what went wrong here? (4x5 processing)

[chachi]

please excuse all the dirt and noise on this photo, obv. i've a ways to go in the clean room dept. but this is a photo i processed that has some problems i was wondering if someone here could help me solve.

it was a hard photo to get. i was using HP5 on a really bright day, with a slow shutter. so i had to pull the film to 100, set it for minimum aperture (32) and maximum shutter speed (125-ish) on my graphic and only just edged in on what the meter said was right. and, despite that this contact print is underexposed, it looks like the exposure itself was ok. but what's with all the fog and clouds on it? i am tray processing this in XTol 1:1, and it got the 10.25 suggested by the massive dev chart.

ideas? thanks!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3658/3303655719_55dccfd5c6_o.jpg

[walter23]

Looks like uneven development (obviously) from either bad (insufficient) agitation or incomplete submersion while developing. If the film floats up to the surface you may get something like this as slightly depleted developer accumulates on the surface between agitations, or if you're not agitating enough you might get this kind of problem as well.

Just a guess. I've had similar effects when processing lith prints (which are really sensitive to agitation; it must be extremely even and consistent across the entire print), so I suspect that this film-developer combination is very sensitive to your agitation regimen.

You may want to try a different developer (maybe something more concentrated if this is a fairly weak solution, I've never used Xtol so I don't know).

Really too bad about the development problems here - it's a really nice shot.

[knoche]

I concur. Sure looks like uneven development.
Not sure about what your development time was or your agitation method.
Either your agitation was too weak/inconsistant or the developer was partially exhausted or both.
Kodak warns of uneven development with times less than 4 minutes and also warns that it should mixed immediately prior to use. It also seems that this developer should be used one shot and a sufficient quantity used.
I would suggest moving to rotary tube or tank and perhaps a different developer.
If sticking with Xtol I would suggest a dilution with a longer development time and stronger agitation. Other effects might manifest so you will have to characterize.

I gave up on tray processing along time ago and use a jobo now. You can get a 3010 drum and hand roll it on the counter top and it will give you much more consistent and reliable results. You can always move up to a processor later.
I suspect sadly that the loss of this one image would have paid for the drum... it was a nice shot...
I don't use Xtol preferring other developers. Not sure what I would recommend.

[venchka]

Xtol 1:1 isn't exactly a dilute concentration. I use 1:3 as my standard. It works very well. Unless...have you used the Xtol since this negative was processed? Perhaps the Xtol is about to go off? Otherwise, Xtol 1:1 should be very reliable.

Which leaves us with an agitation problem.

Following up on the above: I processed 4x5 HP5+ and 35mm PanF+ in Jobo tanks on Uniroller and Beseler bases last night. Xtol 1:3. 8 minutes for HP5+ and 7:30 for PanF+. I could have developed both for 8 minutes in the same tank. I am SOLD on Xtol 1:3.

[Archphoto]

When you do tray-processing: emulsion down, please.
A tank is a better solution, I have used one for over 20 years and never had these results.

Peter

[chachi]

thanks for the condolences folks, this was totally one of those "right camera at the right time" moments and to blow the processing so egregiously...agh!

anyway: agitation. yes, i didn't agitate very much, as i'm just working out my process and have read of the grain increase and, apparently, went under the limbo bar with it. the developer is ok, i think, as i have been managing perfectly fine exposures with it since. but i definitely could have agitated a lot more.

i've looked into a tank but so far haven't found one for the right price. it seems like tray dev is pretty stone age around, but i do like that i can shoot HP5 at 5 different speeds and not have to worry about one shot taking a whole tank of dev.

[Bruce Watson]

anyway: agitation. yes, i didn't agitate very much, as i'm just working out my process and have read of the grain increase and, apparently, went under the limbo bar with it. the developer is ok, i think, as i have been managing perfectly fine exposures with it since. but i definitely could have agitated a lot more.

<rant>
It's a myth that agitation directly effects graininess. It does not. Read Haist. Read Henry. Search the literature. It's been well researched; the science shows that there is no direct link between agitation and graininess. None. No evidence. It's a myth.

If you increase agitation without compensating for it, you may increase density. And graininess is directly related to density. This I believe is the source of the myth -- people don't compensate and the more vigorous agitation is then blamed, wrongly, for the increased graininess that comes from the increased density.
</rant>

Anyway, you've learned a valuable lesson. Sufficient agitation is crucial to even development. I learned the same lesson in much the same way. Many (most? nearly all?) of the posters here have learned lessons like this the hard way, so you are in good company.

