Snafoobartslow
Hello everyone,
I’m new to the forum and have just got back into developing black-and-white film. Back in the 90s, it was my daily bread as a freelancer for the local newspaper. Now I develop the films and scan them just for the fun of it, and so far it’s working out pretty well, just as I’d hoped.
I’ve only had one strange problem since getting back into it, which I didn’t experience before: after development and drying, crystals stick to the emulsion side of the film, similar in shape and sometimes as big as grains of salt from a salt shaker. You really have to rub the film quite vigorously with a cloth to get them off. I don’t do that (except as a test) to avoid scratches, but prefer to stamp the white spots out in Lightroom – at least in landscape photos that’s relatively easy, but with faces it gets tricky. This seems to be unevenly distributed across the film. The attached image shows a negative that’s unusually badly affected.
Films where I’ve noticed this: APX 100 and 400 (left over from the 90s), and more recently: Fomapan 200, HP5+. I haven’t noticed this with Pan F.
My process:
- Fomadon Excel developer, usually 1+1.5; prepared as a stock solution using a 1-litre pack of demineralised water (canister from the supermarket), then diluted to working solution with Brita-filtered tap water (which is quite hard here)
- As a stop bath, 80 ml of 25% (kitchen) vinegar essence topped up to 1 litre (with Brita-filtered water) <= Could any salts be precipitating here? My next test would be using only filtered water.
- Initially Adofix Plus 1+4 with tap water, now as a trial 1+7 with filtered water => no improvement
- Rinsing: Ilford method with tap water, now increased to 5x-10x-20x-30x, plus a good rinse before and after and between each rinse cycle
- Wetting agent: a few drops of Adoflo in demineralised water
- Hang up the film and simply let it dry
This way I don’t get any drying spots or scratches, just these stupid blobs. I don’t know if they form during drying or appear beforehand, which is why I’m struggling with the stripping process.
Has anyone ever had this happen? What was the solution? If not, what could it be?
Thanks and best regards,
Christoph
[attachment=3425]
Wolf_XL
...I’ve been using nothing but tap water as a stop bath for over fifty years – it’s always worked... I’m no chemist, but I could well imagine that the acidic stop bath might react with the developer in some undesirable way...
KlausWehner
Hello Christoph,
A warm welcome to the forum.
It’s a shame that your return to analogue photography is being hampered by such problems during the development of Diener film.
Together, we’ll find the cause of the problem.
Particles that large on the film are certainly unusual.
In my opinion, the following causes are possible:
1. Developer (possibly no longer fresh or stored in unsuitable conditions).
2. Fixing bath
3. Tap water (limescale)
To troubleshoot:
to be on the safe side, please give each prepared bath a good shake and pour it into a glass.
Can you see any suspended particles?
Please check a water sample in the same way. Sometimes limescale comes out of the pipes.
If these tests come back clear (which I suspect they will), then we can take it a step further.
When did you prepare your negative developer?
Best regards
Klaus
Snafoobartslow
Hello and thank you for your replies!
I prepared the developer about two weeks ago. It was still very hot then, and I’d assumed that the demineralised water had also reached the room temperature of around 30°C – but no such luck; I had to stir it for ages, and when I measured it, it was only around 25°C. In any case, I checked very thoroughly for suspended particles afterwards, and everything was crystal clear. Now, during the swirling test instructed by Mr Wehner (room temperature just under 20°C), if you look very closely, you can actually see tiny particles in the (still unused) stock solution. It’s similar with the stop bath and the fixing bath, but those are currently four films old.
After preparing the stock solution, I divide it into four 250ml vials, and it could be that crystal formation was particularly severe whenever I used the residue of a vial of stock solution where the particles had settled at the bottom. Unfortunately, I can’t remember exactly whether, for the Pan F films that ultimately had no crystal deposits, I used water instead of a stop bath (initially I had developed a few films that way, but given the high temperatures and shorter development times, I preferred to use a stop bath). From this, one could derive the hypothesis: particles in the stock solution that continue to precipitate on contact with acetic acid and then form these crystals. Possible solutions: filter the stock solution before diluting (how? Probably not with a coffee filter?), rinse very thoroughly with water after development, as Wolf suggests, instead of using a stop bath. I probably won’t get round to it before the weekend.
Of course, next time I prepare the stock solution, I’ll make sure the temperature is 30°C and that it’s completely dissolved.
Best regards,
Christoph
KlausWehner
Thanks, Christoph!
That’s already a step in the right direction.
Did you prepare all three solutions using demineralised water?
If so, it’s possible that undissolved particles from the developer were carried over into the other two baths.
The phenidone in the negative developer is difficult to dissolve in water.
Perhaps you could check your negatives again carefully:
If you removed the crystals by hand, are there any black spots visible on the negatives?
In some cases, it is indeed possible to do without the stop bath.
However, to be on the safe side, I would always fix using the ‘two-bath fixing method’.
This ensures reliable results and makes full use of the baths.
