Intermittent visit from the mottle crew bad for negatives

 Up until 2012 I had not experienced any problems with my negatives apart from the problem of water marks. The amount of times prints had been ruined because I had missed one of those dam circles. Life went on, I slowly got the hang of checking for these marks and dust.

Around about the time I started to investigate other developers. Among my group of photographer friends a number of them were talking about PMK Pyro and how it produced super fine negatives with it's staining action. I was told it came in powder form and once made up would last for almost ever.

It became my main developer producing some wonderfully smooth toned negatives and some super smooth prints I was over the moon with the results. That is until a roll of FP4+ produced this mottled affect I was stumped to the cause. The next film I developed was clear of it and so it remained for years. Over time trying a number of different developers along the way without the affect. 

Then all of a sudden three film in a row one FP4+ developed in RO9 and two rolls of Fomapan 100 one in RO9 the other Studional. So it had now't to do with the developer but something common to all three. At the time I traced it to contaminated developing tank and spirals with wetting agent and wrote an article on how I traced it. There will be a link to it at the end. 

The up shot of it was I stopped using wetting agent completely leading to negatives that dry twice as fast and with no water marks. I have been using a soft wet leather to wipe the negatives dry with no ill affects for years. The mottling disappeared as well or did it?

Until recently it is back with a vengeance it has appeared on half a dozen rolls of Fomapan 100. All processed one after the other using HC 110 the difference this time is I know it is not the developer or wetting agent contamination. I was put out only in the sense of its unpredictability I have embraced the mottle as a creative tool and like the affect it has on the photographs produced.

The one bit of information missing so far is that all the affected rolls of film have been 120 format. I went to the film cupboard there was a new unopened pack of 10 Fomapan 100. I opened it and pulled out a roll. Took it out of it's rapper ready to load in the Bronica. What is this? It has the same white silky backing paper as Ilford? Slowly the cogs clanked round.

I still had some from the pack I just processed, what's the best before date? 2018. it would seem you are more likely to get the affect the more out of date the film is. It has also become clear that it is the backing paper casing the mottle. from what I can work out it is the papers expanding and contracting at a different rate to the film base bring into sharp focus how you store the film pointing the finger at big swings in temperature say from fridge to room or freezer to room maybe adding to the increased possibility of it happening. 

On further consideration it maybe also be small amounts of moisture caught between the layers causing the large mottle I have experienced over the years along with the film being out of date. The thing that adds to this idea is the insult of the new Foma backing paper having a hole punched in it leaving a circle on the processed negative.

Once I have used up all my 120 Foma I may not replace it as I cannot trust it not to ruin a good negatives in the future. Which will be a shame as I like to use it with my pinhole camera.

I should not have to add this to the article  the copyright of Mitch Fusco 2022 all rights reserved.

Technical data:

Film I have used that's been affected Ilford FP4+, Fomapan 100, Rollei RPX 400, Agfa 400s. 

All images scanned from photographs.

 It could have been the backing paper all the time and not the wetting agent.  

   Wetting agent contamination link

Agfa film grain comparision.

This set of images proved more difficult than the last set of grain pictures. I think I need more practice or a better method.

Developer ID11

I checked back through my archive of negatives and found that over the years I have used four makes of developer with this film - ID11, PMK Pyro, RO9, and RO9s. 

The RO9s negatives were processed in developer that was more than the suggested best before time of three months. Although this developer was still viable it starts to produce a courser looking grain pattern than when it is used fresh. 

 

 

 

 

Developer RO9 Special

Developer RO9

Developer PMK Pyro

Patterns of negative grain.

RO9 developed FP4+

Ever since I started writing this blog I have been looking for a way to show you what grain is produced by different developers. I have used a number of methods without success over the years. Until late last year when the need to show what the grain looked like raised it's head again. By chance I had my phone in my hand when the idea to use the enlarger and phone camera together came about. It is one thing to have a good idea it is another to put it into Practice.

PMK Pyro developed FP4+

A long time later I managed to get two good images from different rolls   of 120 FP4+ that I was happy with. They show a visible difference between the one developed in PMK Pyro and the other developed in R09.

 When I have more time I will make  images of other film developer    combinations if you are interested.   

RO9 and the lens less camera.

All the photo's side by side

Over the last few months it looks like I have gone RO9s mad. I have! it is the new toy in my developing arsenal. I'm enjoying the quality of the negatives and not having to make up developer every time I want to process a film. It is still new enough for me to think I have forgotten to do something as I pour the liquid in the developing tank. With all this effort being spent on this developer it has made me think about its brother RO9 and it's attributes in connection with pinhole photography.

