Almost completely clear film, first time ever, WTF?

[David R Munson]

I've been developing my own b&w film for a solid 15 years now and I've got things pretty well worked out. Of course I still make mistakes from time to time, but not anything major any more.

But tonight, for the first time ever in 15 years, I had film come out completely clear. This was roll film, but I wanted to ask here because I trust you guys more than other forum groups. The obvious answer is that I put the fixer in first by accident, but I've never done that and I'm totally paranoid about doing that so I make sure by all practical means that I don't.

Is there *anything* else that can happen and make it look like you fixed it first? I have gone over it a hundred times in my head and I just can't figure it out. I measured the developer, mixed it, put it it, etc as usual. Everything was like it always was and yet....not frame numbers on the film edges, a little tiny black streak from a light leak along the edge of the film at one point, and extremely faint, not-remotely-salvageable suggestions of images on the film itself. The fact that there's that little tiny dark edge from a light leak at the end of the roll makes me think that I did, in fact, use developer first, but that something went horribly wrong. Thing is, I used the same developer at the same dilution before and after this on other batches of film with zero problems. The only thing that was different was the type of film. I considered that it might have been extremely underdeveloped, but at the time I used even if it were under, it still would have been a hell of a lot closer to normal than to clear.

This is driving me nuts. I'm stumped. Any ideas?

[BrianShaw]

Is it possible that you loaded the film into the camera incorrectly, with the backing paper facing the lens?

[Kevin Crisp]

Film popped off take up reel and didn't advance?

[Brian C. Miller]

There could have been a problem with the developer. If the developer became contaminated, or otherwise lost its potency, then you would be seeing the same results.

The key here is that there is, in fact, something on the film. Your developer was the culprit, not the chemical sequence. I can't imagine that you misloaded the film, or that it popped off a sprocket or something like that. The developer somehow died, and so the images weren't developed.

What developer did you use?

[Jim Noel]

If you can read the printing along the edge, you can eliminate developer as the problem. That leaves, not going through the camera, shutter not working and fixing first.

[bob carnie]

If there is no numbers and arrows then it was into the fix first.
unexposed but developed roll film will still show the numbers.

[ic-racer]

a little tiny black streak from a light leak along the edge of the film at one point, ?

Severe underdevelopment. Have you used this film before? If not, try double the time with your next roll of that film. Otherwise I suspect a dilution error in mixing the developer.

[David R Munson]

If there is no numbers and arrows then it was into the fix first.
unexposed but developed roll film will still show the numbers.

No numbers, no arrows, but ever so slight images visible with frames the length of the roll, and a dark streak along the edge from fog, but if I had put in the fix first that streak wouldn't have been there either, right?

There were frames barely visible, so the film was advancing, and other rolls of film from that day came out fine without any camera problems.


What developer did you use?

HC-110 Dilution G, which is a high dilution, but in three years of using dilution G almost exclusively, I've never run into this at all.

I remain baffled.

[David R Munson]

Severe underdevelopment. Have you used this film before? If not, try double the time with your next roll of that film. Otherwise I suspect a dilution error in mixing the developer.

I've used this film and this developer before, both together and separately, never had a problem with Pan F+ that wasn't due to some boneheaded exposure mistake on my part, which wasn't the case.

[jnantz]

pan f is asa 50 did you expose for asa 400 by mistake,
and then not develop according to the new asa ?

[David R Munson]

I thought of that, but didn't meter wrong any of the other rolls from that day, and were that the case wouldn't I still have frame numbers? The only thing I can think of is that when I mixed the developer I just mis-mixed it absent-mindedly. This would explain the weirdness and why I don't remember anything being different from usual.

[bob carnie]

David - no numbers but a faint image,,, then I can only think a developer issue. severe underdevelopment.
Bob

I thought of that, but didn't meter wrong any of the other rolls from that day, and were that the case wouldn't I still have frame numbers? The only thing I can think of is that when I mixed the developer I just mis-mixed it absent-mindedly. This would explain the weirdness and why I don't remember anything being different from usual.

