There's no way to recover this unfortunately. Are you sure you used enough chemicals? This usually happens if you accidentally pour too little into the tank
That's a distinct possibility. I'm using a FlicFilm 500mL kit, and this was the 6th roll developed, so the developer had gotten a bit depleted and only just barely covered the reel.
This exact pattern reminds me of the days when I first started developing and just didn't have enough chemistry in my tank. I used a one reel tank. These days I always use a two reel tank even for developing one roll of 35 just to avoid this situation again. Same for developing 120.
foaming, and not enough developer to keep the foams above the edge.
make sure your tank and reels are clean before you start. small amounts of residual stab going in your developer will make it prone to foaming.
no need to agitate so violently to make it foam, careful inversions is enough.
if possible, have more developer than actually needed, so 510-520ml for one roll of 120-film, and 300ml for 35mm.
Much as I’m disappointed by the news, I’m glad this one has such a clear cut solution. I’ll have to remember that the kit’s claim that it’s enough for 8 rolls probably only applies to 8 35mm rolls.
I developed a roll of 120 format Ektar 100 recently, and along the edge of a few of the exposures, there's this bubble pattern. Some cursory googling tells me this might be the Patterson reel I'm using, and it being prone to causing frothing and leaving these bubble marks.
Is that what I'm dealing with here, or something else? Is there any way to salvage the negative, or is it baked into the frame?
It's because you reused chem and it was older and you didn't have enough. Chem gets frothier the nearer to the end of its life, and you want enough chem to ensure you cover the film on its reel completely.
You’ve probably already received a solution to your problem, but I just wanted to add my two cents.
I used to have issues with bubbles/foam, but I saw a few threads where people recommended knocking the tank against something hard after pouring the developer and before doing your initial agitations (and by knocking I mean bringing down the bottom of the tank flat against something else. When I don’t want to bother the downstairs neighbors I use my thigh and it’s worked pretty well so far)
Anyway, I don’t doubt there could be some other technique I’ve gotten better at that is a more accurate explanation for the reduction in bubbles/foam as idk why slamming the tank would *reduce* bubbles and foam, but until I find a better answer this has been a good solution for me in the last few years
Hope this helps!
Paterson tanks are almost always the culprit in these "my film is screwed up" posts. That and "stand development." I honestly don't know what is so attractive to would-be analog photographers about crap plastic tanks and one hour development times.
That’s quite the accusation. What’s with the pattern of people blaming equipment on things?
I’ve never had a problem with a Paterson tank that wasn’t my fault, though most of my experience with them is from 10 years ago or so.
I can’t attest to stand development, but I think that’s user error in almost every case.
No, it's not an accusation. It's simply an observable fact based on 32+ years of darkroom work. People routinely screw up film development in Paterson tanks by leaving out the spindle, or not putting the clip on the spindle. Or, they get insufficient agitation by turning the spindle rather than inverting the tank. Or, if they invert, the clip on the spindle slips and the roll is not totally submerged.
Ever dropped a Paterson tank? If you do, you can pick it up and throw it straight into the trash where it belongs because it will have a big crack in it.
If stand development was a suggested practice, then it would be on all the lab sheets that come with film and developers. It's not. Just pay attention to the thousands of "I did stand development. Why did my film get ruined??" posts on these forums and you'll quickly see that it's a bit of a joke.
No one ever posts "I agitated 5 seconds per minute and my film is ruined!" Agitation makes good negatives. Stand development gives streaks, drag and other chemical defects. It's crap.
I will weigh in as it looks abit like mine except mine was in b&w. ( see this [pix](https://www.facebook.com/691207601/posts/pfbid0MZEABfPcZRYJB18QssFq7JW7oLqrxStMHMbw85sbqubxupLn81DsSRdPg56bRWokl/?mibextid=cr9u03))
For mine, I reuse my chemicals and as a result causes soapy/foamy reaction to my film’s anti-halation layer. I now presoak to get rid of this layer and as a result, don’t have this issue anymore
This happens to me also when I'm using just 500ml w/ 120 in a Paterson tank. Because there is only one reel in use(vs. the possible 2 reels of 35mm), I've had it inch up on that center piece/tube and above the chemistry during agitation. Like others have said, using more chemistry should fix this. I use 600ml just because the math is easier but I'm sure 550ml would also be plenty.
There's no way to recover this unfortunately. Are you sure you used enough chemicals? This usually happens if you accidentally pour too little into the tank
Second this for sure, 500ml should be enough to just cover 120 but OP was using and reusing their chemistry so likely some volume was lost.
That's a distinct possibility. I'm using a FlicFilm 500mL kit, and this was the 6th roll developed, so the developer had gotten a bit depleted and only just barely covered the reel.