Image from PMK Pyro developed negative printed
on Ilford multi grade RC gloss.

Let me explain: RO9 is described as having a number of qualities, the main one here being, high acutance producing a very sharp looking image - a bit like sharpening a digital file in Photoshop. The idea that this developer may do this to the processed negatives has been a splinter in my mind for sometime, that I have been compelled to dust off my Zero pinhole camera to find out if it does make a difference.

Image from RO9 developed negative.
Printed on Kentmere RC gloss

I always feel very relaxed after I have spent time making images with this camera, I should use it more often. Anyway I loaded it with Fomapan 100 set to a 6x6 negative size.

 With the twelve images made it was into the darkroom to process the film. It was developed in the RO9 for thirteen minutes. The density of the negatives was as expected. With the new crisp looking negatives hanging up to dry what should I compare them with? After searching back in my archive of negatives it looks like the only other developer I have used when making images with the Zero is PMK Pyro. This developer is not known for it's sharpness but at least I did not follow the method through by using an afterbath. Which can add a further softening of the image by adding tone.

Zero pinhole set to 6x6 120 negative size

My comparison was never going to be very scientific. It was always going to be a case of would I be able to see a difference with the naked eye. You may feel that the comparison is unfair and to a certain extent you are right. To counter this I will compare the RO9 negatives with those produced with a lensed camera. If the RO9 is a sharpening developer it should be noticeable.

Image made using a camera lens.
35 mm Agfa APX 100 developed ID11

When looking down the focus finder at the different developed negatives the difference in grain structure jumps out at you. The PMK Pyro neg's are so smooth it is difficult to bring the the grain into sharp focus. Where as the RO9 grain looks like boulders. So does this defined structure indicate that the negatives will be sharper?

I enlarged the negatives to fill the 9 x 12 Kentmere RC gloss paper, instead of the smaller 6X6 square format of the negative. I wanted to see if the grain would be more exaggerated by doing this. To my surprise they lack the graininess I was expecting. In fact they are very smooth and defined.

RO9 developed negative printed
on Kentmere RC gloss

Conclusion:

With all the photographs laid out side by side is there a visual difference in sharpness? The straight answer is Yes but not enough to say if you want sharper lens-less images use Ro9. When you compare the PMK negatives with the RO9 ones there is slightly better definition to the edges of the subject giving you the sense that the pictures are sharper. It does not take away that distinct soft focus you get with pinhole cameras. If you then put a lensed print beside the RO9 developed picture you can see that it is very soft in the pinhole tradition. It shows that when using RO9 there is a sharpened quality to the photographs.

PMK Pyro developed image printed on Fomaspeed
Variant 131

  

Contaminated by wetting agent?

Developed in RO9 but it is not the developer.

When something unexpected happens while you are processing your negatives, it takes a bit of time to get your head round it. This happened while I was processing a number of rolls of film in R09 and using it's special brother.

 The problem has shown it's self by producing very blotchy negatives affecting two rolls of the six film developed. When this happens in a run of developing it is difficult to work out what circumstances are different enough to point a finger at.

Please bear in mind that the elimination process was written after I discovered the culprit.

Fomapan 100 negatives developed in RO9

Process of elimination:

1. So where to start? It is fortunate that the negatives involved were not the ones processed in the RO9 special. The RO9 developed one's were. This made the investigation more straight forward in that I have a better understanding of how RO9 works.
2. Was it the developer? It was made up seconds before it was used in the usual way.
3. What about Stop and Fix? Both were freshly made up minuets before use. So it cannot be one of the three main players? As they are all fresh.
4. OK what about the method? No difference there either I used my usual inversion sequence.
5. Processing tanks? Well I did press a tank into use that I have not used in a long time because of the quantity of film that needed to be developed.
6. Could that be the answer?
7. Did it affect one make of film in particular? No it did not, again this could have been a fortunate coincidence in that a roll of FP4+ and Fomapan 100 show the same affect. If it had only happened to one make it could have been construed as a manufacturing fault.
8. Water? It was fresh and clean and there had not been any notices to say there was a problem with the drinking water.
9. That leaves wetting agent? Hold on now that points to something I noticed when I was using PMK Pyro some years ago, I had a roll of film with the same sort of pattern. I put it down to the developer which I have

   

   Film FP4+ developed in PMK Pyro

   not used since. Thinking back to that time I had noticed that every time I opened the dev tank to pour out the developer there were a lot of bubbles in the top. That looked soapy and diminished with each step of the process which would suggest developer. I did speak to a number of other photographers at the time who suggested it was a developer fault. Although I stopped using the developer substituting it for ID11 and the problem disappeared was not convinced at the time. I changed how the kit was washed after each processing session. After a while I also stopped adding wetting agent to the tank. Using a different tank with it already added. Dunking the reel in by it's self and then soaking the reel in a bucket of water with a good resin afterwards.

