Water marks on film? You need to be bold!

It is a great sense of achievement to behold a set of wet glistening negatives in all their tonal glory. It is your first chance to see how well they have been exposed and a relief to see all those rectangles or squares in a row. But it is a time of controversy in how you get them dry and clean.

Normal wisdom states at the end of the processes you add half a dozen drops of wetting agent to the last rinse, swish the reel about a few times and leave to stand for a minute. This helps to break the tension of the water so when you hang it to dry the water forms little droplets that run off without leaving any water marks behind when it is dry. The reality is quite different for some.

Wetting agent is not some magic bullet that you cannot do without. Heresy! I hear shouted from the back of the room! It is true the inter web is filled with photographers bemoaning those calcium water marks unseen until the print is hanging up to dry. You film scanners need not sit there smugly because you can take it out using photoshop. I hear a lot of complaints from this sector as well - time lost to spotting. The real smug ones are those that never get this problem when they use wetting agent. Well bully for you! Most of us do not have super soft water that just caresses our film and falls off!

Please do not get me started on those delicate lovelies that believe that if you touch wet film it will be ruined. Lets have some reality here! Wet film is a lot more resilient than it is given credit. For those of a delicate disposition please look away as what I'm going to say next is going to be outrageous to the extreme. I do not use wetting agent and I use a damp shammy leather to wipe both sides of my film dry.

It is a shocking and stunning revelation, but I have had no choice in the matter - honest officer! I have been plagued with wetting agent contamination over recent times that no amount of cleaning and washing has put right. This has led me to hand drying the film. Before you start banging the door down I should point out that there is a very nasty bit of kit called a film squeegee that has in the past ruined countless frames of film by putting a scratch line through them all. It took a long time and many rolls film to discover. So I make no apologies for these outrageous actions.

 Seriously! I now have water mark free negatives that air dry more quickly and no more blotchy looking prints. I wrote an article on how I discovered that wetting agent was the problem. Called wetting agent contamination. 

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

Oh for the grain.

It is a fact of life for film users, if it was not for the those tiny light sensitive particles we would not have some of the world greatest pictures. All the same overly grainy negatives are a pain if you have not planned for it to happen it's a big let down. You must not forget that it is not all about the journey it is about the results as well and what looks like rubbish to you now. Maybe an inspired choice to others.

The fact you have a negative to look at is a result and something that will print and or scan. At one time grainy pictures were all the rage. Producing some wonderfully expressive images. Admittedly they are not everyone's cup of tea. In other words keep an open mind.

The object of developer is to bring out the latent image held in the emulsion. This is achieved by a chemical reaction, acting on the silver, producing dark areas where it is light and bright areas where there is shadow. The negative is reversed later with the print. There are three important things to keep at the front of your mind are: the development time, the temperature and dilution. It is these three factors that ensure the ultimate image quality when it comes to printing. Too short a development time will produce too thin a negative, like wise too long a process time will make the negative too dense, leading to very short and very long print times respectively.

Agitation is important as well and one of the most over looked parts of the film development, it can in some cases make the difference in how well your negatives turn out. As the developer interacts with the emulsion of the film, it vigorously attacks the silver it comes into contact with and becomes exhausted. By inverting the tank you refresh this action, producing evenly developed negatives. It is important to get this right. To little agitation will allow by-products of the process to build up, leaving pale-toned streamers as they slide to the bottom of the film. Likewise excessive inversions will produce currents in the developer, creating uneven development. Most process times allow for agitation.

Developers:

The first thing to look at is the developer. This has the most influence over how your negatives will look. Before you settle on one in particular make sure you understand its attributes. On a practical note you also need to know how often you will process a film. If you are going to process a film every week or so then it may be better to use one in powder form like ID11 or D76. Or a one shot liquid for occasional use, like Ilfotec HC or Kodak HC110. I have suggested these developers because they are main stream fine grain developers. RO9 is not recognized as a fine grain.

For example:

Ilford ID11: A full speed developer with fine grain. Supplied as a two pack powder. Down side is that you have to make up 5 liters of stock solution. This then leads to question over it's keeping qualities. ( I have taken a year to use a 5ltr batch without any loss of quality) It can be used as one shot or multi use with allowance for depletion. ( I have only ever used as a one shot.)

