Don'tknowmuch Posted October 24, 2008 Share #1 Posted October 24, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Evening all. Have just developed a roll of Tri-X and it has a weird banding across the frames, each band being in line with the sprocket holes. I've never seen it before though on looking at my last film it too has these bands and the process was the same (more below). On the negative the lighter bands are in line with the sprocket holes. Initially I thought the Leica 1 was playing up in some way, and this may still be the case with some sort of refraction of light inside the camera... But then I got to thinking it must be something to do with the develpment process I used - so I'll go through it, if I may, in detail. 1 min pre-soak then 3m 50s in Dil B HC110, gentle agitation 5s/30s. No inversions. Almost straight in with a few changes of plain water as a stop bath, and then 5 mins fix stirring it about every now and then. Just thinking about it I wonder if this could be because I wasn't quick enough with the water as a stop bath, or I should pay up and actually buy some sort of real stopper as developer may have run down from the bits of film where the sprocket holes aren't and continued the development for a while longer than occurred on the lighter stripes? This is pure conjecture so please don't think it's definitely the cause as someone may have a known specific other cause in mind from their previous experience. To illustrate this I'm including a couple of positive images from 2 negs. One shows it at it's worst on an image shot directly into the sun where the neg is barely exposed in a large part of the frame. The second image (forest) is the same film, it has the same banding to the naked eye, but the manifestation of the bands is less troublesome. (Incidentally this was my Leica 1 with 50mm uncoated Elmar). I'd be grateful for any help so that I can avoid this happening again. Thanks, Jim. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/66450-banding-on-negative/?do=findComment&comment=694704'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 Hi Don'tknowmuch, Take a look here Banding on negative. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted October 24, 2008 Share #2 Posted October 24, 2008 Your theory about the run-down developer is a good one I always use a proper stop bath - it's very, very cheap and, obviously, stops the development stone dead straight away. Stupid question - how many rolls in the tank, and if only one (in a two roll tank) do you use either a clip to keep the reel at the bottom, an empty reel ditto, or use enough chemistry to fill the tank, regardless? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don'tknowmuch Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share #3 Posted October 24, 2008 Thanks Andy. I too can see how a small resevoir of developer might sit between the sprocket holes only to run down when the film sat there for about 10 seconds before I poured in a lot of water and washed it off with plenty of sloshing about - but I'm not convinced as I've never had the problem before and now have had it two rolls in a row from the same camera... which is why I wondered whether the camera could be responsible in some way. I've never been too worried about stop baths as a quick slosh must so dilute the developer as to stop it pretty dead, and I then wash it twice more before fix goes in to keep the fix as fresh as possible. Yes to a clip to hold the reel down etc etc. I just wondered if someone might be able to tell me what it was. Thanks again, Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 24, 2008 Share #4 Posted October 24, 2008 It's probably due to your agitation technique. I use four slow and steady inversions over a 10 second period. I had this effect once, I think when the agitation was too vigorous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 24, 2008 Share #5 Posted October 24, 2008 Steve beat me to it, yes it looks like agitation to me too, although I think it is probably due to insufficient agitation. You say you didn't invert the tank - how did you agitate? My Paterson tank has a 'twirler' stick but I prefer gentle inversion, following the guidelines for said developer/film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don'tknowmuch Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share #6 Posted October 24, 2008 Thanks - could be agitation. Following talk I "overheard" on this forum I resolved to treat film more tenderly during developement, and so I took to a few simple slow turns with the twizzle stick and no total agitations. I also pre-soaked for these two films; another new tactic. I can see how poor agitation could produce random unevenness, but this regular sprocket-orientated banding? Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 24, 2008 Share #7 Posted October 24, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) The vertical sprocket banding is usually associated with developed surging through the sprocket holes when inverting - whether due to over or under agitation seems to be open to dispute <grin> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don'tknowmuch Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted October 24, 2008 ok... The greater developement has occurred between the sprocket holes. Is there a clue there? Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 24, 2008 Share #9 Posted October 24, 2008 No real idea - but by greater development do you mean that these parts of the _negative_ are darker? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don'tknowmuch Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share #10 Posted October 24, 2008 That's right; the portion of the negative directly below each sprocket hole is lighter than the portion below the non-hole... So I think I'm right in saying that the greater developement = darker and this is directly between the sprocket holes. If the effect had been milder I might have thought it due to some kind of resevoir effect of the non-holes, but it's quite marked. I hope this doesn't remain a mystery because it's rather unsettling! Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted October 24, 2008 Share #11 Posted October 24, 2008 Has this happened on any other film through this camera using your previous development method? Very vigorous agitation in my 'one' experience produced a v shaped over developed area adjacent to each sprocket hole. My one experience with there being too little developer in the tank gave a neg developed properly at the bottom and only partially at the top. Fogging due to a leaky camera is a possibility - from what you describe it sounds unlikely to be due to agitation. Is this a new batch of film? Have you any more? If so take some test shots - chop the film in two and process one half with the method you used previously and the other half with the method you describe here. I am with the others who invert the tank gently rather than twiddling it back and forth. Osscat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 24, 2008 Share #12 Posted October 24, 2008 Plain water isnt going to stop development is it, just slow it down? And since you dont agitate.... Why not use a stop bath, which looks after your fixer too. If it was developer drip, wouldnt it be random and wouldnt it show a spread? How would it run that far so perfectly and conveniently stop? The