A good ol' "What happened here?" thread.

[TtamNedlog]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34348955@N05/3383651468/sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34348955@N05/3382836133/sizes/o/


I'm new to 4x5 (and this forum!) and work in a gang dark room at school. I used what I've now read is the "antichrist," the Yankee tank. I developed 10 negatives one day and they came out fine. Then I developed 10 more some other day, and they came out with that "residue" on them.

That's not mottling is it? I've been searching around these forums for info, and see a lot of mention of mottling when using Yankee tanks. It sounds like mottling is just splotches of uneven development as far as I can understand. This looks like something was wrong with the chemicals I used and they left some sort of alligator skin on my negatives. I've tried re-fixing, soaking in hot water, using anti-stat negative cleaner... All with no results. Here are the details:

- HP5+
- D76 1:1 for 11 minutes, side to side agitation for the first 30 seconds and 10 every 30
- Water rinse for 30 seconds
- Fix for 15 minutes (seems needlessly long, but that's what we were told to do), agitation 10 every 30
- Water rinse for 2 minutes
- Permawash for 2 minutes, continuous agitation
- Water rinse for 5 minutes
- Photo-flo for 1 minute, no agitation

Any idea what caused this, and how I can avoid it in the future? I'm betting something was up with the photo-flo... Unless this is just Yankee-itis. I can't imagine the tank caused this.

[walter23]

Don't fix for 15 minutes. With rapid fixer you can fix for 2.5 minutes or so (I usually go 4 or 5). I don't know if that would leave a residue like that, but it's way too long in any event and overfixing is a bad idea from an archival standpoint, from what I understand.

Forget the permawash (whatever that is) and photo-flo. I don't use them and you don't really need them. Just wash for 10 minutes, in whatever you did your development in, under constant flowing water. If it's a big tank (ie your yankee tank), fill it and empty it a few times to make sure you get rid of residual chemistry before letting the water flow for a bit.

I use a drop or two of wetting agent (edwal's LFN) in the final rinse to keep the water from leaving residue. This was started when I lived in a hard water area with lots of calcium but I still use it here (where the water is softer) as it seems to result in nice even drying and clean negatives.

Also, if you're sharing chemistry in a school darkroom, contamination could be an issue. There are a lot of idiots out there. Maybe use your own chemicals if you keep having problems like this.

[willwilson]

wow. I have no idea what is wrong with your negatives. I can't imagine something being in an empty tank that would do that. I assume you rinsed it out beforehand correct?

Is it some sort of build up? Does it have texture?

This is what I do with my film (typically Delta 100, HP5):
Develope 7:30 to 15m (Xtol 1:1 or 1:2)
Ilford Hypam 4-5m
Rinse 1m
Hypo Clear 2m
Rinse 10m
photo-flo 30s (you can agitate if you want just don't make any bubbles)
Dry

[Terence McDonagh]

Photo-flo is a wetting agent.

I'd kill the perma wash. Make the stop bath 60 seconds. And cut the fix by at least 1/2, if not by 10 minutes.

[John T]

First,

This looks like it might be reticulation. Did you go from a hot liquid to a cold one? If so that might be the problem. Reticulation occurs when the emulsion softens and expands a lot due to high temperatures, then when the film goes into a cold liquid, it shrinks quickly and unevenly and then hardens. Once this happens you can't fix it. Mottling is just variation of tones. This is usually easily seen in areas of solid tone (sky, sidewalks, etc)

Second, disregard what Walter and the others said. Although they meant well, it sounds like you are using the school's chemicals, so changing to a rapid fix is not an option. Many times in a school gang darkroom situation it is impossible to keep precise records of how fresh the fixer is and by doing it for so long it makes sure that you don't underfix the film-a far worse situation than slightly overfixing them.

Also, the Permawash (I know what it is and it is a good thing) is important to save water (and more importantly in a gang darkroom, shortens the wet time so more students can use the facilities. It also saves a lot of water. Here in California that is a HUGE issue.

Photoflo is a wetting agent, as is LFN. I use LFN because it is dispensed by the drop but either one works great as long as they aren't mixed too strong.

Bottom line, if you use a school's darkroom it is extremely important NOT to deviate from the standard system. This is where contamination and chemical problems come from.

[Nathan Potter]

More info is needed to make an informed analysis.

It appears to be surface contamination. The first photo shows linear streaks and that should be a bit of a clue. I don't see any dendritic type growth which might indicate some kinds of chemical contamination.