[David R Munson]

Tomorrow I'm going to take another roll shot at the same speed with the same camera and give it the same treatment. I'll report back with what happens. If this one goes funky, too, I'll know it was something more than just a fluke.

[tgtaylor]

A while back i developed 10 sheets of Fuji Acros B&W in a Jobo 3010. One sheet came out completely blank - nothing on the rebate. Initially I thought that I had forgotten to pull the dark slide, which happens occasionally, but after thinking about it I now belive that sheet was a defect: it came out blank because there was no emulsion deposited on it.

Thomas

[Fred L]

Xtol by any chance ?

[Sevo]

He said HC110 dil. G. At such a low dilution, a minor carry-back from the stop or fix will kill the developer - even water impurities or a few hours delay between preparation of the working solution and development might do so.

[David R Munson]

FWIW I don't use acid stop (only water) and cleeeeeeearly-marked graduates. Before I give things another shot tomorrow, though, I'll be giving all of them a good scrub just in case.

[Fred L]

sorry, missed that key detail ;) haven't used HC110 in years, how dilute is G ?

[Ken Lee]

Weaker stop bath shouldn't matter. Weaker stop means more development, which means denser results. That ain't it. If there are no numbers, then it's exhausted developer, contamination or low temperature.

Yesterday I developed some sheets: the film sat in the fixer without clearing. Because I use an IR monocular I noticed it, and upon sniffing the fixer, discovered that there was no Ammonium Thiosulfite: I forgot to add it when mixing the fixer. I was listening to the radio and the show was too interesting I guess.

So I added the missing ingredient (in the dark of course) and everything turned out fine. That InfraaRed monocular paid for itself... again I'm afraid :rolleyes:

My guess is that you forgot to add the HC-110: your developer was simply water.

[Bill Burk]

OK, I think I got it.

You switched the stop (water) and developer.

So your film got about 45 seconds development.

[Merg Ross]

OK, I think I got it.

You switched the stop (water) and developer.

So your film got about 45 seconds development.

Good thought!

[David R Munson]

I just did a single roll test using the same variables last night and precisely the same thing happened. As in, it looks EXACTLY the same. What I don't get is why it's happening with Pan F+, but when I do batches with Tri-X and Tri-X Pan in precisely the same developer/dilution, the negatives are snappy, contrasty, and have plenty of density. What's different about Pan F+?

[David R Munson]

The plot thickens.

I just did a test roll of Pan F+ in D-76 1:1 and produced the same (mostly clear) results as with the HC-110. Granted, the D-76 is getting on in age, but it produced precisely the same results as the HC-110, which is known to be good and is otherwise producing excellent results with other films.

This doesn't make any sense.

[cyrus]

Left the lens cap on?
Yeah doesn'[t make sense but all I can think of...

[David R Munson]

For 4+ rolls with an SLR? ;)

[cyrus]

For 4+ rolls with an SLR? ;)

Are you sure the camera is working? Uptake spool uptaking? Shutter shuttering? etc.

[David R Munson]

Definitely working just fine. There are ghost frames there on the film, tiny bits of detail that are visible but too far gone to salvage with intensification, etc. The frame numbers and arrows on the edge of the film are equally undeveloped/faint. It's not fixer first by accident (that's been thoroughly ruled out at this stage), and the same developer is giving normal results with other films.

[Merg Ross]

... the same developer is giving normal results with other films.

Other films shot prior to, or after the current batch?

[Fred L]

Maybe it's time to introduce an external factor and have someone else soup a roll of your film for you ? or someone can give you a roll of their Pan F for you to process ? I know it's reaching...

Truly baffling and if the other films came out fine, then I can only think of bad film but what are the odds of that ?

Have you contacted Ilford with the film batch number to see if they have in info ?

[David R Munson]

Other films shot prior to, or after the current batch?

All of the film comes out of my backlog of undeveloped film, and represents rolls I've shot under a variety of circumstances over the last two years. That applies to the Pan F+ as well as the Tri-X, Tri-X Pan, and other emulsions I'm working through.


