Development issues: underdeveloped or underexposed?

travellingcello

travellingcello

Messages
1,841
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I recently developed my first film and was really pleased with the results - a roll of Tri-X in D-76 shot in an Leica M3.

So, fast forward to today and I finished a roll of Kentmere 400 in a Rollei 35T which I inherited from my grandfather a while ago. Alas, the developed negs didn't come out well at all - really 'thin' I think it is described, almost transparent.

I'm pretty upset about that lost roll, but more determined now to find out the cause to learn the lesson!

Now, this Rollei 35T is not proven - as far as I know it hasn't been used in years or perhaps even decades, but the shutter speeds sound about right in relation to each other, the shutter fires cleanly and the aperture (which is manual) works just fine too. The built-in meter is broken, so I've been using an app on my iPhone, and as far as I know its fairly accurate, reading similarly to both the M3's external meter and on occasion when I've checked, against a digital camera too.

So, I looked up causes on google for thin/faint negatives and it seems that the issue is most probably underexposure or underdevelopment.

I use the Massive Dev Chart, and I've checked since but I don't think I messed anything up during development - I'm pretty sure I mixed the chemicals correctly, and the temperature was almost spot on too. It was, 14mins at 20C with D-76 at 1+1. My Ilfostop is fresh, as is my fixer. I agitated as the app told me to, and it went just as the first time I developed.

So, back to the negatives - the images are so faint on the negatives that I have to hold them up to a bright light to see pretty much anything on quite a lot of them. Only the few where there are large patches of lights, sky or a window is it somewhat clear that there is something on the negative. I tried scanning, and my V500 couldn't do thumbnails because it said there was nothing there.

So - below is a scan of the negatives after I scanned manually by setting exposure, and then opening in Lightroom and set contrast to +100 and tweaked levels - the preview scan came up as black before I tweaked the exposure on the scan!!!! - excuse the horrendous dust too, that was a separate problem of mine as I clumsily ended up with loads of water spots and tried to get rid of them. Lesson learnt there - go buy some hypo-clear!

Can someone help me identify or suggest how I can determine what the cause is here? I assume it can't be a light leak as it is consistent across all frames, but I'd like to know if the camera needs a service, my metering was consistently off somehow, or I need to be more careful with my development procedure.

Thanks in advance!

[url=https://flic.kr/p/yAcRKE]img168 copy by travellingcello, on Flickr[/URL]
 
Looks like underexposure. Are the frame numbers on the film OK? Underdevelopment should affect them and if they are OK, the exposure would seem to be the problem.
 
That's one thing I checked - the frame numbers are also pretty faint. So I'm pretty confused - also, I just checked my light meter app against two other apps too and they all read consistently the same.

One thing that I read which leads me to believe it might be underexposure rather than underdevelopment is that I just understood that in the chemical process shadows are developed first, and highlights take longer. In my frames the highlights look better than the shadows. Does this mean that this is more underexposure than underdevelopment?!

However when I then see that the frame numbers or letters along the sprockets are also faint I feel confused.
 
The longer development is continued (up to a point, anyway) the higher the contrast becomes, which happens because the highlights (the dark parts of the negative) become still darker. If the frame numbers are faint, then the development is most likely to be the problem. The reason you can't push films by very much is that increased development doesn't have much effect on the shadow details, it just increases the highlights.

The most helpful examples I can recall seeing were in an old edition of one of Michael Langford's books (I think, Basic Photography, 3rd edition, but I can check if you're likely to be able to gain access and are interested). What made it so useful was havinf exactly the same subject but with a set of under/correct/over exposure and the same for development. It was very instructive as to what the effect of development is.

Edit. Author's name changed to correct one!
 
Last edited:
I made up the stock solution perhaps 2 1/2 weeks ago, kept it in one of those shrink-down bottles with the top screwed down right and with little air in as possible. It was totally clear. I made the 1:1 perhaps 10 mins before dev, to get it to the right temperature.
 
Ok that all sounds good and proper
I take it that you use it once at 1:1 then dispose of it.....sorry if the questions are rather basic I am trying to get an angle on the under developed idea...
 
Yes- so used once and thrown away. So this was a fresh mix. If it was a development issue then it must have been a stupid mistake somewhere. So- just to check. When it says 1+1 and you need 300ml in total, then it's 150ml of the stock, and 150ml of water correct? And then it was at 20c - I used ice to get the water down to 20.4 and then started the procedure. I can't imagine that he water would get colder than that at room temperature, possibly only warmer. Which would result in overdevelopment? And my stop solution and fixing - that can't have been the issue if it's underdeveloped.. Right?
 