You'll also find, perhaps, that it's difficult to consistently agitate sheet film in trays; you may get different results on different days. This is what happened to me and why I gave up processing sheet film in trays. I had to go to a Jobo 3010 tank and a CPP-2. The machine provides much more consistent agitation than I could manage manually. I get really consistent development now, batch to batch, and really smooth tonality. Other people do just fine with tray development however so clearly YMMV. Just something to be aware of.

[Archphoto]

As for the tank versus the tray I think you are right.
I have a plastic tank that holds 6 4x5's, not with me though.
It is light sealed so you load it in complete darkness and then you can dev in full light.
Basicly it is a pastic tank with lid and opening for the fluids and a t-shaped holder with end clamp at the opposite end. Was not that expensive.

In case of the agitation: getting some grain is not such a disaster !

If you are handy you can make something electronic that gives a beep every 30 or 60 seconds. It is a good reminder to agitate again.

Peter

[Lenny Eiger]

had to go to a Jobo 3010 tank and a CPP-2. The machine provides much more consistent agitation than I could manage manually.

I also have a Jobo CPP-2, with 3010 drums and a 3005 for the 810's. I have been testing away as I stated last week. Difficult stuff. No conclusions yet. I'm trying Xtol for the first time. I've heard around that one is not supposed to presoak with Xtol. However, we tried this in the Jobo and one of the films had some developer issues like the one that started this thread - altho' nowhere near as bad.

It makes no sense to me at all, I must say. But I don't know enough about Ascorbic acid/phenidone developers. It would seem a presoak would be smoother? What do you guys say...?

If I am hijacking this thread we can start a new one. I don't want to be rude in any way...

TIA

Lenny

[nolindan]

Concur - agitation.

When developing film in a tray you need to lift the film out of the developer periodically - every 30 seconds or so - let it drain and put it back in the tray. See Adams "The Negative" where he describes the technique, but in relation to developing multiple sheets in a stack of negatives.

With the lift and drain technique the negatives will come out evenly developed.

You need to do this with prints also, but as prints are usually developed to completion the mottling isn't noticeable.

[PViapiano]

It would seem a presoak would be smoother? What do you guys say...?


Always pre-soak...it swells the emulsion and prepares it to accept the developer more evenly.

[Andrew O'Neill]

How many sheets did you process together? If you do more than 1 sheet, then a presoak is a must. when I tray process (I usually use tubes), it's one sheet at a time, baby!

[chachi]

i just do one at a time. but i *did not* lift and rotate, which i will now do.

[Bruce Watson]

If I am hijacking this thread we can start a new one. I don't want to be rude in any way...

Start the new thread. Don't want to hijack the OP's thread which is really about tray processing. Drum processing is sufficiently different, and presoaking an interesting enough concept that it probably should see it's own thread, IMHO of course.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

When you do tray-processing: emulsion down, please.
A tank is a better solution, I have used one for over 20 years and never had these results.

Peter

Well, I've learnt and have successfully used emulsion up. This is also the way it's described in most texts etc. I've read.

Apart from that, I agree that this looks like uneven processing. Maybe the sheet(s) have floated on the surface for a while ...
Anyhow, there are plenty of threads and advice on tray processing, most written by people who have done this for decades.

//Björn

[Rolfe Tessem]

I also have a Jobo CPP-2, with 3010 drums and a 3005 for the 810's. I have been testing away as I stated last week. Difficult stuff. No conclusions yet. I'm trying Xtol for the first time. I've heard around that one is not supposed to presoak with Xtol. However, we tried this in the Jobo and one of the films had some developer issues like the one that started this thread - altho' nowhere near as bad.

It makes no sense to me at all, I must say. But I don't know enough about Ascorbic acid/phenidone developers. It would seem a presoak would be smoother? What do you guys say...?

TIA

Lenny


I believe the notion that one is not supposed to presoak with Xtol is bogus. Here is what I think happened: When the Jobo first came out, all we had were times for inversion processing. In an effort to save everyone massive amounts of time in testing every available combination in rotary processors, Jobo did some testing and determined that a 5 minute presoak just about exactly offset the decrease in development time from the continuous agitation.

