The pretty close to definitive guide to how you screwed up

[Sirius Glass]

Mamiya 645 pro Tl and RZ67 forever!

You are more than welcome to them. Take all of them as far as I am concerned.

 

[mshchem]

Dump the Bronicas, leave the Dark Side and come to the Hasselblad side.

Bronicas are long gone, damn nice cameras, but not even close to blad in the beautiful and design department. And Zeiss is pretty much the most amazing glass period.

 

[mshchem]

Ack. Electronics! RB67 (and lower-tech backup, Century Graphic).

A well maintained RB67 is pretty darn nice. And you can use the old Graflex roll holders. I remember in high school, 1970's when I first saw a RB it was love at first sight.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Bronicas are long gone, damn nice cameras, but not even close to blad in the beautiful and design department. And Zeiss is pretty much the most amazing glass period.

As a 12 year old I wanted a Bronica in the worst way. I as an adult I brought Hasselblads.

 

[mshchem]

As a 12 year old I wanted a Bronica in the worst way. I as an adult I brought Hasselblads.

When I was 12 I wanted a Hasselblad. The Bronica wasn't around. I couldn't afford medium format until I was growed up

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I was 12 I wanted a Hasselblad. The Bronica wasn't around. I couldn't afford medium format until I was growed up

Unless you are really old because the Bronicas have been around since the late 1950s early 1960s.

 

[mshchem]

Unless you are really old because the Bronicas have been around since the late 1950s early 1960s.

They weren't around in Cedar Rapids Iowa, at least I didn't see one. We had 3 shops the high-end shop was Sanford's. Hasselblads, Leica, Nikon, etc. Maybe they had Bronicas but I don't remember. I lusted after Hasselblads. I have 5 now. Maybe I should get more.

 

[Sirius Glass]

They weren't around in Cedar Rapids Iowa, at least I didn't see one. We had 3 shops the high-end shop was Sanford's. Hasselblads, Leica, Nikon, etc. Maybe they had Bronicas but I don't remember. I lusted after Hasselblads. I have 5 now. Maybe I should get more.

You cannot have too many Hasselblads.

 

[Radost]

Ack. Electronics! RB67 (and lower-tech backup, Century Graphic).

I have my Perkeo II and III/E for that.

 

[Donald Qualls]

A well maintained RB67 is pretty darn nice. And you can use the old Graflex roll holders.

And I do. I shoot 6x4.5 (with a Mamiya roll film back!), 6x6 (Graflex 22), 6x7 (Mamiya and Graflex RH10), and I've used a Graflex 23 (to get every millimeter of wide out of a 23 mm lens setup). And all of those also work on the Century, giving access (as I build up inventory) to a whole different breed of lenses.

 

[weasel]

here is my latest screw up. Went to develop some film I had shot. After loading the tank, realized I didnt have enough developer. So, went to make some d76 h , and after measuring the metol, my scale died. I had to go town to get batteries. So far, so good. But, in mixing the developer, which is metol, sodium sulfite, and borax, I got distracted, and left out the borax. Surprisingly enough, the negatives while not great or what I wanted, are printable. So, 2.5 grams metol, 100g sodium sulfite will develop film, lol.

 

[tokam]

@weasel it sounds like you made a weak D23ish type developer. Could call it D8 as you had about 1/3 the amount of metol as D-76 normally has.

 

[Donald Qualls]

here is my latest screw up. Went to develop some film I had shot. After loading the tank, realized I didnt have enough developer. So, went to make some d76 h , and after measuring the metol, my scale died. I had to go town to get batteries. So far, so good. But, in mixing the developer, which is metol, sodium sulfite, and borax, I got distracted, and left out the borax. Surprisingly enough, the negatives while not great or what I wanted, are printable. So, 2.5 grams metol, 100g sodium sulfite will develop film, lol.

@weasel it sounds like you made a weak D23ish type developer. Could call it D8 as you had about 1/3 the amount of metol as D-76 normally has.

Yep, D-23 has some considerable tolerance. But given what borax costs relative to metol, unless you're going to replenish D-76H will be cheaper to use than D-23, plus saving you (a little) time by working faster. Assuming you actually know what you're developing with...

 

[Heath Moore]

I am at a new place. Yes it has to be the water. Cleaned with isopropyl alcohol cleaned almost everything.
I have to say I like the film especially with a flash.

My film came out with a case of measles. Attachment is a small corner of a 6x6 but the spots are consistent throughout the entire roll.
HP5 120, no prewash, Legacy D76 1:2, 10min at 76f (too hot?), indicator stop, Legacy eco.pro fix 3min, rinse, arista hypo wash 5min, wash 5min, drop of dish washing liquid then air dry.
The negatives show no marking either side.
Afterward processed 4x5 negs in same chemistry... no marking.
I'll try rewashing and the alcohol rub, but I'm pretty sure its in the film. If it comes out I'll repost.
Has anyone seen such a case of measles?