Looking back I think when I pressed the other developing tank into use I mistakenly picked up the one I had been using for wetting agent. The resulting blotchy pattern is the result of its contamination.

This print was made from the same contaminated
Negatives. note no blotchy marks.

Conclusion:

Having eliminated all the other possibilities and no matter how silly it may sound the wetting agent is the culprit in this case. It has this time affected nearly all the frames on each film, when it happened some years ago (after checking the negatives) only certain frames showed signs of being blotchy. Which would indicate a weak contamination of the film process. This is only the second time I have had this problem in all the years I have been developing film. It just goes to show that something as innocuous as soap can cause so much trouble if it is not washed away conclusively after every processing session when added to the developing tank. My suggestion is to put wetting agent in a separate container and add the reel and film to it and not the other way round.

This picture shows that the blotches are prominent
In the sky but not the foreground.

When printing the affected negatives you cannot see the blotches when looking down the focus finder. Even though the contact prints show it quite clearly.

All the photographs that appear with this article were printed from the dodgy neg's. As I mentioned not all suffered the soapy demise. 

Mottled prints

The one thing I like about traditional photography is it can be unpredictable. Even though the method you use is tried and tested, guaranteeing to a certain extent, good results, when the unexpected happens there are a lot of questions. Checking the method and chemicals used is great when a clear mistake can be tracked down, but what happens when there isn't?

 Sometime ago I pulled a set of FP4+ 120 format negatives from the processing tank that at first glance looked normal. I was studying the negatives in their sleeve when I noticed that the grain was not as usual.

Anyway, I did no more about it until I printed a number of them, then it became apparent the grain structure was different, so much so that it gave the photographs a mottled affect. I was not impressed, however once the prints where dry I filed them away. 

I went back over the way I processed the negatives, checking everything, but could not find an obvious reason for the way they had turned out. To add to the mystery it was not present on all of them. At the time I had just started using a new batch of PMK Pyro developer. I asked myself a lot questions about: 'did I mix it properly?' 'in the right order?' etc. etc. but could not come to a clear answer. So I shelved the developer metaphorically and literally.

The reason I'm telling you all this is that recently I have been looking through some of my boxes of prints when I came across these pictures again. The funny thing is I now quite like those mottled pictures, so much so that I'm going to print some of the other negatives and do some reprints on different paper. I find it baffling that when revisiting prints or negatives that did not appeal at the time, either compositionally or technically, they have now come into vogue. It is almost as though you are not mentally ready for what your eye is telling you works. In other words you need to keep an open mind even if it is not what you set out to do.

Since writing this I have been reprinting some of the negatives making me question again whether it was a developer fault. There is only one way to find out. 

It is now 2021 and the fault is down to the backing paper in some cases if it is 120 format film.

I have now found the fault. 

 

PMK Pyro negative comparison.

Fg 1

Over the past several weeks I have been tidying up and cleaning out the darkroom making it ready for the winter season.  I don't know about the rest of you but I end up with a number of storage leaves full of negatives hanging around from previous printing sessions. While sorting them into order I noticed that a number of them were marked PMK Pyro afterbath. Wait a minute, these negs look more tanned than when I first processed them!. I did mention in another post that on first comparison the differences were slight and therefore not worth doing. On comparing the negatives now, the afterbath tinting stands out. ( see Fg1) Which would suggest that the developer continues to oxidise over time to some degree.

After giving this some thought I wondered if there would be any differences in how they printed, the only way to find out would be a practical comparison. I didn't think it would be enough to judge PMK against its self so I introduced a set of ID11 processed negatives to the equation. Both developers produce a fine grain just how fine I was not sure.

Materials for the comparison.

ID11 negative.

All the negatives are FP4 + 120 format and 6x6 in size. (the 6 x 4.5 negatives in Fg 1 were substituted for another set) Surprisingly they were all developed for 14 minutes in their respective developers. The afterbath neg's were exposed using a Zero Pinhole camera and to be honest is the only time I have used the afterbath. All the negatives are printed on Ilford Multigrade RC gloss  and processed in Ilford MG developer using the split grade printing method.

In the darkroom.

The first thing I noticed was the difference in the clarity of the grain in the focus finder. The ID11 negatives were easy to focus, they had a defined grain pattern. The next neg I looked at was the PMK without afterbath these had a smoother looking grain pattern making it a little difficult to focus. The afterbath negatives had an even finer grain pattern, taking longer again to bring into sharp focus.

