Help with what went wrong . . .

[gevalia]

Guys,

I need a little help here trying to figure out what went wrong. It was really foggy over the weekend (250 feet max) and I went to the beach and then into the woods. Nveer shot fog before. I'm in CT and it was in the 40's with snow on the ground so it was dense. I am a newbie (less then a year) but I have spend a while getting a pattern of development down to I know I am consistent. And the water is filtered.

Here are the particulars:
1. TMAX 400 developed in Precsysol EF and fixed in an alkaline fixer. Both fresh before start. Both in filtered water. Same amount of time, temps, agitation, etc - consistent.
2. They were shot at different locations and 2 were after a fairly long walk so the film should have acclimated to outside temps.
3. Developed in daylight tank that I am consistent in using and did not have a problem.
4. The 3 photos were in 2 different batches. In each of these 2 batches there were also other sheets (that were not taken in the fog) that came out exactly as I planned.
5. Developed at N+0 which is 10.5 minutes in the Prescysol EF.

I'm at a loss here. is there something I need to know about shooting in dense fog? Is this "fogging"? I cannot say that I have ever seen fogging (just read about it, not seen it).

I'm at a loss...

** Please forgive the "quick" scans. A lot of dust on the glass.

http://ronmiller.smugmug.com/photos/445369478_skDxm-M.jpg

http://ronmiller.smugmug.com/photos/445369597_7QME6-M.jpg

http://ronmiller.smugmug.com/photos/445369520_ymMCH-L.jpg

Thanks,
Ron

[Ken Lee]

Looks like insufficient agitation.

[gevalia]

My agitation routine is :
1. Continuous for 1st minute.
2. Then for 10 seconds every 3 minutes thereafter.

The shadows seem okay, it's just the highlights(fog) that is screwed up.

I use the same routine for all films in Prescysol EF.

Again, other sheets developed at the same time (in the tank) came out as expected. The sheets that came out as expected did have substantially more shadows.

[John Kasaian]

Is your daylight tank a "Yankee?" It looks to be yankeedaylighttank-itis :(

[Toyon]

Could be contamination in the chemistry. A small amount will cause that. Oh the horror.

[gevalia]

John,

Nope. It's the Combi tank which takes 6 sheets. And the images posted were developed in 2 batches and each of those 2 batches had other sheets along side these that came out with no problems at all.

When I look closely, I see that the trees and the Jetty seem to not be afflicted by the swirling. This is what strikes me as odd. When I forst started developing, I screwed up a few batches and got bubbles and streaks and problems where I did not load enough developer to cover the entire sheet.

"My" Combi tank did have problems in the beginning but I have worked out all of them and now it is a "consistent" breeze to use.

[mcfactor]

It looks like uneven development. I dont think it has anything to do with fog (in the atmosphere or on the film).

3 minutes seems very short for sheet film, perhaps the developer didnt have enough time to evenly develop the sheets.

[gevalia]

Toyon,

Problem is that other sheets developed in the same batch came out without issue.

Just for my own sanity -- when you shoot in dense fog, there is nothing special I need to do? I know this sounds dumb (and I'm kicking myself for even writing it) but I have to ask. You see, I shot 20 or so sheets that day and every one except those in the dense fog came out just as expected.

[Nathan Potter]

You've developed some silver density in areas that should presumably be clear. Furthermore that density is uneven so shows a mottled appearance. There are (particularly in photo #1) some pretty strong swirl marks indicative of a problem during processing. If you can rule out Kens notion above, I'm going to guess that you might have had some developer carry over into stop and or fix so continued to build silver unevenly thru one or both of the subsequent steps. But to do that you will have had to have some light available during those steps. Could this be the case? How long did you use the daylight tank - thru both stop and fix? Ever run into this problem before using the same development scheme?

I can't think of any condition that would produce such an effect during exposure in the field. Condensation on film would be more uniform I would think and on lens or filters would not be imaged on the film.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[panchro-press]

Just a thought; but are you sure they're fixed sufficiently?

