Photux
Hi everyone,
I’ve often seen these streaks on negatives, as shown in the picture (vertical here, as it’s in portrait format), but they’re particularly clear here. To me, they don’t look like simple ‘telegraph wires’, but more like some sort of liquid residue.
In this example, the film is Fomapan 100 (35mm), developed in D-76 1+1, then stopped with water, followed by Superfix 1+9, washing, and thorough washing with distilled water and Mirasol 1+400. The problem occurred in exactly the same way with other types of film; I usually use the same chemicals (only very rarely Rodinal instead of D-76).
Perhaps someone has an idea where these streaks come from. They can be removed in Gimp, but I’d much prefer to get it right the first time.
Thanks and best regards from Hanover
Olivinyl
Hello,
That looks like streaks that formed on the emulsion side after drying.
I assume that if there are any on the blank side, you wiped them off the dry film with a microfibre cloth.
I see you used distilled water and Mirasol; that’s the best solution.
Did you perhaps use too much Mirasol?
I’ve had this problem before too, but only with Lucky SHD and very slightly with Kodak Technical Pan.
I rinsed it briefly again (2–3 minutes), added Mirasol again and then ‘stripped’ the film with a film squeegee. I don’t usually use a film squeegee, though, and let the film dry dripping wet in the shower.
I’ve noticed myself, though, that these streaks are usually only visible during scanning. I’ve never really noticed them during enlargements (except with Lucky SHD).
Best regards, Oliver
piu58
Wetting agent residue is almost impossible to remove.
My method
- Very little wetting agent: 1 ml per 500 ml of water
- Wipe the film twice with kitchen paper; this leaves it almost dry. Kitchen paper doesn’t leave fibres behind, and the films can withstand this well. (This is tricky with medium format, though; in that case, I use a scraper)
- Take care when hanging them up not to recontaminate the topmost negatives with wet fingers.
Well-dried films have a slight bluish tinge on the back, similar to the coating on a lens.
sputnik
I’ve never really noticed them during enlargements (except with Lucky SHD)
But surely you use mixed lighting for enlargements, don’t you? Even tiny scratches disappear as if by magic.
With a condenser, you can see EVERYTHING. Even tiny dry spots.
But luckily I do pretty much everything with mixed lighting anyway, because I find changing the insert filters on the Splitgrade too much of a faff.
Olivinyl
I’ve never really noticed them during enlargements (except with Lucky SHD)
But surely you’re using mixed light for enlargements, aren’t you? Even tiny scratches disappear as if by magic.
With a condenser, I can see EVERYTHING. Even tiny dry spots.
But luckily I do pretty much everything with mixed light anyway, because changing the insert filters on the Splitgrade is too much of a faff for me.
I used to have a Durst M301 condenser enlarger. You could really see almost every bit of ‘dirt’ on that; scanning is even worse.
I’ve since bought a mixed-light enlarger as well. The reason is simple: it handles 6x6, is a bit less sensitive to dust and scratches, and the main reason: no more fiddling with filters.
The Lucky SHD, for example, always had something wrong with it. Water marks or streaks, or even both.
I haven’t used Foma film yet, but is it as sensitive as the Lucky?
Best regards, Oliver
Morte
On the subject of wetting agent stains:
Right at the start of my DIY film development career, I read in a reputable guide that you should use about 25% less wetting agent than recommended in the instructions on the packet. I use Adostab. The instructions say 20+1. I’ve always used just 20 ml of Adostab in 500 ml of water instead of 25 ml (= 20:1). It works a treat – no wetting agent stains and no limescale stains either, even with the ultra-hard water here in Berlin. What’s more, the wetting agent lasts a bit longer this way...
sputnik
Wow. You’re really brave. Ever since I’ve been living in Berlin, I’ve been using ONLY distilled water for my wetting agent bath. Not just because of the limescale, but also because of all the grime that comes out of the tap.
I don’t even use tap water to prepare negative developers here anymore, because the stock solutions suddenly only lasted a fraction of the time I was used to in the past. :-(
ultra8
I’d then start thinking about getting a new, decent water filter; that would also help with reading the tea leaves.
sputnik
However, that would not solve the problem of the short shelf life of the stock solutions.
ultra8
Why don't you have the water tested and then confront your local council with the results – surely there must be a spot where the results come back as poor?!
Morte
Of course, something like what Sputnik described also depends on the water pipes in the house, which can be in very different conditions...
As I said, I’ve been doing it this way for a long time and would have taken corrective action ages ago if there had been any loss of quality in the negative. In fact, right at the start, before I read the tip about reducing the concentration, I did actually end up with wetting agent residues on the film a few times. It’s a bit like using too much washing-up liquid when doing the washing-up and then seeing it on the wine glasses. Too much is never a good thing.
