Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,970   Posts: 1,523,494   Online: 875
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6

    Lots of negs unevenly developed

    Hi!

    What happened here? Why are lower two thirds so overexposed?



    Some frames on the film suffer from this and some are perfectly OK. I did my own development, D-76 1:1 for 10'@20C, 5 mins fixing with quick fixer, stop bath was water. The film is Tri-x, camera Nikon F-501, lens is Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI.

    I appreciate your help/suggestions...

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    591
    What tank are you using and how much developer did you use? Also, what was you agitation?
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

  3. #3
    Shawn Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,132
    Images
    286
    The dark edge at the bottom left leads me to believe it is a development issue - maybe loading related. Hard to be sure without knowing what kind of tank you are using....

  4. #4
    jamesgignac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beijing, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    281
    Images
    8
    Looks to me to be a light leak in your development tank or at some stage during the development process - I've had this happen to me once with a clients work (my own bone-headed mistake using a tank that had light issues) and it meant a lot of post-processing work to deliver reasonable digi results. Anything noticeable between frames on the film?

    Just a thought, though it could also be a processing issue in another way - I cannot imagine this could happen at any other stage than processing.
    -dereck|james|gignac
    dereckjamesgignac.com

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6
    The tank is an old Paterson System 4 tank, I used 300ml D76 1:1 dilution (as specified on the tank), agitation is with the rod in the following way:

    1. Poor in the developer
    2. Tap the tank few times at the bottom
    3. constant agitation for 30 secs (as specified for the developer)
    4. 5 sec agitation every 30 secs

    My bathroom is my darkroom and I'm able to make it pretty dark, however, there was a very small ray of light coming through the ventilation. Could it be this little amount of light? When I load the film onto the reel I turn my back to the door and there where I do loading I cannot see anything, not my hands, not anything else for that matter. Could this small amount of light be the culprit?

    Thanks for your help.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    328
    Images
    7
    My recommendation is that you pour the developer in the tank first and then lower the film - agitate as per developer instructions in a controlled inverted method to ensure the developer gets turned over sufficiently and ensure you tap the canister hard on the bench. I prefer to invert the canister as opposed to using the rod thing.

    How many rolls of film do you have in the tank? Do you have empty reels in the tank to stop the loaded reels moving? Silly question i know...

    Best to load film in COMPLETE darkness. Use a changing back in a darkened room with a test roll and report back.

    AK

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Jersey Channel Islands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    430
    Blog Entries
    2
    Looks to me as if the film has been partly out of the developer for part of the time, you say you put the correct amount of solution in the tank, but were you using a unirvesel tank?, if so then it is possible that the spirel has slid slightly up the tube, I would normally use slightly more dev say 400 instead of 300, I have done this eversince I had the same problem and that seemed to cure it,Richard

  8. #8
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,052
    Images
    6
    I just looked up a pdf of System Four instructions, and you're correct that they specify 10 ounces of developer for a 35mm reel, which is 300ml. Like R gould, that sounds to me to be less than optimum. I'd suggest you put the empty reel in the tank and pour in 300 ml water just to see how high up the reel the water level reaches. I presume you had only one reel in the tank? If you find you can safely add more than 300ml of developer, I'd do so.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,352
    Images
    87
    Can you see anything after you're in the room with the lights out for about 5 minutes? If so, you probably have too much light getting in. In addition to the suggestions on chem volume try sealing off the known leak, or loading at night or with lights off in whatever room the light is coming from if possible. Or try loading in a changing bag if you have one.

  10. #10
    Dan Henderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Blue Ridge, Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,891
    Images
    241
    If the film was light struck the negatives would be dark, and the corresponding print lighter in that area, right? This is not what I see here. I have to agree with others suggesting a development problem. If the top part of the film was not completely covered by developer for the entire time the negatives would be thin in that area, and would print correspondingly dark, which is what is shown in this print.

    On second look, was there excessive density around the body and head of the boy and you printed it down and overexposed the top part? I am also curious about the thin band at the very bottom of the frame.


    web site: Dan Henderson, Photographer.com

    blog: https://danhendersonphotographer.wordpress.com/

    I am not anti-digital. I am pro-film.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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