before so if not all my lenses decided it's time to start acting funny at the same time this is probably not to do with the lens.

That shot you link to, I think it would be different from what I'm getting. In my shots the shades are very uniform until they brake into another uniform shade. No nice transitions between them.

Oh well, I'll have to wait and see what happens next time I shoot a roll. Very strange phenomenon anyway, never seen it before and never want to see it again!

Sluggo · 05-06-2010, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Jimfear

This was my initial though also, already a bit grumpy for thinking I'd have to re-do the scans I was not very pleased to find this...

Guess I owe you a nickel. Hmph.

GeneV · 05-06-2010, 05:54 AM

On the bright side, at least it did not harm the kitty.

**Digitalis** · 05-06-2010, 06:54 AM

also be mindful of temperature variations, and sometimes the developer used can have an adverse effect on image quality. Illford films have this annoying tendency to clump/block up in certain parts of the tonal range why I use T-Max or Fuji ACROS for most of my work.

05-05-2010, 12:53 AM	#1
Jimfear Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 576	What is this about?! (Film/developing question) Hi I recently developed two rolls of Ilford PanF+ in Tetenal Neofin Blue, both rolls at the same time. On one of the rolls I got a really strange effect that I don't like very much. In shadow areas of bokeh there are really harsh edges between shades, kind of like a digital picture with not enough bit depth. Does anyone know how this happened? Or if it is something wrong with the film, the other roll developed at the same time is fine. See foreground bokeh?! Thankful for all and any input.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Developing B/W film with C-41	ftpaddict	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	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	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	13	10-29-2008 05:55 PM
cost of film developing	Gooshin	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	16	08-25-2008 04:47 AM

05-05-2010, 09:21 AM	#2
titrisol Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,852	Quite strange, it looks solarized ... maybe poorly fixed? Is the roll milky? if so fix it again for a couple of minutes and should be fine

05-05-2010, 10:32 AM	#3
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Is it a scanned neg and do you have ICE turned on? If so, turn it off for BW film. (Although, judging by the scratches, it's off.) But yeah, other than that, fix the fixer. Also, oo! A kitty!

05-05-2010, 10:52 AM	#4
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Is it this way, on the same edge, for the entire roll? If so, maybe you poured too little fixer in the tank. (Go ahead, ask me how I know about that, only I poured in too little developer...)

05-05-2010, 01:02 PM	#5
Sluggo Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ames, Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 774	> "like a digital picture with not enough bit depth" Go with that thought. If the negatives look okay to the naked eye (not way too dense or too thin), then my guess is that the problem is in the scan step. Probably the analog gain setting is quite a bit off for some reason, so the raw scan data is shifted toward white, and then during level adjustment step (which is perhaps automatic?) there isn't enough bit depth left to recover the detail, at least in the brighter parts of the picture, so you get isobars. Not that I can begin to guess the underlying cause, but my next steps would be (1) try different scan software if you have anything available, and if that doesn't make a difference (2) scan on a friend's hardware and see if it looks any better. I bet you a nickel the negative doesn't really have the defect we see here.

05-05-2010, 02:33 PM	#6
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Normally, when ICE is on it does not remove the dirt, but does make the negative look solarized. However, it does so on the whole negative. That looks like a fixing problem to me where the film did not clear. Really, you need to look at the negative and see if this area is cloudy.

05-05-2010, 04:46 PM	#7
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	In my experience, ICE will make the dark areas block up and lumpy; this doesn't look like that.

05-06-2010, 12:12 AM	#8
Jimfear Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 576 Original Poster	Thanks for all the input! If a poorly fixed negative looks something like this it could very well be it. I noticed my fixer was on it's last re-run before I change it. The film in itself does not look milky but I noticed that this roll had less contrast in the pictures than the other roll I developed, which is strange as it was in the same tank with the same chemicals. I'll try to fix it again with fresh fixer. If it helps I'll be the happiest guy on the planet! Originally posted by Nesster Is it this way, on the same edge, for the entire roll? If so, maybe you poured too little fixer in the tank. (Go ahead, ask me how I know about that, only I poured in too little developer...) I had enough chemicals, this appears a little here and there on the roll. Mostly in bokeh areas. Btw I have also been a little overly optimistic with developing a 120 roll once... Originally posted by Sluggo > "like a digital picture with not enough bit depth" Go with that thought. If the negatives look okay to the naked eye (not way too dense or too thin), then my guess is that the problem is in the scan step. Probably the analog gain setting is quite a bit off for some reason, so the raw scan data is shifted toward white, and then during level adjustment step (which is perhaps automatic?) there isn't enough bit depth left to recover the detail, at least in the brighter parts of the picture, so you get isobars. This was my initial though also, already a bit grumpy for thinking I'd have to re-do the scans I was not very pleased to find this:

05-06-2010, 12:50 AM	#9
Jimfear Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 576 Original Poster	Well I tried to fix it again and I'm sorry to report that there was no change at all. Whatever it is, it's there permanently.

05-06-2010, 02:24 AM	#10
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Is it possible that you did not agitate the developer enough when processing. It almost seems like the developer was locally depleted creating the harsh edges. I have not tried much B&W development lately as I sold my darkroom when I went digital, maybe a mistake but too late now.

05-06-2010, 04:05 AM	#11
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Hm, maybe that's a lens effect, and you should patent/copyright whatever it is that's going on in your lens, this could be big with the Holga crowd I'd discount development as it is localized on the negative - front bokeh - and not around the edges or randomly smeared. Looks like you're getting flare in that area as well By the way, do you think this sort of bokeh (I presume from a K-x) in b&w would look like yours? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31601-takumar-...ml#post1032784

05-06-2010, 05:07 AM	#12
Jimfear Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 576 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Is it possible that you did not agitate the developer enough when processing. It almost seems like the developer was locally depleted creating the harsh edges. I have not tried much B&W development lately as I sold my darkroom when I went digital, maybe a mistake but too late now. As Nesster said, it is not random and that would count out something with the developer. Originally posted by Nesster Hm, maybe that's a lens effect, and you should patent/copyright whatever it is that's going on in your lens, this could be big with the Holga crowd I'd discount development as it is localized on the negative - front bokeh - and not around the edges or randomly smeared. Looks like you're getting flare in that area as well By the way, do you think this sort of bokeh (I presume from a K-x) in b&w would look like yours? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31601-takumar-...ml#post1032784 Haha, something for the Lomography crew for sure. I got this effect in shots using different lenses, and I haven't seen it before so if not all my lenses decided it's time to start acting funny at the same time this is probably not to do with the lens. That shot you link to, I think it would be different from what I'm getting. In my shots the shades are very uniform until they brake into another uniform shade. No nice transitions between them. Oh well, I'll have to wait and see what happens next time I shoot a roll. Very strange phenomenon anyway, never seen it before and never want to see it again!

05-06-2010, 05:25 AM	#13
Sluggo Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ames, Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 774	Originally posted by Jimfear This was my initial though also, already a bit grumpy for thinking I'd have to re-do the scans I was not very pleased to find this... Guess I owe you a nickel. Hmph.

05-06-2010, 05:54 AM	#14
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	On the bright side, at least it did not harm the kitty.

05-06-2010, 06:54 AM	#15
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	also be mindful of temperature variations, and sometimes the developer used can have an adverse effect on image quality. Illford films have this annoying tendency to clump/block up in certain parts of the tonal range why I use T-Max or Fuji ACROS for most of my work.