# Diagnose my negative please



## Garbz

Well I find it hard to believe that my Nikon FE with it's centre weighted average light metre could get less accurate photos than my Holga. So my question to you is what did I do wrong? Below is an example of 2 negatives. One shot with the Holga and was part of my first development which I posted here. The second I developed last night.

The first problem is that it is the same film, why then do the 35mm negatives look pink? Now 3/4 of the fixing solution has only been used once and stored in an airtight container since, I believe that this solution can be reused several times. The fixing time in this case was 5 minutes. But I did a test that Helen recommended by fixing part of a blank negative for a long time, and then fixing the entire negative and timing it the time it takes for them to reach the same colour. Well that was around 3min, so I doubled the time to 6 minutes as recommended in the thread. 

So what was done differently between the two:
- Development was now done I believe for 15 seconds not enough, but it was done at the correct temperature and compensated for using the guide on the Kodak Website. 5.5min (probably 5.2 in reality) at 21 degrees. Instead of my last 5 minutes at 23 degrees
- Fixed for 6 minutes instead of 5.

The result: Look at the outside pictures I believe they were both correctly exposed on each camera.












Why are my negatives pink, and why is the density of my negatives low? Note that the dynamic range is there, just the contrast is very high. Can anyone aid me in my diagnostic so I can take it into account next time? Also if my negatives are under-fixed, how do I prevent possible fading.


----------



## Helen B

Remind us which fixer you are using. Fixer capacity is usually at least around 10 films per litre of working solution unless there has been an accident with contamination, or there was a high silver iodide content in the film.

How pink are the negs? Underfixing is usually shown by a slight opaqueness to the film, the pink or purple tint (from the sensitizing and anti-halation dyes) is not in itself a sign of insufficient fixing. It might wash out, or you can leave the film in a sunny place for a day or two.

Insufficient fixing usually leads to the film darkening slightly as the remaining silver halides reduce to metallic silver. Insufficient washing results in the image fading.

I'd hazard a guess that the 35 mm is slightly underexposed (lack of shadow detail, but only judging by the scan) and slightly underdeveloped.

Best,
Helen


----------



## ann

i would agree with helen, but would also like to add something to the mix,

first it is not the same film. 120 film has a anti-halation dye and it is not uncommon to use different development times with 120vs35mm films.

secondly, each camera can vary both with metering system and the acutal mechanical workings which will lead to difference in the negatives.
How are what do you use to meter for the holga negative?

for example. i have a nikon 90s and an F100. i have done specific test for each type of film i use with regard to EI and development times. Quess what, they are not the same. with one i rate Hp5 (box speed 400) at 160 EI and the other at  EI 250. Neither are developed at the same time. 
Equipment varies and can change over time as well.


----------



## Garbz

I love this subforum, everyone is always helpful and to the point. Guess "those other people" all shoot digital. 

I'm using Ilford Rapid Fixer. My negatives aren't very opaque probably the same as the normal 120 roll next to it, it's just that it has a colour cast on it. I really think underfixing isn't an option here. It was fixed for longer than the 120 film and I did that little timing test you mentioned to figure out fixing times. And the spot I used initially didn't get any less pink than the rest of the film over time. 

I doubt the camera itself is under exposing I've never had a problem with it until now. I really would blame something in my technique since I'm new at this. Actually on the topic of washing this has just struck a chord. I didn't mention but I bought a few extra chemicals. A Kodak indicator stopbath, A Kodak Hypo Cleaning agent, and Kodak Photo-flo. 

The 120 roll of film was probably washed for about an hour in total given 20 min of washing after the developing, then 30 min after the fixing. But the 135 film was only washed for about 1 minute after the stopbath (not sure if this was needed, but I did see it recommended on the net), and it was washed 30seconds after fixing after which I switched to Hypo clearing agent, and then washed for 5 min after that.

Is 10 min of washing enough given the aiding chemicals?

Ann I did compensate the development times. Kodak was nice enough to write that on the datasheet. As for metering the holga... well lets just say the holga typically produces nicely lighted shots outdoor in the sun with ISO400 film on the only shutter speed it has. Which is why I posted a Holga frame with outdoor lighting.

I'm just querying this since I never granted my local photolab with an over abundance of brains and I highly doubt they are customizing the development times of their film to suit an off camera (unless it is of course those machines actively look at the negatives during developing, but I always thought any adjustment the do they do when printing. It's not a pro lab.


