Failure First Attempt

[nray]

I made my first attempt at developing 4x5 negatives. (T-Max 400) I tried two sheets and when I turned the lights on the film was translucent. I used Pyrocat-HD and TF-4 fixer.

My sequence(@70F):
1) soaked 2 minutes in distilled water
2) 12 minutes Pyrocat (10 second agitation/min.)
3) 1 minute water bath
4) 5 minutes TF-4 fixer (30 second agitation/min.)
5) 15 min. rinse

The pyrocat tray was black the first time and the second time the pyrocat tray was dark and the water bath tray was black.

After development I put the film back in the pre-soaking tray for the minute. I was having slight difficulty in keeping the temp. at 70F. It crept up to 73F the first time. Second time was accurate.

So, I screwed up somehow. I used 400ml in each tray.

-4ml each A&B Pyrocat/400 ml distilled water.
-133ml fixer/400 ml distilled water

My A&B concentrate is 100ml.

Any ideas/suggestions what went wrong, I would appreciate.

Thanks.
Norm Ray

[Herb Cunningham]

I presume you mean the sheets were clear? If they were black, over exposure or bad fogging- I am assuming clear:
If you got your pyrocat from a vendor, the developer was bad. I had this happen early on, and the developer from the vendor was the culprit.
I make up my own pyrocat now and have never had the problem again.

You might try a test shot with 1:25 developer from the same batch. If that works, it may just be weak.

[Mike Anderson]

What does the film look like? solid black? translucent?

...Mike

[nray]

I presume you mean the sheets were clear? If they were black, over exposure or bad fogging- I am assuming clear:
If you got your pyrocat from a vendor, the developer was bad. I had this happen early on, and the developer from the vendor was the culprit.
I make up my own pyrocat now and have never had the problem again.

You might try a test shot with 1:25 developer from the same batch. If that works, it may just be weak.


What does the film look like? solid black? translucent?

...Mike

I'm sorry, they were translucent. I made up my own developer from the powdered chemicals.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm sorry, they were translucent. I made up my own developer from the powdered chemicals.

In addition to potential developer problems is it possible that the film was never exposed? Like you didn't pull the dark slide or the shutter never tripped or the shutter tripped but the aperture was closed? Or you processed the wrong sheets of film? I'll never forget coming back from a week-long photography trip with about 75 clear sheets of film - using Readyloads, the film had come up along with the outside envelope every time it was pulled.

[nray]

In addition to potential developer problems is it possible that the film was never exposed? Like you didn't pull the dark slide or the shutter never tripped or the shutter tripped but the aperture was closed? Or you processed the wrong sheets of film? I'll never forget coming back from a week-long photography trip with about 75 clear sheets of film - using Readyloads, the film had come up along with the outside envelope every time it was pulled.

Yeah, I though of that. I used brand new film holders. I reversed the dark slide to show they were exposed. Shutter tripped. I don't know. Frustrating.

[Gem Singer]

"The Pyrocat turned black after use".

Are you sure that you mixed the powdered chemicals correctly?

The pre-soak water usually turns a dark color due to the anti-halation dye dissolving out.

However, the Pyrocat developing solution should remain clear.

Also, try mixing solution A with 200ml water and solution B with 200ml water. Then mix the two together when you are ready to develop the film.

400ml seems like a very small amount for tray development.

I use 500ml to develop one roll of 120 film in a Paterson tank.

[Ken Lee]

It's probably a few dollars well-spent to purchase a set of 1/2 liter bottles from Photographer's Formulary, pre-mixed. This way you'll get to see what things should look like.


Pyrocat HD oxidizes fairly quickly once A & B are combined, so use it soon after you mix it. I use Sterilite food containers (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/devtray.html), since they are tall and deep, but narrow (like a canyon). There is much less chance of oxidation than when using a tray. Trays are wide and shallow - just the opposite of what we want.

Like Gem says, use more solution. I never use less than 1 liter.

[Ken Lee]

On a related note: A friend of mine once took an "Introduction to Photography" class, where the first assignment was to simply take an elevator to the top of a tall building, and throw a 10-dollar bill into the wind. :) I don't know who the instructor was, but whoever it was, was a wise soul.