 

[Sirius Glass]

My film came out with a case of measles. Attachment is a small corner of a 6x6 but the spots are consistent throughout the entire roll.
HP5 120, no prewash, Legacy D76 1:2, 10min at 76f (too hot?), indicator stop, Legacy eco.pro fix 3min, rinse, arista hypo wash 5min, wash 5min, drop of dish washing liquid then air dry.
The negatives show no marking either side.
Afterward processed 4x5 negs in same chemistry... no marking.
I'll try rewashing and the alcohol rub, but I'm pretty sure its in the film. If it comes out I'll repost.
Has anyone seen such a case of measles?

This is an example of problems from the paper backing that most 120 films experienced recently. For a while the paper backing was changed due to supply changes and the replacement backing had spotting and mottling issues. There is nothing wrong with your development regime.

 

[Heath Moore]

This is an example of problems from the paper backing that most 120 films experienced recently. For a while the paper backing was changed due to supply changes and the replacement backing had spotting and mottling issues. There is nothing wrong with your development regime.

Thanks! I found the appropriate thread about Ilford mfg problems and posted there. Also sent Ilford support a report on their form. KInda makes you wish they would go back to supplying 220 again!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks! I found the appropriate thread about Ilford mfg problems and posted there. Also sent Ilford support a report on their form. KInda makes you wish they would go back to supplying 220 again!

The header and tail for 220 film have more and bigger problems which drove up the cost adding to the demise of 220 film for the most part.

 

[Tim Stapp]

I got a blank roll of 120 film after running it through the RB67. I figured out what went wrong. In my rush to get out the door and to location before the fog lifted, I loaded the film so that the film was facing the back of the magazine. I've used this camera since 1992, and never made this error. I also forgot my tripod, so had to hand hold. I shot a video, but didn't know of the screw up until after development. All I could do was laugh!
Here is a recent upload...

I recently did the same thing. Must be I need a new roll for clip testing of both developer and fixer. Money well spent

 

[SodaAnt]

One issue not mentioned on that Ilford page, but one I've seen: Images are there and look fine, but there's no "edge signing".

This happened to me with expired PanF Plus. Apparently, latent images fade away on this film if the film is not developed promptly. The images were fine because I developed the film the day after exposing it, but the edge signing was exposed years earlier when the film was manufactured and had faded into invisibility.

 

[JensH]

One issue not mentioned on that Ilford page, but one I've seen: Images are there and look fine, but there's no "edge signing".

This happened to me with expired PanF Plus. Apparently, latent images fade away on this film if the film is not developed promptly. The images were fine because I developed the film the day after exposing it, but the edge signing was exposed years earlier when the film was manufactured and had faded into invisibility.

Yes, noticed that, too - the edge numbers are just factory made images...
As I don't buy fresh film every two months, it is something to live with - PanF+ is worth it.

 

[MattKing]

One issue not mentioned on that Ilford page, but one I've seen: Images are there and look fine, but there's no "edge signing".

This happened to me with expired PanF Plus. Apparently, latent images fade away on this film if the film is not developed promptly. The images were fine because I developed the film the day after exposing it, but the edge signing was exposed years earlier when the film was manufactured and had faded into invisibility.

It isn't your "screw-up" though - probably no-one's.
It is just a characteristic of the film.

Compare that with my efforts today.
I was using my Mamiya C330 on a tripod, and forgot that it doesn't play well with some cable releases. As a result, I ended up advancing a roll of T-Max 400 right through without stopping. Either loosening or removing that cable release restored the camera to normal operation for the next roll.
It seems I have a roll of T-Max 400 that is ready to complete re-spooling to a 620 spool.

 

[88E30M50]

It goes against the current trend for endless experimentation of equipment and materials, but the one camera, one film, one developer approach has a lot to commend it for consistent negatives. Cut down the variables and tweak results to perfection.

I agree. I've only been back into film for about 7 months now but am on my third bulk roll of Kentmere 100. Once I've mastered that, I'll move on to HP5. But, for now, K100 let's me shoot (i.e. learn) more per dollar spent. This guide could have been mistaken for my photo archive, but with less offensive language focused at myself.

 

[snusmumriken]

Just discovered - possibly invented - a new way to foul up with the Leica M6 in bright sunshine. Pulled it from the bag for a grab shot. No time to adjust exposure, forgot that the dial would have been on ‘B’ (=meter switch) to prevent accidental battery drain. Result not only missed shot, but frames on either side also ruined by light spilling over, presumably along the backing.
Arguably worse yet, I can no longer remember what I was trying to get a grab shot of, although it was only yesterday.

 

[lamerko]

Failures can have many dimensions...apparently I've been very sleepy loading film into my Bronica SQ...with the paper upside down.
The session has failed miserably, but should I try shooting the film again?

 

[khh]

The backing paper isn't designed to be completely light tight with just a single layer. How fogged it is would depend on how bright the lights were during the shoot, but I would certainly expect fogging near the edges and for any bright point sources (e.g. lights and the sun) to have fogged the film through the backing paper. Additionally it would have been more exposed to scratches and other emission damage going through the camera the wrong way. Personally I would not risk using the film again, but it would be interesting to develop it as is just to learn how this actually affected the film.