Strange black speckled areas at edge of film (lighter on negative)

[Nikanon99]

Hello, I am getting these strange areas of density in my prints/scans where there is some kind of clumping going on always at the very edges of my film but inside the image area. This is the most recent example of it, and the first image I included is a close up of one of the streak/clumped areas with increased contrast to show whats going on with the grain there, and the last one shows how it looks on a full image (although sometimes it is more obvious than this). This is Ilford FP4 shot at 200, developed in Xtol 1:1 68F for 13 minutes with regular 30 minute agitation on Hewes reels. This has happened to me with any film, in any camera. The constant is my film developing process, and I cannot figure out what is causing this!

[tim.bowman]

That looks kind of like air bubbles during development to me. Is that top edge parallel to the spiral on your reel? I get something similar on 120 if I'm not giving the tank a good rap to dislodge them. The bubbles displace the developer and make the neg thinner along the reel.

[Nikanon99]

I am beginning to think this is what this is. I assume this edge with the issue must have been at the top of the reel. I am trying some experiments with some films to see if I can reproduce or eliminate it based on how I bang the tank. The one I just tested I must have banged it too much because I had a very uneven development from top to bottom of the frame, but didnt see any marks!

[sanchell]

I concur with Tim that this may be partly due to the reel. But I believe it has more to do with the volume of developer than air bubbles. In fact, I don't believe air bubbles have anything to do with the problem you are experiencing - unless you are using carbonated water.

What size tank, how many reels, and what volume of developer per reel are you using?

I believe you meant to write you are agitating every 30 seconds, not minutes. Can you describe your agitation method, including how long your initial agitation is before beginning the 30-second cycle? Agitating for one full minute upon initial induction will reduce or eliminate many problems, such as uneven edge development.

Xtol is a high-acutance developer. Not only will you get better results if you agitate once a minute for 4 inversions or 10 seconds, whichever comes first, but it may also be part of the problem.

I'll know better when you answer the above.

[Nikanon99]

Hello Mr Anchell, in this case of the roll above, I am using a single roll metal tank with plastic cap lids and heavy duty Hewes reels. I am using 250 ml of liquid which I have checked by using a fully spooled reel in the tank and checked the liquid level to be sure it is adequate.

The water I am using is very hard water actually, not carbonated, I am located in Chugwater, Wyoming.

Yes, every 30 seconds, not minutes, typo. I do 5 inversion within about 5 seconds, so as the clock counts down to 35, I agitate by inversion 5 times, then when it hits 5, I do the same. My initial agitation is 30 seconds once the developer is in the tank.

I can give your suggestions a try on the very next roll!

[sanchell]

The problem you are having is caused by both the volume of the developer and your agitation method.

250 ml is not enough developer to ensure optimal development; 350 ml is my recommended minimum. An initial agitation cycle of one full minute is needed with most developers (there are few exceptions; Xtol is not one of them) to prevent defects such as the one you are experiencing.

For the first, use a two-reel development tank with two reels. Place the first reel with the film on the bottom and the second as a spacer on top. Fill the tank with 500ml of working developer. I know it will cost another .75 cents per reel, but do it anyway. Alternatively, you could use a four-reel tank and develop three reels simultaneously, with one empty reel at the top for a spacer. But never develop a single reel in a single reel tank; always use a spacer, and always fill the tank you use with the developer.

As mentioned above, one minute of initial agitation. Then, either 10 seconds or four inversions every minute thereafter. For example, if you get to 10 seconds and have only made 3 inversions, that's fine. If you make 4 inversions and it's only 8 seconds, that's fine, too.

Tap one corner of the tank gently; that is all needed to release any bubbles.

Finally, if you have some loose change and don't know what to spend it on, switch to a two-reel Paterson System 4 plastic developing tank. They hold slightly more volume and allow for faster initial immersion and dumping.

[Nikanon99]

Steve,

The tank is one of those small single reel tanks, it only holds about 275ml at the very most with no film on the reel. With film on the reel it holds about 260ml with no real room for chemical movement. I do have a four reel tank that I fill to 850ml, any more than that and I get bromide streaking as there is no air space for the chemical to move around. It sounds like I should switch to a double reel tank for any single film development! I will give the spacer concept a try on my very next development with my four tank.