This worked pretty well for most people, at least as a starting point. Then Kodak came out with Xtol, the first new developer to be introduced after the rotary processor was in wide use. Kodak did the testing for rotary processing themselves and published those times, as well as the ones for inversion processing. The Kodak times for rotary processors did not include a pre-wet.

I think this is the origin of the myth that you shouldn't pre-wet with Xtol. It isn't that you shouldn't -- it is just that if you don't want to, Kodak has done the testing for you and published the times. You can also use a 5 minute pre-wet and the inversion processing times and wind up at the same place.

[Filmnut]

I also concur that this is classic under agitation. One point to be aware of, is that a subject like this usually (in my experience) needs more agitation than a typical busy shot. The high density areas need more developer to process correctly.
After some similar failures on subjects like these, I will tend to over agitate, to make sure that I don't lose the shot due to under agitation, but in trays there is an increased risk of scratches.
I also often use Xtol at 1:1, and tray process, but I agree with other posters who suggest using a Jobo, it works well.
Keith

[Thomas Greutmann]

please excuse all the dirt and noise on this photo, obv. i've a ways to go in the clean room dept. but this is a photo i processed that has some problems i was wondering if someone here could help me solve.

it was a hard photo to get. i was using HP5 on a really bright day, with a slow shutter. so i had to pull the film to 100, set it for minimum aperture (32) and maximum shutter speed (125-ish) on my graphic and only just edged in on what the meter said was right. and, despite that this contact print is underexposed, it looks like the exposure itself was ok. but what's with all the fog and clouds on it? i am tray processing this in XTol 1:1, and it got the 10.25 suggested by the massive dev chart.

ideas? thanks!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3658/3303655719_55dccfd5c6_o.jpg

An alternative error source: I had a couple of negatives with similar patterns a while ago, and input from this forum helped me to sort it out. The reason was not a lack of agitation, I was using rotary tube development. Most likely, it was due to the fact that the negatives got exposed to moisture before development, which caused the uneven effects.

Since your picture was taken in a "wet" environment, this is something that you may want to check as well.

Greetings, Thomas

[Doremus Scudder]

Your problem looks like agitation issues to me as well (it could be underfixing also however. It so, there would be opaque or milky patches visible on your negative. If so, refix in fresh fixer).

Tray processing, like most low-tech procedures, non-machine-controlled, requires a greater amount of attention and skill from the "operator." If agitation is the culprit here, you need to hone your technique so that this does not happen again.

FWIW, here is my tray-developing technique for 4x5 film. I use pyro developers and Kodak HC-110 primarily. Pryo developers are very finicky when it comes to agitation, hence the rather fiddly system I've developed. It does, however, produce very evenly developed negs.

I use deep 5x7 Paterson or similar trays (they hold more solution). 5x7 size trays help prevent the sheets from moving around too much and getting crosswise, thus reducing the potential for scratches.

Presoak. It makes for more even developing since the diffusion of developer into the emulsion is slower and more regular.

I like to develop six sheets at a time. Up to eight sheets is doable, but the agitation gets a bit hectic. Smaller numbers are easy.

After the presoak, immerse the sheets, emulsion side up, one at a time (I use five second intervals) in the developer. This ensures that each sheet gets even and thorough contact with the developer. I tried emulsion-side-down for a while and got uneven developing due to turbulence caused by the grooves in the bottom of the tray. Emulsion-side up eliminates this problem. There is a greater chance of scratching negatives processing emulsion-side-up, however, so use care!

After initial immersion, shuffle through the stack of film, taking one sheet from the bottom, removing it completely from the developer, and replacing it back (flat) on top of the solution. Do not push the film down quickly through the developer, it will cause uneven development (too much around the edges). Instead, gently coax the sheet down till it contacts the stack. Try to keep the films aligned in a stack at all times.

I shuffle my films along the short dimension. I find it easier to get the bottom film to clear the stack.

Shuffle as fast as practical for the first minute, then reduce the shuffling frequency to once through the stack every 30 seconds. This ensures similar agitation for any number of films in the stack. Example: six sheets-one shuffle every five seconds; two sheets-one shuffle every 15 seconds.

Pick up the entire stack and rotate it 180-degrees every couple minutes for the first half of developing. This also guards against uneven development.