light patterns seem to centre on the frame. You have several like this? Is it always in the same location and similar pattern? That would tilt the prognosis away from development. Which camera was it on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 25, 2008 Share #13 Posted October 25, 2008 Again, I'm sure this is a development/agitation issue - I had similar effects when I first started to D&P years ago, and wasn't doing something right. Try again, don't pre-soak, use stop bath and invert the tank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjt1 Posted October 25, 2008 Share #14 Posted October 25, 2008 I agree with the other posters that say to try inversions, but gently. I think the effect you see might be bromide drag (google for it), and appears to be caused by not enough agitation. I use 5 gentle inversions per minute (takes about 10 seconds to do all of them). I also had streaking like this when I put too many films in one tank - I put 5 films in a large paterson tank, and the size of the tank and the volume of liquid caused this, rushing past the films and sprocket holes as I inverted, so now I limit myself to a max of 3 films in a smaller tank, and this seems OK for inversion agitation. I also agree with using stop, as this will kill development very quickly and prevent any dev running down from the sprocket holes (a guess). Another observation is that the dev time is short at 3min 50 sec. The packet instructions in the devs I use say that short dev times (under 5 mins) can cause uneven development. If you can get a dilution that extends the dev time, any uneven development might "average out" over the longer time. I dont know HC110 so this might not be relevant - I use xtol, ID11 and rodinal, and usually dev for about 7 mins (depending on the temp I mix it at). Hope this helps. This is frustrating, as the pics are nice but they are ruined by the streaking. Steve Taylor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 25, 2008 Share #15 Posted October 25, 2008 That's right; the portion of the negative directly below each sprocket hole is lighter than the portion below the non-hole... So I think I'm right in saying that the greater developement = darker and this is directly between the sprocket holes. If the effect had been milder I might have thought it due to some kind of resevoir effect of the non-holes' date=' but it's quite marked.I hope this doesn't remain a mystery because it's rather unsettling! Jim.[/quote'] You have it backward. Greater developement will give you ligher areas in the Print/Scan and less developement will give you darker areas in the Print/Scan. We are dealing with a negative, everything is reversed on the film negative compared to what the Scan/Print looks like. Darker areas of the negative will end up lighter on Print/Scan and lighter areas of the negative will end up being darker on the Print/Scan. Make sure you are using enough chemicals to cover the film in the tank. It should be listed on the bottom of the tank or in the directions and it not a bad idea to use just a little more then is recommended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 25, 2008 Share #16 Posted October 25, 2008 If thats the case, that it is overdevelopment, could also presoak or the time the presoak ran from the holes specially if it sat for a period before teh developer was added to the tank, leave teh negative softer in places, and swollen, so you get a more uneven developer effect? Ive never seen this effect before. I think hte effect runs from top to bottom but is masked by the darker area to the bottom of the frame. Surely the negative wasnt sitting that far out of the developer, and it was twist agitated, not tilt or inverted. It would have to be an in between soak problem, when the tank is empty? Why is it definitely not a light leak? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted October 25, 2008 Share #17 Posted October 25, 2008 Gotta agree with others before me here, it looks like streaking due to an agitation problem - I'd say lack of -, rather than over -, agitation, but as others said it is open to debate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 25, 2008 Share #18 Posted October 25, 2008 Why is it definitely not a light leak? Rob, I've had this same effect myself when I first started developing my own films so I recognise it as such, but if it were a light leak the light would have to presumably be coming in from the point of the sproket wheel in the camera, i.e. the base of the camera. Given that its a Leica this is going to be very unlikely - any light leak would surely be more general and probably much more severe. It wouldn't be a light leak from the back (if an M but this was a Leica 1) or viewfinder as they usually appear as patch near the corner of a frame. The pattern here is too uniform to be a leak which would presumably come and go depending on ambient light and the way the camera was being used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted October 25, 2008 Share #19 Posted October 25, 2008 i also tip on too little agitation...agitation is crucial to even development. personally I have never used stop bath in 20 years, not saying it is not useful, but I never found the need.just a quick rinse between dev and fix does fine too. hope you find the solution andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don'tknowmuch Posted October 26, 2008 Author Share #20 Posted October 26, 2008 Update. Another roll of film through a different camera. This time no pre-soak. Same time 3m50s in Dil B HC110. Inversions not twiddling once every 30s. I added lots of clean water at same temp to the dev at end of 3m50s in order to dilute the dev I then poured out and very quickly washed several times in clean water (i.e. no stop bath but I've never used stop bath and never had any problems or any shortening of fixer life as I wash it a few times before adding fix). This last fancy approach to the end of developing was to endeavour to remove the possibility of the gaps between the sprocket holes somehow releasing deveolper down over the film in bands before the wash/fix process. I assure you that I've never encountered this problem before in 30 years and think I'm doing the basics right. And... same problem! (To re-iterate; the lighter strips on the NEG are in line with the sprocket holes, and the greater density on the NEG are not in line with the holes.) I'm begining to wonder if the film has some kind of pre-exposure issue - maybe when the numbers etc. are put onto the edge? If anyone would care to take this on I'll send them my last roll of tri-X from this batch and maybe they could see if they get the same problem? A personal message through this forum with an address would work if anyone has the time and inclination to run this film through their own process? Maybe a piece of film without it going through a camera at all...? I'd the same myself (i.e. develop a piece of unexposed film, but it wouldn't prove anything as I'd be doing the dev. in the same way as above). In the meantime I'm going to pull a bit of unexposed FP4 off a new roll and develop that in same way as described above. I hope to see nothing but film base! Any takers? UK would be best for postage reasons but I don't mind going abroad if that's what it takes. Thanks for all your suggestions on above thread. Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.