Best regards,
Klaus
Snafoobartslow
Hi Klaus,
I mixed the current stop and fixing bath using water filtered through a Brita filter and left to stand for a few days. There are no suspended particles visible in the water bottle. It seems likely that the particles in the stop and fixing bath come from the botched developer.
When I rub vigorously on an affected negative, some of the crystals come off without a trace, whilst others leave black residues on the negative – see the images (the one right before ‘cleaning’, then a close-up of that area, and finally the same close-up rescanned after removal). On the surface, I can no longer see any residues in that spot with a thread counter.
This stock solution is still enough for two films; I’m just experimenting with my cameras at the moment anyway (on which 20 years of slumber haven’t left no trace either...) – so I’ll try it without a stop bath and with the stock solution carefully decanted.
Best regards
Christoph
[attachment=3427]
Detail of crystal
[attachment=3428]
Detail of removed crystal
[attachment=3426]
Entire unprocessed image
Wolf_XL
...to put it another way – is there a particular reason why it has to be Fomadon Excel? I’ve tried that one before too – in the hope that it would actually get the Foma 200 up to 200 ISO. It didn’t, though – but that’s another matter... Otherwise, the developer hasn’t really stood out to me in any way that makes me feel I couldn’t do without it. Its similarity to XTOL also gave me a bad feeling – think ‘sudden death’ – in short: why not just give something else a go? I’d suggest D-76 or ID-11 (which are the same thing) – perhaps that’ll sort out your problems...
KlausWehner
Hi Christoph,
Thanks for your quick reply.
So we’ve found the cause of the fault. It was the negative developer.
I certainly share Wolf’s reservations about the negative developer we’ve been using.
The purchase price may seem low at first, but when you factor in all the failures and the hassle, the overall cost looks a lot less favourable.
Just as an aside: D-76 and ID-11 contain problematic substances that really shouldn’t be used anymore these days.
You really do need to think carefully about what you use.
I’ll send you an email about this.
Best regards,
Klaus
Snafoobartslow
Hello everyone,
Yesterday I developed another roll of Foma 200. This time, I actually ran the problematic stock solution through a coffee filter beforehand, and there were no more suspended particles visible in the developing tank. And instead of a stop bath, I rinsed it with about 1 litre of filtered water. Afterwards, there were still some crystals on the film, but far fewer and smaller, and above all, they could be removed relatively easily with a cloth. Still unsatisfactory, though.
I was still wavering until just now as to whether I should try again with a very carefully prepared Excel solution. Because I do think the results look rather smart – for scanning, at least. If I may, regarding yesterday’s Foma 200 image (
Flickr), I only stamped out a bit of dirt and did nothing else; the scanner uses ‘Auto-Levels’ – if I’ve understood correctly, it makes white roughly white and black roughly black, and distributes the grey tones evenly in between. Considering I’d estimated the exposure by the back of my hand when taking the photo (it was a test with a Zorki), I’m certainly pleased with it. In Excel, I’ve now developed everything from Pan F to pushed HP5+ (ISO 1600), and I like the results – apart from the spots.
I’ve also gone through the negatives I developed and scanned at the start (before the crystal issue) – I was generally struggling with dust there. Much of it is clearly dust flecks, but there could also be some of those smaller crystals mixed in.
Anyway, later I’ll have a look in town to see if I can get hold of some ID-11/D76, then I’ll give that a go. The remaining Excel stock solution and the other baths are definitely going. The issue with problematic chemicals does give me pause for thought – I’ll be happy to try out the alternatives then ;-).
Best regards
Christoph
KlausWehner
Hi Christoph,
The spots are most likely caused by the developer.
However, I would also expect the problem to disappear once the solution has been filtered.
I don’t want to talk you out of using your favourite developer either!
If you feel you’re getting on well with it, then stick with it.
It’s good to get to know a material well and then achieve exactly the results you’re aiming for.
My workflow is purely analogue. In that case, such stains on the negative would be a complete deal-breaker.
In analogue photography, that would be irreparable damage.
Everyone just has different standards and expectations.
Best regards,
Klaus
Gast
Hello,
if you mostly scan negatives, why not give our host’s ADOX Atomal a try:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/adox-atomal-49-fuer-10-filme-zum-ansatz-von-1000-ml.html
It produces an even finer grain than the Excel. What’s more, it makes very good use of the film’s sensitivity.
I always bottle the Atomal, prepared with demineralised water, into small 100ml Aponorm bottles. I fill them right to the brim so that the developer isn’t oxidised by the oxygen in the air.
The bottles last me 6 months without any problems.
Regards,
Wolfgang
Snafoobartslow
Hello Klaus and Wolf,
"Houston, we have a problem..." Yesterday I bought ID-11 and, on that sunny day, developed a Pan-F Plus roll. In the evening, I prepared the ID-11 exactly as per the instructions using my demineralised water. It went well; both powder A and then powder B were definitely completely dissolved. Developed today. As I ended up with a short 6:20-minute exposure time at a room temperature of 23°C (which is also the developer temperature), I prepared a stop bath again using Brita-filtered water, as well as a fresh fixing bath using Brita-filtered water (this is an old building; the aerators get clogged up quite quickly with limescale and other debris, hence all the filtering).
