anyone know what this is?

[zachary]

Ive seen this on two rolls now, and with multiple lenses, so its gotta be either the camera, or the way im developing it. Its like some kind of strange light bleed.

Note the red arrows. Any ideas?

[Valerie]

Looks like surge marks from improper agitation while developing. If you look at your film, you will see that they line up with your sprocket holes. What is your method of agitation once you pour your developer in?

[zachary]

Originally Posted by Valerie

Looks like surge marks from improper agitation while developing. If you look at your film, you will see that they line up with your sprocket holes. What is your method of agitation once you pour your developer in?

Ive been using the agitator that spins the film around. Ill spin it a few times and then let it sit. Should I not be doing that?

[Valerie]

Throw the agitator away....

Agitate film by inverting the tank completely over and back. About 3 inversions in 5 seconds is a good rate (not too fast... you aren't making martinis). But not too slow either or you get the surge marks. After agitating, give the tank a good strong tap on the table to dislodge air bubbles.

[wclavey]

BTW, was it a 2-reel tank and was this the top roll?

I completely agree with what Valerie said, but I have found that it is worse when the developer just barely covers the top of the reel and the liquid streams down through the holes along with some air...

Not scientific, by any means, but I had it a lot worse when I developed 4x5 film using the tank for inversion - - causing marks where the liquid streamed over the spokes of the plastic reel - - and it disappeared when I started doing rotary development.

[venchka]

Along those lines.......
When using the Freestyle clone of the Patterson tanks, 800ml is a safe amount. That volume covers either a 120 spool or 2 35mm spools and then some while leaving room for good fluid turbulence. Since you're using Diafine, there is no reason to skimp on developer.
If all of the above doesn't cure the problem, then look to your camera.

ps: The photo above is cute. Next time get more to the person chimping.

[zachary]

Originally Posted by venchka

Along those lines.......
When using the Freestyle clone of the Patterson tanks, 800ml is a safe amount. That volume covers either a 120 spool or 2 35mm spools and then some while leaving room for good fluid turbulence. Since you're using Diafine, there is no reason to skimp on developer.
If all of the above doesn't cure the problem, then look to your camera.

ps: The photo above is cute. Next time get more to the person chimping.

Hah, that's my buddy chimping,lol.

So for next time, fill the tank all the way, and do inversions? And that will fix this issue? I already threw away my agitator, thanks for the heads up Val.

[venchka]

I didn't say that. I said 800ml.
As an alternative, with the lid off and two reels in the tank, fill the tank with water at least 1/2" over the reels. Or, halfway between the top of the reels & plumb full. Pour that water into a measureing thingie and mark the level.
Personally, I do inversions and rocking. Alternating between the two. Again, Diafine won't care too much. ALSO, 90%+ of the development in Solution B happens instantaneously. Pour B quickly. The tank fills from the bottom. Get B in fast. A funnel that holds a cup or two of liquid works nicely. You can pour and fill the funnel and keep pouring until B is all in. Easier said than typed. Practice.

[zachary]

Originally Posted by venchka

Pour B quickly. The tank fills from the bottom. Get B in fast.

I think that may be the problem, im not pouring it in fast enough.

See, I keep my developer in jugs like these



And it pours kinda slow. I think what ill do from now on is pour it into my big measuring cup and pour that into the developing tank quickly.

That's likely what the issue is.

And I use the Arista plastic tank, FWIW. Very similar to the patterson tanks.

[venchka]

I use the same tank. Formerly sold under the Beseler name. I pour 800ml from a 1 liter bottle into a funnel that fits the opening in the tank. Works for me.



ps: Make sure you attach the retaining clip to the tube above the reel. The reels can slide on the tube during inversion. The clip stops that.

[wclavey]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen (...and I use that term loosely...)

Because the development in solution B happens so quickly and because it happens to exhaustion, there is no need to pour quickly since you are going to let it stand for 3-4 minutes. The development will start instantly (almost) from the bottom progressing to the top and will be completed in probably 30 seconds, running to exhaustion. So, technically speaking, as long as it doesn't take more than 2:30 to fill the tank, you will be fine.

[ronocnikral]

Originally Posted by wclavey

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen (...and I use that term loosely...)

Because the development in solution B happens so quickly and because it happens to exhaustion, there is no need to pour quickly since you are going to let it stand for 3-4 minutes. The development will start instantly (almost) from the bottom progressing to the top and will be completed in probably 30 seconds, running to exhaustion. So, technically speaking, as long as it doesn't take more than 2:30 to fill the tank, you will be fine.

that's what i was going to say. i always just poured from a beaker. inverted for a couple 15-30 seconds, a few taps on the counter and walked away. my understanding is, as long as your time allows for full development, it doesn't matter if you leave in for 3 minutes, or 4 minutes or 15 minutes.

[venchka]

Just trying to eliminate all the variables. Even Diafine has variables. Like 7 drops of Photo-Flo in Solution A. Not 6. Not 8.
Or is it 8?????????????????????? Could be 6. I forget exactly.

If all of that is so, how come a few films have different times listed on the box? Huh?

[ronocnikral]

my understanding is (not a chemist or wannabe photography development chemist)...

solution a goes in, does its thing, attaches thing-a-ma-jigs to the emulsion, out goes a. in comes solution b, and has a reaction with solution a thing-a-ma-jigs to exhaustion.

if anything, solution a is the time dependent one. but, there is something that limits the attack of solution a thing-a-ma-jigs IIRC. i posted a link to a thread at RFF in zeb's, "i love diafine" thread. that's the limit to my chemistry knowledge.

some qualitative observations...things are way contrasty with no pre-soak. westley's pre-soak will help with taming the contrast. i've noticed no difference in development times, but i have done no scientific research on this...

[wclavey]

Wayne - - stay away from those films that have different times! LOL! Photoflo simply eliminates the air bells on films that do not already have a surfactant in the emulsion like the Ilford films do.

Ron - - exactly! doing the pre-soak tames the contrast... so does mixing Solution A 1:1 with water. That's why I do them, especially for pictures I shoot in the TX sun. I am not a chemist (although as a research biologist, I have had more chemistry than most people on the street...), but I suspect that both the pre-soak and the 1:1 dilution processes simply reduce the amount of Sol A absorbed by the emulsion, so even though Sol B runs to exhaustion, there is less of Sol A in the emulsion to exhaust and so the contrast is lower.