I will do the full minute of agitation, as well as try the 10 seconds once a minute agitation method.

Do you prefer the plastic reels to the metal ones for this reason? I would certainly invest in whatever will develop my film better and without these errors.

[Nikanon99]

So I followed the development recommendation exactly as described above, and this time I got a problem I have never seen before with block spots all over the film as seen in the attached image

[Nikanon99]

Steve, I followed the development procedure again, Stock Xtol, 68F, Fomapan 400, 9 minutes with one full minute of inversion agitation, inverting for 10 seconds every minute, leaving one reel of four reels empty for a spacer. I now have much much worse artifacts that I have never gotten in all my days of development. I am assuming these are airbells but in a very strange clustered honeycomb shape

[sanchell]

That is very strange indeed. We need to isolate the problem to find the answer. We can do this by changing one variable at a time.

First, let's clarify your procedure. You are now using a 2-reel tank, correct? Are you filling it with developer, leaving room at the top for an air bubble?

If so, then let's take the next step. Try the same procedure with a different developer; I recommend D-76. Use the same film, tank, agitation method, and volume of developer.

Do this and let me know the results. In the meantime, I will consult with a few sources.

[sanchell]

Bill Troop thinks that this might be a defect in the Foma film. While rare, films are susceptible to defects in manufacture. My memory isn't what it used to be, but in the late '80s or early '90s, as I recall, Kodak produced a batch of film that had defects. They quickly rectified their error when it was discovered.

I would suggest you either try a different film (Ilford would be my recommendation) using the same developer and process or, as I mentioned previously, change the developer. Don't do both at once. Change one variable at a time.

This is also from Bill: There is the slightest possibility that these defects are due to some kind of mineral scum from his water. I think it is more likely a film defect. However, first and foremost, he should not be using tap water.

We'll get to the bottom of this.

[Nikanon99]

Steve,

Commenting back to your second comment first as I think this is most relevant, I believe this is also a defect in the foma film. I just developed two rolls of Kodak Double-X spooled as 35mm and shot at 400 ISO in my new patterson plastic two reel tank ( i purchased this just to try to eliminate the problem), one on each reel. I filled to 600ml and used the same 1 initial minute of inversion agitation, and then agitated every 30 seconds for 5 seconds using the spinning method with the stick until I reached 6 minutes (12 minutes total) and then did another inversion agitation and went back to the spin method until the end. There is not a single mark on either film, it developed perfectly. This is with the same batch of developer that I have been developing the Foma 400 in. I did ANOTHER development in this tank using 600ml of chemical with only one reel occupied and one empty, using the same method as described above and still had quite a few air bubble like marks on it.

My next plan is to mix up another batch of Xtol with distilled water this time ( I never used it before because I have never had a problem with the tap water mixture). It almost seemed to me like something about the foma film and perhaps either the water mixed in with the chemical reactions of the developer was creating some kind of byproduct that resulted in an air bubble directly on the surface. No matter how many different ways I developed and banged the tank more or less or extreme, it would not rid me of the bubbles. But this time, with minimal knocking and using the swirling agitation method chiefly, I have not had an issue. I will probably try going back to the metal tanks and inversion agitation with another film and the new batch to see if I get this problem at all, as the only issue I used to get is the very first one I posted at the top.

[Ian Grant]

It would be useful to know the film format. There have been 120 backing paper issues recently with Foma, Ilford, & Kodak films. While the backing papers differ slightly, they come from the same manufacturer. Apparently one of the components used was changed slightly by a 3rd party supplier, this made it difficult for the film manufacturers and the backing paper company. It also didn't help that these issues showed up only after film had been stored for some time.

Foma films were the worst affected.

Ian

[sanchell]

That is a very strange and unique agitation method, combining the twizel stick with inversion agitation, 30 sec intervals with one minute intervals. My first inclination is to say do one or the other. My second is to say, if it works for you continue doing it.