It was worse than with the last Foma without a stop bath – lots of tiny crystals baked onto the surface. Now the water is almost the only suspect: particularly the normal tap water used for rinsing, but also the demineralised and the Brita-filtered water. The plan now is to fill a 5-litre container with tap water and leave it to stand for a while so that any suspended particles settle, and then use that for rinsing. If that doesn’t work, I’ll also prepare the baths with that tap water. Otherwise, I’m slowly running out of ideas. Back when I used to develop film, I think the water was even more hard, and I did everything with tap water – without any such problems.
Apart from that, in my opinion, the ID-11 doesn’t really suit the scanning process. The granularity looks strange when zoomed in 1:1 on the screen (it’s more of a uniform grey, from which isolated, almost white grains stand out in patches. With Excel, it’s more even). The edges seem to be overemphasised – like with a ‘Out of Focus’ Photoshop filter. If you then boost the contrast, as you often have to do with B&W scans, this effect intensifies in a rather odd way. The image shows a 1:1 view: on the left, Foma 200 in Excel, and on the right, Pan-F in ID-11 1+1, both scanned with the same settings and otherwise unaltered.
[attachment=3429]
It remains, for better or worse, an intriguing situation.
Best regards,
Christoph
Snafoobartslow
P.S. @Wolfgang: Sorry, I didn’t spot your post straight away. Thanks for the tip! As I mentioned at the start, Excel ticks a lot of the boxes for what I’m looking for. And changing the developer hasn’t, on its own, solved the only problem I can see at the moment (namely those crystal-like stains), so I’m going to try and get to grips with that first. To actually rule out the developer as the source of the problem, I’d really need to test it with a liquid developer. So many questions...
Best regards,
Christoph
Urnes
Try using normal tap water and leave out the Brita filter.
You can actually end up with problems in your water if the filter is too old, faulty or unsuitable for the job.
I live on the edge of the Ostalb and the water here comes out of the tap practically as ‘dust’, it’s so hard. But I’ve never had any problems with residues, provided I run a wetting agent bath at the end. I don’t use Aqua Dest either.
First run the process under normal, simple conditions and then see if anything’s wrong. Then make corrections. Don’t complicate everything in advance.
Regards, Sven.
Snafoobartslow
Urnes wrote
: “First run the process under normal, straightforward conditions and then see if anything isn’t quite right. Then make the necessary adjustments. Don’t overcomplicate things beforehand.”
Hi Sven,
That’s exactly the direction my thoughts took after the last setback. Although the points mentioned earlier – that Excel, for example, is difficult to dissolve and that this can cause problems – are absolutely spot on. Figuring out how it works is, after all, one of the challenges (and, incidentally, you get to go on lovely photo walks to produce the ‘test material’, and the odd successful shot comes out of it too).
Best regards,
Christoph
Wolf_XL
...something a bit different – what does your development tank look like? Is it new, or has it been sitting around for years waiting to be used again?
Snafoobartslow
Wolf_XL wrote
... something different for a change – what does your developing tray look like? Is it new, or has it been sitting in a cupboard for years waiting to be used again?
Hi Wolf,
It’s actually old and has been sitting in a cupboard for the last 20 years. I bought my second-hand Kindermann stainless steel can around the mid-90s. I reckon the can itself and the stainless steel reels are probably fine. The plastic lid is quite simple – I find it hard to imagine there’s so much build-up in there that’s now gradually coming out?
Best regards,
Christoph
KlausWehner
Hi Christoph,
The initial descriptions clearly pointed to the developer as the cause of the problem.
However, it now seems that the cause of the fault lies elsewhere.
Perhaps you could send me a small sample of a film that has been badly affected?
We can identify the cause of the fault more accurately by examining it with the naked eye, under a microscope and, if necessary, using chemical analysis.
Best regards,
Klaus
Snafoobartslow
Hi Klaus,
Thanks for your help! I’ll be sending you samples of the Pan F in ID-11 and Foma 200 in Excel by post. I’ve just quickly taken a macro shot of the problem – it does look a bit like salt.
Best regards,
Christoph
[attachment=3430]
[attachment=3431]
Snafoobartslow
Hello everyone,
The subsequent attempts without Brita water showed some improvement, but did not eliminate the crystals. Instead, the Foma 200 reveals interesting patterns consisting of a black spot (on the positive) and a horizontal light streak (pointing downwards on the film as it hangs to dry) – see the image above the statue’s head. According to a forum post, these are said to be iron or metal particles (from the water mains) that adhere to the soft emulsion and react with the fixer, causing residues to bleach the streak as it dries. I didn’t experience this with filtered water.
The solution to the crystal problem turned out to be as simple as it was obvious: before adding the wetting agent, I rinsed the film spool thoroughly and vigorously under a running tap with the next roll of film. Whatever those crystals are, they can apparently be rinsed away this way. The scans then came out practically spotless. The film was an old APX 400 – I still need to test whether this rinsing method also works against the Foma deposits.
Thanks for the help and best regards,
Christoph
[attachment=3432]