Faint frame numbers points to under development I reckon. What were your dev times?

1+1 is 150ml stock and 150ml water :) I can't see that a stop bath or developer would cause these issues either.

Sounds like you have your process nailed down pretty tight. Maybe just a mistake along the way somewhere? I'd be tempted to go out and shoot a test roll in the same way and pay close attention when developing.
 
You mentioned that the frame numbers are as feint as the images, so it points to under-development or a problem with the emulsion.

I doubt your powdered dev has gone off as it tends to last for ages until mixed, and the stop and fix shouldn't have had this sort of effect. Are you absolutely sure your temperature was correct? I know it sounds ridiculous, but did you read the temperature off accurately...i.e. was it a whole section lower down the scale, and you actually read 15.4C or lower? Are you using the same thermometer from your successful development (though most will be accurate enough for B&W)?

Is there any possibility of contamination of the developer? For instance, have your storage bottles been mixed up and the developer mixed in one which previously contained the stop bath or other chemical?

What about the film? Is it new, fresh stock? Have you used any more from the same batch? How has it been stored?
 
travellingcello said:
And then it was at 20c - I used ice to get the water down to 20.4 and then started the procedure. I can't imagine that he water would get colder than that at room temperature, possibly only warmer.
Click to expand...

This seems odd to me. Currently the water coming out of our cold tap (*) is a couple of degrees under 20C; I add a splash or two of warm water to bring it up to temp. If you're adding ice to "cold" water, I'd expect the temperature to be well below 20C, and hence under-development. Maybe the thermometer is at fault?

* I realise your from Gothenburg, and maybe cold water systems work differently there, so this is just what struck me.
 
Yes taking every thing else as being correct I would have a good think about the water temp as Chris makes a very valid point. I am in west central Scotland and this morning the cold water tap is delivering water 15 degrees Celsius.

If you are sure that the temperature was correct then as Chris says run another film through and repeat the process to see what happens....
 
Thanks for your replies - I am using a digital thermometer so unless thats actually broken I can't read it off wrong. Also about the water temperature, in Sweden hot water is literally instantaneous and the water that is coming out of the cold tap in my flat for some reason comes out slightly lukewarm before cooling down - so I used the slightly lukewarm stuff in order not to have to warm up the mixture.

The film has been stored frozen since I bought it, but it has been a good 2 years at least since purchase and has been moved around when I moved several times where it probably thawed a couple of times. However the Tri-X I used last time went through the same treatment and was fine.

Also, I think its impossible for me to mix the chemicals up - the developer stock solution is in the 'shrink-down bottle' as I'm calling it, and the fixer and stop are in their originals bottles - I mix and dilute the stop and fixer, use it and throw is away.

The one thing I was unsure about in the moment when I was doing development was that I suddenly couldn't remember whether the developer was diluted or stock - but then I clearly remember warming up water to the correct temperature, mixing in the D-76 and putting the whole 1 litre into the shrink-down bottle so I'm 99.9% certain its stock and not diluted. Although that would explain why it would be underdeveloped if I had somehow used a developer solution which was too diluted.

Still at loss.....!
 
It seems to me the next step, as others have said, is to carefully repeat the process.

My money's on a dev. mistake.

It's easily done.

I would check the thermometer against another one though.
 
Just one other thing I thought about was what volume of developer are you using in your tank? That is the total volume mixed at 1:1, for one film it should be about 500 ml.
 
Cannyekerslike said:
Just one other thing I thought about was what volume of developer are you using in your tank? That is the total volume mixed at 1:1, for one film it should be about 500 ml.
Click to expand...

500ml is a normal amount for 120 film (500ml in a Paterson tank or 590ml in an AP tank), but for 35mm film its around 285ml for a Paterson and 300 or so for an AP tank if my memory is right
 
According to Kodak 473 ml at a dilution of 1:1 are required for 1 135 36 exposure film. See D76 technical sheet.

If you use half that volume you need to increase the development time.
 
Last edited:
Ah now that's interesting - I was just following the instructions on Massive Dev chart, and also on my Paterson tank it is indeed 285ml required - which I round up to 300ml for easier measuring of water and chemicals.
 
OK on that well acording to the D76 Technical sheet if you use about half the volume of developer then you should increase development time by 10%. I will go off and find the link for the technical sheet for you it may help you to study it. Somehow I do not think it is the whole answer though.
 
A 10% change should affect the contrast - it's not going to be anywhere near enough to cause the effect we're looking at. If the developer was completely exhausted (so that if you left it for weeks it would have no effect) it might. It's about the size of change usually recommended as a starting point for a one zone change.
 