Maybe it's time to introduce an external factor and have someone else soup a roll of your film for you ? or someone can give you a roll of their Pan F for you to process ? I know it's reaching...

Truly baffling and if the other films came out fine, then I can only think of bad film but what are the odds of that ?

Have you contacted Ilford with the film batch number to see if they have in info ?

I'm in Taiwan at the moment and don't know anyone else here doing film development, otherwise I'd give it a shot.

I would contact Ilford, but this all comes out of the 50 rolls of Pan F+ I bought a couple years ago. This is the tail end of that film, and the vast majority of it (all of it up to now) has developed just fine.

There's something odd going on that I'm not seeing. If the developer was bad, that would be one thing and would have meant that the other emulsions I've developed after the bad rolls of Pan F+ would have also come out badly, but that's simply not the case.

[Bill Burk]

This is getting interesting. I don't use Ilford film much so can't offer too much pointed guidance...

What size/format film is it? How long and what temp did you develop at? What EI did you shoot at? Is this European HC110 G=(1:36.5) or US HC110 G=(1:119)? How much liquid volume did you use?

[David R Munson]

Bill - this is 120 size Pan F+ shot at EI 32. Development time was 8 minutes at 81º F (hooray for "cold" tap water in the tropics!), and it was US HC-110 Dilution G (1+31 from stock). Liquid volume was 16 US fluid ounces in a small steel tank that holds 1x 120 reel.

The results would make you think that there wasn't enough active developer in solution to develop the film, but if that were the case, why can I develop two rolls of Tri-X 35mm or 1 roll of 120 Tri-X in the same volume of the same dilution of the same batch of developer with perfect results?

[Bill Burk]

Do you have any un-shot rolls of this PanF+? Or are you sacrificing one live roll with each experiment? I'd up the ante and use D-76 stock 1+0 for twice the time just to see if I could get an image out of it. But if you have to keep losing live shots it's not worth it. Can you "burn" a test strip on the tail of the film just to make sure you are getting development?

[David R Munson]

Bill - I'll check my film drawer (yes, there's a drawer of it) to see if I have any more on hand. If I do, I'll shoot a test roll and intentionally fog the crap out of the tail end of it. I'll develop that before I do any other rolls of existing/shot Pan F+. I don't even know what's on most of this backlogged film, but all the same I'd rather not keep losing random rolls of film to an unknown problem.

Edit: Alas, no more Pan F+ in the unexposed film stock, though I did find a roll of Tech Pan that expired in 1996...

[Merg Ross]

All of the film comes out of my backlog of undeveloped film, and represents rolls I've shot under a variety of circumstances over the last two years. That applies to the Pan F+ as well as the Tri-X, Tri-X Pan, and other emulsions I'm working through.


Same lens, camera, shutter, and filter at all times for the backlogged film? Let's rule out any mechanical problems.

[David R Munson]

Yeah, the vast majority of the film was shot on the same Mamiya 645 with the same two lenses, the rest having been shot on a Pentax 67. Neither camera has ever given me faulty results and negatives I've shot over the last 2+ years with them are all just fine, with the exception of the Pan F+. In the last week I've developed film from a range of shoots and times over that period of time, right up to the last few weeks of shooting. Thing is, too, if it were a mechanical problem I'd still have the frame numbers and whatnot on the edges of the film, right?

[Bill Burk]

I've been hitting the first and last half inch of my 120 film with test strip exposures lately. When the film loaded correctly these are clear anyway. Good luck.

[polyglot]

Your previous (successful) development of the Pan-F: did it use the same dilution of developer? Have you tried it with a more-concentrated developer?

Admittedly, seeing it fail with D76 is surprising and makes me strongly suspect contamination of some of your developing equipment.

Any chance you got a nice big thumbprint of fixer on a few rolls and are contaminating the spirals with your hands while loading or something?

How long ago were these rolls exposed? I've known the edge-markings on Pan-F in particular to come out dramatically faint sometimes, which indicates that maybe the film has an unusual propensity to lose exposure in certain conditions. In my case the film was newly (within 3 days) exposed, so the images came out perfectly even though the edge markings were nearly gone.