1. Is it on both sides of the film?
2. Is it at the surface of the film?
3. Can it be wiped off easily with a soft cloth?
4. Can it be scraped off with a wooden stick using some force?
5. Are all the films affected to about the same degree?
6. Is the contamination opaque, translucent or mostly clear?
7. Was all your processing chemistry clear prior to using?
8. Do the linear streaks appear on all the films?

The process as you describe it should not produce such an effect but in photographic processing, cleanliness is next to godliness so to speak. Shared darkrooms can be tough so a thorough cleaning of all equipment beforehand is really necessary.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[bspeed]

ah, the school labs.... bet there was contminated chemicals somewhere in the setup.

by any chance do they require the students to pour back and reuse fixer, stop and hypoclear ??

[Glenn Thoreson]

How did you mix that Photo-Flo? Kodaks instructions are way off. 3 or 4 drops in a quart of water is plenty. Do not save it after the session is done and re-use it. It can go nasty. Photo-Flo works well if you're careful. If you're not, it can leave a nasty mess on your negatives. Continue using the Perma Wash. Cut your fixing time to ten minutes with regular fixers and five to seven minutes with Rapid fixers. For using a water stop, give it a little more time and a couple of changes of water.
I'm betting it was the Photo-Flo. Don't ask how I know this......:D

[John T]

Did you show the negs to your teacher? Not only can he/she maybe provide the answer because it is a lot easier to tell the problem if one can see the actual neg, but also, it might indicate that the system might need an overhaul.

I taught and ran the darkroom at a small college for 7 years. In that time we had some chemical issues-usually things like someone pouring fixer down the drain, but for the most part there were very few problems. However, as anyone experienced in this type of situation knows, there is always a new thing that rears it's ugly head. The biggest thing that makes me doubt the contamination thing is the 3-dimensional appearance of the marks. The streaks bother me too, but re-reading the OP may have explained them.


I've tried re-fixing, soaking in hot water, using anti-stat negative cleaner...

These can't be good. If the negative was wiped before drying (this school's workflow seems like an old-school system), the emulsion was weaken at this point. He saw the "alligator skin" texture and tried to solve the problem. He refixed it (shouldn't have done anything except maybe slightly bleach out the image) soaked it in hot water (how did he gently cool down the neg after this), used anti-stat negative cleaner (a solvent based liquid that you apply by wiping onto the film).

But without more feedback from the OP it would be hard to know for sure.

[walter23]

disregard what Walter and the others said.

My recommendations were meant just to remove as many extra variables as possible - simplify the process to the bare minimum to remove any possible culprits in the process. But your advice isn't bad either, especially this piece:


Bottom line, if you use a school's darkroom it is extremely important NOT to deviate from the standard system. This is where contamination and chemical problems come from.

[John T]

Walter,

I'm sorry, my post does seem rather harsh. I didn't mean it that way. I completely understand the idea of simplifying the process. I personally would do the rapid fix (although keep the Permawash) as the short fixing time allows for more complete quick rinsing. But the scariest thing when you have to run a gang lab in a school is when people go off on their own and then screw up everything.

The gang lab is always a compromise-never the best process for an individual, but collectively, if done correctly satisfactory for all.

[TtamNedlog]

Thanks for the all the fast info and inquiries. Let me see if I can cover all of it.






1. Is it on both sides of the film?
2. Is it at the surface of the film?
3. Can it be wiped off easily with a soft cloth?
4. Can it be scraped off with a wooden stick using some force?
5. Are all the films affected to about the same degree?
6. Is the contamination opaque, translucent or mostly clear?
7. Was all your processing chemistry clear prior to using?
8. Do the linear streaks appear on all the films?

1. It's hard to tell.
2. Again hard to tell, but it looks to be on the surface.
3. Definitely cannot be wiped off with a cloth, or with negative cleaner.
4. Lol, taking a stick to my negatives never occured to me, but since it is basically ruined I'll give that a shot and get back to you.
5. Yes, all 10 negatives in that batch essentially came out that way.
6. Nearly clear, or translucent. I shot those 2 photos of my negative while glaring some light off of the surface, otherwise it is hard to see the contamination. Looking at the negatives on a light box for example, you wouldn't notice the contamination until close inspection. Unfortunately, when printing, you can see the streaks/splotches/whatever on the prints.
7. The chemistry was all fresh, except the photo-flo that I got from the "jugs" in the processing rooms. I'll explain that below.
8. Yep. It's not just linear though. It DOES look reticulated in certain spots, but I'll get to that next.



