Help Identify Negative Marks - Condensation/Developing?

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by timparkin, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. timparkin

    timparkin Member

    Messages:
    183
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I've developed my first batch of films - three Fuji Acros Quickload exposed a year ago and three Delta 100 exposed last week.

    The Fuji Acros was stored in a fridge for the intervening years, sitting on a shelf in the door - no direct moisture contact.

    I developed them in a combiplan - D76 1+3 for 19 mins, 3 min stop, five min fix, 10 min wash

    When I removed them, the 'top' part of the combiplan holder (http://gbl.bz/N4IRCi) wasn't covering all six sheets.

    The Delta 100 and one of the Fuji Acros looked fine but the other Acros had cloudy marks in the sky as follows

    http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/quarry-photographers-place.jpg

    Now I'm not sure what these could be so I am asking for a little help. My current thinking is.

    1) Condensation/Rain - the day when the image was took was very damp but not cold, the shot was at the end of a 2 hour shoot and rain my have got onto the quickload - although probably not much as I would have noticed.

    2) Condensation from fridge - I took the film out of the fridge and it was probably about 20 minutes until I started developing

    3) Film touching each other - doesn't seem like it's this but I did notice when I opened the combiplan that two sheets were touching at the top, although they were definitely in separate slots.

    4) Higgs Bosons... - I did have a my lens hood attached which has a couple of magnets in it so it may have bent space time slightly... What this does to Fuji Acros I don't know

    Any help appreciated..
     
  2. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,572
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm not discounting condensation-related things or Higgs particles for that matter. But looking at the image my main thought is that you did not have enough developer solution in the tank (I haven't used a combi-plan personally). I'm saying this because although difficult to tell for sure in the scan, the problem seems to be restricted to the top portion of the negative. There are several tell-tale signs of insufficient developer volume if we look at that top area:

    1. The blotchy, bubbly looking sky area - this is often a sign that that between agitation cycles the area of the negative was covered mostly with a foamy layer sometimes sitting on the top of the developer (certain developers are more prone to foaming than others, and it of course also depends on agitation, but the solution is always to use more developer volume). Where you have foam you have less developer, and air. Hence the underdevelopment and bubbly-looking marks.

    2. Aside from the obvious bubbly/blotchiness, overall density is lower at the top of the negative (another sign the film was not fully covered by the developer). You can see the decreased density easiest by looking at the tree trunks/branches in the top area compared to just below. Notice how in the top area they are printing/scanning as virtually empty black compared to further down where the same tree trunks show some shadow detail. This tells you there was less development at the top of the negative. You can see additional evidence of this by noticing the tops of the distant cliffs look relatively thin and low in contrast - another sign of underdevelopment. Everything further down from there looks better - although the entire negative looks a little thin amd low in contrast.

    Others may have more informative comments regarding potential condensation issues.
     
  3. timparkin

    timparkin Member

    Messages:
    183
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I think we can conclude that the negative was sticking out of the top of the combiplan holder - the comment about bubbles is the clincher I think.. The remaining negs were OK so I presume this was the one that the clip had missed.

    Really appreciate the response!

    Tim