Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What happened here?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Darkroom
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:33 pm    Post subject: What happened here? Reply with quote
Most of the roll looks as though the outer edges are overexposed.



Neopan with Rodinal 1:50. 30 secs initial stirring, 10 secs stirring every minute


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would say a light weak in the camera Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Light leak ^

what camera did you used mr ?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maybe not a light leak, I've seen this before. It happened during the development, perhaps wrong agitation, deposit on the reel, tank or something else?

This is to constant for a light leak, perhaps the developer could not reach the sides of the film.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It looks definitely a light leak. Check the light traps around film door. A leak in the developing tank seems far less probable though not impossible.

Cheers, Marty.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
carlsson wrote:
perhaps wrong agitation
It could be a possibility too, though in my experience the clearer area (or darker on the film itself) looked kinda more irregular with definite streaks specially around the sprocket holes.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Found a sample image. One of my very first developments. The camera was fine, no leaks.
Developer (Tetenal Superfin) was nearly 10 years old, but the bottle was unopened until the development.



PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's not a light leak as the camera (Chinon CE-3) had new seals in a couple of months ago and has had numerous rolls through it since.

This was my 1st attempt with Rodinal and also stirring rather than inverting.

Last edited by martinsmith99 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:28 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Other than that, it's not a bad picture of a tree, Martin! Wink Try Barry's
2-Bath, so cheap to make, and temperature friendly. Thinking about
ordering some Diafine for the same reason and gives tight grain, and
you can dev rolls of various ISO together as the dev time is the same
for all.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I got this type of light leaks when I shot my friend's Hasselblad. Light leaks were not from camera, but from a roll that was not wound tight enough around the spool and then subjected to light when removed from camera.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stirring? Is that a tray-developed sheet, or were you using some non-inversible (daylight loading or ancient) tank? In any case, you should revise your agitation method, the flaw positively looks like as if the exchange between fresh and depleted developer towards the inner area of the film had not been good enough.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sevo wrote:
Stirring? Is that a tray-developed sheet, or were you using some non-inversible (daylight loading or ancient) tank? In any case, you should revise your agitation method, the flaw positively looks like as if the exchange between fresh and depleted developer towards the inner area of the film had not been good enough.

I was using a Paterson tank but using the stirring tool. 10 secs of slow spinning every 60 secs.

I'll go back to inverting.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stirring has worked well for me.
Spin the tool with some attitude both clockwise and counter clockwise.
Gentle is for the uh .. other dark room Wink


PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:39 am    Post subject: Re: What happened here? Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Most of the roll looks as though the outer edges are overexposed.



Neopan with Rodinal 1:50. 30 secs initial stirring, 10 secs stirring every minute


Incorrect agitation?

My home failures:-
look to the right edge:-
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/chris732.jpg
look to the left edge
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/chris696.jpg


PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I used the camera again and processed a film without these problems occuring but used inversions instead. I probably was not using enough force when stirring.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's interesting. Like I said, it's not a light leak.
I bought new reels (my old reels are more than 20 years old). And the problem is gone. Perhaps it is a combination of wrong agitation and bad reels.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I dunno, I kinda like the looks of that photo. Looks like it was taken with a folder from the 20s or something -- but one with a good lens, of course Smile

Glad to read you figured out the problem. It makes me curious though what it was about the agitation that caused more overexposure on the edges of frames that are all continuous on an uncut roll.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I dunno, I kinda like the looks of that photo. Looks like it was taken with a folder from the 20s or something -- but one with a good lens, of course Smile

Glad to read you figured out the problem. It makes me curious though what it was about the agitation that caused more overexposure on the edges of frames that are all continuous on an uncut roll.



Well if you are going to do your own developing and the camera is a Etrs then you are going to wanna know some answers, because my shots were from an Etrs......................Smile

But I really didn't solve my problem as photography forums didn't exist back in those days, and anyway it only happened now and again, but what did change in my fairly consistent method was a few times re-using the chemicals and storing, maybe you have to agitate more when re-using chemicals?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Glad to read you figured out the problem. It makes me curious though what it was about the agitation that caused more overexposure on the edges of frames that are all continuous on an uncut roll.

It seems that the spinning wasn't fast enough, which caused the outer edges to get more fresh developer (through the slots) than the inner. Inverting slowly ensures that developer is completely removed from the film and replaced in a random position.

Last edited by martinsmith99 on Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:33 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Glad to read you figured out the problem. It makes me curious though what it was about the agitation that caused more overexposure on the edges of frames that are all continuous on an uncut roll.

It seems that the spinning wasn't fast enough, which caused the outer edges to get more fresh developer (through the slots) than the inner. Inverting slowly ensures that developer is completely removed from the film and replaced in a random position.


...well my problem was always with developing 120 colour neg, and have just done some 35mm b/w recently with no probs. So could be the larger developing tank I was using for 120 colour film. erm but then my problem didn't happen all the time.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Glad to read you figured out the problem. It makes me curious though what it was about the agitation that caused more overexposure on the edges of frames that are all continuous on an uncut roll.

It seems that the spinning wasn't fast enough, which caused the outer edges to get more fresh developer (through the slots) than the inner. Inverting slowly ensures that developer is completely removed from the film and replaced in a random position.


Doh! I get it now. For some idiotic reason I was imagining the lightness was happening at the edge of each frame side-to-side. Now I get it. Embarassed
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Darkroom
Page 1 of 1