----------



## ann

so your using the sunny 16 guide line for the holga

if the 120 film was developed at a commerical lab then i would 'quess" they are over developed which is very  common in that environment.

you are washing the film far too long.
60 years ago we washed film for that length of time, but film has changed .
check out ilfords website for their recommendation for washing film.

also  there is no need to use a HCA for most modern films, waste of time, and money. fiber prints it is very handy.

also after using stop bath, no need to wash before fixing and don't always believe the internet

cameras are only machines. for instance i have a students who's shutter is giving a 3 stop over exposures on everything. 

your 35mm negatives look underexposed as there doens'gt appear to be any detail in the shadows. hard to see exactly on a computer monitor, but that won't create a color cast.

most holgas use have a fixed shutter speed of about 125/16, maybe f11, they vary as they are only plastic and can drif qucikly and easily.


----------



## bhop

Might be a stupid question, but are you sure you had the film speed setting right on the camera?  (I forgot that once, and noticed a few frames in)  My FE's meter seems to be spot on accurate almost all the time.



ann said:


> so your using the sunny 16 guide line for the holga



:lmao:  I'm guessing you've never used a Holga.  It's pretty much a point and shoot as far as the exposure goes anyway..


----------



## ann

are you referring to me as not using a holga?

i teach workshops using toy cameras.

you take care of adjusting the standard shutter /fstop, with type of film used and type of developer/and or ratio of developer, etc.

what i meant is that point and shoot cameras are based on the sunny 16 rule and the only way to adjust is to change the EI of the film and the developer combinations. which can be done and is done on a regular basis


----------



## bhop

ann said:


> are you referring to me as not using a holga?
> 
> i teach workshops using toy cameras.
> 
> you take care of adjusting the standard shutter /fstop, with type of film used and type of developer/and or ratio of developer, etc.
> 
> what i meant is that point and shoot cameras are based on the sunny 16 rule and the only way to adjust is to change the EI of the film and the developer combinations. which can be done and is done on a regular basis



Ok.. I didn't know you teach workshops.  :hugs:  Many people aren't familiar with the Holga and think that you can actually adjust shutter speeds and f/stops on the camera. (does that sunny/cloudy switch even do anything? mine doesn't), so knowing nothing about you, I assumed that's what you meant.  I agree about using film speed and developing to adjust exposure, I do it myself with my Holga since it always underexposes.


----------



## Garbz

So assuming the film was not washed long enough which caused the pink tinge (just for the record I have a few other B&W negatives and none of them are pink) this time given that it was only washed for 5 minutes, is this bad for the film like will it fade as with under fixing or will the negatives only stay pink, something I can live with?



ann said:


> your 35mm negatives look underexposed as there doens'gt appear to be any detail in the shadows. hard to see exactly on a computer monitor, but that won't create a color cast.
> 
> most holgas use have a fixed shutter speed of about 125/16, maybe f11, they vary as they are only plastic and can drif qucikly and easily.


Thanks for the developing tips. I was working out of a book written in the 60s assuming that the film hasn't changed too much since all the chemicals still have the same name. As I said my 135 roll which came out a bit pink was only washed for 5-6 minutes. It was my first roll which was over washed (and that one looks good).

Sunny 16 "rule" is a bit hard to gauge on the Holga. I know my previous lab developed negs come out reasonably correct when shooting with ISO400 film in the daylight, and those results were consistent with the roll of 120 on the left which came out just fine on daylight shots. 

This is also why I originally ruled out my FE meter being cooked, because the lab produced the same kind of good looking prints out of it only 2 weeks earlier when I shot my last roll of HIE. My bracketing and recording of exposures and the fact that the filter has about a 5 stop loss seems to indicate that the meter was exposing correctly. I gauged my exposure by checking it against the camera with the filter off set at ISO20, all the exposures that matched the sunny 16 rule came out beautifully. 

This seems to be pointing more to an underdeveloping problem. And now that I think about it I started pouring after I started the timer, and emptied such that I would be finished when the time gets to the right time. Given that it takes 10 or so seconds to empty / fill the tank without making a mess I probably ended up under developing by 20 seconds or so. 



bhop said:


> Might be a stupid question, but are you sure you had the film speed setting right on the camera?


Definitely. The film in it before the TriX-400 was a Kodak HIE. And I would have noticed pretty quickly if my ISO was still set at 20 



Incase anyone is interested more photos from the dodgy roll can be found here (the bottom 3 B&W photos) http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1258012#post1258012 Heavily processed to make them look somewhat reasonable. They actually came out very well given the absolute shocking scans that came off the negatives. All had their brightness bumped up and their contrast reduced.


----------



## JamesD

Usually when my film comes out of the fix pink, and washing doesn't remove it, I refix and rewash and that takes care of it.  I believe I saw it recommended in the Kodak datasheets, but I could be mistaken.  In any case, I've never noticed any particular degradation in the images after refixing.  However, I usually do it before the film dries.  If you do refix, you might want to soak the film for a couple of minutes in plain water.

As for the underexposure/underdevelopment... it looks to me like underdevelopment:  the lettering along the edge should usually be pretty solidly black.  Not much can be done about it, as far as I know.  You might try an intensifying toner.  I believe I've read selenium toning will enhance the maximum density.  I've never done it, so I can't speak from experience.


