ruined negative - please help find out why

[andreios]

Hello folks,
I'm just developing a bunch of negatives from my recent trip and horror of horrors, when taking them out from the tank after fixing I discovered that one of them is practically completely fogged (or whatever) with a weird pattern. quick shot will follow.

It does not seem to be a processing fault - there were two negatives in the tank (Jobo 2830, the negs are 18x24cm, rotary processing with Moersch Tanol - fresh chemicals and all.. Pretty standardized process for me) and THE OTHER negative in the tank was perfectly OK, without any visible problem.

The only reason I could think of - but I am not sure this is possible and that's why I asking - is this - the negative was exposed in an old abbey - I have spent maybe two hours in the church which was rather cold - then moved to the cloisters which were open and it was starting to be a hot day - so there was a substantial change in temperature and maybe in humidity as well. I was struggling with condensation on the lens but it did not occur to me that it could happen on the surface of the film. Could that happen and could that be the reason - that the emulsion got wet/damp during exposure?

Could this be undone?

Thanks for any help.

101834101833101835

[Vaughn]

I have had problems with the back of lenses fogging over when using my 8x10 in the sun. The heat drives the moisture out of the bellows and inside becomes a bit of a steam room. It is a bit odd looking at the GG and see the image get curiously less sharp. But it has never affected the film as I air out the camera before continueing.

[Fred L]

*almost* looks like fungi or spots of mould...was film same batch and same storage conditions ?

[lenser]

It's very hard to tell much from the photos, but that looks like silver in the emulsion. You mentioned that you had two sheets in the same tube and I am reminded of one tray processing experience where two sheets pretty much bonded together and the one below got almost no fixer....just enough to halt the development but not to remove the excess silver. This is what yours looks like to me as best I can see it.

You might try simply soaking the bad neg in water for a few minutes and then re fixing it alone with appropriate agitation to see if this helps. If it does great, if not, no further harm.

[lenser]

I just looked at this again and I'm even more inclined to think processing since the surrounding inch or less of the negative is much more clear than the central region. I'm not familiar with your tank, but is it possible that you either loaded it so that the emulsions side would face a tank or tube wall and might have partially bonded when you dumped the developer so that it would only allow fixer to penetrate part way all around, or that this negative somehow was floated behind the other and partially bonded to the back side of the good negative with the same result?

[andreios]

*almost* looks like fungi or spots of mould...was film same batch and same storage conditions ?

Yes, it's the same box - still my first box of film in that format.

[andreios]

It's very hard to tell much from the photos, but that looks like silver in the emulsion. You mentioned that you had two sheets in the same tube and I am reminded of one tray processing experience where two sheets pretty much bonded together and the one below got almost no fixer....just enough to halt the development but not to remove the excess silver. This is what yours looks like to me as best I can see it.

You might try simply soaking the bad neg in water for a few minutes and then re fixing it alone with appropriate agitation to see if this helps. If it does great, if not, no further harm.

Thanks. The tank is a paper processing tank - the film is held on the perimeter of the tank and the continuous rotation on the motor base ensure even distribution of the chemicals. I've never had problem with uneven development with this processing.
Anyway, that was my first thought- that it is not fixed enough - I put it anew into (fresh) fixer for several minutes but nothing happened. the image "underneath" seems to be OK, but as if it was veiled with a fog...

[Sevo]

That looks like classic dichroic fogging! There are not that many possible accidents causing it when using modern ready-made chemistry, even more so when using them one-shot. Did you forget to pour out the developer before filling in the fixer?

[andreios]

That looks like classic dichroic fogging! There are not that many possible accidents causing it when using modern ready-made chemistry, even more so when using them one-shot. Did you forget to pour out the developer before filling in the fixer?

I didn't.. it was my usual sequence - Tanol 2+2+200 -> acid stop bath -> ilford rapid fixer 1+4. I developed 5 batches yesterday in exactly the same way and this was the only ruined negative, so I really think the flaw must have occurred somewhere else.. I presume leaking holder would look differently, wouldn't it? (but even this is unlikely, since it was virtually a brand new fidelity holder.)

[Sevo]

I didn't.. it was my usual sequence - Tanol 2+2+200 -> acid stop bath -> ilford rapid fixer 1+4. I developed 5 batches yesterday in exactly the same way and this was the only ruined negative, so I really think the flaw must have occurred somewhere else.. I presume leaking holder would look differently, wouldn't it? (but even this is unlikely, since it was virtually a brand new fidelity holder.)

