Film developing problem - asking for help

[Chlodvig]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

During summer I shot several rolls of films form different manufacturers, all black and white.

 

All the negatives and paper where developped with chemistry from the same bottles.

 

For developing the films I used Ilfosol S and Rapid fixer from Ilford. For the sheets I used Multigrade developer and fixer for Multigrade IV sheets.

 

I initially opened the bottle of Ilfosol in February so when I opened it again in August to develop the films cited above, the liquid was already oxydising and thus redish. But I had encountered this before but had no problems, so I went ahead.

 

So I deleoped the first films, 2 rolls of 135 Pan 25 from Rollei. They came out normal, as you can see in picture 1. Then I developed a roll of 135 Pan F (from bulk film) from ilford & a roll of 120 Pan F. When I looked at the negatives, I didn't notice anything different (though maybe due to my inexperience). When I took the contacts of the negatives, the one taken with rollei film came out great (with whites displayed as white). However both the contacts from Pan F negatives (Pictures 1 & 3) were a little foggy. There is no real contrast ( whites & blacks aren't distinguishably displayed).

 

I am at a loss of explanation, since for all three films I used always the same chemistry. With the same bottle of Ilfosol I had developped 135 Ilford Pan F and Delta-100 without problems (albeit the chemistry was then only 2 months old. But if the chemistry was at fault (bottle opened 6 months beforehand), how can one explain the outcome of the Rollei Pan 25 film with the Matterhorns on it? The fact that the 135 Panf is from a 30m bulk-roll can be excluded as a factor, since the 120 Pan F (picture 3) displayed the same problem.

 

summarised:

img 1: 135 Pan F: foggy

img 2: 135 Rollei 25 normal

img 3: 120 Pan F foggy

 

Your help is greatly appreciated,

Louis

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

[Doc Henry]

Louis,

many questions in fact:

Firstly in my opinion, rather a problem at the beginning : correct exposure Iso ?

second : film : how old ?

thirdly : how the film is kept in bulk?

...but may be other persons who have other ideas?

Best

Henry

PS:

-secondly, I use once a developer and I throw after each film

-for the rapid fixer have you respected time fixing?

[Chlodvig]

Thank you for your response.

 

All negatives were correctly exposed.

 

The bulk film (135 Pan F) is kept in its original packaging. All films were bought from B&H in june 2011.

 

• The Pan 25 was taken with an R6, with which I've already taken more than a dozen rolls, s/w and slide, all more or less perfectly exposed (minus human error).
  
• The 135 Pan F (the foggy one) was taken with an M7 (perfectly in use since 2003).
  
• The 120 Pan F (Matterhorn) was taken with a rolleiflex from 1950. However, if it didn't work properly why does the same foggy effect also appear on the 135-film.
  

[Doc Henry]

...if everything is well , ... uniform foggy and visible image may be film exposed to light during development ?

or not enough fixed in the fixer

Henry

[fotohuis]

You can not keep Ilfosol-S developer for a longer time. In this way it's the most crappy liquid developer Ilford ever made. You have to use it up within 2 months.

 

In case you have an insufficient fix your negatives are milky. After a re-fix in fresh fixer your problem should be solved.

 

To keep away from your liquid developer problem: Use HC-110 (Kodak) or Rodinal (Agfa/CPP&S) instead. These type developers will always work without any problem of getting too old. In case you want the finest grain: Use an Ultra Fine Grain type developer but then you will loose 1F-stop of the film. I am using CG-512/RLS for this. In the fridge (4-5C) also you can keep it over one year. Shake before using CG-512. Further you have to use this developer on 24C.

 

Success with your next films!

 

Robert

[Richardgb]

 

... When I looked at the negatives, I didn't notice anything different (though maybe due to my inexperience). When I took the contacts of the negatives, the one taken with rollei film came out great (with whites displayed as white). However both the contacts from Pan F negatives (Pictures 1 & 3) were a little foggy. There is no real contrast ( whites & blacks aren't distinguishably displayed).

 

 

 

Louis,

 

You say when you looked at the negatives, you didn't notice anything different. You have posted images of contact sheets, not of the negatives themselves.

 

Were the contact sheets made in the same printing session, within a few minutes of each other?

 

If the negs look OK, then what about your printing? The top sheet could be the result of mild fogging, perhaps from an unsafe safelight or some other source - not enough to affect the completely unexposed paper underneath the contact frame mask, but enough to lower the contrast of the paper where it has been exposed.

 

Below is how to test of your darkroom / safelight is 'safe'. The test is simple but needs a little explanation.

The basic test of whether a safelight (or indeed your darkroom) is safe or not is

not

to simply take a fresh, unexposed, sheet of paper out of the box and leave it out for (say) 5-10 minutes, then process as normal. You have to give the paper a little bit of uniform exposure first, enough to produce a light grey tone when developed (this makes sure the emulsion is over the threshold point to produce an image). The exposure for this tone is easily using the light from a slightly defocused enlarger - no neg in the carrier, but with the lens stopped down; alternatively, you can give the paper a quick flash with a bare, low-wattage bulb, but this more tricky to control. With the paper slightly exposed, leave it under the safelight for 5-10 minutes, but with a coin or some easily recognisable shaped object covering part of it. After processing, if the darkroom / safelight is 'safe', you won't see the lighter 'shadow' of the object; if the safelight is not safe, then you'll see a lighter patch under where the object stood. By the way a 'safelight' is only safe for a certain time, so don't leave paper out for an hour, or you may get a nasty surprise, and as mentioned above, exposed paper is more prone to unsafe conditions.

 

All this may be a false trail, but an unsafe darkroom needs eliminating from possible causes, and in any case you'll have peace of mind.

 

If the contact sheets were produced in the same session and in the same way, then some of the other causes (film handling / processing) may be relevant.

 

Final thought on checking whether negs have enough density in the highlights and shadows (i.e. have been exposed and processed reasonably): a rough and ready lest is to lay them down on a (clean!) sheet of printed text. If the highlight density is OK, you should just not be able to read the text through it, while in the shadow areas you should just see a difference between the film base and detail in the darkest shadow. In your contact prints, the clear film base - with no shadow detail - should be completely black (not dark grey); if your highlights go grey before you get to full blackness in the shadows, suspect inadequate development.

 

Hope this helps.