all the photos I've developed at home have a portion of them darkened by a band that runs across the whole reel I'm mostly using fomapan with an hour long stand development(agitation at 30 minutes, rodinol at approximately 1-100 dilution, i make sure the water is always high enough to stand in the funnel) my camera has a leaf style shutter so its probably not shutter malfunction can anyone provide advice on how to prevent this its always on the right side too the only thing i can think of is it being caused by my film sitting too low in my tank
-
\$\begingroup\$ What format film? Cartridge loaded or spool? \$\endgroup\$– Michael CCommented Nov 22 at 1:52
-
\$\begingroup\$ Your problems could plausibly be due to not enough developer. Consider developing one roll in a standard process - say 600 ml of D76 in 1:3 dilution, or Rodinal 1:50, with appropriate agitation - to rule this out. \$\endgroup\$– Jindra LackoCommented Nov 22 at 5:44
-
\$\begingroup\$ @MichaelC Pretty obviously 6x6 on 120 (or maybe respooled to 620). Top to bottom transport, so probably a 6x6 SLR such as Bronica or Hasselblad (almost all TLRs are bottom to top) or Kiev 88. \$\endgroup\$– Zeiss IkonCommented Nov 23 at 17:49
2 Answers
Those look like "tide marks" -- caused by slow filling of a tank when pouring in chemicals. The part of the film at the bottom in the tank gets started developing before the film above it is covered -- or the stop bath fails to fully cover the film, or the fixer does so (and leaves retained halide that reads as density in scanning or printing).
I'm not a fan of stand or semi-stand development, but these aren't the marks of some of the failures specific to that method such as bromide drag (Rodinal isn't prone to bromide drag anyway); that would result in (frame-horizontal) "light shadows" in the positive following from bright areas in the frame, and we don't see that. They're also not due to full-development failure to cover the film, as that would have resulted in much thinner underdeveloped areas with agitation only at filling and halfway through an hour development.
These are not light fogging, either, as that would tend to run crosswise in the frames if due to "fat roll" loose backing paper after unloading, or intrude from one or both edges if due to camera light leaks, or have distinctive patterns if due to a very bright frame leaking light into dimmer ones before and after past the frame gate. If fogging occurred during loading the film into developing reel, it would tend to cover the entire film evenly.
It's remotely possible this is due to a cracked lid in the developing tank allowing a tiny bit of light to scatter inside intermittently -- but that's unlikely to create this pattern of light and shadow with no sign of spokes from the film reel's structure.
-
\$\begingroup\$ What about accidental overlap on a wire developing real? One of the frames has a non-flat dividing line. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 4 at 0:15
-
\$\begingroup\$ @davolfman Tide marks aren't always "level" to the film -- if the tank was held at an angle (as I used to do with stainless tanks to get them to fill without air locking) tide marks would be at an angle to the film strips where they crossed the liquid level. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 4 at 12:02
The pattern on "9" is too conspicuous. It looks very much like a shade from the film start, the part to be threaded. I'd say that you messed up when spooling the film, either before putting it into the camera, or when spooling it for development.
Either has to be done in pitch dark. Either in a handling bag intended for that, or a darkroom that is completely closed from any light. I'll assume that your development drum itself is absolutely light-sealed.
You absolutely cannot use a darkroom light here: those are only for handling prints, not for handling negatives.
-
\$\begingroup\$ Are you saying that the film is light fogged? I don't think that's the case. The question is tagged "medium-format" and the frames are square, so this is probably 120 film, with no conspicuously-shaped leader. More telling than that, the unexposed negative isn't fogged at all; you can see that it gets brighter along with the rest of the frame, but it doesn't look like it's been exposed at all. The bright areas were probably over-developed somehow. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 22 at 17:32
-
\$\begingroup\$ @spunky_h0rn The lower left of "1" clearly is lightened outside the frame, so is the left side of "6". Also the shape on "9" is not one of fluid levels. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 22 at 17:35
-
2\$\begingroup\$ Those parts of the film are pre-exposed; the only reason they should be "brighter" is if they were over-developed. Fogging will not produce that effect, not without the surrounding frame being nearly or as exposed. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 22 at 17:39