[David Vickery]

Well, its an increase in density so its either light leaks or chemical fog--atmospheric conditions would not cause this type of defect.
Can you scan and post the entire negative, including the edges. I think that the only reason you don't see the effect in the shadow area is only because of the increased density in the print in those areas. How did you print these--what is it that you scanned and posted?
I have used the Combi Plan tanks extensively in the past, not as daylight tanks but as a series of small "deep tanks" and I don't see how you can get negatives with these kind of defects and two or three others in the same rack that are perfect. Are you sure that the others are perfect? How are you continuing the processing after the development stage? Are you taking the film out of the rack and putting it into the stop as a stack of film?
Have you considered Light leaks, a fogged box of film?

[hmf]

I agree with David; you are not seeing the swirls in the shadows because of the overall low density of the negatives in those areas, which masks the unevenness in development.

I think you should look at the other negatives that you processed that day. Do any contain broad areas of uniform high density, or are they all the woods photos you mentioned? Perhaps they look fine because they don't contain enough uniform highlight areas to expose (pardon the pun) the development problem.

[gevalia]

Nate,

My routine is to not open the tank until after my 1st rinse.
1. Pre-soak for 3 minutes. I have found that sheets do not stick together in the tank when I do a pre-soak. It also gets rid of the TMAX
2. Developer for 10.5 minutes
3. Water stop bath for 30 seconds
4. Fixer for 6 minutes - the longer fix is needed for TMAX in Prescysol EF.
5. 1st rinse - 5 minutes in tank
6. 2nd rinse (tanks gets opened) - 5 minutes in tank
7. 3rd rinse with wetting agent - 1 minute in tank
8. 4th rinse to clear off wetting agent - 5 minutes running water

[Ken Lee]

"My agitation routine is :
1. Continuous for 1st minute.
2. Then for 10 seconds every 3 minutes thereafter".

If this has worked well in the past for you, I'd be surprised. In 10 minutes, that's only 3 times. It strikes me as insufficient.

The results appear to support that impression.

One suggestion is to agitate more often - and if you still like a time of 10 minutes, adjust the temperature accordingly.

One of the reasons that some people like a time of at least 7-10 ten minutes, is that random irregularities of technique are minimized.

Do you agitate the film when it's in the Fixer ?

Since you mention that other sheets in the same batch came out fine, I wonder if your lens or film had condensation . Was your equipment cold, and then brought out for shooting into warmer, more humid air ? If so, then water might have condensed on the lens surfaces, as well as on the film.

[gevalia]

Ken,

It's semi-stand agitation for Prescysol EF which has worked out well in the past for me. Whether it be hi density or low, semi-stand works for me.


Yes, I agitate while in the fixer. 10 seconds each minute.

I was wondering about condensation also. The problem with being a newbie is that all "issues" are new to you. So I have never seen this before no matter how obvious it might seem to someone else. When everything goes fine, you're happy - not knowing what you don't know.

I'll be looking at the rest of the negs tonight to see if even though I saw no issues, if the same problems are not in the high density areas.


*** THANK YOU all for your help on this. I certainly have enough to figure out what happened
.

[David Vickery]

Are all steps done in the Combi Plan tank with the film rack? If so I don't understand how you could have film that sticks together. But the defects certainly looks like the film was stuck together at some point during processing.

When I first started using the Combi Plan tanks I had development problems because I couldn't seem to get the solutions removed or poured in fast enough to prevent uneven development, so I started using them as deep tanks set up in series so that I didn't have to worry about pouring out the solutions and pouring in the next ones. It is much easier that way.

[gevalia]

Are all steps done in the Combi Plan tank with the film rack? If so I don't understand how you could have film that sticks together. But the defects certainly looks like the film was stuck together at some point during processing.

When I first started using the Combi Plan tanks I had development problems because I couldn't seem to get the solutions removed or poured in fast enough to prevent uneven development, so I started using them as deep tanks set up in series so that I didn't have to worry about pouring out the solutions and pouring in the next ones. It is much easier that way.


