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

A surprise in the post Wows in the darkroom

 

I must admit that Rollei’s 120 RPX 400 was not on my list of film to use. Until, that is, an unexpected package was handed to me by the postman. I usually tend not to use film rated at 400 ISO, as it is usually too fast for the weather I prefer to make images in - bright days with cloud and to a certain extent, warm. 

I did ask a question on the forum (FADU) and was advised that the film can be grainy. With this in mind, my thoughts turned to which developer I should use. HC 110 seems to fit the bill, producing a fine grain and sharp images. The problem with using a new make of film is that any choices you make towards processing are all down to past experience and gut feeling. The Rollei retro and R 3 (the latter no longer made) I have used in the past have always produced some wonderful negatives developed in ID11. What’s different about this one?

With the developer chosen, all I had to do was load the film into my Bronica SQAi with 250 mm lens, set 400 ISO and wait, wait and wait for a break in the weather. It finally did, with some wicked, bright days.

Fortunately I had access to an ancient wood in need of some TLC. The piercing sun presented some great interlaced shadows to play with and a look of dereliction. The four of us spent an hour or so going this way and that looking for interesting shapes, angles, plays of light and dark. A good test of the film’s capability. I tend to take my time lining up an image and, once done, I move on, making each frame count. I know that some people make a back up shot in case the original is damaged in some way. Others bracket above and below the light meter reading they settle on. My counter argument to this is that when using the Bronica SQAi, you only have twelve frames. I accept that I do not always get the light reading spot on with it, which just makes things interesting when printing in the darkroom. Oh! If you are scanning the negs, it won’t matter anyway.

Some days later, the film is loaded in the developing tank and it’s time to process it in HC 110 diluted 1 to 39 for a suggested six minutes. There is always a little apprehension when developing a new film for the first time, wondering if the time will be long enough. As it turned out, there was a nice set of well toned negatives hanging up to dry. Now a bit of impatience sets in while I wait for them to dry - the burning question being how big the grain will be?

24 hours later, the negatives have been cut and sleeved, but not all is well. I have noticed on a number of the negatives that there is a darkened area - something I glimpsed while making one of the pictures. My Bronica 250 mm lens had sustained some damage along the front edge that I should have dealt with by blacking it out. This led to a number of the negatives having a flare of light across them. How bad would be revealed when I print them in the darkroom.

The following is the official line on Rollei RPX 400s capabilities - Panchromatic black and white negative film, 400 ISO with standard development, fine grain and sharpness, broad tonality and contrast range. It is forgiving in that it has a broad latitude of exposure, making it a good choice for push pull development. It’s Panchromatic sensitivity is from 360-660 nm at 2850 k. You will need to bear in mind that this information was sourced after I started the developing process. I tend to do this so I can form my own opinion on what I’m presented with. 

Having removed the cobwebs from the darkroom, it is time to fill the print processor with fresh chemicals and a holding tray with water. The first exposure will be to make a contact print of all the negatives - this will show how many and to what extent the light flare has interfered.

It is disappointing to see that the light damage has touched nearly all the negatives in some way, but never mind - my cropping skills will need to be at their best here. One of the things I have noticed over the years is never to dismiss a set of negatives just because they have not turned out perfectly. It can mean that you produce something more creative than you had in mind in the first place. Serendipity can be a good friend.

 Looking at the contact print, it suggested that the negatives could be printed at grade 2 or 3. With further consideration, I opted for grade three because I thought I would get better separation of the tones. To check my decision I would do a second print at grade 2.

I chose to use Ilford multigrade paper and developer - the latter, when fresh, produces some really crisp, rich blacks at the right grade. I set the paper easel to 8 x 10, the enlarging lens to F8 and the filtration to grade 3. With the negative in place, I turned on the test light and used the focus finder to make sure the focus was sharp. Trying to get sharp focus took a bit of time as the grain was very small, much to my amazement.

I always time paper development. It is a way of keeping an eye on how exhausted the developer is becoming. It is obvious, looking at the segmented test print, that the negative is on the thin side and my choice of F8 was a good first step.