[BradS]

On a related note: A friend of mine once took an "Introduction to Photography" class, where the first assignment was to simply take an elevator to the top of a tall building, and throw a 10-dollar bill into the wind. :) I don't know who the instructor was, but whoever it was, was a wise soul.

Wow! That is an excellent assignment. I've never heard of it before. Thanks.

[Eric Brody]

If you are just starting, perhaps using a commercial, commonly used developer from a major manufacturer will increase your chances of success. Take your pick. Since you're in the US, try a Kodak product. Expose one blank sheet to full sun as a test. Check any results for the edge markings, if they're not exposed for some reason, at least you'll know the developer's ok if the edge markings are developed.

Good luck.

Eric

[nray]

Pyrocat HD oxidizes fairly quickly once A & B are combined, so use it soon after you mix it. I use Sterilite food containers (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/devtray.html), since they are tall and deep, but narrow (like a canyon). There is much less chance of oxidation than when using a tray. Trays are wide and shallow - just the opposite of what we want.


I bought some Rubbermaid food containers (8"L x 5.5"W x 2"Deep) that seemed to fit nicely for doing a few sheets at a time? The 400ml was nice and deep in this container.


On a related note: A friend of mine once took an "Introduction to Photography" class, where the first assignment was to simply take an elevator to the top of a tall building, and throw a 10-dollar bill into the wind. :) I don't know who the instructor was, but whoever it was, was a wise soul.

The teacher must not have been married. Mine's more frugal. :)


If you are just starting, perhaps using a commercial, commonly used developer from a major manufacturer will increase your chances of success. Take your pick. Since you're in the US, try a Kodak product.
Eric

Are there big differences in the developers or is it just fine tuning to the needs?

Thanks for the replies. I appreciate it.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Define "translucent". Is there any image at all? Can you sort of see one or are the sheets completely clear and just look like sheets of clear plastic? And you are sure that you mixed in both A and B and not A and A? A friend of mine did that once. He wasted 4 sheets.
If there is even a hint of an image, perhaps 4ml of each solution isn't enough. For me, I use 10ml each of solutions A and B, in trays or tubes.

[Eric Brody]

The only reason I suggested a commercial developer is to decrease the possibility of user error in mixing. While I do not use pyro developers, they obviously work for a lot of people. I'm just trying to simplify for figuring out what went wrong. I have always used commercial developers, probably laziness. I have a friend and mentor whose work is exquisite. I always use the same film and chemistry that he does. I certainly do not have his talent but at least I'm using the same raw materials.

Eric

[nray]

Define "translucent". Is there any image at all? Can you sort of see one or are the sheets completely clear and just look like sheets of clear plastic? And you are sure that you mixed in both A and B and not A and A? A friend of mine did that once. He wasted 4 sheets.
If there is even a hint of an image, perhaps 4ml of each solution isn't enough. For me, I use 10ml each of solutions A and B, in trays or tubes.

They were clear sheets with a slight stain. Nothing on them. I've have had developed 120 T-max and I know the negative can be very light, but this was a clear sheet with no image. Nothing.

I mixed A&B which were in two different type bottles. I used 4ml. Increasing the concentration will alter the development time then or do you keep it the same?

[nolindan]

I second the suggestion to use a 'standard commercial' developer. Kodak HC-110 and D-76 are reliable and cheap.

Re "I mixed A&B which were in two different bottles...": I hope you didn't mix the whole of bottle 'A' with the whole of bottle 'B' ... pyro developers have a 15 minute life after you mix A & B. They should be mixed immediately before use.

[Gem Singer]

From your description, it's sounding more and more like the failure occurred when you mixed the Pyrocat-HD developer from powder.

I suggest purchasing the 10 liter liquid Pyrocat-HD in glycol kit from the Photographer's Formulary in Montana (www.photoformulary.com). The ingredients in Part A are mixed with glycol instead of water. This is very effective way to prevent oxidation and increase the shelf life of the concentrate.

