PDA

View Full Version : Diagnosing Negative Issue



Pawlowski6132
28-May-2011, 06:53
I just developed 10 8x10 negatives and they're all junk. I'm trying to diagnose the problem. They're all too dense over all. I'm trying to figure out if they're all fogged (not sure how that would happen) overexposed or, over developed.

I'd like to see examples of each somewhere but, have not found anything online. By any chance does anyone know a source online where I can see some examples to help me out?

thanx much folks,

Joe P.

Ken Lee
28-May-2011, 07:04
Why not post one of yours ? Forum members will identify the issue in quick time.

Pawlowski6132
28-May-2011, 07:08
Why not post one of yours ? Forum members will identify the issue in quick time.

I wish I could and, I knew someone would ask. But, I'm in the middle of moving and I don't have my SLR home.

Hmmm. If I could take a picture with my mobile phone and send it somewhere...lemme noodle this one.

Thank you Ken for your post.

Jp

Pawlowski6132
28-May-2011, 07:19
Here are two.

lenser
28-May-2011, 07:31
Looks like it could be over development, but it could also be that combined with over exposure. Look at the film edges where it would have been hidden by the grooves in the film holders. If they are clear, that would almost certainly rule out fog during handling.

If you have access the excellent old (1960's) series,the Time/Life Library of Photography; there is an excellent series of image examples in one of the books showing negative problems including exposure and development issues. That could help with a diagnosis.

Pawlowski6132
28-May-2011, 07:34
Looks like it could be over development, but it could also be that combined with over exposure. Look at the film edges where it would have been hidden by the grooves in the film holders. If they are clear, that would almost certainly rule out fog during handling.

If you have access the excellent old (1960's) series,the Time/Life Library of Photography; there is an excellent series of image examples in one of the books showing negative problems including exposure and development issues. That could help with a diagnosis.

Good fog checking tip.

Funny, I was JUST looking through my Time/Life series. I ca,n't remember which book it was in but I knew I saw there.

I developed in all ranges from six minutes to twelve. All are too dark.

Pawlowski6132
28-May-2011, 08:01
The Time/Life book "The Print" has a variety of examples FYI.

lenser
28-May-2011, 08:04
Just looked it up in mine. The Print....chapter two about negative development including the examples for diagnostics. This series is still incredibly relevant even if forty years old and a bit simplistic. I try to read it through at least once every two or three years and it's surprising how "fresh" the hints and info are.

Ken Lee
28-May-2011, 08:56
Here they are as positives:


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/aaa22.jpg

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/aaa33.jpg

Pawlowski6132
28-May-2011, 09:07
Ugggh.

I'll just tell her they're High Key.

Thank you very much Ken for doing that for me.

Jp

jeroldharter
28-May-2011, 09:48
The pictures of the negatives look overexposed and underdeveloped to me.

Ken Lee
28-May-2011, 09:58
I have learned through hard experience that it's best to use fresh chemistry every time. I now mix my developer and fixer "just in time" as they say. There's never any worry about stock solution going bad.

If we are running a lab or developing film every day, then it makes sense to save time and mix stock solution, because it will get used up in quick time, before any chance of its expiration. For the rest of us though, nothing beats 100% freshness, and the confidence it brings.

There appear to be some streaks or uneven development - but those may be attributable to the cell phone camera, or reflections while you held up the negatives to photograph them. If so, may I ask: how do you agitate your film ?

tgtaylor
28-May-2011, 10:08
I'm just thinking out loud here but you may be able to salvage the images by printing on a higher contrast/grade of paper.

Thomas

lenser
28-May-2011, 10:19
Is Farmer's Reducer still available? Years ago, I was able to do some pretty decent over developing salvage work with that. Those negs printed well on grade 2 paper after treatment.

Pawlowski6132
28-May-2011, 10:22
I agree Ken. I use ABC Pyro, develop one negative at a time in a tray and mix up fresh for each negative. It's actually pretty simple so, why not right?

And yes, I too saw streaks in the negative. I usually don't get that. Perhaps I was not careful during my tray agitation. Too much front to back. Maybe being lazy.




