Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,292   Posts: 1,681,319   Online: 1144
      
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Sjixxxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Zenith City, MN
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    18

    8x10 C-41 rotary processing. Where did these marks come from?

    A few weeks ago I was given some expired 8x10 films from a fellow APUGger. Mix of Fuji & Kodak 160. Thought I'd see if it would work developing them two at a time in half a 2850 print drum in my Jobo with the digibase chems. First eight sheets I developed were absolutely perfect. I had four more to develop today so I mixed up some new chemistry and went at it. Developed two Kodak sheets. Then immediately developed two Fuji sheets.

    After drying I tossed the Kodak sheets on the scanner. Something wasn't right. Bunch of ugliness near the film holder marks, and right edge.



    Only thing I did differently was cut the chemicals to 250ml instead of 300 I had been using. I figured if there was some degree on unperfect levelness, that would account for the right side marks, but what about near the top & bottom of the sheet?

    Then I put the Fuji sheets on the scanner that I developed afterwards expecting some of the same. Nothing. They look perfect.

    Any ideas on what might have happened with the Kodak sheets? FWIW, it even looks like the blank area where the film holder edges are don't have even density.
    Gear: Camera, Brain, Light.
    Website - FB

  2. #2
    Sjixxxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Zenith City, MN
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    18
    Coming from a position of almost complete ignorance on the subject - does that explanation jive with what appears to be the added density following film holder marks? If it were a rib in the tank, I'd expect them to run all the way across. Instead of backing off in the upper right corner like it seems to be doing, right?

    As for this not happening on the other ten sheets - dumb luck?
    Gear: Camera, Brain, Light.
    Website - FB

  3. #3
    Sjixxxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Zenith City, MN
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    18
    CPE-2. SO I don't think I could even use an Expert drum.

    I'll do a boring scene photo tomorrow and run it back at 300ml since that was working just peachy. See what happens. 120ml is recommended on the drum, maybe somewhere between 250 and 300 is the sweet spot where the chemistry over-deluges enough to win?
    Gear: Camera, Brain, Light.
    Website - FB

  4. #4
    JLP
    JLP is offline
    JLP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,608
    Images
    19
    I don't think it has anything to do with processing, i do think there is a chance that you have a filmholder that is leaking or you could accidentally have pulled the slide a fraction before or after you exposed the film.
    _______________
    Jan Pedersen
    http://janlpedersen.com

  5. #5
    wildbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,694
    Images
    141
    was the kodak film open or sealed when you got it?
    www.vinnywalsh.com

    Check out my low volume sheet film tanks.

  6. #6
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,463
    Images
    12
    Does the negative have less density in these areas or is it visible only in the scan?

    I have to say they look like flare from the scanner, i.e. lots of light coming through the film base at the edges and darkening the image parts nearby. The fact that the shape of the dark bits is identical in both orientations would seem to exclude the issue being one of fluid dynamics in rotary development.

    I get this effect when scanning 120 in my Nikon 8000 unless I'm careful to mask the negs with card and reduce spillover light coming through the inter-frame gaps. If I don't mask carefully, I get darkened frame-ends that look identical to the horribleness you show here.

    Edit: the effect is more noticeable with thinner negs. Are these two bad ones thinner? Or perhaps you did something slightly different in the scanning.

  7. #7
    Sjixxxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Zenith City, MN
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by wildbill View Post
    was the kodak film open or sealed when you got it?
    A bag with five sheets were jammed in a box of Fuji. Fuji bag was unopened that was sharing the box was unopened.
    Gear: Camera, Brain, Light.
    Website - FB

  8. #8
    wildbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,694
    Images
    141
    there you go. continue with your tests but moisture may be the culprit. I've seen it before on the edges of sheet film that's been lying around. Since it sits so flat together, the moisture only gets to the edges and sometimes the film sticks together at the edges too.
    www.vinnywalsh.com

    Check out my low volume sheet film tanks.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Consider obtaining a 3004 Expert Drum - 4 sheets
    What is the minimum quantity required for E-6 if the drum is to be used rolled by hand? I did 9 4x5" C-41 sheets in 3010 drum with a modified lid (epoxied cup) hand-rolled and it worked great, no marks whatsoever (every negative was contact-printed). The lid/cup takes 460ml. Will that do for 4 8x10" E-6 sheets in 3004 drum?



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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