Ilfords Ilfotec HC: A highly concentrated, fine grain liquid developer. It is suggested that this is the liquid equivalent to ID11.

Kodak D76: Fine grain developer recognized as Kodak's ID11. It has been reformulated as a one pack powder. The down side is that it needs very hot water to mix it easily.

Kodak HC 110: A fine grain sharp working developer. In a highly concentrated liquid syrup form. This is Kodak's answer to ID11/D76 as a liquid.

One more developer to what could be a very long list and that is:

RO9 Special/ Studional. These are the finer bred brothers of RO9 and Rodinal. They are very concentrated liquids with the good keeping qualities you would expect from this family. 

The unexpected.

It is the developer you choose that has the most influence over what your negatives and grain looks like. Inter mixed with the way you apply the agitation method you adopt and making sure that the temperature is right. Master this and the rest will fall into place. Yes you will make mistakes we all do even with years and years of experience it is all part of the rich tapestry of processing. It is and can be a pain when the results effect that special set of negatives. I know, it's that spanner that has landed with a big thud at times. The trick is understanding what went wrong, then put it right and move on. Now a days there is no such thing as a bad set of negatives - just conceptually challenging. You just have to look at all the apps you can get now that put back all things analogue photographers try to avoid. So what maybe unacceptable at first will change over time.

Really what I'm saying is to keep an open mind, the analogue process can, if you embrace it, give an unexpected creative lift to your images. Which today is more acceptable than it used to be. 

RO9 special/studional six months from dulition.

Fomapan 200 test negatives.

I'm now six months down the line with this litre of RO9s/Studional and nine completed developments to date. With it now being three months on from it's suggested 'best before' time I started this processing session with the last seven frames from my out of date Fomapan 200, to check that the developer was still viable.

 The Fomapan was in the developer for eight minutes this included the 20% compensation for developers age. For me anyway this developer was now in completely unknown territory and the 20% adjustment was under review again. Although the last time I used the developer the urge to increase was very strong, I considered it again and dismissed the idea very quickly this time. Remembering what I had said last time.

Agfa APX 100 negatives

As soon as the film had been fixed I pulled it out of the developing tank to check. On first look it looked like it had not worked but on closer inspection there was a very good looking negative peering back at me. Great! Now I can get on with the others.

including the 20% and a roll of Fomapan 400 which stopped me in my tracks for a while as I had no suggested development times for it. Ah! What to do? I was processing this for someone else. Don't panic Mr Mannering. I checked through the Massive dev charts 400 ISO film times for Studional with dilutions of 1+15. It was saying that between four and eight minutes. Which is quite a leeway to pair down. I then looked at the Agfa and Rollei times for 400 ISO film to try and shrink the time difference. This helped a lot, it was suggesting five and a half minutes as an average. So me being me rounded it up to six and added 20% which worked out at a bit over seven minutes.

 I intended to develop for seven minutes and ended up doing eight I was interrupted loosing track of the time. It is possible that the mix up has made for a better developed set of negatives which may have worked in my favour this time. Which leaves a dilemma for the next roll - what time should I use?

Fomapan 400 negatives

All in all this out of date developer has proved its self to be a good performer, out of the three newly processed film the Fomapan 200 is disappointing in that the negatives are a bit thin. Some of this is to do with bad exposure and not the development. On closer inspection of this last length of film it looks as though the surface has been contaminated with sweaty finger marks, some scratches and a lot of dust marks on the negatives. Not surprising really seeing that the film has been cut into sections on three other occasions.

It turns out that the Agfa APX 100 has been over developed. I have also noted that the negatives are a bit more grainy than they should be. This could be the down side of using the RO9s outside the three month best before date.

So what now? The developer is good for another three film but I think it will be discarded for a new batch. The reason for using this developer in the first place is because of it's finer grain. If I want it coarse looking I'll use RO9.

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

  

How well will RO9 Special/ Studional perform a month on from dilution.

Nikkormat FT2 camera

 The developer has been diluted for two months, it's time to see if there has been any degradation of the solution over those months. It was not my intention to put the developer on the spot by using an out of date film and then to pick a make of film that I find difficult to get good results with but the die had been cast by the fact that a film had been loaded into my FT3 some time ago and then promptly forgotten about.