[Sevo]

I would contact Ilford, but this all comes out of the 50 rolls of Pan F+ I bought a couple years ago. This is the tail end of that film, and the vast majority of it (all of it up to now) has developed just fine.


"A couple of years", so presumably deep into expiration? How long was the time between exposure and development? And how is the weather in Taiwan?

I don't think I ever used Pan F+. But it might share the habits of its predecessor. Old Pan F lost its latent image much sooner than all currently common film types, and that property got worse as it aged and in hot conditions - I once lost the entire black and white parts of a travel reportage to the latter effect.

Sevo

[David R Munson]

That sounds like it could be the culprit. Most of this film was exposed at least a year ago and now I'm catching up on all of it. I recently found an espcially rogue roll of Tri-X that I exposed some five years ago and it came out of development like I had bought and exposed the film the day before development. If it were to lose latent image especially quickly, that would be a very good explanation of why this is happening when batches of other films are coming out just fine all around it. In fact, so far that's the only explanation that fits what's happening. It isn't contamination with fixer, it isn't doing stuff in the wrong order, it's happening with multiple developers, etc.

What I'll do tonight is load a single roll of the Pan F, put it in some more potent (dil. B) HC-110, and just develop it for a really, really long time, see what happens. At this point, all the images on that film may be lost anyway, so why not?

[David R Munson]

Slight results! I developed a single roll of Pan F+ for 2 hours. Twice as much density, though still not enough to be useful. Tomorrow I'll do something even more extreme, like stock D-76 all day while I'm at work...

[polyglot]

Slight results! I developed a single roll of Pan F+ for 2 hours. Twice as much density, though still not enough to be useful. Tomorrow I'll do something even more extreme, like stock D-76 all day while I'm at work...

That's, er, a pretty epic length of development! Was it stand or with agitation?

I would suggest that a more-concentrated developer might be a better option, e.g. Rodinal 1+10, with continuous agitation if you have a rotary machine. It's not like it's going to go all grainy. Although semi-stand is probably good in case the loss of latent image is worse in the shadows.

[ki6mf]

Did not read all the replies so will throw this in. Did you pour in fixer first? I have done that on occasion! The Results are clear film.

[Sevo]

Did not read all the replies so will throw this in. Did you pour in fixer first? I have done that on occasion! The Results are clear film.

We're long though with all that - he's tried two developers and made several attempts, and everything but the Pan F+ comes out fine given a similar treatment. As the films had been stored for a year or more between exposure and development it is a pretty safe bet that that behaviour is due to the (known and published, see the Ilford spec sheet or http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/003xtM) unusually short longevity of the Pan F+ latent image. If you cannot develop Pan F+ within days after exposure, freeze it!

[BrianShaw]

We're long though with all that ...

Great recap. Perhaps the thread should be trimmed to just the original post and your posting! :D

[David R Munson]

That's, er, a pretty epic length of development! Was it stand or with agitation?

I would suggest that a more-concentrated developer might be a better option, e.g. Rodinal 1+10, with continuous agitation if you have a rotary machine. It's not like it's going to go all grainy. Although semi-stand is probably good in case the loss of latent image is worse in the shadows.

It was intermittent agitation probably about 5 minutes on average, or about whenever I wandered through the room while cleaning the apartment and working on other things.

I'll probably try one more roll with some absurd level of development, but if that comes out as the others have, I'll just toss the remaining five rolls and consider them a loss. Lesson learned. I don't intend to let such a backlog build up again, and when I shoot Pan F+ again I'll be sure to develop it pretty much immediately.

[E. von Hoegh]

I shot some Tri-X in Salzburg, Austria, in late 1978. The undeveloped roll sat in my Father's attic until 1987; broiling hot summers and fridgid winters. When developed, the images had degraded quite a bit (!) but were still printable through a base fog and clumpy grain. I was surprised they were as good as they were considering the conditions.

[Eric Rose]

Would almost make you loose some blood in the snow.