- To the person that mentioned reticulation, that is not what is happening here. It DOES look a bit like that in some areas of the negative, but all my temperatures were steady at 68F (give or take a few degrees).


- About the chemicals in our gang darkroom. I happen to be one of the monitors, so I mix chemicals and get to have free run of the place when I want. We go through chemicals fairly quickly, new Photo-flo gets mixed a few times per week. We mix it and store it in 2 gallon containers that have those floating stoppers on top to help minimize exposure to air. Although I realize that's mostly just for developers. Half the time it seems like the Photo-flo gets the "floaties" in it. From reading the label, it sounds like this happens due to improper mixing. We just do "a couple of capfulls" into the 2 gallon containers when we mix it. Being the meticulous person that I am, that always bothered me but it seems like nobody has had any problems so *shrug*.

Other chemicals we don't go through as quickly because we re-use. Our stop is indicator, so if it's still good it gets poured back in. We check fix with hypocheck, and if it's good we pour it back in. Our permawash (hypoclear) is also indicator, so if it's good we pour it back in. The only thing that gets dumped is developer and photo-flo. With that said, when I developed these negatives, I got my chemicals from the multi-gallon tanks where freshly mixed chemicals are stored, not from the 64 ounce bottles in the processing rooms where we do the re-using. EXCEPT the photo-flo, which we were out of fresh so I had to get it from the 64 ounce bottles. Who knows, one of the new students may have poured used photo flo back in, or something like that.






Feels like I'm typing a book here, sorry heh. Bottom line is I was wondering if that was the "mottling" people talk about from Yankee tanks, and the verdict seems to be no. So that's good. And from now on I'm going to bring a medicine dropper to get the proper amount of photo-flo and just add it to my own water, instead of using the pre-mixed stuff. And since I can use fresh fixer, that's good to know that I can drastically cut down on my fixing time. I was aware that you could overfix prints (in terms of archivalness), but didn't realize you could overfix film.

[TtamNedlog]

I'm actually at the lab now. Gotta run home. I'll make some more comments in a bit. =p

[TtamNedlog]

How did you mix that Photo-Flo? Kodaks instructions are way off. 3 or 4 drops in a quart of water is plenty.
Does this apply to Photo-flo 200? We also have 600. :eek:




Did you show the negs to your teacher? Not only can he/she maybe provide the answer because it is a lot easier to tell the problem if one can see the actual neg, but also, it might indicate that the system might need an overhaul.
I showed her and she wasn't sure what the cause was. She's the one who suggested I try again starting at the fixing stage. *shrug* I didn't really understand why that would help, but I figured she knew more about it than I do. Although a lot of things she teaches us contradict what I read on the net. This is a fine art department though, so she might not exactly be a technical buff on this stuff. She's more art-driven.





These can't be good. If the negative was wiped before drying (this school's workflow seems like an old-school system), the emulsion was weaken at this point. He saw the "alligator skin" texture and tried to solve the problem. He refixed it (shouldn't have done anything except maybe slightly bleach out the image) soaked it in hot water (how did he gently cool down the neg after this), used anti-stat negative cleaner (a solvent based liquid that you apply by wiping onto the film).

But without more feedback from the OP it would be hard to know for sure.
Well the negative that I hot-water soaked and re-fixed, I threw that one away since that did nothing and it wasn't worth keeping anyway. The negative that I showed in the flickr photos was untouched, (unless I just tried the anti-stat negative cleaner, I can't remember). So unless I did the negative cleaner, the streaking occurred naturally. And yeah we aren't exactly running a cutting edge darkroom heh, but we don't wipe or squeegee our negatives. We have hanging dryers.

In one of the images I put on flickr, I had a negative from the batch that came out fine next to it for comparison. I highlighted that here in case people missed it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34348955@N05/3384088548/sizes/o/

[Nathan Potter]

OK looking at your images of your film again I'd say the contamination is on the film surface. I forgot to ask previously - did you use a squeegy to wipe excess water off the films near the end of the process? Looks like you might have done so. It might have been contaminated.

