Hasselblad Negs Question

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have noticed that the negs from my first roll of Tri-X have some intermittent strange marks down one side (and hardly any 'V' notches).  Two views attached.  Something during development or a light leak from the dark-slide slot?  

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[dewittehd]

Most probably not enough agitation during development

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[philipus]

Are you referring to the vertical lines along the left edge of the negs? Doe they show on the images themselves?

 

It's a bit difficult to see Keith but the notches look normal to me. The notches are made by cutouts in the magazine so it may be that they are just a bit shallower than normal. I have two mags, one older A12 and one newer ECC, and the width and depth of the notches vary.

 

Br and enjoy that Hasselblad

Philip

[Keith (M)]

Philip - the first image is of the four strips in a clear plastic sleeve. The close-up image is of one strip lying direct on the scanner glass.  My concern is about the 'blobs' along the left side that are visible in the clear rebate and go slightly into the image.

[Cyril Jayant]

About the notches It is possible the film was loaded mistakenly   of  off the film grip liver that keep  it closer the holder and that holder has cut-out strip to get the notches imprints .

it is just a guess and i might be wrong 

[pico]

My educated guess is slide-side light trap wear. Replacement is a simple DIY.

Edited November 21, 2016 by pico

[chris_livsey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You will see the film grip sits behind the film gate and does not impede the notches whether load properly or not  

 

As said above the notches vary in position, spacing and intensity, none of my three backs are the same.

 

I agree on the light trap if you look closely you will see the pattern of blotches repeats too regularly for development issues which would tend to affect both edges as well, the lower edge is perfect.

You have sone spacing issues as well, not severe but they are there, compare 7/8 to 8/9.

I would send the back in or look at return privileges or warranty but it is a circa £80 job, you can DIY but that spacing needs attention, it never improves with use.

 

I have added a couple of frames with my notches to compare, one "positive" one "negative" I think yours are getting buried in the light leak, if you look at the dark railings one of mine they are barely visible

 

They are great cameras but need TLC more than people realise, I have the service guide somewhere, Pros. were advised 6 monthly or annual, amateurs less but 3 years sticks, older bodies and backs have rarely had that over the years.

 

 

Found it:

 

How often should I have my Hasselblad serviced?

This is the question that is most frequently asked of me. Hasselblad recommends that you have your camera serviced every year if it is in constant use, and every two or three years if it gets less use.

http://www.david-odess.com/faq.html

 

I know he does service but this also quoted elsewhere.

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by chris_livsey

[chris_livsey]

Looking again, they could be development, I am struck they do not extend to the film edge where I would expect the light leak to do and they are too round for light, it does tend to travel in a straight line 

 

What reels did you use? I see a loading arc on the last 12 frame top, were you struggling at the end an perhaps the film was touching the reel side if the spacing on the reel was out, can happen with Patterson type but rarely Ssteel spirals, the film may have buckled?

 

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HT/HTSeal.aspx

Edited November 21, 2016 by chris_livsey

[Keith (M)]

Looking again, they could be development, I am struck they do not extend to the film edge where I would expect the light leak to do and they are too round for light, it does tend to travel in a straight line 

 

What reels did you use? I see a loading arc on the last 12 frame top, were you struggling at the end an perhaps the film was touching the reel side if the spacing on the reel was out, can happen with Patterson type but rarely Ssteel spirals, the film may have buckled?

 

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HT/HTSeal.aspx

Thanks Chris (and everyone) for the replies.  The reel is a modern Patterson plastic one.  Normally a 120 film loads easily but this one was a bit troublesome (I use a large changing bag).  So that coupled with a change in my usual agitation routine may well be the answer.  I know, I know, one should never change two things at once (i.e. new camera, different dev method)!  

 

As to film spacing my GW690II exhibits uneven spacing (much more so than the 500C) if I do not smoothly and slowly advance the film.  It is easy to be smooth and slow with a big lever that is doing nothing more than advancing film - with the 500C turning the knob involves a lot of other internal activities so I will have to practice slow, consistent movement.  The camera is under guarantee for six months, so I will monitor the spacing.

 

Thanks again.

[Keith (M)]

PS - have just done a quick inversion of the strip.  One can see the notches, although the upper one is misshapen.  The 'blobs' do not run out to the outer edge of the clear rebate.  As Chris pointed out, a loading crescent is also visible.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited November 21, 2016 by Keith (M)

[gbealnz]

My guess was the light seal, but could be wrong.

Either way, after seeing this, I'd do the light seal regardless, it is minimal cost, takes perhaps 10 mins.

Gary

[chris_livsey]

Keith, The spacing is notorious for issues. You must make sure to tuck the end tab well in when loading otherwise the "bump" it can make affects the advance and try to use the same brand of take up spool as the film, I know! Some years ago Ilford had a batch that were just out of spec (around 2002/3) and caused a lot of trouble, Ilford needs winding to stop at 10 o'clock rather than 12 on the arrow mark, their film length is slightly shorter than Fuji and Kodak (allegedly 0.5 inch) if you don't you can end with 11 frames not 12. I have seen it mentioned on another thread elsewhere that in the instructions a Hasselblad A12 back year 2002 there is mention that ILFORD films require a different 'start' mark from other makes but that may be related to the spool issue.  

