Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,653   Posts: 1,668,833   Online: 879
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    Hey Jeff,

    This looks like uneven development, definitely not a light leak. I've had a light leak in my Hasselblad once- it looked completely different.

    In 2008, when I picked up medium format again after too long a hiatus, my first film or films (I don't remember how long the problem persisted) showed the exact same unevenness as your example photo(s). After some reading, thinking and trying I got rid of it.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	neopan400_rodinal_oct08001.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	68.5 KB 
ID:	51130

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	neopan400_rodinal_oct08002.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	108.8 KB 
ID:	51131

    There is a personal element to solving this problem (because not one workflow is the same between different people/equipment), but I can say for myself that sticking to my own rules (), as set out in my previous post in this thread, simply works. Maybe you can take these and other people's advice on this issue as a starting point for finding your own consistently successful developing method.

    I am a bit puzzled as to why there isn't more talk about this issue floating around on the web. Surely many starters in 120 must run into this or some similar agitation problem. Well, maybe there is talk, but not so much a unanimous solution. This again may have to do with everybody working in their own particular way. Too many variables, in other words.

    When I was confronted with this problem I was somewhat dismayed that none of the 'official' sources (Ilford, Kodak, Way Beyond Monochrome, etc.) take it on in a practical manner. If it is mentioned at all, then most sources suffice to say something like "uneven development is most likely related to improper agitation, agitate sufficiently, most importantly at the start of the process". Well, maybe it is properly dealt with (i.e. practical and in detail) somewhere. If somebody knows a good source please let us know.

    It would be a pity that beginners turn away from 120 because of such a trivial problem.

    I hope you get this sorted out Jeff. No need to explain to me how annoying and frustrating it can be.

    "There's no trick to it, it's just a simple trick!" (The Simpsons- Bart's Inner Child, 1993.)

    Sander

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    393
    Images
    11
    Sander, thanks for posting your negs. They look like several others I have, where the unevenness is more subtle than the ones I posted above. I believe my problem has probably been developing two rolls in a two-roll tank or developing one roll in a one roll tank and taking it too easy on the agitation. With 35mm, I always have an empty reel or two on top of the tank, but not always with 120. I'll follow your advice and that of Bertil. It's odd, everyone kind of agreed on the other thread that it was light leaks, but I believe now that it's a devlpt problem.

    Thanks!
    Jeff Glass

    Photo Blog
    Website

  3. #23
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    In the other thread I myself said: "Your problem looks like a light leak from the slot but it's nice to be sure before doing a replacement of the seals."

    Honestly, I don't know why I said that. It really doesn't like look like a typical Hasselblad dark slide slot light leak at all, but every bit the result of uneven development due to (probably) stuffing too much film and solution in too little tank volume.

    I may be wrong again though.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    393
    Images
    11
    So, in my example above and one of Sander's, it looks like the flare is on both sides, indicating a development problem?
    Jeff Glass

    Photo Blog
    Website

  5. #25
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    Sirius Glass is right: a light leak shows up asymmetrically. (Example images.)

    Jeff's and my negatives show uneven development, nothing more to it. I apologize for saying differently in the other thread.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    393
    Images
    11
    Oh, no need for apologies. Thanks for the help!
    Jeff Glass

    Photo Blog
    Website

  7. #27
    swittmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    156
    Images
    3
    I occasionally experience(d) the same kind of uneven development with my 'Blad negatives. Not often, but very annoying when it happens...
    In those cases, the negatives were underexposed as well, so I assume that there is a correlation. What do you think? Is this possible?

    I am using both a Paterson tank (500 ml) and Jobo 1520, and my developer is Spur HRX-III, which requires 2 initial inversions, then 1 inversion every 30 seconds, so not much movement here.
    Film is Acros or Tri-X, sometimes/seldom Delta 400.

  8. #28
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by swittmann View Post
    In those cases, the negatives were underexposed as well, so I assume that there is a correlation. What do you think? Is this possible?
    Perhaps your negatives are not underexposed but underdeveloped. It can be hard to spot the difference. If there is sufficient detail in the shadows then your negatives are probably only underdeveloped.

    In case there is underdevelopment this may have been caused by insufficient agitation or by too small a ratio of agitation time and total development time. (There are other possible causes of underdevelopment, but they shouldn't be relevant in this context.) Too little agitation in turn may give rise to uneven development. So yes, there could be a causal relationship between uneven development and underdevelopment mistaken for underexposure.

    Quote Originally Posted by swittmann View Post
    I am using both a Paterson tank (500 ml) and Jobo 1520, and my developer is Spur HRX-III, which requires 2 initial inversions, then 1 inversion every 30 seconds, so not much movement here.
    Two initial inversions is a bit little. Try at least 30 seconds of initial agitation. Proper initial agitation is crucial in obtaining evenly developed negatives.

    Also, if you're using the smallest size Paterson tank, try to get one size bigger (the one that takes two 135 films). Agitate such that all developer is allowed to clear the film, in other words invert fully and not too short. This allows the agitation to 'look' the same to any random area of the film.

    Quote Originally Posted by swittmann View Post
    Film is Acros or Tri-X, sometimes/seldom Delta 400.
    The film and the camera seem unlikely culprits.

    Good luck.

  9. #29
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,517
    Images
    6
    Congrats! You have a gem of a camera. I'm envious of Hassy owner.

  10. #30
    swittmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    156
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by sandermarijn View Post
    Perhaps your negatives are not underexposed but underdeveloped. It can be hard to spot the difference. If there is sufficient detail in the shadows then your negatives are probably only underdeveloped.

    In case there is underdevelopment this may have been caused by insufficient agitation or by too small a ratio of agitation time and total development time. (There are other possible causes of underdevelopment, but they shouldn't be relevant in this context.) Too little agitation in turn may give rise to uneven development. So yes, there could be a causal relationship between uneven development and underdevelopment mistaken for underexposure.



    Two initial inversions is a bit little. Try at least 30 seconds of initial agitation. Proper initial agitation is crucial in obtaining evenly developed negatives.

    Also, if you're using the smallest size Paterson tank, try to get one size bigger (the one that takes two 135 films). Agitate such that all developer is allowed to clear the film, in other words invert fully and not too short. This allows the agitation to 'look' the same to any random area of the film.



    The film and the camera seem unlikely culprits.

    Good luck.
    sandermarijn, thank you very much for your input.
    I have been using Spur HRX-III for two years now and developed many films (ca. 60) in it, sticking to the development instructions. I experienced this kind of uneven development like 3 or 4 times and was/am confused what might have caused this, when all other films turned out fine.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin