Grey stain on Tri-X film...

[antielectrons]

Hi,

Have just developed a roll of 120 Trix-X 400 in ID-11 1+1 10 mins @ 20ºC, Ilfostop, and Ilford Rapid fixer, followed by the Ilford wash and some Ilfotol and have got a grey stain on the side of the negative running about half a centimeter wide - looks like someone has come along with some grey paint and painted the negative on the emulsion side. Stain affects both the exposed image area and the unexposed area between frames.... is about 3cm long.

I had a bit of trouble loading this one onto a Paterson reel, could it be the result of the emulsion on that part of the film touching the somewhere. Also there is a brownish watermark about 2mm out from the edge of the stain.

[Donald Qualls]

This could be, as you suspect, due to the film touching, or due to the reel migrating up the core in the Paterson tank (I've had trouble with this lately). Either way, refix immediately to minimize printing-out; if the problem occurred after development, the negatives may still be okay, but if earlier, they'll have a clear or low-density stripe where you now see gray -- too late to save 'em.

My plan for my Paterson is to try wrapping a couple turns of masking tape on the core so the little spring tension nubs in the inner reel have to slide over the tape going on or off -- this should (I hope) provide a little extra resistance to the reel sliding up the core. If that doesn't work, there's always using a little more liquid (say, 600 ml instead of 500 for 120 film), or some folks have used a rubber band wrapped on the core several times to hold the reel down. I could just as easily use my stainless tanks, but I like the Paterson because I and load two 120 rolls consecutively and get more film in the same amount of developer...

[Bill Mobbs]

Donald, I'm using an "O" ring used to seal pipe conections to hold the reel down. I use a #15 O-ring sized 1"OD X 3/4" ID X 1/8". Its a tight fit, but holds things in place.

[antielectrons]

Thanks.

If the reel where moving up the central column wouldn't the effect be visible on the whole neg and not just a 3cm length (between frames 4 and 5)?

There is a tiny (2mm) area on the outer edge of the film that is OK - i.e. transparent. The bit that slides in the reel, so my guess is that this is something that has happened during processing...

Perhaps the stop bath did not reach that bit of the neg? and it continued to develop?

I don't know. Very annoying as it affected the best image in the group.

By the way, how do you load two 120 films consecutively on a reel?

[Huub S]

Thanks.

If the reel where moving up the central column wouldn't the effect be visible on the whole neg and not just a 3cm length (between frames 4 and 5)?

There is a tiny (2mm) area on the outer edge of the film that is OK - i.e. transparent. The bit that slides in the reel, so my guess is that this is something that has happened during processing...

Perhaps the stop bath did not reach that bit of the neg? and it continued to develop?

I don't know. Very annoying as it affected the best image in the group.

By the way, how do you load two 120 films consecutively on a reel?

You are right. When the reel would have slipped up, it would have affected the whole film, not just a 3cm length. It's comparable with not using enough liquid.
I haven't got a clue what could have caused your problem. Perhaps the film got out of the reel over that 3cm stretch?? It's probably not a stop bath problem, because the whole process can do without a stop bath. The stop bath is there to a halt the developing process immidiatly and to protect the pH of your fix. Leaving it out just spoils your fix a little faster.

Paterson used to make a special clip to hold the reel down. Sometimes you find them with older tanks. It's worth having one of these things.

When i want to load two 120-films on one reel, i put in the first one the normal way. When it's past the loading clips i gently rotate it with my hand until it doesn't move anymore. Then i put the second one in. Never went wrong, untill now...

Huub

[Donald Qualls]

Yes, correct -- what you have is film contact from the film slipping out of the spiral for a short length. Nothing that can be done except to refix; the gray you see is undeveloped, unfixed halide and the images it intrudes into are permanently damaged.

[antielectrons]

Yes, correct -- what you have is film contact from the film slipping out of the spiral for a short length. Nothing that can be done except to refix; the gray you see is undeveloped, unfixed halide and the images it intrudes into are permanently damaged.

Thanks Donald - yes, I think that was the cause. As I was having problems loading the film onto the reel, part of the emulsion must have been in contact with the film on an inner loop.

Will be getting a CPE 2 soon - I hope those reels are easier to load.

[Jim Noel]

That part of the film which is gray did not come in contact with the chemistry.

You said that you had trouble loading this roll. The film did not get into the grooves of the reel correctly allowing it to touch film in the next groove.

[Pragmatist]

Another solution for Paterson is 600ml in the Super 4 two roll tank, and 1000ml in the three. Multi-batch developers work well in this scenario, as there is less depletion during processing due to more developer available during agitation. Of course this tactic does little for single shot development. One could simply drop another empty reel on top and not have to worry about O rings and such...

[Donald Qualls]

Pragmatist, adding a reel doesn't help much when you have a 120/220 reel in the 2x135 or 1x120/220 tank, as is my usual case and that of the original poster. Adding some additional liquid, of course, does help, but then there's the question of *how high* will the reel climb on the core. I'd prefer a means of keeping the reel at the bottom where it belongs, and an O-ring seems like a good way to do that (I can get a package of 10 of the things for a couple bucks at Lowe's, too).