David,
Film does *rarely slip off the tracks in the Combi during the process.

I've found a few tricks with the Combi to get pouring much quicker. Along with those tricks I have noticed that as the rubber top ages, it leaks far less than it did when it was new[my copy at least]. A lot less in fact. But like I said in the thread, I've spent a lot of time on my consistency since I had heard that it was where newbies (like myself) always went wrong.

[Toyon]

Is it possible that some of the film was cold and the fog condensated on it? The other possibility is that it was a swirling radioactive fog. I saw a movie about that once, but can't remember the name. Watch for a personality change if the latter is true.

[Filmnut]

I think that this is some kind of processing problem. Large areas of white (dense on the neg) are the most challenging to develop without problems. My experience is that situations like this need extra agitation to prevent uneven development. This does look rather severe though. I have had situations where a low agitation technique works well with a subject with a busy scene, or lots of shadows, but when there are a lot of high density areas the problem rears it's head. This could be why some negs appear normal and some don't.
A previous poster asked if you could scan the neg showing the edges, and I agree that this might be helpful.
A key to insufficient agitation is that the edges will look better than the centre, as there is fresh dev near the edge, but its' weak in the more central areas.
Keith

[CG]

I know this is a bit off topic. Your process kinda makes me wonder what you are trying to accomplish with the wetting agent.


5. 1st rinse - 5 minutes in tank
6. 2nd rinse (tanks gets opened) - 5 minutes in tank
7. 3rd rinse with wetting agent - 1 minute in tank
8. 4th rinse to clear off wetting agent - 5 minutes running water

You use wetting agent then rinse it back out.

I'm not sure I get why you use wetting agent, then remove it. If you don't want it, it might make sense just to not use it, or if you want to use it at a very low concentration, water it down a lot as you mix it up.

Very diluted wetting agent is generally used as the last item since it is supposed to be a part of the prep for drying the film. A smallish amount in the film is intended to help water "sheet" off the film for even drying. That said, many people don't like it and don't use it.

C

[Donald Qualls]

Your agitation pattern is the same that I use for roll film or sheets in my tube tanks (film fully covered and nothing in contact with the emulsion side); I've found that much time between agitations doesn't work well for tray processing a stack of sheets, but it should be find in a Combiplan or similar.

I'd agree with the previous post suggesting this is a pattern that's always been present, but is exacerbated by printing at higher contrast due to the very low contrast scene. If you're already printing at Grade 2 or lower (equivalent) then I'd look for the possibility of film having got damp before exposure, possibly caused by film taken from freezer or refrigerator and not fully warmed to room temp before loading or by condensation in the camera with a film holder significantly colder than the air inside a sun-warmed bellows (high humidity, as in a fog, makes this more likely).

Water can dissolve sensitizing dyes in the emulsion, resulting in local changes in film speed -- lower where the water condensed, higher where it finally pooled before evaporating and leaving excess dye -- that can create patterns very much like what you see.

[Gem Singer]

Looks like moisture condensation on the lens to me. From you description, it sounds like the outdoor conditions were present for lens fogging. Did you check to see if your lens was clean and dry before you clicked the shutter?

[Richard M. Coda]

I'm not familiar with these tanks, but were the affected sheets in a particular position within the tank? Could they have stuck to an inner wall or something?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Then for 10 seconds every 3 minutes thereafter.

I'm sure this is your problem. In my experience, I have found that TMAX films require a slightly more rebust agitation regime than normal. Ten seconds every three minutes will most likely give you mottling...unless you use a developer that is keen on semi-stand development such as pyrocat-hd.

[Turner Reich]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like moisture condensation on the lens to me.

Beat me to it, it's fog, fog on the lens.

[Merg Ross]

Looks like moisture condensation on the lens to me. From you description, it sounds like the outdoor conditions were present for lens fogging. Did you check to see if your lens was clean and dry before you clicked the shutter?

From my experience, this explanation is most likely the cause. Very annoying when it occurs.