If the backing paper rubs against the spool the friction can build up as the roll fills up so spacing can be off as tension increases at the end frames. Make sure the load is square on. Both backing paper and film thickness vary between makers (they often quote the base thickness but rarely the emulsion/final thickness. It was rumoured that the Delta films were slow being released after 135 as the film thickness was causing issues. This leads to spacing issues or variation between types of film.

 

Around 1981-90 period Hasselblad changed the clutch in the backs and they were not as reliable or long lasting as previously, they reverted to the older design with newer materials, as the clutch wears slippage occurs as tension varies so the quick fix of lubricating the gears you will see on Youtube is no real help, it is usually not the gears in a back used regularly it is the clutch.

 

Back to your negs, the effect seems consistent across frames so unless you paused the same time between frames, allowing light to enter equally, you would expect more variation, the more I think and ponder the more I think it is development issues. The Patterson reels do have movement/ wobble on one side , the thinner shaft end with notches, if you have just adjusted for 120 the first time they may have been tight down and they do flex more when extended than for 35mm.

[Keith (M)]

Chris, thanks for such a comprehensive post  - plenty of food for thought and to remember next time I load a film (a second roll of Tri-X was loaded yesterday - am waiting for the heavy rain to stop so I can venture out).  Will report back when it has been developed/scanned, which is likely to be next week sometime.

[chris_livsey]

Chris, thanks for such a comprehensive post  -

 

Good to have something of value to do on a wet, miserable day, photographically, now my 100ft roll of N74 has come I can pack that down 

[Keith (M)]

Well, I put a second roll of Tri-X through yesterday, dev & scan today.  No mystery blobs/marks so I'll put that down to 'operator error' and insufficient agitation as identified by dewitthd said in #2.  Highly delighted with the results from this second test-roll and look forward to making regular use of the 500C

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[EoinC]

Looking good, Keith! Happiness returns.

[250swb]

The mystery blobs are as you've discovered due to agitation, the problem caused by bubbles, which means even though you pour in the required amount it doesn't compensate if the developer froths. The answer is to always use a tank that has an extra space above the top reel, so if you are processing one reel use a two reel tank, etc. then mix a bit more developer. Because frothing is more of a problem at the beginning of the development stage another tip is to use a pre-soak which allows the developer to penetrate the emulsion evenly.

[Keith (M)]

The mystery blobs are as you've discovered due to agitation, the problem caused by bubbles, which means even though you pour in the required amount it doesn't compensate if the developer froths. The answer is to always use a tank that has an extra space above the top reel, so if you are processing one reel use a two reel tank, etc. then mix a bit more developer. Because frothing is more of a problem at the beginning of the development stage another tip is to use a pre-soak which allows the developer to penetrate the emulsion evenly.

Thanks Steve. On the subject of pre-wash, there is a long (& at times quite amusing) thread on this very subject on APUG.

[chris_livsey]

Ilford very specifically do not recommend a pre-wash with their films except for rotary processing:

 

The official ILFORD recommendation is to not use a pre-soak on any ILFORD films. The reason is that all ILFORD films have a wetting agent incorporated into the emulsion, which helps the developer absorb very quickly and evenly. A pre-soak will remove the wetting agent, possibly leading to less consistency in the development action.

However, Jobo recommends a pre-soak with their processor, and we have heard reports from some individuals that got streaking when they did not do a pre-soak; so for Jobo type processing, we recommend using a pre-soak to help prevent streaking.
If using a pre-soak, the time should be long enough to ensure that all wetting agent is removed. Although shorter times will probably be sufficient, we recommend using the full 5 minutes as recommended by Jobo.

David Carper
ILFORD Technical Service
Source:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/photocom...Quote&REPLY_ID=31852&TOPIC_ID=5084&FORUM_ID=6

 

 

Over time Kodak have been back and forth but currently AFAIK  the only specific statement is from Jobo on XTOL in rotary:

 

PREWET ? For years now JOBO has suggested that black and white films undergo a five minute prewet prior to the introduction of developer. Using a prewet before the XTOL developer resulted in lower Dmax than when the developer was used.
http://www.jobo-usa.com/images/archive/JQ13.pdf

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

Ilford very specifically do not recommend a pre-wash with their films except for rotary processing:

 

The official ILFORD recommendation is to not use a pre-soak on any ILFORD films. The reason is that all ILFORD films have a wetting agent incorporated into the emulsion, which helps the developer absorb very quickly and evenly. A pre-soak will remove the wetting agent, possibly leading to less consistency in the development action.

 

 

 

 

 

And what do wetting agents do when shaken? Yes, it's a detergent, it froths.

 

I also note the word 'possibly' is used by Ilford, as in they don't know, but what they do know is it would mean calculating a new set of development times for either pre-soak or no-soak, hence the use of the word 'possibly', it's a 'feet on desk' response.

 

Inconsistency is an issue with very fast acting developers and a wetting agent is incorporated to deal with the large Press market that was using Ilford film in its heyday. They would soup the film for a minute and it would come out developed and it was ready to print within five minutes. I don't think this is any longer a consideration for a careful amateur who wants quality and not speed from their processing.

 

So don't be afraid to pre-soak, inconsistency and streaking can come from many sources and pre-soaking the film is one of the techniques that helps avoid it, not increase it.

Edited November 27, 2016 by 250swb