In any case, if you do have such problems with stains, you can certainly give this a try and, if necessary, adapt it to local conditions and your own habits. piu/Uwe, for example, does this by using an ultra-strong dilution and then wiping it off with kitchen roll. I’m reluctant to handle the wet emulsion – I’m just a bit nervous about it – and have simply found my own way to clear, clean negatives. There are certainly other options. Bruce Barnbaum, for instance, advises rubbing the wet films with a soft leather cloth. If that didn’t work, he surely wouldn’t have published it. I wouldn’t do it that way, though. It would just give me a bad feeling. So: you have to work your way through the tips until you’ve found your own method. A truism... but always reassuring: there is no one-size-fits-all method.
Photux
Surfactant stains that are almost impossible to remove.
My method
[...]
Thanks for the reply! I prepared the Mirasol roughly according to the instructions; I’ll try further dilution with distilled water (or just make a fresh batch – even the mini bottle lasts forever anyway).
I’ll give the kitchen roll method a go. :) I don’t own a film squeegee; I’d be too afraid of damaging the emulsion with it. So far, I’ve simply hung the films up dripping wet over the bath and taken them down the next morning.
sputnik
Why don’t you get the water tested and then confront your local council with the results – which are bound to show that it’s poor in at least one respect?!
I’m sure you mean well, Jörg, but I think the cost-benefit ratio of using distilled water is definitely better than that of water analysis and everything that goes with it. I’m not the sort of person who likes to complain about things just because this or that isn’t to my liking.
There’s nothing wrong with our water as such. I drink it every day.
It’s just not that great for negative chemistry and the wetting agent bath. So what? Aquadest and that’s that. I can’t see why I should make a fuss about it anywhere.
If I couldn’t use it for washing my photos, my dissatisfaction would naturally be different, because I perform all my processing with baryta and wash everything in running water.
THAT would really run up the costs with distilled water. ;-)
ThomasPauly
I can confirm that an overdose of wetting agent is the likely cause. I have produced marks like these myself. They appeared on the backing side, but could be wiped off whilst still damp.
The water in my region is also very hard (hence the idea not to make the wetting agent solution too weak – with the result we know). However, as the water simply beads up and does not allow any calcareous droplets to dry, this is not normally a problem.
There are differing views on stripping. I used to use Tetenal Drysonal and strip the films with a film stripper. As far as I know, Drysonal is no longer available. Online, I found a recommendation for making your own quick-drying agent: 1 l demineralised water + 1 ml Agepon + 50 ml isopropyl alcohol (though I haven’t tried it myself). However, wiping it off evenly isn’t that easy and there remains a residual risk of damaging the emulsion layer. That’s why I’ve moved away from it again. For EFKE films, it’s a no-go anyway due to the vulnerable emulsion.
Conclusion: Analogue photography is visual ‘slow food’ anyway. It shouldn’t be let down by an extra hour or two of drying. You’ve got to allow that much time.
Regards
tepe
Wolfgg
These days, it’s so easy to sort out problems with the developing water. Get yourself a reverse osmosis system from eBay – a 3-stage model will do; you can get one for as little as a few tens of euros – and with that you can easily produce 10 litres of the purest water an hour, top quality for photographic chemistry. That sorts out all the problems caused by the water. A system like this can last for 10 years before it needs replacing. It also produces excellent drinking water (much like glacier water from 4,000 metres up).
Regards, Wolfgang
Gucker
I’ve had that experience with streaks before too. I don’t actually measure out the wetting agent (Mirasol); I just add three drops to 350 ml of distilled water. Back when I had the streaks, I used six drops, and that was already too much.
Speaking of distilled water: we run the tumble dryer from time to time – I run the condensed water from it through a coffee filter – and there you have it for free, so the dryer has a purpose for me too.
One more tip: where you simply can’t do without distilled water is in the potassium permanganate Bleach bath for reverse development; using tap water (Alpen) regularly results in evenly distributed spots on the positive.
Olivinyl
Hello everyone,
I wouldn’t really recommend using the ‘distilled water’ from the tumble dryer.
The water is almost free of limescale and minerals, but due to the design of a condenser dryer (not a vented or heat pump dryer), it is ‘contaminated’ by other residues.
The water collects in a drip tray underneath the appliance. It accumulates there and, once a certain water level is reached, is pumped into the collection container (or down the drain).
As this drip tray is open underneath the appliance, a lot of dust and dirt collects there. Since this tray is never cleaned, a lot of fungi, germs and microorganisms form there.
The coffee filter doesn’t really help much with the coarse suspended particles either...
Best regards, Oliver