As I look at the test print, it is suggesting that 10 to 15 seconds should produce a really good photograph. So I opt for 12 seconds. As I pull the print from the developer ready for the stop, it looks as though I have over exposed. Disappointing maybe, but you should not make quick judgements under red light conditions. 

As I pull the picture from the fix, I turn the room light on. I’m presented with a crisp, high contrast print with some very defined smooth tones. Wow! WOW! It stopped me in my tracks for a bit as I took in the view. Shame about the light pollution, but I can crop that out.

The next print was exposed at grade two for 18 seconds and has a completely different feel to it - again I was impressed. Next, I enlarged the negative to 10 x 20, printing part of it on 8 x 10 paper to see what grain it would produce. None that I could see. 

I have printed a number of the negatives and have been impressed with each of them. I’m not sure why I do not use Rollei film more often. It has a look and feel that I really like - I think some more rolls will be on the cards. Please try this film. You will not be disappointed. 

 

 This article is the copyright of Mitch Fusco all rights reserved 

 

Right place right time Agfa 400s

 

As I write this, the log fire is blazing but it still feels cold. Outside the wind is howling, throwing rain against the windows like small stones, and distracting me from writing this article. The part of the article’s title is wrong in that the 120 format film contained in the black tubes is really Rollei Retro 400s.

I have used the film once before - so long ago that I cannot remember if I liked the results, nor even which developer I used. Now the rolls of film that are left are passed their best before date, by about two years. The film has traveled a lot in my camera bag, waiting for a set of circumstances which would allow me to use this fast film to its best effect. 

I was at a location that I may not return to and the weather was not playing ball, with long, dull, overcast days. It would be a challenge to produce any images without the sun casting a shadow, but I was not going to be deterred.

The hand held light meter was telling me F 1.4 @ 125 the sec for my usual 100 ISO film, which was well below my Bronica SQAi F 2.8 lens. As I looked into my camera bag, there it was waiting - three rolls of Agfa 400s. Brilliant! Finally it would be used on a worthwhile project, instead of being used for the sake of it. 

As I was loading the film into the camera, my mind had already wandered off to which film developer I was going to use and which paper to print with. I have been using Kodak’s HC 110 a lot and thought it would be a good idea to continue with it to enhance the contrast and reduce grain on the negatives.

Before you ask why I didn’t use a tripod, the simple answer is the terrain was very difficult to navigate and to use one would have been more of hazard than an asset. Needless to say that the time making images slipped by unnoticed, as did the changes of film backs. There was an ongoing question mark over the whole proceedings and whether or not it was a good choice of film.

Back in the darkroom, I checked out the dilution and time needed for the 400s in HC 110. I was surprised to see it was dilution B (1+31) for 6.5 minutes - the same as delta 100, apart from the extra half minute. I had a nagging doubt at the back of my mind as to whether it would be sufficient time. 

With the diluted developer in the graduate and the thermometer reading 20C, I poured the chemical into the tank and proceeded with my standard processing method. When I removed the lid to pour out the developer, I noticed a lot of bubbles in the top, so alarm bells started ringing. The last time this happened, I ended up with a set of mottled negatives. Fifteen minutes later I was rinsing the developed negatives, regardless.

After dismounting the film from the spiral into the tank full of water, I pulled it out and between my fingers to get the excess water off, only to be presented with some very thin looking negatives. I was not pleased with myself for dismissing my doubts about timings. The upside was that the negatives looked to be very contrasty compared to the very overcast and flat day when they had been made.

I did increase the development time for the second and third films. It did make a difference, but not as much as I would have liked. Another downside of this film is its server curl. It was going to be interesting getting a contact print. Having studied the negatives in their sleeves, they look to be the thinnest I have ever produced. Printing will confirm whether this is the case. The other issue is that one set of negatives looks mottled.

The paper choice would be determined by the level of contrast the negatives produced. Normally I would not make pictures on dull, overcast days as I do not like low contrast light and the grey, washed out look that can result. However, on this occasion I had no choice, as I was at a location that inspired me with image ideas and despite the days being overcast, I doubted I would get a chance to return in better weather. 

All the images were scanned from photographs