 

Developer  has changed colour

So what happened? To start with as I poured the developer into the graduate it was a gorgeous turquoise in colour. This is the second time I have used this batch of Studional so I have not a clue what this colour represents, it was clear when it was fresh. For all I know this could mean that it is dead and buried and the best thing to do is pour it away. RIP. I carried on anyway no point stopping now. I need to know what the colour represents. Good or bad?

 

This batch of developer had been diluted 1+15 but according to the data sheet it should be 1+30 for Fomapan 200 processed for 12 minutes plus 20% increase for the age, as the table indicates. Seeing as I have not taken any notice of the indications this will not work I throw caution completely to the wind and cut the development time in half and add 20% which I ignored developing for eight minutes. What the hell!

 

Contact print Fomapan 200.

So what did you think happened? Well! Yes, you are wrong. I am astounded these are some of the best negatives I have made with Fomapan 200 they are crisp and punchy or should I say they have a very good tonal separation, producing some rich blacks as the photographs that illustrate this post show.

8 X 10 print on  Ilford RC gloss

I should throw caution to the wind more often if the results are going to come good like this!

Using RO9 special/ Studional as it was intended.

Negatives are FP4+ and Fomapan 100

I have had the opportunity to use RO9s/Studional as it was intended. Multiple development from the same batch of developer (1 litre will do 12 films). This is a new departure for me, I prefer the single use type. I was a little apprehensive with this decision but gathered four 120 format films together so I could put to the test the assertion that you can develop any number of film on the same day it was diluted without having to add a compensation factor for each film involved, as you do with other developers. This was something I had not heard of before.

Made using a Zero multi format pinhole camera.

 The two makes of film were FP4+ and Fomapan 100 in both cases at box speed. It just so happens that the dilution for these films is 1- 25 with a big time difference - four minutes for the FP4+ and ten for the foma 100.

As mentioned before in another article the developer has a syrup consistency to it as you pour it out. At this point I must add a warning because of the concentrated nature of RO9 special/Studional you need to take precautions when pouring it out to make up the working solution. I have found out to my cost that if you get it on your hands it has a nasty bite. Something I have not experienced when mixing up other developers.

Made using Bronica SQAi.

 With the developer made up the first film to be treated was the FP4+. I was curious to know how well the short process time would work. This will be the quickest I have ever produced the latent image. The actual time suggested was three and half minutes - you need to be careful of short times when it comes to processing film, so I upped it four minutes. Not a lot I know but it could mean the difference between a reasonable set of images and a good set. I can report that it was a good set of negatives with good density across the whole film. The next film out of the processing tank was the Fomapan 100 processed at the suggested time of ten minutes. Again a good set of negatives in fact when held up against the FP4+ film they looked Identical in density. To cut this short the third and fourth films were the same in look as their predecessors. I was not expecting such good results.

Made using a Bronica SQAi.

  The method I used was made up of my trusted inversion procedure and a returning of what was left of the 600 mls of developer back to the storage bottle. Let me explain, when you pour the developer out of the tank there is a a certain amount of fluid lost to this action. It is only a small amount but can be enough to stop the top edge of the film being fully immersed. With this in mind I poured the developer back into the litre bottle and then poured it out again into the measuring cylinder before each film processed. I could have just topped up the difference. This is me erring on the side of caution. This action may have rejuvenated any depletion that had occurred but I suspect that this is not the case with this developer.

Idle time between two batches	Development lengthened by
few hours (but development none *on same day)	None *
1 – 3 days	5.00%
4 – 8 days	10.00%
1 – 2 weeks	15.00%
over 2 weeks	20.00%

 
Related posts:

RO9 special developer
One month on

Washing your negatives

This is just as important as the developing, stop bath and fixer. The temperature of the water needs to be close to that of the previous process of 20 degree C.

The purpose of washing is to remove the last of the fixer from the emulsion and needs to be done thoroughly to ensure the longevity of the negatives.

Which method to use? One way is to empty the tank and refill with fresh water and agitate for a few seconds, this should be repeated several times. Another way is to use a wash hose that is specially made to fit into the top of the developing tank and attached to the tap. I personally favor this approach with my own refinements: after fitting the hose in place I open the tap till it is nearly fully open and leave for thirty seconds, this vigorusly removes the last of the fix that remains. Then slow the flow right down for the next ten to fifteen minutes. It is a simple straight forward procedure that has served me well over the years.