Follow the instructions included with the developer kit. No matter whether you are using at total of 500ml or 1000ml of developing solution, the developing time remains the same as long as the temperature does not vary by a great amount.

For example: mix 5ml soln. A in 250ml water. Mix 5ml soln. B in 250ml water. When you are ready to use it, mix the two parts together to make a total of 500ml of developer. Do not mix concentrated soln. A directly with concentrated soln. B.

I find that the developing time seems to be more sensitive to the type and the amount of agitation than to slight temperature variations.

Also, TF-4 fixer can be re-used until it reaches it's capacity. Filter out any black specks of silver in the soln. through a coffee filter.

[al olson]

. . .
The pyrocat tray was black the first time and the second time the pyrocat tray was dark and the water bath tray was black.

After development I put the film back in the pre-soaking tray for the minute. I was having slight difficulty in keeping the temp. at 70F. It crept up to 73F the first time. Second time was accurate.
. . .

I am assuming that you are using fresh developer for each sheet, hence the second pyrocat tray is not black, but dark.

I don't see temperature causing a problem here. The 73F will increase the density/contrast slightly, but you don't have an image at all.

Are you getting the dye color in the presoak water? Is it the same color as the pyrocat after development? I am not sure why the second pyrocat tray would be lighter, but the water bath would be black, unless your presoak was longer the second time.

Anyway back to basics. No image implies (1) inadequate exposure or (2) lack of development.

(1) You say that you know you have pulled the dark slide. Have you checked the shutter to ensure that it has been opening? Did you load the holders with the emulsion toward the lens?

(2)
They were clear sheets with a slight stain. Nothing on them. I've have had developed 120 T-max and I know the negative can be very light, but this was a clear sheet with no image. Nothing.

I presume that this means you have successfully developed 120 film in pyrocat. Otherwise I would suspect that somehow your developer has become contaminated either in the powder form or after part A and part B have been mixed. Even if part A and part B had been reversed I would expect an image.

How long ago did you mix part A and part B as stock solutions? I would not expect them to go bad as my experience with PMK Pyro obtained from Photographer's Formulary is that they come premixed and I have not had problems using them over a long period of time.

If you mixed fresh developer (i.e. part A with part B) for each sheet, my suggestion would be to assume inadequate exposure and to go back and review your procedure. Follow the suggestions made by others above to make certain the film is exposed.

Keep us informed as to what you find.

[sanking]

I second the suggestion to use a 'standard commercial' developer. Kodak HC-110 and D-76 are reliable and cheap.

Re "I mixed A&B which were in two different bottles...": I hope you didn't mix the whole of bottle 'A' with the whole of bottle 'B' ... pyro developers have a 15 minute life after you mix A & B. They should be mixed immediately before use.

I need to correct that. The life of a working solution of Pyrocat-HD is two or three hours, not 15 minutes.

Sandy King

[nray]

Thank you for the help. Still unsure of what the problem was. I separately mixed in 4ml each A&B concentrate into 400ml water. The pre-soak water was very dark but the developer was also dark. It could be that no image was recorded. I will make another run at it and also recheck my lens operation.

(Al, I sent out my 120 film to be developed and when I got it back I thought I messed up because I could barely see an image there. But, it scanned beautifully. Also, I screwed up and did not pre-soak my first image but instead put into the developer tray by accident. I should have omitted this from my initial comments. )

[Andrew O'Neill]

I need to correct that. The life of a working solution of Pyrocat-HD is two or three hours, not 15 minutes

I second this. I've left a working solution sitting in a mixing container for 2 periods of hockey and it worked fine.

[nray]

Haha...I think I figured out my problem. I just went out to take some more shots. As soon as I went to pull out the dark slide I realized what I must have done wrong. This is my first time using the double sided film holders. I must have pulled out the wrong slide both times, exposing the side away from the lens. :o I'm sorry guys. Thanks for the help though. I will definitely find out if that was the problem as soon as I make another attempt at development.

