Having problems developing...

[danic]

...with my Patterson tank and reel. I switched from the stainless system as I had major problems loading film onto the reels. Now, I don't have any problems loading film onto the reel, but all of my negatives are coming out really thick and undeveloped. I can't even scan them.

I know they are undeveloped as the film is really dark along the sprocket holes, so I think there is something I'm doing wrong. I haven't changed my film at all, and I even used the a new batch of developer.

I used the same agitation for the Patterson tank as I did for the Stainless tanks. Constant but gentle agitation for the first thirty seconds, inversion, and then three inversions in a ten second period, every minute. Does that make sense?

I feel like I need to step-up my agitation, but I don't want to waste roll after roll of film. Does anyone else use Patterson tanks and what agitation method, how long for?

Cheers,
Daniel

[photophorous]

What do you mean when you say "thick?" "Thick" is a word usually used to describe overexposed or overdeveloped negatives, both of which can cause the negative to become denser and darker. Are the negatives dark all the way across? If it's just on the edges, is it on both sides or only the side that was on top in the tank?

I'm not familiar with Patterson reels and tanks. Is there something strange about the way the lid attaches that could be letting light in? Maybe the edges are overexposed because light was leaking in?

Or, if they are underdeveloped, like you said, maybe there wasn't enough chemicals in the tank to completely cover the film? Could this tank require more chemicals than a SST tank?

Can you post a negative scan or a close up digital photo of a negative?

Paul

[danic]

Paul,

I normally place at least 500 ml of developer in the tank. So to confirm whether there was enough in there to begin with, I placed the empty reel in the tank, put the light proof lid on and filled it with water. I then tipped the water out into a measuring jug, which ended up being about 400ml, and when I took off the lid, the whole reel was immersed in water, so I think the film is being immersed in the correct amount of developer.

I think I've got it down to the tank/reel combo, maybe it something I was doing incorrectly. There is a back thingy that slides down the inside of the reel, which, according to the instructions, is placed in a certain way, but I can't remember which was I had it, so maybe this black plastic thingy is my problem. I'm going to try a short piece of unexposed film and see how that turns out. Another option is to try shooting with my Pentax (which I know is good) and see how that turns out. Maybe the battery in my A1 is on the way out. Who knows?

Anyway, here is a picture to possibly shed some light on the issue (sorry about the pun )

Cheers,
Dan

[photophorous]

Dan, that looks really strange. You're film is definitely not undeveloped. The image area looks very dark, as if it's overexposed or overdeveloped, but that's hard to confirm just from your photo. Based on that alone, I'd say you should check your camera's shutter speeds (compare to a known good camera), make sure it was set on the correct ISO, and make sure your chemical dilution or temperature wasn't too high or developing times too long. But the edges have an uneven appearance too. Is that the way they look to you?...like part of the edge is dark and part is clear in a sort of random pattern? That's what is throwing me off. The only thing I can think that would cause that is a light leak, but even light leaks are usually more uniform than that. It's possible that the light seals in your camera are bad, but I think it's more likely that a light leak occured with the developing tank. Let me know how your next try goes. I'm curious now.

Good luck.

Paul

[Greg McCary]

I use a Patterson tank and have never had problems unless I mixed the developer wrong or just cooked it the wrong times. 500ml should have done it.

[Xia_Ke]

I have used Paterson and SS reels/tanks. IIRC, the Patersn only requires 300ml for 35mm, so with 400, you should have more than enough. Regardless though, that shouldn't cause the funky patterns you are seeing. It would be pretty hard to have a light leak with those tanks. Maybe something when you were loading the reels? Were you wear a watching with glow in the dark hands? Were you loading in a room that you thought was dark? For a truly dark room, your eyes can take a while to adjust, longer than it would to take to load a Paterson reel. What was your process before developing?

[reverberation]

I would have to agree that loading the reel is a good place to look. I would also suggest examining the film to determine if there is a pattern to the dark or light areas. Do they get closer together or farther apart from one end of the film to the other? If so, check the bearings at the load end of the reel to ensure both move freely and do not bind. Plastic reels are more flexible (especially the ones that can be adjusted to multiple sizes), make sure you are not pressing it together when winding film onto the reel. If the areas of darkness and lightness are uniformly spaced, it would point to the camera.

[danic]

I have used Paterson and SS reels/tanks. IIRC, the Patersn only requires 300ml for 35mm, so with 400, you should have more than enough. Regardless though, that shouldn't cause the funky patterns you are seeing. It would be pretty hard to have a light leak with those tanks. Maybe something when you were loading the reels? Were you wear a watching with glow in the dark hands? Were you loading in a room that you thought was dark? For a truly dark room, your eyes can take a while to adjust, longer than it would to take to load a Paterson reel. What was your process before developing?

Some good points Aaron, I hadn't even thought about the watch! I'll take it off next time I load a roll of film. I'm going to "develop" an unused roll of film, only 12 exp so not to waste too much film and see what happens. If it's not developing correctly, I know its either the tank or the way I roll the film onto the reel. I'm reasonably certain it's not the camera as I shot a roll of C41 in it previously to the HP5, but then again, it is C41 and it's reasonably flexible.
Hopefully I find the time today and should have an answer for you guys by this afternoon.

[Xia_Ke]

Where are you loading your reels? Is it in a changing bag or just in a dark room? Keep in mind that any little lights, from DVD players, radios, etc, while they may seem small and insignificant can have an impact on your roll during the time you are loading reels. If you are loading in a room with the lights turned off, here's a little test to try, turn the lights off in the room and sit for 5 minutes while your eyes FULLY adjust. You might be surprised at all the light there actually is.

[danic]

Aaron,

I used a change bag without too much trouble in the past. The house I'm in doesn't have anywhere that's fully dark, even with towels placed along the bottom of the door to stop light coming in, so I make do with what I've got.

I found a spare 30 mins this morning and developed a quick roll. It came out perfectly exposed. It was only 12 exposures, but it was enough I feel to confirm that it's the camera. The writing was exposed well at the top and at the bottom.

So that leaves me with the camera. I replaced the batteries in it this morning and will continue to shoot and see if that makes a difference or not. If not, I guess it's the seals.

[Xia_Ke]

Hmmm, on closer look at your pic, you can see that there is a pattern to the light leak, just at varying intensities. Seeing that it is in the same spot on each frame, it would have to be a light leak with your camera. How's the condition of your seals? You can pick up a kit from interslice on Ebay for $10 and he provides directions on how to do it.