Hasselblad Negs Question

[chris_livsey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It has to be possibly as the very many variables in processing can lead to excellent results from poor adherence to "correct" procedures.

I think you also do a dis-service to David Carper who far from a "feet on desk" man was an excellent and knowledgeable technician very much practical and hands on. I don't suppose Ilford were prepared to commit research time to investigating the effects of using recommendations which were not in their data sheets and expressing caution in use without condemning them out of hand was a fair and sensible approach to answering the question posed.

 

I have BTW never found a satisfactory explanation as to why XTOL Dmax was reduced, as JOBO reported (without incidentally any published evidence AFAIK)  and some workers have failed to show that effect. 

 

I absolutely agree with your earlier comment on frothing and have never, or very rarely, used the top reel in a tank to develop film from any manufacturer.

[chrism]

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?  

 

These marks are due to bubbles. They are round and exist only one one edge of the film. I'd bet that was the uppermost edge in the developing tank! It's happened to all of us, and luckily they don't seem to impinge on your image areas. Just yesterday, I banged a tank so hard on a bathroom countertop that a ceramic tile fell off. The price you pay!

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Keith (M)]

Thanks, Chris.  As mentioned earlier in the thread, under-agitation also played a part - I will stick with 3 gentle reversions every minute in future.  After reversals I always bang the tank twice very firmly against the base of my palm.

 

I now have another question. This morning I developed a roll of Fomapan 200 which I shot yesterday in my Hasselblad 500C. It was the first film I had put thro' a second A12 magazine/back.  In frame 1 I inadvertently included the very bright sun at the top of the frame - and the effect can be seen below.  A weak spot in the magazine?

 

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!

[ramarren]

My immediate thought was light leak, then both back loading and reel loading issues. But it looks like you have it sorted now. :-)

 

Every time I see Hasselblad negs, I want to shoot more with mine. It's an addiction.

 

And it's going to get worse. I found a vg+ condition 555ELD body going for a good price and couldn't resist .. it will join my 500CM and SWC by next Monday. I know this will ultimately lead me to a CFV-50c back, more's the pity.

[chris_livsey]

 

 

I now have another question. This morning I developed a roll of Fomapan 200 which I shot yesterday in my Hasselblad 500C. It was the first film I had put thro' a second A12 magazine/back.  In frame 1 I inadvertently included the very bright sun at the top of the frame - and the effect can be seen below.  A weak spot in the magazine?

 

The light leak weak spots are lateral.

This is light piping the "excess" light from the sun inclusion has propagated by internal reflection through the emulsion and that has caused the exposure in adjacent areas.

I think that 120 film has a weaker if any anti-halation layer relying more on the physical paper backing, as movie film does on the carbon black, rem-jet. How that works with 220 I don't know but they are on different bases,

You can get the same effect as a halo around bright lights in any film but some are more prone than others. You see more on this shot because of the frame edge, if you had just shot the centre the "burn out" area would look normal although the piping would have contributed. There is a limit to how much light anti-halation can stop, rather bright the sun, sometimes.

 

Quick Google shows this Fomopan may have no anti-halation layer.

Edited December 6, 2016 by chris_livsey

[250swb]

.  A weak spot in the magazine?

 

It's a common problem when a bright light is at the edge of the frame with 120 cameras of any make or type, just be aware of it but no need to worry about it. I does happen with 35mm as well but not as often.

Edited December 6, 2016 by 250swb

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I does happen with 35mm as well but not as often.

 

 

Yes. I have seen a similar (if usually less pronounced) effect a number of times on my 35mm negs when I have included a bright sun at the edge of the frame.

[Keith (M)]

The light leak weak spots are lateral.

This is light piping the "excess" light from the sun inclusion has propagated by internal reflection through the emulsion and that has caused the exposure in adjacent areas.

...

 

Quick Google shows this Fomopan may have no anti-halation layer.

Thanks Chris et al for the reassuring answer  Not too impressed by Fomapan - physically it is thinner than others such as Acros 100, curls like mad and has coarser grain (I am trying out Fomapan as an alternative to Acros). 

[NB23]

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.

Why do you recomend this to people if you haven't scienifically tested this yourself?

 

Presoaking is a bad idea. First, because of the very effective wetting agent. Secondly because of the infusion/diffusion process.

Wet film, like a sponge, will have to evacuate all its water while the developer infuses. This simply cannot happen with homogeneiy UNLESS it is constantly in movement, hence JOBO.

 

So in a word: do not presoak. It is simply not recommended. As simple as that.

 

--

Edited for typos

Edited December 23, 2016 by NB23

[pico]

Closing to anyone posting scans of negatives: Please don't compromise your scans. It makes it frustrating for the rest of us. Do not scan through negative sleeves and don't scan negatives without a proper film holder.

 

Why do you do that? Stop it!

.

Edited December 23, 2016 by pico

[250swb]

Why do you recomend this to people if you haven't scienifically tested this yourself?

 

 

 

Well I wouldn't say I've scientifically tested it but a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Fine Art Photography and forty years experience including working as a national newspaper Press photographer, not to mention teaching photography, is my practical experience. All I would add to my recommendation is that yes, it does take time for the developer to replace the water that is soaked into the emulsion, but that only takes thirty seconds and here's the killer fact, in nearly every development regime the initial constant agitation is,.....wait for it, yes, it's thirty seconds!! So that covers you concern about homogeneity. The whole idea of pre-soaking is to slow the absorption of the developer and you will note I didn't say always pre-soak, it was a suggestion in relation to frothing of the developer which some are prone to and some aren't, and in using very strong mixes of developer.

Edited December 23, 2016 by 250swb

[chris_livsey]

As I mentioned above Jobo in rotary processing do recommend a pre-wash but not for 30 secs for five minutes!!

 

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

 

As usual the correct answer is - It depends.

[ramarren]

I use Agfa Rondix and Rondinax tanks for processing. Experience shows me that pre-soaking film for 1 minute gives more consistent results. 

[250swb]

I think the actual time for the pre-soak/pre-wash if you use it can be anything from one minute to five minutes, it's the time when you are mixing up your developer for example, or the time to make a cup of coffee. And one other small advantage is you pre-warm the tank and film because your soak water is the same temperature as the developer.

[chris_livsey]

I think the actual time for the pre-soak/pre-wash if you use it can be anything from one minute to five minutes, 

 

Ilford, for the Jobo do recommend the full 5 minutes:

 

f 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.ilfordpho...5084&FORUM_ID=6

 

I suspect this is because of the frothing in the rotary where it is more likely to cause uneven development because of lack of direct liquid contact with the film.

So if you are re-washing for temperature etc then 1 min is enough, probably, but to remove the Ilford wetting agent 5 mins is required, because Ilford say so and they should know.