The only certain way to determine the contamination is to perform instrumental analysis using a microprobe on a piece of contamination - say Auger or EDAX. But you need to be pretty hungry for information to pay for that. Maybe an ICP (Inductively Coupled Plasma) analysis done by a really good instrumental guy would be even more definitive. But I like the squeegy contaminated wipe idea so far.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[TtamNedlog]

How did you mix that Photo-Flo? Kodaks instructions are way off. 3 or 4 drops in a quart of water is plenty.
Does this apply to Photo-flo 200? We also have 600. :eek:




Did you show the negs to your teacher? Not only can he/she maybe provide the answer because it is a lot easier to tell the problem if one can see the actual neg, but also, it might indicate that the system might need an overhaul.
I showed her and she wasn't sure what the cause was. She's the one who suggested I try again starting at the fixing stage. *shrug* I didn't really understand why that would help, but I figured she knew more about it than I do. Although a lot of things she teaches us contradict what I read on the net. This is a fine art department though, so she might not exactly be a technical buff on this stuff. She's more art-driven.





These can't be good. If the negative was wiped before drying (this school's workflow seems like an old-school system), the emulsion was weaken at this point. He saw the "alligator skin" texture and tried to solve the problem. He refixed it (shouldn't have done anything except maybe slightly bleach out the image) soaked it in hot water (how did he gently cool down the neg after this), used anti-stat negative cleaner (a solvent based liquid that you apply by wiping onto the film).

But without more feedback from the OP it would be hard to know for sure.
Well the negative that I hot-water soaked and re-fixed, I threw that one away since that did nothing and it wasn't worth keeping anyway. The negative that I showed in the flickr photos was untouched, (unless I just tried the anti-stat negative cleaner, I can't remember). So unless I did the negative cleaner, the streaking occurred naturally. And yeah we aren't exactly running a cutting edge darkroom heh, but we don't wipe or squeegee our negatives. We have hanging dryers.

In one of the images I put on flickr, I had a negative from the batch that came out fine next to it for comparison. I highlighted that here in case people missed it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34348955@N05/3384088548/sizes/o/




And yeah I don't need to go crazy figuring out what exactly caused this. If things can be summed up with "chemical contamination" then that's good enough for me. I'll be more cautious and sure to get fresh chemicals next time. I just wanted to know if I needed to stop using the Yankee tank heh.

[Gem Singer]

That's why the Yankee tank is referred to as "the anti-Christ".

More unexplainable screw-ups seem to happen with with that make of developing tank
than any other make.

When it works, it works just fine. When it fails (more often than not), no one can explain exactly why.

[John T]

The Kodak dilutions are pretty strong. But if your Photo-flo is too strong it will leave streaks not what you have. Your dilution for 600 seems to be fine. If you are developing floaties within a few days, that might be a problem, but I can't see it causing this. I would really scrub out the container well (with hot water) and make sure you run water through the spigot to clean it out as well. There is a possibility that you are having water problems. I've always used distilled water with my wetting agent to keep the calcium and other salts out of the final bath. That obviously can't be done in your darkroom but if you do your own chemicals it could be important.

Did anyone else have this problem? This is why it is actually very important to find the cause of this. First, because it is obviously frustrating that your negs were destroyed, but also because a lot of other people might have the same problem. It might be you have to dump the entire set of chemicals and start again. Just make sure that everything is cleaned, not just quickly rinsed out.

While I agree that your tank is something you should get away from as fast as possible, this just doesn't seem like a problem caused by it. Light leaks, uneven development and scratched film, yes, but bizarre film texture no-except if it was contaminated, but then any film processing tank would have the same problem. This is one reason I like the Jobo Expert Tank-very easy to clean out.

BTW where do you go to school? What is your program like?

[TtamNedlog]

At least one other person that I know of also had problems with her negatives, but hers weren't nearly as bad as mine. *shrug* I'll have to ask around some more and find out. But yeah I don't see how distilled water would be an option for me here.

I go to South Alabama. As I mentioned earlier, it's a fine art program. It's fairly small. Most of the art majors are Graphic Design, followed by Photography, followed by everything else (ceramics, art history, painting, etc). There will probably be 15-20 photo majors graduating when I do, if I had to guess a number.

It's primarily black and white film classes, with a few exceptions. Classes offered include: intro to photo, intermediate photo 1 (kinda an intro to various alternative processes), intermediate photo 2, advanced photo, alternative processes (cyanotypes, van dyks, etc), digital silver photo (digital photography, but then we print out negatives on acetate and print in the wet darkroom), photo bookmaking, and color photo. I wish we could get rid of the bookmaking class and get a studio/lighting class instead. Then it would be a fairly robust program I think, considering its size.