That said, 30-second intervals are good for creating fine-grain images. One-minute intervals are good for enhancing image sharpness. I suggest you decide what you are after, fine grain or sharpness, and do one or the other, not both.

Remember what I said, though: change one variable at a time.

You asked if I preferred plastic or metal. When I began in 1970, I was told plastic reels could damage your film. That was true as the plastic reels in 1970 absorbed chemistry that could leach out and streak your film. That is no longer a problem, especially with high-quality plastic reels like Paterson's. I far prefer plastic reels and tanks and have since the mid-80s when I made the switch.

[sanchell]

I have one more possibility about what could be causing the black spots. If the developer has not been thoroughly mixed, free floating chemicals can adhere to the emulsion side and inhibit development. I understand that XTOL is only available in 5 L packages for small labs. Five liters is a lot to mix unless you use a magnetic stirrer or similar device - a stirring rod doesn't cut it. It is highly possible that some of the developing agents did not dissolve, causing the problem.

The agents will dissolve on their own if left to stand long enough. So, you may not see free chemicals by this time.

Get back to me regarding the results you are currently having.

[Nikanon99]

Sorry all, I wasn't having any issues and quite a few life events have popped up, but now that I went to try Fomapan 100 again, i STILL have bubble issues!! What is with this film!

Ian, I am only shooting 35mm film.

Steve, I ended up just going with your suggested agitation of 1 full minute, but I am not lightly rapping the tank, I give it a pretty hard bang two or three times, and following up with two inversions followed by two bangs of the tank bottom on the sink for 5 seconds every minute. This has worked flawlessly since last we spoke, even with some Foma films I had shot. Occasionally I see one air bell but its never an issue.

I am only using my two reel patterson plastic tank, and I add 22oz of developer with two rolls on the reels.

Last night developing the same way I have anything else since May, I developed two rolls of Fomapan 100 and once again the air bells are back in force! This is with Xtol diluted 1:1 for 8 minutes and the agitation method described above. I also am only using distilled water mixed developer and distilled water photo-flo with the rest of the steps being tap water based (Which is rather hard).

Fomapan 100 - 021.jpg (91.33 KiB) Viewed 2326 times

Fomapan 100 - 019.jpg (46.49 KiB) Viewed 2326 times

[sanchell]

To recap, you are agitating the film using inversion for one full minute, tapping the edge, letting it sit for one minute, agitating by inversion for 10 seconds, waiting 50 seconds, and repeating for the duration of development. Is this correct? Also, I am "assuming" that you are using the inversion method to agitate instead of swishing the tank around. If the latter, you absolutely must invert the tank for 10 seconds or 5 inversions each development cycle.

You say you only experience the problem with Fomapan. This would indicate to me a problem with Fomapan.

Defects in manufacture

Photo Lab Index (PLI)
Bare Spots (on the film)
Irregular spots of bare film free from emulsion. Caused--very infrequently--by defects in manufacture.

Were you to experience this problem with other films then it might be undissolved chemistry.

Undissolved chemistry

Developing, 10th ed., Jacobson & Jacobson
(32) Small dark or light flecks of irregular form.
Particles of undissolved chemicals in the developer.

Air bells on the negative

Developing, 18th ed., Jacobson & Jacobson
"Clear, well-defined light round spots, sometimes with comet-like tail."

PLI 10th ed.
"Round transparent spots with well-defined edges."

Air bells on the print

Photography, Hornstein and Hart
"Small dark, round blotches or spots with soft edges on prints."

These would also appear on a scanned image.

All three agree that air bells are caused by “air bubbles on the emulsion side of negative which prevent solution from acting upon emulsion.” PLI

The solution to air bells is “proper agitation, and in extreme cases by a preliminary rinse in water before development (presoak).” PLI

One more cause of air bells, consistent with your attachment of April 25, is a developer high in carbonate. Air bells of this kind appear as small, white pinholes. These pinholes print as small black spots with fuzzy edges.

If the problem is air bells, try presoaking for one minute with a wetting agent such as Photographers’ Formulary Form A Flow, and agitate using intermittent cycles and inversion.

