[rollei_list] Re: Planar 2.8 coverage
- From: dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 00:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
> Thanks for the reply Dennis. Ok, so assuming it may be due to agitation
> what technique do people recommend? I try to invert and twist at about
> the
> same time, about 4-5 times every 30 seconds, sometimes every minute. Am I
> over-agitating perhaps and creating too much flow on the edges of the
> reels?
> Should I not invert and instead just sort of twirl?
>
> Richard S.
First I should tell you that I am a fan of your work and have your Flikr
stream bookmarked to check up on your new work now and then. I have never
noticed that you have a processing problem. Perhaps you are going to
great lengths to get rid of it in the jpegs. I do see it in the Albany
shore sea scape.
I have processed an awful lot of film and do to this day process for
several other photographers beside myself. I spent an uncounted ungodly
amount of time trying to figure out how to get even processing in a
stainless steel tank. I was never able to do it. It is worse on some
films than others and probably worse with some developers than others. I
would get weired non lateral streaks and edge surge and bubbles and
everything else. I tried ever possible way of twisting and turning and
bumping and grinding and anything else you could think of and never was
able completely get rid of it. It was even worse for me with 35mm film.
I process in a dark room anyway so I went with a larger open top tank and
made a stainless steel rod to hold the stainless steel reels and even then
I could not get rid of the processing marks as long as I was trying to
spin and bump and slosh with the film in the developer. It finally
occured to me that if I could completely empty the film reels of developer
by taking them out of the developer entirely and then reimmersing them, I
would have equal fresh developer throughout the reel. So for agitation I
started just lifting the rod full of reels completely out of the developer
tank and then putting it back in. Finally it worked. I have done it that
way now for several years and I get the most even development I have seen.
It is perfect edge to edge even if it is a frame of all sky.
So with that experience I would say that if I was commited to using a
stainless tank with the lid on in the light, I would always put just 3 or
less rolls of 120 in a 4 roll tank and I would not fill the can clear up
with developer, I would leave a large air space that when I inverted the
can would go through the film reels so they empty of developer for a
second. I would not bother with twisting and turning, I would go just
staight over and back over with a bump for air bells. I have not done it
that way but that is what I would try.
I also should say that my surge mark problem was not more than what I saw
with other people. Because I have processed for a lot of other
photographers I was very demanding of perfection. it is one thing to
process your own film and get processing marks. You forgive yourself
readily. It is another thing to hire someone to process your film for you
and then get processing marks. Then you get pissed off and complain.
Just last week I was in a photo place that does my color film and on the
way out a guy from the lab came running out to catch me. They use
stainless steel tanks and process B&W film by hand and the lab guy was
frustrated using XTOL and he was getting surge and weird marks on peoples
film. I told him the same thing, if you want perfect film you have to
process in the dark.
Now I am sure that 20 people will respond with how they do get perfect
film in a can, and I don't doubt it but I could never do it myself.
Dennis
>
>
> On 10/3/07, dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> What I saw on eroustam's image was even plus density coming in from both
>> sides. I have seen this many times from development on reels when there
>> is not even developer exchange across the film. There is more fresh
>> developer on the outside of the reels after agitation than on the inside
>> of the reels. It is a very consistant progression of density from
>> outside
>> to inside. Light leaks would be actually light streaking across the
>> film
>> and would be very inconsistant due to all the variables. It should be
>> more on one side than another and you probably could see some paper
>> texture. Also light leaking in loose rolls is generally located right
>> at
>> the edges and then falls off really quickly where as on eroustams
>> it
>> was a gradual even fall off from edge to center.
>> But you never know for sure till you fix it.
>> Dennis
>> > So it seems from comments in this thread that I may be completely
>> wrong
>> > about light leaks from a loose roll or from the camera's edges
>> allowing
>> > light leaking in? That's what I always thought it was since I got this
>> > problem on negs with my 2.8E Planar and 3.5E3 Xenotar (both real ugly
>> > users)
>> > but negs from my pristine 2.8C Xenotar and my Hasselblads do not have
>> > this....thus I thought it must be a camera issue and not processing
>> since
>> > I
>> > often process negs from a mix of cameras and do not see this across
>> all
>> > the
>> > negs. But people seem pretty set that it's a processing issue. But
>> my
>> > facts seem to fly in the face of that.....
>> >
>> > Comment anyone? Is there a reason it's NOT a loose roll or edge light
>> > leaks
>> > in the camera?
>> >
>> > Richard S.
>> > San Francisco
>> >
>> > See my Commute Photo Blog!
>> > http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/
>> >
>> > My Flickr Page
>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/3/07, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "ERoustom" <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:05 AM
>> >> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Planar 2.8 coverage
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks! This was my first roll in Rodinal, and since
>> >> > Ilford's spec sheet gave one time, and Rodinal gave
>> >> > another, I split the difference, so maybe not enough
>> >> > time. and maybe back to 5 seconds every 10 minutes. I use
>> >> > a stainless steel tank, agitating for the first 10
>> >> > seconds of each minute. Ilftoec HC never gave me this
>> >> > problem, but the grain is much much finer with Rodinal.
>> >> >
>> >> > I wonder though about how tightly the camera is holding
>> >> > the film. This is the same roll that gave me the strange
>> >> > light leak across frames.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks again all.
>> >> >
>> >> > Elias
>> >> >
>> >> Curious about the grain. I've never used Ilfotec HC,
>> >> which is similar to Kodak HC-110 but would expect it to have
>> >> somewhat finer grain than Rodinal. I've used Rodinal mostly
>> >> for sheet film and have never had any problems with it but I
>> >> generally use finer grain developers in tanks. I think the
>> >> main thing with tanks is to have a long enough development
>> >> time to average out irregularities in agitation. However, if
>> >> there are surge effects in the tank they are likely to be
>> >> the same even if the time is increased. The most common
>> >> surge marks in inversion type tanks are increased
>> >> development at the edges of the film due to turbulent flow
>> >> in the interstices of the reels, and sprocket hole marks due
>> >> to turbulent flow through these holes, also causing a
>> >> localized increase in development.
>> >> If you find the problem _is_ due to surging I can only
>> >> suggest using a different type of reel or rotating the tank
>> >> along with inverting it. I was taught this trick long ago
>> >> and its become a habit.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Richard Knoppow
>> >> Los Angeles, CA, USA
>> >> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Rollei List
>> >>
>> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>> >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>> >>
>> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>> >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
>> www.freelists.org
>> >>
>> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