[Ken Lee]

Excellent - Now you know why most of us secretly use point-and-shoot digital cameras for our real work :)

[Robert Hughes]

Excellent - Now you know why most of us secretly use point-and-shoot digital cameras for our real work :)
Perhaps we should rename this site the "Closet Digicam Photography Forum" ;)

[Rick A]

I'm glad you figured out what you did wrong. I was going to ask if you had the film loaded backwards in the holder.

[J D Clark]

Actually, I'm not sure this explains the problem yet -- if you pulled the darkslide next to the ground glass (away from the lens), wouldn't the film be very dense because it was exposed for many seconds or minutes, and the film edge beneath the film holder be clear?

John Clark
www.johndclark.com





Haha...I think I figured out my problem. I just went out to take some more shots. As soon as I went to pull out the dark slide I realized what I must have done wrong. This is my first time using the double sided film holders. I must have pulled out the wrong slide both times, exposing the side away from the lens. :o I'm sorry guys. Thanks for the help though. I will definitely find out if that was the problem as soon as I make another attempt at development.

[nray]

Actually, I'm not sure this explains the problem yet -- if you pulled the darkslide next to the ground glass (away from the lens), wouldn't the film be very dense because it was exposed for many seconds or minutes, and the film edge beneath the film holder be clear?

John Clark
www.johndclark.com

I thought about that too. But, if overexposed enough (400iso) wouldn't it be clear?

[al olson]

I thought about that too. But, if overexposed enough (400iso) wouldn't it be clear?

No-o-o-o, I don't think so. Exposure to light builds up density on the negative, at least until reciprocity failure takes over, which would take a long, long exposure. I don't think the exposure would be evenly distributed, either.

I suppose it is possible that there is a light seal between the back and the back side of the holder, but then I would expect there to be some light leaks. This should leave fogging streaks on your negatives, but as you say, they are clear.

However, removing the wrong dark slide is a maneuver that many of us have accomplished at one time or another. That wastes a sheet of film, but I don't think it is the cause of your problem.

Are you certain that you are loading the holders with the emulsion out?

[nray]

However, removing the wrong dark slide is a maneuver that many of us have accomplished at one time or another. That wastes a sheet of film, but I don't think it is the cause of your problem.

Are you certain that you are loading the holders with the emulsion out?

I am pretty sure. Notch, on top right or lower right side depending on load. Right?

[RPNugent]

http://www.butzi.net/articles/filmload.htm

one orientation's right is anothers left see here for certainty that you are loading correctly

[nray]

http://www.butzi.net/articles/filmload.htm

one orientation's right is anothers left see here for certainty that you are loading correctly

Yes. That's how I loaded them.

[J D Clark]

I can think of one scenario where, if you pulled the wrong darkslide you would get no density on the film: Since you mentioned negatives in the plural, we'll assume you have two film holders. Insert the film holder in the camera, pull the back (wrong) darkslide, trip the shutter (thus not exposing the film toward the lens), pull the film holder out and use the next film holder. I.e., not flipping the film holder to the other side, so you would have one un-exposed film and one completely exposed film in each holder.

However, that's such an unlikely event that I think the problem comes back to your developer, or your shutter. Assuming that when you trip the shutter looking in the back of the camera and see the shutter open, then I believe your problem is with the developer.

I would get a bottle of HC110 (my most familiar) or a package of D76, both nearly bulletproof developers, and for HC110, put 1 ounce of the syrup in 31-32 ounces of water (dilution B) -- if you've got any exposure on the film, sloshing the film around in that for 5-6 minutes *will* give you some density. That experiment will give you the evidence that implicates the developer.

When I need to run an experiment like that (for focus, and other questions), I just set up two 5x7 trays, first with 12 ounces of HC110, and next tray with fixer (2-3 minutes). Wash for a minute or so under running water, and hang to dry for a bit. I don't expect to keep these negatives, but the quick and cheap test can identify problems very easily...

John Clark
www.johndclark.com

[sanking]

Loading the film the wrong way would not be the reason for clear film because the film would still get exposed, albeit with about two or three stops underexposure.


