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. 

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.