I have learned through hard experience that it's best to use fresh chemistry every time. I now mix my developer and fixer "just in time" as they say. There's never any worry about stock solution going bad.

If we are running a lab or developing film every day, then it makes sense to save time and mix stock solution, because it will get used up in quick time, before any chance of its expiration. For the rest of us though, nothing beats 100% freshness and the confidence it brings.

There appear to be some streaks or uneven development - but those may be attributable to the cell phone camera, or reflections while you held up the negatives to photograph them. If so, may I ask: how do you agitate your film ?

Pawlowski6132
28-May-2011, 10:23
I'm just thinking out loud here but you may be able to salvage the images by printing on a higher contrast/grade of paper.

Thomas

That was my first thought too. I hope we're right.

Pawlowski6132
28-May-2011, 10:24
Is Farmer's Reducer still available? Years ago, I was able to do some pretty decent over developing salvage work with that. Those negs printed well on grade 2 paper after treatment.


Yes, I mix up my own and use it on my prints. I'll look into using it on negatives.

thanx

Ken Lee
28-May-2011, 10:46
One of the advantages of development by inspection - especially using an Infra Red viewing device - is that you see these problems as they arise. We all make mistakes while mixing chemicals, but they can be remedied on the spot if you like.

Before I switched to fresh chemistry every time, I used stock solution, and more than once I discovered - during development - that the solution had gone bad. I simply tossed some metol in the soup, and voila, development proceeded. Seeing the process, I was able to determine when development was done.

Was it perfect ? No. But I haven't lost a negative since. That Infra Red monocular (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#Monocular) has paid for itself many times over.

jeroldharter
28-May-2011, 11:36
...I use ABC Pyro, develop one negative at a time in a tray and mix up fresh for each negative...

If you are processing relatively low volumes of 8x10 film and having any problems with inconsistency, you should give BTZS tubes a try. Just buy two to begin with and see if you like them. You can dry the tubes easily between runs by using a stout dowel rod and a flour sack cloth (lint free) if you need to process several sheets. Two 8x10 tubes at a time is my comfort level.

I have never had any inconsistency with the tubes but I did with tray processing. I wanted to like tray processing because of its low tech simplicity but not at the expense of botching the negatives.

sanking
28-May-2011, 14:14
I have learned through hard experience that it's best to use fresh chemistry every time. I now mix my developer and fixer "just in time" as they say. There's never any worry about stock solution going bad.



Strange how our experiences differ. I started out the other way, always mixing my solutions fresh every time. Over time I found that mixing stock solutions for every developing session was tedious, so I started to mix stock solutions, D76, DK50, and D23 for example. Unfortunately, stock solutions of these chemicals have a relatively short stock life so I experiences some failures from solutions gone bad.

Now I mix my pyro solutions in glycol and never worry about them going bad. The only way they will go bad mixed in glycol is via contamination, otherwise they last for years. So you might go 6-9 months and not use the stock solutions but when you return to it you know with about 99% probability that it will work as well as it did the last time.

Sandy

mdm
28-May-2011, 14:58
D23 is super easy to mix up fresh. It makes sense. I like it and was surprised how quickly it builds density, my first negs developed full strength and 'stab in the dark style' are unscannable but 1:1 is a dream.

Pyrocat is complicated so stock is sensible. I am using a bottle of Pyrocat HD that has been sitting on the shelf for 1 year while I used M. Its fine. I wonder if you were having contamination issues, Ken. What I do is use dry washing soda for part B therefore different utensils and no chance of contamination.

For me Pyrocat M is the most economical because I have a very limited and probably irreplaceable supply of Metol.

Ken Lee
28-May-2011, 15:54
Strange how our experiences differ. I started out the other way, always mixing my solutions fresh every time. Over time I found that mixing stock solutions for every developing session was tedious, so I started to mix stock solutions, D76, DK50, and D23 for example. Unfortunately, stock solutions of these chemicals have a relatively short stock life so I experiences some failures from solutions gone bad.