Thanks Andrew, will have a look. Also Stephen, what are you talking about with size of change and one zone change? Didn't quite get that!
 
Apologies. If you have a low contrast subject and want to boost the contrast to "normal" or have a high contrast subject and want to reduce the contrast, you give more or less development respectively. Take "zone" as meaning a stop - double or halve the contrast, if you like.

It's this sort of adjustment that gives rise to the saying "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights", since exposure contrals the shadow detail and development the highlight density.
 
StephenM said:
A 10% change should affect the contrast - it's not going to be anywhere near enough to cause the effect we're looking at. If the developer was completely exhausted (so that if you left it for weeks it would have no effect) it might. It's about the size of change usually recommended as a starting point for a one zone change.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree that is why I said I did not think it was whole answer however what that whole asnwer is I do not know. Think I would go with shooting another film and trying again but maybe shooting half the film in the same camera and the other half in another camera just to rule out the camera.
 
Travellingcello,

My apologies, a question I should have asked you at the start......what does the film leader look like, the bit of film at the start that comes before the first frame. Should be black at the very start then clear to the first frame for a negatgive film......the other way round if you have scanned it...the black section at the top of the second row in your first post made me to think the frames were underexposure because it was so black.
 
StephenM said:
Apologies. If you have a low contrast subject and want to boost the contrast to "normal" or have a high contrast subject and want to reduce the contrast, you give more or less development respectively. Take "zone" as meaning a stop - double or halve the contrast, if you like.

It's this sort of adjustment that gives rise to the saying "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights", since exposure contrals the shadow detail and development the highlight density.
Click to expand...

A-ha! Ok I understand now, thanks!

Cannyekerslike said:
Travellingcello,

My apologies, a question I should have asked you at the start......what does the film leader look like, the bit of film at the start that comes before the first frame. Should be black at the very start then clear to the first frame for a negatgive film......the other way round if you have scanned it...the black section at the top of the second row in your first post made me to think the frames were underexposure because it was so black.
Click to expand...

The film leader was totally black. And then totally clear from the first frame. The black section on the top of the second row is just because I cut irregular number of frames and there was nothing there....Not very tidy of me I know!!! :/
 
Well with my B&W films the very start of the film, after it has been developed, is black.
This is the part of the leader that is exposed to light while the film is being loaded into the camera. When you then close the camera back the next short length of film is pulled out of the cassette as the film is wound to frame one and this section of film, when developed, should be clear. So I do not know why yours is all black right up to the first frame but the fact that it is would seem to indicate that the developer worked ok. Bit of a teaser this one.....
 
Is it possible that I exposed correctly and developed correctly but the film was expired and...well, really off? As I said it was mostly frozen but it went from England to Norway, was frozen, and then moved to Sweden, frozen, and then moved house a few times too. Within the space of 3 years or so!!!!
 
Because the exposure is evenly off across all the frames it's either under exposure on all the frames due to camera fault, but then I've never heard of a camera shutter being too fast due to its age -( I looked up rollei35 issues and they are all sticky shutter issues at slower speeds). And also, I was shooting most often at 250 or 500th of a second. Or I messed up the dev, but as you say the film leader suggests the film was developed. It's a bit unsatisfying to not be able to pinpoint the problem. I have a roll of tri-x from the same batch as the previous (same abused history being moved around) in my M3 at the moment so I guess I will see what happens to that !!
 
Please let us know how you get on with film in the M3.
B&W films will take a fair bit of abuse and still deliver a usable image in my experience and the biggest problems occur when the film is kept in warm or hot conditions not when it is frozen and I have used films that have been frozen and thawed several times without problem so I would doubt its a storage problem...
 
I find it difficult to reconcile the leader being fully developed when the frame numbers aren't. Film will darken on exposure to light, but it takes a considerable time and in my experience it's "darken" not "blacken" (I have some HP3 (sic) I use to test fixer which isn't black).

It's possible that with the aid of a densitometer it might be possible to rule on the development side.

I have twice had a similar result with sheet film - the film looks clear but has a faint image that can only be picked up by a scanner. In my case, I know it was the exposure, because the sheets were developed with other sheets in the same tank and chemicals and the others were fine. Given that the same lens and shutter was used, I'd rule that out as well.

So I'm left concluding that it must be the exposure because the leader is black; and it must be the developer because the frame numbers are faint.

Unless there's a slip in my reasoning, that leads me to conclude that one (at least) of the premises is false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top