Developing problem

C

clicknologicley

Messages
120
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
I've just developed a roll of Ilford fp4 using FD10 developer, the film came out completely clear, not a single image on it, would this be a case of the film not going through the camera or a problem with the developer which I have to say is about 18 months old. Any thoughts?
 
can you read ilford fp4 along the edge of the film ?
 
If you can't see any frame numbers then it's a pretty clear case of having put fixer in before developer.
 
I'me almost certain the chemicals were in the right order, the developer is orange colour and the fixer is clear so difficult to get in the wrong order
 
what fixer did you use , at what mix ,and time ?
 
A film not gone through a camera would be black, looks like this has been left in the light at some point and so overexposed. As a film, not as exposures in a camera. Some part of your process in getting film to developer is not light tight.

Arthur
 
ok so not killed with the fixer ,,but if it was the film not being exposed i would have expected the film make etc to still show up down the side of the film , even oxidised developer would show something without stripping the edges of the film i would have thought , gotta say darkrooms thoughts seem to be the most likely ,,,
 
Ambermile said:
A film not gone through a camera would be black, looks like this has been left in the light at some point and so overexposed. As a film, not as exposures in a camera. Some part of your process in getting film to developer is not light tight.

Arthur
Click to expand...

the prints might be but not the film ,,,
 
... Over exposed film loses all the halides. Hence, unexposed (as in not gone through a camera) film will be all black since the halides (or whatever they are) will all still be present. Overexposed film will be clear since all the halides will be washed away... they will then allow the photo paper to print black by allowing all the light through.
 
do we agree that a film that has not been through the camera would be underexposed ?
 
Ambermile said:
... Over exposed film loses all the halides. Hence, unexposed (as in not gone through a camera) film will be all black since the halides (or whatever they are) will all still be present. Overexposed film will be clear since all the halides will be washed away... they will then allow the photo paper to print black by allowing all the light through.
Click to expand...

What? film develops clear unless there's light been on it, where it will generate density and go towards black.

How fresh was the developer, and what was the time? I'd say something majorly wrong with the developer, or it's dilution, as said if it had worked there would be at least traces of edge markings.
 
I think we can say underexposed/overdeveloped - which on re-reading my tosh is not what I actually said... although it is what I meant to say. Proof reading is a must I feel, sorry :D
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
What? film develops clear unless there's light been on it, where it will generate density and go towards black.

How fresh was the developer, and what was the time? I'd say something majorly wrong with the developer, or it's dilution, as said if it had worked there would be at least traces of edge markings.
Click to expand...

Looking at the developer it says "use by sept 2011" Whoops, it's now gone down the drain
It was fotospeed FD10 diluted 1:9 for 6 mins
 
Ambermile said:
A film not gone through a camera would be black, looks like this has been left in the light at some point and so overexposed. As a film, not as exposures in a camera. Some part of your process in getting film to developer is not light tight.

Arthur
Click to expand...

You should think before you post this sort of mistake causes confusion.(y)
 
kestral said:
You should think before you post this sort of mistake causes confusion.(y)
Click to expand...

I have already posted I was wrong with an apology.... short of deleting the post and causing more confusion, what else could I do here? Practise grammar?
 
I've had this problem myself and IIRC my film came out completely clear too.

I came to realise that I had accidently used fixer in the developer solution!
 
It's either a completely knackered developer or you put the fixer in first
(This is assuming you have no framelines or black leader)

If you do have frame markings and a black leader, the film was unexposed
 
It's no problem, I'm happy in the knowledge that I do indeed only "practise" photography (see - I have a gallery with stuff in it to prove it) and happy to admit that I need to practise more.

OTOH, do I really need someone to tell me?

Nah, forget it :shrug:
 
Just an idea but, when mixing the chemicals did you mix with the same rod? Going back to developer after mixing the stop? Now I'm just learning but from what I gather, (YouTube vids), it wouldn't take much to ruin the developer.. But hang on wouldn't that leave the film black???? Now I'm confused..
 
Last edited:
Just thought, what temperature did you develop at? And was that temp constant throughout the stages, the reason i ask is in my old house the boiler would give a surge of boiling water before delivering the required temperature.
I've heard hot water can literally dissolve the emulsion from the film base.
 
It's not that severe, it won't dissolve it but it will damage it, it will make it soft but shouldn't disappear... There will at least be some trace of the images present
 
It would take a fair amount of contamination to ruin the developer completely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top