Underdeveloped tops

[Charris]

Hi,

I recently bought a Linhof Technika iii and developed my fist negs today using a MOD54.

They came out with what looks like underdevelopment on the top of the negative. See below -

114580

This is the same of the other negatives with the same shape.

My first guess is that there was not enough solution in the developing tank. Has anyone experienced this with a MOD54 tank?

Could this be bellows leakage? First time using 4x5 so not sure what it looks like.

Thanks in advance.
Calum

[stawastawa]

Looks kind of like a light leak, though it is very even. is it exactly the same on the other image? if so might be your batch of film got partially exposed.

to test for, stick a piece of photopaper in your negative carrier and leave it in the camera with the dark slide pulled and see if you get any light leaks after several minutes with the camera in full sun (but shutter closed).


My other guess would be incomplete fixing.

[mike rosenlof]

A light leak would show as a light area in a positive, dark on the neg, this is not a light leak. The shape of the shadow is kind of puzzling, an underfilled tank usually doesn't show the angle in the underdeveloped area.

I'm not familiar with the mod54 tank. Can you fill with water, and measure the quantity you need to cover? What is your agitation style?

[ROL]

They came out with what looks like underdevelopment on the top of the negative.

Ahhh… that's the top of a positive. The top of the negative, assuming the image is the source (and the girl is neither hanging by her feet or your camera is not being operated upside down), is where your thumb, with suspicious halo, is. The image shadow along the top of the pic, whatever it represents, looks as if were part of the exposure to me. That is not to say that it necessarily appears in the scene itself, though that seems just as likely. Why don't you show us the scanned negative, so we can see more clearly?

[Kevin Crisp]

Droopy bellows?

[Jim Noel]

Droopy bellows?
I'm with Kevin!

[ROL]

Yes, that was my feeling initially, though there appears to be resolution within the shadow. In that sense it might then be shadowing from a "poked up" bellows, as if by insertion of an object underneath to prevent drooping, not true vignetting. It does have the appearance of a bellows fold.

[stawastawa]

A light leak would show as a light area in a positive, dark on the neg, this is not a light leak.

Whoops, Late night posting and inverted thinking, definitely not a light leak. The bellows talk sounds plausible, do you see the vignetting on the ground glass when composing?

Any takers for incomplete fixing? (not enough solution?)

[ROL]

...do you see the vignetting on the ground glass when composing?

You should be able to see everything on the GG, but in practice, given light from other sources on the GG (i.e., glare) or in the heat of battle as it were, it may be difficult to see this kind of obstruction clearly. Always check through the lens or cut GG corners at shooting aperture before exposing.

[Charris]

Thanks for the input guys.

Just to avoid confusion, this is not a positive (well the photo is). I took the negative with my Iphone held up against a white wall. I then inverted the image in photoshop and converted it to B&W.

For some reason it wont let me upload the other photograph. You can see it at calumharris.com, its the picture of a bridge next to the one above. The shape is very similar to the other "defect".

The two images were shot with different lenses with no movements. Would this rule out droopy bellows? The girl shot was taken with a 180mm and the bridge with a 127mm.

I am still leaning towards the developing tank. Using the MOD45 the negatives sit the same direction and as the negatives are sort of squashed into a curve and they lie the same way, this could mean that the solution was not topped up enough. So the top of the negatives where out of the solution and where only in contact with the liquid when inverted.

Could be wrong and the problem is in camera but i just cant see any drooping bellows throught the GG, plus the fact i have used 2 separed lenses on each test.

Cheers
--------------------

[djdister]

The two images were shot with different lenses with no movements. Would this rule out droopy bellows? The girl shot was taken with a 180mm and the bridge with a 127mm.

I am still leaning towards the developing tank. Using the MOD45 the negatives sit the same direction and as the negatives are sort of squashed into a curve and they lie the same way, this could mean that the solution was not topped up enough. So the top of the negatives where out of the solution and where only in contact with the liquid when inverted.

Could be wrong and the problem is in camera but i just cant see any drooping bellows throught the GG, plus the fact i have used 2 separed lenses on each test.

Cheers


If it was a droopy bellows problem, the line would be straight across the negative, and the film would be completely unexposed in that area, leading to solid black instead of just a darker image area.

Most likely it is a developer solution level issue. I would double check by testing it with the lid off and see how much solution is needed to cover all the way to the top.

[jbenedict]

You may not see a droopy bellows but it is possible you couldn't see if you had one on the GG. With the lens wide open at infinity, look in the front of the lens and see just where everything os. This is also a good way to see if your lens covers the format. If you can see the corners of the camera outside of the GG, it covers.

Personally, I think it might be the developer level. Sine the MOD45 has two levels of reel, did the ones on the bottom have the defect as well as the top one?

[jp]

Unless the girl or camera is upside down, it's not droppy bellows as the bellows on top would block some of the bottom of the finished image.

I'm betting either film was stuck together in the tank or not enough liquid.

[Charris]

You are right JP. If it was droopy bellows surely it would affect the bottom of the neg only.

It must be the solution/liquid level of the developer.

I didn't use an exact measuring jug for 1 L + only 2 negs loaded when the recommended is 6. The combination could have caused inadequate depth and cut off the top.

Will test again.

Thanks guys!

[jp]

Load in some wasted/failed film into the empty slots if you do less than a batch. It affects the fluid dynamics if you are not using the reel loaded as intended. Consistency in measuring chemicals is somewhat important. There must be some consumer jug/bottle that's the proper size for measuring your chemicals.

[Martin Aislabie]

You are right JP. If it was droopy bellows surely it would affect the bottom of the neg only.

It must be the solution/liquid level of the developer.

I didn't use an exact measuring jug for 1 L + only 2 negs loaded when the recommended is 6. The combination could have caused inadequate depth and cut off the top.

Will test again.

Thanks guys!

I used silicon sealer (the sort of thing you use to fill in the gaps between a bath tub and a wall) to fix my MOD54 cassette to the bottom of the Paterson central column.

I didn't have any proof but I was slight concerned the cassette could move up and down on the column and cause the top of the film to be under-developed.

This could be something you might want to consider

Martin