[Ken Lee]

Refrigeration may be the answer next time. As I recall, exposed b&w film from a famed but failed Polar expedition was discovered many decades later, and when developed, yielded good images.

[Louie Powell]

Was the developer fresh? Was the developer properly diluted? And was it properly mixed? I had a similar problem many years ago with a fresh batch of HC110 - the problem turned out to be that I had made up a new batch of stock solution, but did not stir it sufficiently. So the stock was far more concentrated at the bottom of the bottle than at the top, and when I poured stock to make the working solution, the resulting dilution was far too weak.

[Jan Normandale]

David, I've read this entire thread and my first thought was expired developer or some developer based issue but that has been covered. FWIW I'd suggest trying what X.phot suggested.

An alternative would be to shoot another roll of different film like Delta 100 in the same camera film and develop it with the Pan F+ at the same time. Since image quality isn't the driver that would tell quickly if it's developer issue for the Pan F+ / HC110 combo. The developing times with Dil B are pretty close so you can tell fast if theres an issue with the film or the developer.

[Jim Michael]

What temperature was the developer? I had an accident a couple of years ago in which I relied on a bad reading when diluting developer and had some extremely thin negs.

[David R Munson]

Thanks for the continued replies, everyone, but the solution has been worked out. :) The equipment, temperature, dilution, developer, etc are all fine. Every variable aside from the film itself (specifically the Pan F+ emulsion) has checked out. The problem is the weird latent image characteristics of Pan F+ and its tendency to fade quickly if not developed shortly after exposure. In the last couple of weeks I've developed close to 100 sheets of 4x5 and 60 rolls of 35mm and 120, all of it using the same sorts of times, dilutions, the same batch of developer, etc and the Pan F+ is the only thing to go awry. The short-lived latent image and the fact that this film was exposed at least six months ago and mostly closer to two years ago explains the phenomenon perfectly.

[Fred L]

I'm surprised that Pan F shows this characteristic. Of all films, I would have thought this slow speed would weather better. I've processed 10 year old Tri X and Tmax and aside from some pretty good fog, there was normal density otherwise.

If one were on a long trip/ project with no way to have the film processed in a timely manner, this would be a major problem.

[Sevo]

I'm surprised that Pan F shows this characteristic. Of all films, I would have thought this slow speed would weather better

No, it is pretty common among slow films, the Efke films I've tried and Agfapan 25 don't like being stored after exposure as well - not quite to Pan F dimensions, but still visibly worse than any ISO 100-400 film. That is, fast speeds weather better. Even ultra-fast tends to vanish in background fog rather than lose the latent image as many slow thin emulsion films do.

[David R Munson]

If one were on a long trip/ project with no way to have the film processed in a timely manner, this would be a major problem.

This is what has struck me most about all of this, actually. Yeah, I'll have lost close to a dozen rolls worth of images on this film, but had I not known this and mounted a major, remote project using this film, it could have been outright disastrous. I understand why Ilford doesn't advertise this particular shortcoming of the film, but honestly I'm surprised this is the first I've heard of it, considering that it could permanently sour a lot of people on an otherwise excellent emulsion if this particular characteristic were sprung on those people after the fact when trying to catch up on development. It's a bit of a rude awakening.

[Jan Normandale]

David, do you think there would be any difference if you used a developer other than HC110 like D76 ?

[David R Munson]

I did use D-76 for a roll with no perceivable difference, unfortunately. This weekend I'll conduct further tests with the remaining rolls to see if I can get anything useful out of them, probably using full-strength D-76 and development for most of a day.

[Bill Burk]

Now that the problem has been identified, it may be worth a little digging on developing old film with old latent images. I quickly checked advice for "developing old film" and found recommendation to use HC110 because it is low fogging. Use dilution B because it is stronger. Use warmer temp to reduce time in developer, also keeps fog low. I didn't see any advice on restrainers, but my gut tells me there is no need to restrain anything in your case.

You have to be careful to skip advice relating to old expired film and recent latent images - there is a lot of that mixed in with search results. Advice related to fresh images on old film is irrelevant in your case. A fresh image "starts the clock" all over again.