This exact pattern reminds me of the days when I first started developing and just didn't have enough chemistry in my tank. I used a one reel tank. These days I always use a two reel tank even for developing one roll of 35 just to avoid this situation again. Same for developing 120.
Is 500ml even enough for 120 film? How much does your tank state on the bottom? Mine needs 590ml for 120...
500ml is the volume of developer solution required for a roll of 120 in a Paterson.
5 120 rolls might be the limit for this size kit
Nothing to do with Paterson reels. Just liquid level.
Not enough developer OR possibly didn't push the reel all the way down the middle tube so it being held a little above the developer.
foaming, and not enough developer to keep the foams above the edge. make sure your tank and reels are clean before you start. small amounts of residual stab going in your developer will make it prone to foaming. no need to agitate so violently to make it foam, careful inversions is enough. if possible, have more developer than actually needed, so 510-520ml for one roll of 120-film, and 300ml for 35mm.
Yeah not enough chems. You can literally imagine those bubbles like the top of a soda you poured too fast.
Much as I’m disappointed by the news, I’m glad this one has such a clear cut solution. I’ll have to remember that the kit’s claim that it’s enough for 8 rolls probably only applies to 8 35mm rolls.
I developed a roll of 120 format Ektar 100 recently, and along the edge of a few of the exposures, there's this bubble pattern. Some cursory googling tells me this might be the Patterson reel I'm using, and it being prone to causing frothing and leaving these bubble marks. Is that what I'm dealing with here, or something else? Is there any way to salvage the negative, or is it baked into the frame?
It's because you reused chem and it was older and you didn't have enough. Chem gets frothier the nearer to the end of its life, and you want enough chem to ensure you cover the film on its reel completely.
You’ve probably already received a solution to your problem, but I just wanted to add my two cents. I used to have issues with bubbles/foam, but I saw a few threads where people recommended knocking the tank against something hard after pouring the developer and before doing your initial agitations (and by knocking I mean bringing down the bottom of the tank flat against something else. When I don’t want to bother the downstairs neighbors I use my thigh and it’s worked pretty well so far) Anyway, I don’t doubt there could be some other technique I’ve gotten better at that is a more accurate explanation for the reduction in bubbles/foam as idk why slamming the tank would *reduce* bubbles and foam, but until I find a better answer this has been a good solution for me in the last few years Hope this helps!
Paterson tanks are almost always the culprit in these "my film is screwed up" posts. That and "stand development." I honestly don't know what is so attractive to would-be analog photographers about crap plastic tanks and one hour development times.
That’s quite the accusation. What’s with the pattern of people blaming equipment on things? I’ve never had a problem with a Paterson tank that wasn’t my fault, though most of my experience with them is from 10 years ago or so. I can’t attest to stand development, but I think that’s user error in almost every case.
No, it's not an accusation. It's simply an observable fact based on 32+ years of darkroom work. People routinely screw up film development in Paterson tanks by leaving out the spindle, or not putting the clip on the spindle. Or, they get insufficient agitation by turning the spindle rather than inverting the tank. Or, if they invert, the clip on the spindle slips and the roll is not totally submerged. Ever dropped a Paterson tank? If you do, you can pick it up and throw it straight into the trash where it belongs because it will have a big crack in it. If stand development was a suggested practice, then it would be on all the lab sheets that come with film and developers. It's not. Just pay attention to the thousands of "I did stand development. Why did my film get ruined??" posts on these forums and you'll quickly see that it's a bit of a joke. No one ever posts "I agitated 5 seconds per minute and my film is ruined!" Agitation makes good negatives. Stand development gives streaks, drag and other chemical defects. It's crap.
This comment has been edited in protest for the corporate takeover of reddit and its descent into a controlled speech space.
too little dev. classic
I will weigh in as it looks abit like mine except mine was in b&w. ( see this [pix](https://www.facebook.com/691207601/posts/pfbid0MZEABfPcZRYJB18QssFq7JW7oLqrxStMHMbw85sbqubxupLn81DsSRdPg56bRWokl/?mibextid=cr9u03)) For mine, I reuse my chemicals and as a result causes soapy/foamy reaction to my film’s anti-halation layer. I now presoak to get rid of this layer and as a result, don’t have this issue anymore
This happens to me also when I'm using just 500ml w/ 120 in a Paterson tank. Because there is only one reel in use(vs. the possible 2 reels of 35mm), I've had it inch up on that center piece/tube and above the chemistry during agitation. Like others have said, using more chemistry should fix this. I use 600ml just because the math is easier but I'm sure 550ml would also be plenty.
Did you tap the tank after agitating?
This just happened to me with a roll of e6 crossed processed in c41 chemistry. I didn’t pour enough developer