----------



## Helen B

Garbz said:


> So assuming the film was not washed long enough which caused the pink tinge (just for the record I have a few other B&W negatives and none of them are pink) this time given that it was only washed for 5 minutes, is this bad for the film like will it fade as with under fixing or will the negatives only stay pink, something I can live with?


  As I mentioned above, underfixing will lead to image darkening (not fading), underwashing can lead to the image fading, but a pink cast is in itself not a problem. Different films have different dyes in them for sensitization and for anti-halation, and leaving those behind is not a problem. They will usually fade quickly if left in the sun without harming the silver image. As ann mentioned, the 120 version of a film can be different from the 35 mm version, and one of the differences can be in the anti-halation dye.  If you have fixed in Ilford Rapid Fixer for 6 minutes, underfixing is very unlikely to be a problem. However, I'm a bit surprised that your clearing time was 3 minutes. What dilution did you use?  Kodak recommend refixing and rewashing if the remaining dye is patchy and there are signs of underfixing (ie remaining silver halide).  Whether 5 minutes washing is sufficient depends a lot on how you are washing. The fill-and-dump technique, as mentioned by Ilford in their pdf on film developing, is a good method. There is no need for hypo clearing agent, as already mentioned by ann, especially if you are using a rapid fixer.   





> This is also why I originally ruled out my FE meter being cooked, because the lab produced the same kind of good looking prints out of it only 2 weeks earlier when I shot my last roll of HIE. My bracketing and recording of exposures and the fact that the filter has about a 5 stop loss seems to indicate that the meter was exposing correctly. I gauged my exposure by checking it against the camera with the filter off set at ISO20, all the exposures that matched the sunny 16 rule came out beautifully.


  HIE isn't a very good film for judging meter accuracy, not least because of the large difference in spectral response of your meter and the film. A slide film would be a better indicator, or even a comparison with another meter, including the one in a digital camera, using an evenly-lit, evenly-toned surface that isn't a strong colour.   





> This seems to be pointing more to an underdeveloping problem. And now that I think about it I started pouring after I started the timer, and emptied such that I would be finished when the time gets to the right time. Given that it takes 10 or so seconds to empty / fill the tank without making a mess I probably ended up under developing by 20 seconds or so.


  This is one of the reasons why published times for B&W developing should only be regarded as a starting point for your own refinement. Unless you time, pour, agitate and temper the process exactly like the person who found the times you won't get the same results - and you might not even want the same results.  

Best, 
Helen


----------



## christopher walrath

As to under rinsing the film, I fix my TMax following HC110/'B' and Indicator Stop with Kodafix and I have found that the film clears after 2:30. I still tack on an extra 30 seconds, but given that, five minutes isn't totally without the realm of possibility.


----------



## Garbz

Chris, Ilford datasheet recommends 2-5 minutes fixing time. But I don't think underfixing is the problem any more.

I did a quick test using the end of the film without the exposures on it. I dumped those in water for a little while and volah the purple tinge is nearly totally gone and the final 135 negative looks the same colour as the 120 just a little darker. The 5 minutes wash came from the Hypo Cleaning Agent manual. It said 30second pre-wash, 30 second with the Hypo clearing agent, and then a 5 minute rinse. Seems to be this may have been the culprit. Anyway I'll ignore this step next time. (thanks Helen makes the process easier with one less chemical). Cost me a whole $5 (that's $3.50 for you US folks) to buy so I didn't lose much.

Helen you mentioned with underwashing there's a risk the film may fade, is it safe to simply rewash the film?

Also I figured I'd compare the FE to my D200, so I set my D200 to center weighted 10mm (same metering setting as the FE) pointed it at my white computer screen and got 1/320 at f/5.6 ISO400 The FE metre needle shows a tad above 1/250 so it is probably within 1/4 stop of the D200. Assuming the shutters work I think this finally rules the camera out once and for all. And again the cameras been going fine for years, but it's only my second time developing so I was pretty certain that the developing process was at fault.


----------



## Helen B

Garbz,

Yes, you can rewash B&W film if you are concerned that the film hasn't been washed sufficiently.

As I said, I am a little surprised about the 3-minute clearing time for Tri-X in fairly fresh Ilford Rapid Fixer. The times quoted by Chris are for TMax, not Tri-X. TMax films have a higher iodide content than Tri-X, and hence may be slower to clear. This should be borne in mind when comparing fixing times. 

By the way Chris' method of fixing for 30 seconds longer than the clearing time is less than both Kodak and Ilford recommend - and I also think that it is a bad recommendation. The complete removal of silver halide from emulsion is not a one-step process, and overfixing is unlikely. Therefore it is better to err on the safe side when fixing. I use two-bath fixing for safety and economy - a method that has been in use since the late 1800s.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Early

Garbz said:


>


I have no idea why the negatives came up pink, but according to the negative, this print was way too over exposed.