If it is undissolved chemistry, stop using XTOL. Five liters of powder cannot be properly dissolved using a paddle or stirring rod in a home lab. You must have a magnetic mixer or something similar.

If the problem is Fomapan, switch to Cinestill or Ilford. But I am highly doubtful that Fomapan is the problem.

[Nikanon99]

Yes, I am agitating for one full minute, tapping the edge, letting it sit for one minute, agitating by inversion for 10 seconds, waiting 50 seconds, and repeating this for the entire duration.

I am now and for this botched development above, using the inversion method only of agitation.

I don't much believe its a problem with Fomapan either, and I still think its air bells partly because you will notice they are always at or near the top of the frame, indicating they are raised to the top like air.

I am indeed presoaking all films before development, but have not used a wetting agent as of yet.

I bought some HC-110 to see if I can eliminate the dissolving of developer particles as an issue, but also perhaps as you suggested, there may be some aspect of Xtol that with Fomapan results in increased air bubbles. I will be shooting a dummy roll and developing in HC-110 this week to see what happens, but have since had no issues in the same Xtol batch with any other film I have developed which includes Cinestill BwXX (double-X), multiple ilford films, and kodak Tri-x.

[sanchell]

Please keep me updated on the results of your test rolls. From what I know, and the research I have done, these are indeed air bells. The question is what is causing them.

[Nikanon99]

Ok, I had a roll of Fomapan 100 left, so I ran it through my Nikon F2 as a dummy roll to test development in HC-110. I still have Edwal LFN ordered, so I didnt have a wetting agent available for this development and wanted to change one variable at a time. I shot the roll at 100, and developed it in HC-110 1+63 at 68F for 10 minutes. I agitated the first full minute, and then let it sit for 50 seconds and agitate for 10 every minute thereafter. Agitation was by inversion which began as soon as the developer was poured into the tank. I gave the tank two good hard bangs on the bottom (as I have with every other film I developed) after agitating. The film did get a presoak, I rinsed once and dumped and then filled with water at 68F and let it sit until the developer was ready, over a minute. The developer was 15ml of HC-110 concentrate mixed with 945ml of distilled water, and the tonality came out great with good even density and tonal range. However, as you will see, especially in pictures with flat even sky, there are again air bubbles. They are not on every frame or as pronounced as they have been, but they are indeed there still. This has not occurred with any film but Fomapan 100 in my developments with HC-110 either. Attached are four examples of one with a lot of marks, one with some, and two with one or no marks at all to show the variability. Also as a sidenote for those curious, this doubled as a test of the Nikon 45mm f2.8P, the top two shots were 1/2000 at f-2.8 and the bottom two were 1/2000 at f-4, showing the excellent unique performance of this amazing compact lens.

[sanchell]

As unlikely as it may seem, it is looking more like Fomapan all the time.

I would like you to do one more test. Repeat exactly what you just did, including the water presoak without wetting agent, with any other film and see if this occurs.

[Nikanon99]

Will do. Stand by for results! Its a shame too because I actually do enjoy this film.. oh well

[sanchell]

Hey! Don't get romantically involved with a film. There are a lot of good ones out there and Foma has no claim to be better than any other. I suggest you try Kodak XX, available from ars-Imago in Europe, or CineStill in the U.S.

[Nikanon99]

It's funny you recommend Kodak Double X, it is my FAVORITE film of all time. Incredible tonality, as sharp as a tack when it needs to be with wonderful out of focus softness, grain that is visible but resolution down to the finest detail. Just a jaw dropping film when I first saw the results at 400 ISO in Xtol.

I attached another development done by the exact same method I did Fomapan 100. This is one of the other offending films I had posted in the past, Agfaphoto APX 400, quite grainy in HC-110 but I wanted to give it a try. You'll notice on these, especially in the highlights, there are none of these air bell marks whatsoever.

[sanchell]

Fine images. The APX renders them nicely.

I'm afraid it appears the problem is indeed Fomapan, as unlikely as that may be. I suggest you stick with APX or XX. Like you, I am a fan of XX. Of course, I used to use Super XX in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes during the 70s, so there is an emotional attachment. Oh, darn, what was that I said about not getting romantically involved with a film?