[Doremus Scudder]

I'll take a shot at a possible cause, although it is difficult to say just looking at an image of the negative.

These could be deposits left from hard water drying and leaving mineral behind. They look like they are in the "pattern" of water from a squeegeed or "finger-squeegeed" negative. If the water where you are is very hard, and you are not using distilled or at least demineralized drinking water for the last photo-flo rinse, then it is easy to get these deposits.

A "treatment" to test this hypothesis and possibly clear the streaks is to soak the negatives overnight in fresh, double-strength stop bath. The acetic acid should dissolve hard water stains caused by calcium carbonate, etc. (although some minerals won't dissolve quite so easily...).

Give it a try and let us know what happened. If this, indeed, is your problem, you really need to use better water for the final rinse.

Best and good luck,

Doremus Scudder

[Pat Kearns]

I would say it is just chemical contamination. Get a funnel and coffee filter and filter them and see what is filtered out. Then I would remix new chemicals. Shared chemicals sometimes get poured back into the wrong bottles in gang darkrooms. Are you wiping the negatives with a sponge or squeege because they look like it to me. You said you go to South Alabama. I take it you mean the University of South Alabama in Mobile. If that is the case drive up to Burno's and get a gallon or two of distilled water for mixing your chemicals. It is only 2 miles up the street and distilled water is fairly cheap. If you are at South Alabama then check out the Portrait Lighting course that is in their Special Courses program. It is non-credit but Carlos' class would be worth nominal fee. BTW, I'm in Mobile, send me a PM if you want to get in touch.

[TtamNedlog]

I would say it is just chemical contamination. Get a funnel and coffee filter and filter them and see what is filtered out. Then I would remix new chemicals. Shared chemicals sometimes get poured back into the wrong bottles in gang darkrooms. Are you wiping the negatives with a sponge or squeege because they look like it to me. You said you go to South Alabama. I take it you mean the University of South Alabama in Mobile. If that is the case drive up to Burno's and get a gallon or two of distilled water for mixing your chemicals. It is only 2 miles up the street and distilled water is fairly cheap. If you are at South Alabama then check out the Portrait Lighting course that is in their Special Courses program. It is non-credit but Carlos' class would be worth nominal fee. BTW, I'm in Mobile, send me a PM if you want to get in touch.

Yep, USA. I'll look into that course. When using distilled water, do I need to use it to mix chemicals AND to rinse with? Or can I just use it for the final rinse and the photo flo portions? To mix powder D76, the water needs to be hot. So I'd have to heat the distilled water and then wait for it to cool before I could use it.

If I can just rinse with distilled water, how would I do that? Just let the film soak in there? Change it out periodically? How long?

[Pat Kearns]

It has been about 9 years since my last visit the the USA darkroom so I don't recall if their chemical mixing containers are marked developer, fixer, or whatever. If not, they should be, all it takes is a magic marker. That will prohibit cross contamination. You can filter your tap water with a funnel and coffee filters if you like or use distilled water. To heat the distilled water just set the gallon jug in a bucket of hot water after it comes to the mixing temperature add the chemicals. Using it with the photoflo doesn't require it to be heated. Because you are in a gang darkroom, as a precaution, I would filter the chemicals before I would use them to develop my film. In my home darkroom, I've only got one person that can take the blame if my chemicals get contaminated. The Mobile city water isn't hard so it can be used as your film wash. I don't have issues with my film. Seeing that the photoflo is the last wet stage I would definitely use the distilled water for that rinse. In the summer the water is pretty hot right out of the tap. That is the only problem I encounter but the USA darkroom has a water chiller so that shouldn't be a problem.

[TtamNedlog]

Thanks for the info. I just reshot and processed some earlier. There is still some residue on these, but not nearly as bad as before. Still didn't get to try distilled water yet, but I did get a medicine dropper and got some Photo-flo straight from the bottle and added it to my water in the Yankee tank. Based on popular recommendation, I didn't put 8 ml in my 1650 ml of water (which is what the directions called for). I just put 3ml in. Maybe that was still too much, or not enough, *shrug*.

When putting the negatives in the dryers, they LOOKED fine this time. Only after drying was I able to see slight residue left over. Before, with the negatives I started this thread about, I could see a gritty texture on them even while they were dripping wet going into the dryer.

So marked improvement, but still not as good as my very first batch, which came out flawless. Maybe I'll try the steel hanger method next time.