Incidentally, I found this on the web.


> A very slight purple tint is OK.  note that Tmax films will exhaust fixer
> faster, and Kodak recommends a longer fixing time for Tmax than, for
> example, Tri-X.  I fix Tmax 100 or 400 35mm rolls in a small tank for 6
> minutes, then wash for 2 in a flushing cylinder washer, then give it 2
> minutes in "hypo eliminator", then was for 10.  No trace of pink or purple
> after that.
> 
> Note too that too much fixing is not healthy!


----------



## ann

ok, i am now lost, this print looks underexposed, as does the negative,. there is no detail in the shadows. 

at least on my monitor it is also very dark, so perhaps that is the scanning, but scanning should not effect the negative as to hide details.


----------



## Early

Ann, the only loss of detail I see in the neg is the line of people.  According the the neg, the building should have come up near white in the print.

The print is also dark on my monitor, btw, and here's where one of us is thinking backwards.  The longer the exposure, the darker the print.


----------



## ann

i know about the length of exposure. i have been doing darkroom printing for 60 years.

there is also a loss of detail in separation of each floor, but if this is what the shooter wanted then that is their decision.

this is a good example of why it is so difficult to assest images on line and in a computer. too many variables come into play, especially negatives.


----------



## Early

ann said:


> i know about the length of exposure. i have been doing darkroom printing for 60 years.
> 
> there is also a loss of detail in separation of each floor, but if this is what the shooter wanted then that is their decision.
> 
> this is a good example of why it is so difficult to assest images on line and in a computer. too many variables come into play, especially negatives.


I inverted both of his 35mm negs in photoshop, and although no.16 came up looking normal, no.17 did look underexposed.  I'm guessing his camera metered off the white building, throwing it off a stop or so.


----------



## ann

interesting i would never have thought about using ps to view some one else's work  either as a postive or a negative, altho , i view all my digal files as an inverted image, meaning negative.

i was only looking at number 17 and only on the thread which it was posted.

is it common practive to copy images from a thread and "play" with them with an editing program?


----------



## christopher walrath

Helen B said:
			
		

> By the way Chris' method of fixing for 30 seconds longer than the clearing time is less than both Kodak and Ilford recommend - and I also think that it is a bad recommendation.


 
See, there she goes again. And my film comes out fine.  Read the whole text before jumping on as usual.  'Film clears after 2:30.  I tack on 30 seconds to total but 5 minutes would not be . . .'  Those who do not suffer from knee jerk reactions to what I write would maybe take away, fix for double clearing time and then add 30 sec. to be safe.  I am now the 'Helen criticizes what I say' police.  New mission in life.


----------



## Helen B

My apologies Chris. I mistakenly interpreted your statement _"I have found that the film clears after 2:30. I still tack on an extra 30 seconds, but given that, five minutes isn't totally without the realm of possibility."_ to mean that you fixed for 30 seconds more than the clearing time (ie 3 minutes) and so a fixing time of 5 minutes (as mentioned by Garbz) was not excessive. There's no mention in your original post about doubling the clearing time.

It's a shame that you can't discuss things in a civil manner, without getting personal.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Garbz

Early I am using Trix not Tmax.

Also it may have been metered off the building. Still much darker than the standard grey though. And probably 4 stops overall darker than the photos my camera has given every other time I photograph a white building that is directly lit by the sun.

Also that's not a print. It's a scan. Print exposing times have nothing to do with it.

Btw no good comparing frame 16 to frame 17, unless this film was in-fact ISO100 we just came out of a tunnel with very bland back lighting and my camera was set to over expose 2 stops. For the record those negatives didn't come out either. Frame 16 was a mistake which I reshot anyway on the holga.

By the way I rewashed the negatives for 10 min and it worked a treat. Obviously it didn't fix the density issue, but it definitely solved the purple tinge problem. Both films look nearly identical.


----------



## Early

Garbz said:


> Also that's not a print. It's a scan. Print exposing times have nothing to do with it.


There's some confusion here.  I was referring to the print made from the neg.  Although the neg was underexposed, you should have been able to come up with a much more usable print. (or positive made from the neg)

PS  I'm glad you found the reason for the purplish negs.  As I remember, the last few rolls I did had 'em.


----------



## Garbz

No no no. The confusion is still here. I just started developing. I have not yet got to making prints. That "print" of the casino building is just straight negative to my scanner. I was just showing what the final scan came out to be.

What I was saying is I find it hard to believe that the photo itself is under exposed. The entire roll came out like this (even a portrait of an undead guy in the shade, which everyone would expect to be exactly middle grey), the camera was set correctly, and I've verified that the light metre is working. I may have left my developing times too short producing an under dense (what's the opposite of dense?) negative.


----------