Now I mix my pyro solutions in glycol and never worry about them going bad. The only way they will go bad mixed in glycol is via contamination, otherwise they last for years. So you might go 6-9 months and not use the stock solutions but when you return to it you know with about 99% probability that it will work as well as it did the last time.

Sandy

Thank you for explaining that Sandy. I develop film only once or twice a month on average, and my self-mixed Pyrocat has always been prepared with water.

Somewhere I got the impression that mixing the glycol-based formula was more of a challenge, so I have never tried it. I will revisit the instructions on the Pyrocat web site (http://pyrocat-hd.com/html/mixing.html). I still have all the chemicals ;)

Bill Poole
28-May-2011, 17:22
One of the advantages of development by inspection - especially using an Infra Red viewing device - is that you see these problems as they arise. We all make mistakes while mixing chemicals, but they can be remedied on the spot if you like.


Sounds wonderful. How do these infrared goggles work with eyeglasses? Does anyone have any experience?

ic-racer
29-May-2011, 14:56
I guess I can't tell anything from the picture of the negatives based on what others are suggesting. They look fine to me. What kind of trouble are you having printing them? What paper grade? Do you have a densitometer? How dense are the highlights? How dense is the film base?

sanking
29-May-2011, 15:20
Somewhere I got the impression that mixing the glycol-based formula was more of a challenge, so I have never tried it. I will revisit the instructions on the Pyrocat web site (http://pyrocat-hd.com/html/mixing.html). I still have all the chemicals ;)

Ken,

It takes very little more time to mix pyro formulas in glycol (or TEA) than in water, and the result is a much longer lasting stock solution. Of course, with two-part pyro formulas we only need to mix Part A in glycol since Part B (the alkaline agent) is very stable in water. The only issue compared to mixing in water is that you need to raise the temperature of the glycol to about 150F or more for the chemicals to go into solution. This can be done with a microwave oven, or water bath. And if you have a hot plate stirrer mixing is super easy as you just place the glycol in a suitable container on the stirrer, allow the solution to reach the required temperature, and add the chemicals one by one.

And of course a hot plate stirrer will be useful for mixing many other photographic chemicals, not just pyro formulas. I consider it one of the most useful purchases I have made for the darkroom.

Sandy

Ken Lee
30-May-2011, 04:17
Sounds wonderful. How do these infrared goggles work with eyeglasses? Does anyone have any experience?

The low-end model I use has a rubber eyecup, and and adjustable eyepiece (diopter correction).

I presume you could remove your glasses and correct it to your vision to some extent. Such correction may not work well if you have pronounced astigmatism, or extreme near/far sightedness.

Precise detail isn't essential to perform Development By Inspection or even loading film for that matter. Being able to discern the extent of development is what really matters.

I jut tried mine while wearing my reading glasses. I could see most of the image. I presume that removing the rubber eyecup would get us closer to the eyepiece. The only danger there, is that without a proper seal, some light from the eyepiece could leak out.

Compared to what we get from a brief glimpse under a dim green bulb, the improvement is dramatic, even if you can't see the fine details.

From my perspective, being able to do DBI is so good, I'd get contact lenses (or a contact lens anyhow) if I had to, just to use the IR monocular.

Ken Lee
30-May-2011, 04:21
It takes very little more time to mix pyro formulas in glycol (or TEA) than in water, and the result is a much longer lasting stock solution. Of course, with two-part pyro formulas we only need to mix Part A in glycol since Part B (the alkaline agent) is very stable in water. The only issue compared to mixing in water is that you need to raise the temperature of the glycol to about 150F or more for the chemicals to go into solution. This can be done with a microwave oven, or water bath. And if you have a hot plate stirrer mixing is super easy as you just place the glycol in a suitable container on the stirrer, allow the solution to reach the required temperature, and add the chemicals one by one.

And of course a hot plate stirrer will be useful for mixing many other photographic chemicals, not just pyro formulas. I consider it one of the most useful purchases I have made for the darkroom.

Excellent - Thank you !