PMK Pyro negative without afterbath

The printing of each negative was straight forward. Once the pictures were completely dry I placed the three of them together in front of the window on a bight day to study them.  The first thing I noticed was that the PMK negative prints looked warmer than the ID11 print; had a cooler more black and white look. I find that Ilford papers tend to have a warmer feel in comparison to the Foma papers I use. Next I noticed that the ID11 print looked crisper, sharper perhaps than the others this maybe be because the contrast was more defined or as other people have suggested that PMK negatives are softer due to the staining affect this developer has. One thing is for sure the afterbath neg is softer contrast wise, this was noticeable when it was being printed; as a rule of thumb I have found when setting the contrast part of the split grade method the timing is about half the time needed for the toned section. In this case it needed more and still looks soft. 

Conclusions.

PMK Pyro negative with afterbath

It would be unfair to conclude that the afterbath negatives were less sharp as they were taken with a lens-less camera and softer to start with. But when considering the other PMK Pyro negative I can say that it appears to be softer in sharpness when compared to the ID11 picture. With that in mind you could conclude by association that they would have been softer again. Therefore adding credence to those claims that PMK Pyro used with afterbath are less sharp but more subtly toned. When compared in isolation you would be hard pressed to notice a difference at all.

I believe that it is down to individual tastes when it comes to sharpness and if it was not for this comparison I would be none the wiser as far as my eyes are concerned. And that is all that counts.

Adox in PMK Pyro results.

Test stips at twenty and ten
Minutes

The results are in! This has turned out to be one of the most exasperating tests to date. There have been problems all along the way from getting the exposures right to developing the film. Having said that there have been some surprises.

As with the Agfa test the film was exposed at box speed ISO 100 in the Nikon F5. This is where the process changes apart from the test method. The PMK Pyro used was one I made from raw material that did not include EDTA disodium in the mix and a reduced amount of Sodium Metaborate in solution B.

Sequence of development:

●         Pre-soak - it makes no difference with this film. It is not prone to air bell/bubbles sticking to the film.

●         Developer - to be made up immediately before use at 21 degrees C.

●         Development times - for this test were 5, 10, and 20 minutes respectively.

●         Tank inversions - continuously for the first minute and then once every fifteen seconds.

●         Stop, Fix and wash - as normal.

●         After bath - was not used and would have made little difference with this mix.

Notes:

Adox CHS 100 PET 35mm is not like other black and white film it has a noticeable thinner film base which is coloured blue. The cassette this film came in was not light tight which almost ruined the test. I only discovered this after the film had been exposed, when removing the film from the cassette it fell to bits. I have read a forum thread saying that the 120 roll film has the same problem. Adox you need to up your game! It is appalling quality control.

Pre-soak water after use

If you use a pre-soak the water will come out blue.

The ten minute development time is the one suggested by Digital truth, which made it the reference time the other test strips were to be judged against.

Results

All the test strips including the one thats a no show.

The test strip to show the best density of negative is the twenty minute one, having said that they are still a bit on the thin side. This does not take away from the fact that they are fully toned and well defined. There is no sign of grain when enlarged to 485 mm (19”) by 340 mm (13.5”). When printing the negatives I'm having to use grade three, normally I would expect to be using grade two, this could be due to the lack of EDTA in the mix of Pyro used. I'm also disappointed that the five minute test strip shows no negatives at all, from previous experience the shorter/half development times have a faint out line. In this case I can only put it down to the faulty film cassette. The ten minute test strip is very thin when compared to the Agfa test strips it is thinner than the half development time. Which suggests that normal development in this case should be greater than twenty minutes.

Over sized enlargment

With all the time and effort put into this test the last thing I was expecting was to be let down by bad manufacture. Of the thirty six exposures on the film around about  ten frames are unaffected by some light damage luckily the majority of these are from the test exposures that put in an appearance. If there was going to be any question marks I was thinking it would be from the developer but it did not disappoint, the only thing to note was when i poured it from the developing tank it was a lovely pink rose colour.

Will I be using the film again? Yes! only because I have a roll of 120 on the shelf if the negatives show any light damage then I will not use it again. How can I say that when I use a lot of out of date film? With out of date film at least you know that the results could be iffy. You don't expect it from new in date stock.

Used PMK Pyro.

Making up PMK Pyro from Raw.

This is the first time I've mixed a developer from scratch. I find when  preparing for something that is new, it seems to take an inordinately long time to set up. This has been no different and I can understand why more people do not mix for themselves.

Before you start.