The only thing (at least the main three things IMO) that can explain perfectly clear film is,

1. The film did not get exposed at all, for whatever reason.

2. The developer was not mixed correctly, either in mixing the stock solutions or in mixing the working solutions.

3. The film was placed in fixer before development.

At one time or another I have done all three of these things.

Sandy King

[Brian Ellis]

I am pretty sure. Notch, on top right or lower right side depending on load. Right?

Right. And even if you load the film backwards, an image is usually still produced, just a fairly faint one.

[nray]

I want to order some HC-110 for comparison to determine my failure. Can I use my TF-4 fixer for that? Can I also just use water for the stop bath?

Thanks.
Norm Ray

[RPNugent]

yes and yes

[nray]

yes and yes

Thank you. I did a 15 minute Internet search and couldn't find a definite answer.

[nray]

Well, I did it! I used HC-110. I did not use the Pyrocat because I didn't want to take the chance of losing the church negative. (Still not sure if I mixed the Pyrocat powder kit correctly) When mixing the powders into solution do they have to be in an exact order? I will shoot some more and test the Pyrocat again.

HC-110 12.5ml/388ml water in small trays.
-2 min soak.
-7.5 min @ 68F. (2 min. initial agitation followed by 10 sec./min.)
-1 min bath
-5 min. TF-4 Fixer (30 sec./min. agitation)

I used my D90 for the exposure @400iso. F22@1/125

This first one looks a little over exposed to me.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o131/nray53/Scan-203.jpg


http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o131/nray53/Scan-202.jpg

How do they look to you?

Thanks.

[Louie Powell]

Right. And even if you load the film backwards, an image is usually still produced, just a fairly faint one.

And as I demonstrated to myself recently, the image isn't very sharp.

One of the joys of LF is that there are so many more ways to screw up.

Was this your first outing with LF - new camera, new process (holders), new darkroom techniques, new developer.

Sounds like too many new variables.

[Andrew Tymon]

Congrats! Yes you usually mix solutions in the order they are given(if you did not do this with the pyrocat I would ditch the part A, though the part b will still be good). They look fine on my monitor. I would stick with the HC110 as it seems to work for you.
Andy

[Brian Ellis]

I want to order some HC-110 for comparison to determine my failure. Can I use my TF-4 fixer for that? Can I also just use water for the stop bath?

Thanks.
Norm Ray

Yes to the developer, technically "yes" to using water as a stop bath in the sense that you can do almost anything you want but it's not a good practice IMHO. Stop bath does more than just stop development which water doesn't, it's dirt cheap, and it can be used over and over. Why not use it?

[Brian Ellis]

I would say your first one isn't overexposed so much as it's a little over-developed though whether anything is "overexposed" or "overdeveloped" depends on what you wanted the photograph to look like. But assuming you wanted the darkest areas (the grass in the lower right corner) to either be totally dark or dark but with a small amount of texture, you've achieved that (recognizing that you can't really judge a print on a computer monitor) with the correct exposure. To the extent that there's a problem (and to me, looking at the image on my monitor, there isn't much of one) I'd say the brighter midtones and highlights are a little too bright. A little less development time - something on the order of 10% - 20% - would have brought them down to something perhaps more to your liking.

Both scenes are fairly difficult to photograph if the idea is to preserve detail or texture throughout because of what appears to be a big difference between the darkest areas - the grass in the first one, the tree leaves in the second - and the brightest (presumably the sky), a situation that often calls for "overexposure" to retain detail or texture in the darkest areas and "under-development" to reduce the brightness of the brightest areas (again recognizing that there's no such thing as "overexposure" and "under-development," there's just "correct exposure" and "correct development" and "correctness" depends on what you wanted the photograph to look like when printed. Do these two photographs represent what you had in mind when you made them - if so, then exposure and development were correct, if not then they weren't.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't think either image is over-exposed. It is under-exposed and over-developed. Do some zone I tests to determine which EI (ISO) will get you up on the curve for better shadow separation. Then do some development tests with this new EI.

[nray]

Just ordered "The Negative".
I'll be back. :) Thanks for the help.