Developing film

[Shibang]

Hi All,

Does anybody here develop their own film and maybe offer some advice?

I took some test shots so I could try and develop myself and see how it turned out.

I mixed the develop, stop, fix and wetting agent as suggested and went through the processing as suggested but the final result was just a dark grey film.

No sign of any images or even what looks like the negative is anywhere near correctly processed.

I don't think I did anything incorrect loading the film onto the reels as this was all done in complete darkness and loaded into the developing canister in darkness also.

Regards,

Gary

[John 2]

Hi Gary, whatever the cause, it sounds like your film is fogged. I'm assuming BTW that when you say the final result was just dark grey film you mean all of the emulsion surface and you can't see the separate exposure areas. That's generally down to a light leakage somewhere. I could be that the film is old stock but this isn't often the cause, on any film camera the back might not be light tight or you may be allowing light in somewhere in your developing workflow. If you can see the individual exposure areas i.e. the separate image frames but they are greyed out, it is likely that the problem is in front of the film plane. If you are using an old bellows camera, the bellows might be suspect or you may have a sticking shutter. Doesn't sound good but hope this helps.

[Manfred M]

It definitely sounds like a light leak to me. Normal B&W film emulsion has a touch of a grey cast and completely exposed film (like the leader) is visually black.

How even is the overall grey cast on the film?

[Shibang]

Thanks for the reply John

I attached a shot of the film so you can see for yourself how it turned out.

[John 2]

Gary, it doesn't look like it is in front of the film plane. You can only go through a process of elimination. I would load some film and leave it in the camera for a couple of days and then have it processed commercially. If the bit that is out of the cassette goes the same way, suspect the camera otherwise, suspect your developing kit. Also, if you can, ask someone else to put a film through their camera but you develop it. If the same thing happens have a good look at your developing technique and kit.

[Manfred M]

Gary - strangely enough; that looks like the back side unprocessed film; I assume that this is just the image and in fact it is a touch darker in real life.

Anything that gives you such an even grey is 100% light exposure; a more minor light leak would give you streaking, etc.

[Saorsa]

It looks to me like it was never actually developed. There are makers markings on most films that would show up regardless of fogging. If it were fogging from a light leak I wouldn't expect it to be so uniform.

[pnodrog]

What film, developer and developer dilution, temperature and time were you using?

It does look like light getting on the film at some stage.

[pnodrog]

It looks to me like it was never actually developed. There are makers markings on most films that would show up regardless of fogging. If it were fogging from a light leak I wouldn't expect it to be so uniform.

Undeveloped film (in good condition) when fixed correctly should be clear just showing film type and numbering along an edge.

[John 2]

It looks to me like it was never actually developed. There are makers markings on most films that would show up regardless of fogging. If it were fogging from a light leak I wouldn't expect it to be so uniform.

Manufacturers markings are generally burned on optically not printed on as with ink. They would disappear on a totally exposed film. Re looking at your image of the film, there is just a suggestion on the RHS of the shape of a frame. Is it? The only other possibility I can think of is that you may have used the wrong developer for the film. E.g. some B/W films require a C41 process some require more traditional developers.

[pnodrog]

Manufacturers markings are generally burned on optically not printed on as with ink. They would disappear on a totally exposed film. Re looking at your image of the film, there is just a suggestion on the RHS of the shape of a frame. Is it? The only other possibility I can think of is that you may have used the wrong developer for the film. E.g. some B/W films require a C41 process some require more traditional developers.

John it maybe part of the problem but a C41 film processed with a normal B&W developer will usually still show a low contrast low density image.

So long since I have done it that I cannot remember if the film ID will be present or not if the development step is skipped. I do know the film will be essentially clear if it has not been developed but has been fixed.

[Manfred M]

It has definitely been developed as I can see frame numbers (32) and other markings (Kodak 400TX), I think when I view it at 500%

[pnodrog]

Developing at 68 deg centigrade rather than 68 deg Fahrenheit I suspect would do it.....

[Manfred M]

Developing at 68 deg centigrade rather than 68 deg Fahrenheit I suspect would do it.....

At 68C I would expect to see bubbled and retriculated emulsion...

[pnodrog]

If any emulsion remained attached... But we can not assume anything much at this stage.

[Manfred M]

If any emulsion remained attached... But we can not assume anything much at this stage.

Agreed. The only thing that we can assume is that the development / stop / fix process worked and that the film was not exposed to so much light that it wiped out the manufacturer's optically burned in markings on the emulsion.

[Shibang]

Hi All

Theses are the links to the liquids I bought, I got these as my brother-in-law has been developing film for around 20 years and is happy with the results he gets from these.

He is going to go over his process but you know how it is when you just can't wait

http://www.macodirect.de/compard-shot-500ml-p-1185.html
http://www.macodirect.de/maco-ecocit...ter-p-296.html
http://www.macodirect.de/maco-ecofix-liter-p-292.html
http://www.macodirect.de/compard-wet...0ml-p-293.html

I developed in a Paterson Super System 4

I think I misread the lable on the developer bottle though.

According to the bottle.

1 part cencentrate to 25 or 50 parts water at 20c

Kodak T-MAX 400 mixed at 1:25 for 6 minutes
Kodak T-MAX 400 mixed at 1:50 for 11 minutes

I developed for 12 minutes, not sure if that could cause this.

The stop says 50ml concentrate + 950mm water for 1 minutes at 20c.

[Manfred M]

Even if you accidentally push-processed the film, you should still have seen something other than what you show here. There should have been details, even with overdevelopment.

I think a major light leak is still your main suspect.

[Shibang]

Hi All,

I tried a roll of Rollei retro 100 in a different camera and processed the same way apart from 1 extra minute in the developing fluid as that's what the bottle said for this type of film.

I shot half the film then developed and from what I can see it looks ok.

The film has images and the other half is blank but clear enough to see through it so it looks like the first camera needs looking at. Another project to see how to fix light seal issues

I'm going to look for a negative scanner so if anybody has any suggestions I would be happy to know. I'm thinking about the Epson v500 as they are not too expensive while I learn and can pick them up even cheaper used.

If anybody is interested, the first was a Minolta SRT 101 with a Minolta 50mm 1.7, second was a Canon Canonet GIII ql17.

Thanks all for the help.

As ever CIC wins.

Regards,

Gary

[Saorsa]

Manufacturers markings are generally burned on optically not printed on as with ink. They would disappear on a totally exposed film. Re looking at your image of the film, there is just a suggestion on the RHS of the shape of a frame. Is it? The only other possibility I can think of is that you may have used the wrong developer for the film. E.g. some B/W films require a C41 process some require more traditional developers.

I understand the makers marking. In this case, then I think the back of the camera is the source of the light leak. The makers markings would normally be masked behind the film track and not exposed even if there were a leak in the bellows or lens mount.