If you have just purchased new scales it is a good idea to check how accurate they are. First thing to do is place the scales where you plan to make up the mix and zero them.The table that follows is a simple and affective way of checking the accuracy.

These weights came from the royal mint:

Coin test

        ●         1p – 3.56 grams.

●         2p – 7.12 grams.

●         5p – 3.25 grams.

●         10p – 6.5 grams.

●         20p – 3.0 grams.

●         50p – 8.0 grams.

●         £1 – 9.5 grams.

●         £2 – 12 grams.

An alternative to using scales is the Twenty P mix. This is where twenty p coins are used as a counter balance to weighing out the powders. While talking about alternative ways of measuring out you can use measuring spoons. This could be a more reliable way of ensuring that each mix is consistent. If you measure out the chemicals with number of spoons it will not matter that the powders have changed in volume by absorbing moisture or drying out.

With the checks out of the way what next? How much are you going to make up as stock solution? I know from previous use that it will keep for a very long time, even years. I personally prefer only to have small amounts of developer on the shelf ready for use. This is partly because I use several different film and paper developers.  Anchells Darkroom Cookbook  suggests that you make up part A at 750 mls and part B at 1400 mls; well that is a large amount for a first mix not only that what happens if you get it wrong  or heaven forbid it does not work. Luckily Trevor Crone has published the weights for a smaller amount:

Solution A to make 250mls:

●         Metol 2.5 grams

●         Sodium metabisulphite 5.0 grams.

●         Pyrogallol 25.0 grams.

Solution B to make 500mls

●         Sodium Metaborate 125 grams.

Stock solution should be made up with distilled/de ionised water. EDTA-disodium is an optional ingredient It adds gold tone to the silver of the film.

Trevor suggests a reduction of 10 grams for solution B to help combat separation when mixed. He has also said that to his knowledge it has not affected the quality of his negatives.  I can confirm the drop out is reduced but I think this is mainly due to the reduction of powder. Although these quantities are more reasonable  I made my batch up at half these weights.

Other bits

Paper cup cake holders are a good idea for pouring the powders into when it comes to measuring out but they will only cope safely with small weights. You can get plastic cups to do the job which maybe a better route to take if you plan to mix all your own chemicals.

Common sense should prevail when it comes to measuring out these powders. Gloves and a breathing mask should be the minimum safety precautions taken. If the powder gets air born it will irritate the lining of your nose. Also if you get it on your hands it  will irritate or burn your skin. So please be sensible.  

Adox CHS 100 Pet ISO 100 35mm flim.
Developed in PMK Pyro,
Printed on silverproof paper,
Developed in Ilford warm tone.

Having purchased all the ingredients to mix it myself, is it more cost affective? The over the counter premixed price of PMK is about £9 for 10 litres. The cost of all the ingredients is around £39. The batch that I made up  was equivalent to ten litres and saved about 50p. Taking every thing into account scales, time, safety etc. etc., it may not be worth all the trouble and money as a one off. There are advantages to this method such as the flexibility of making up the quantities of developer, stop and fix you require and being able to try out other developers you would not normal be able to get from the mainstream. The main purpose for me was to ensure a ready supply of PMK Pyro. Now that I have started down this road as my stop,fix and other developers run out they will probably be replaced with powdered formulas.

Acknowledgements and Thanks to the following:

Paul C, for the royal mint weights. 

Mr S. Nichols for the 20 P mix.

Trevor Crone for the reduced PMK Pyro mix.

Pyro PMK Raw what is needed

I have been purchasing PMK Pyro as a set of pre-mixed powders just like ID11 and D76. Two of the most popular mass produced powdered film developers; just add water and away you go. Recently I have needed to replace my stock of PMK developer so went to Silverprint my regular supplier to replenish the stock, only to be told that they no longer did mixed batches for sale over the counter. They advised me they stock all the ingredients for self mixing. This took me aback, several expletives entered my head (which were not expressed) what was I going to do! I have a number of tests planned for developing other makes of film let alone the projects on going.

Raw chemicals to make up PMK Pyro

I raised the question on the film and darkroom forum and after the responses  came back (thank you all) I decided to buy the individual ingredients; it is quite expensive to set up, partly due to the way the powders are sold but should make it cheaper over time. This raised the thought of making up all the chemicals I used in the darkroom from powder, meaning they will be as fresh as possible at the point of use. 

What will you need? To start with a set of scales, they do not have to be that expensive but should be able to read very small amounts. The relevant powdered chemicals which are, Metol, Sodium Bisulphite (Sodium metabisulphite), Pyrogallol, EDTA di-Sodium (optional) and Sodium Metaborate (Kodalk).