If you were doing one-shot, a error in one batch cannot affect the subsequent ones (as the polluted chemistry never makes it back into the bottle), and even in multi-shot processing, pouring a small polluted volume back to a large bottle may revert everything to normal. So you may not be able to tell whether you mixed stages. In general, the only likely way to create dichroic fogging with modern chemistry is to mix developer and fixer, in proportions where the resultant mix is alkaline, but nonetheless contains a relatively large amount of hypo proportional to the developing agent. By your numbers, Tanol appears to be a low concentration developer, where fairly small amounts of fixer in the developer might create such a situation.

[andreios]

OK - thanks for explanation - I will take even more care from now on. :) But anyway, in such a situation it would affect both negatives being processed at the same time and not only one, would it not?

[Sevo]

OK - thanks for explanation - I will take even more care from now on. :) But anyway, in such a situation it would affect both negatives being processed at the same time and not only one, would it not?

It should - but brand, batch or even exposure differences might cause the silver to precipitate on one of them only. If it hit only a single one off the same batch and subject/exposure, it might have slipped below the other or have been inserted face down so that it did not receive the regular amount and flow of chemistry - just about anything can happen if the film is sealed off the regular flow.

[AtlantaTerry]

Whatever happened was before or after the film was in the sheet film holder. This is because the area of the long sides is fogged where normally the two lips inside that keep the film in place that should be blank shows evidence of fogging.

[David Vickery]

Looks like improperly fixed film to me. The exposure and development look good, but the milky cast is from a lack of fixing. Water on a negative prior to development, that then dries like in your condensation theory would definitely ruin the negative, but based on what you posted, it looks like that sheet did not get properly fixed.
Looks like a great subject to photograph!

[andreios]

Looks like improperly fixed film to me. The exposure and development look good, but the milky cast is from a lack of fixing. Water on a negative prior to development, that then dries like in your condensation theory would definitely ruin the negative, but based on what you posted, it looks like that sheet did not get properly fixed.
Looks like a great subject to photograph!

Thanks, I'll try to refix it again, can't be worse.
as for the subject - I did have a chance to spend few days in France so I visited some old abbeys - the bad neg is the chapter hall of Fontenay Abbey - sadly I did not take 2nd shot there since I was running low on film(holders) :( (It should not happen again now that I've bought the changing tent :) )

[AtlantaTerry]

I visited some old abbeys - the bad neg is the chapter hall of Fontenay Abbey

Ghosts...

[Sevo]

Thanks, I'll try to refix it again, can't be worse.


If that does not do it, try clearing it in a solution of 20g thiourea and 10g citric acid in 1l water - that works as a mild reducer both against plain and dichroic (surface) fog. The final attempt to tackle fogging before tossing the film would be Farmer's reducer. These days, you might of course also go the digital route, and see what you can filter from a scan.

[andreios]

So here's the update:
2nd fixing - no improvement
clearing in thiourea&citric acid solution - no improvement
will have to mix the Farmer's reducer next time..

Anyway, I'm not throwing the neg out - will see whether the ghosts will show up in the print :-)

[polyglot]

Perhaps you put one sheet in the drum backwards, i.e. with emulsion to the outside of the drum. Very little developer will have made it to the surface and I could imagine obtaining results like this. It would also be under-fixed and it looks to me like your drum has ribs in it - you can see their effect in the stripes that are fixed more-completely.

The mould-spots baffle me though.

[andreios]

Perhaps you put one sheet in the drum backwards, i.e. with emulsion to the outside of the drum. Very little developer will have made it to the surface and I could imagine obtaining results like this. It would also be under-fixed and it looks to me like your drum has ribs in it - you can see their effect in the stripes that are fixed more-completely.

The mould-spots baffle me though.

Of course, that could've happened, but in that case I'd expect some marks from the walls of the tank and the ribs on the inner walls - but there are none, or - if any they are perpendicular to the ribs.

Anyway, it seems that the "ghosts" suggestion is the best explanation.. :)

[JeRuFo]

Looks like a great shot. Do you see the fog when the negative is wet? If not you could try wet scanning the negative.

[andreios]

Yes, sadly, it is visible even if wet. (Not that I have any option of (wet)scanning).