At the halfway point, switch to once through the stack every minute. This slower agitation encourages compensation and edge effects. Since you have more time to do the agitation now, you can now rotate each sheet 180-degrees when you shuffle. Some recommend 90-degrees, but I have found that to be unwieldy and an invitation to scratching.

Keep track of the sheets as you develop. I turn sheet one 180-degrees opposed to the rest of the stack for easy identification. Shortly before the the end of the developing time, stop shuffling with sheet one on the bottom. Pick up the entire stack and let it drain for 10 seconds or so while gently fanning the stack from the bottom like a hand of cards.

Immerse the film in the stop-bath one at a time in the same sequence as you used for the developer. This ensures that each sheet gets exactly the same developing time and is stopped quickly. (For the subsequent transfer to the fix, you can just pick up and immerse the whole stack).

After stop, transfer the whole stack to the fix and shuffle once through. Then start the clock. Fix, shuffling as fast as comfortable. No need to rotate sheets, just make sure that adequate and complete fixing is taking place.

Rinse, wash and dry.

Some caveats: Tray developing makes it easy to scratch negatives if you are not careful. Practice in the light and then with the lights out (or your eyes closed :-)) until you are comfortable with the procedure. Keeping the films oriented correctly in the stack is essential, as is making sure you do not gouge film with the corner of the film you are immersing from the top when shuffling.

Sometimes films stick or get crossed up. If so, don't try to keep your agitation tempo up, rather take the time you need to carefully get things straightened out and back in order. Better to get out of sequence than scratch a negative.

Once you have the knack, tray processing is reliable, even, cheap and is often faster (and offers more options) than machine or tank processing. I just processed 150-plus negatives from a trip and had absolutely no processing defects. That said, tray processing requires skill, dexterity and constant attention. Don't let your attention stray, don't process tired or in "altered states" unless you like scratches!

Hope this helps.

Doremus Scudder

[chachi]

ask and ye shall receive, apparently. i found a CPE-2 with lift and a bunch of tanks at a garage sale for $60. the guy used it extensively for color and was not neat, so now i just have to figure how do i clean off old chemicals and get the 4x5 holders and loader...

[203Ektar]

Your problem looks like agitation issues to me as well (it could be underfixing also however. It so, there would be opaque or milky patches visible on your negative. If so, refix in fresh fixer).

Tray processing, like most low-tech procedures, non-machine-controlled, requires a greater amount of attention and skill from the "operator." If agitation is the culprit here, you need to hone your technique so that this does not happen again.

FWIW, here is my tray-developing technique for 4x5 film....

(Big snip)

Thanks for posting this. I am not the original poster to this thread, but I have found your advice to be very helpful. I plan to make my first attempts at tray developing soon, and your method should help me to get past the learning curve faster. Thanks again for taking the time to share your methods.

Mike Sullivan

[Andrew O'Neill]

When you do tray-processing: emulsion down, please.
A tank is a better solution, I have used one for over 20 years and never had these results.

For multiple sheet development. Of course, single sheet is emulsion up.

[mandoman7]

To me the character of the splotches look more like under-fixing. If so, that is easily corrected by fixing again with fresh fixer and washing.

Inadequate agitation, particularly at the outset, can often be a problem but it doesn't usually look like the example presented. You could put a negative in developer and never agitate and it wouldn't look that splotchy, I would guess. Agitation problems can usually be identified as flow patterns of some kind around the negative edges, or larger general areas of underdevelopment. You typically won't find localized uneven development in the center of the negative, as the flow patterns are broader in the center.

JY

[mandoman7]

For multiple sheet development. Of course, single sheet is emulsion up.

A single sheet of 8x10 developed with the emulsion up will have greater development at the edges if you push on the center, making the developer rush over the film's perimeter. The up or down question itself isn't so much the issue as is the question of how is new developer being introduced to the emulsion. With interleaving multiple sheets, the emulsion down method gives a full and immediate exposure to new developer with each rotation.

You can go with the emulsion up on a single sheet, but I would take the sheet out and re-insert in the developer in a way that gives a complete exposure to new developer without sloshing. There's a test for even development, where solid zone VII exposure is given to a sheet which, when later developed, reveals irregularities. I shot a small career's worth of negatives before conducting this test and what a mistake that was.

I've only been participating in this forum for a couple of months, but I'm amazed at how little testing people do before shooting important shots. No film speed or development tests, just get the time from a chart and off they go. This is a craft, people.:D

JY