THE RED SHADOW SURFACES AGAIN!
By Ron Knowles (Area 11)
No this is`nt a re-hash of the Sigmond Romberg musical The Desert Song slipped in as a `filler`! In fact - take away a little for poetic licence - and the rest of this contribution is a very serious, and very true, example of the mishaps that tend to creep in from time to time - fortunately, as in this case, these can usually be found to be based on a perfectly logical explanation.
Way down there in Colchester the Pearles, Major & Rita, were having persistent trouble with their version of the Red Shadow effect - not on one or two tests but again and again. And, I`m assured, when they say red shadow that`s exactly what they mean - not, you understand, the comparitively insignificent tobacco effect" which plagued Bill Reid and others at one time, but a really bright red in each and every shadow area.
A long series of tests - changing this and that, including a fresh supply of CD3, adjusting and carefully checking pH values - all failed to isolate the problem, or even provide a clue as to the cause. And I can confirm that the Pearles have not been involved in any of the previous troubles.
But this time they were almost literally driven to distraction! To the point that Major told me he would pack up photography and take up fishing! But then, on reflection this was out because he always felt so sorry for the poor little fishes!
Then. Bingo. All was revealed! Right out of the red, as it were! THE FILMS WERE FOGGED! By an LED light! So how come? Well quite simple really. A pH meter, usually kept in a closed cupboard had it`s own LED light showing across the room. You may think it strange that the light should have been unnoticed during the period of all these tests. But it can be appreciated that its effect would not be seen exept when the film was being loaded and the room in darkness, and this is usually done by Major himself... and his eyesight is so bad he didn`t even notice the cupboard door had been left open! But that light was the trouble.
All of which should underline the importance of attending to each and every detail. All the time! In all directions! Tony Chuter and I agreed long ago that the furore surrounding the so-called Tobacco Effect was, somewhere along the line due to fogging. Bill Reid was advised to this effect. But it was never proved. Now, however, the Pearles have come up with positive verification and their films are back to their own very high standard. On this same theme I myself have always been most meticulous in my efforts to avoid any possibility of fogging. My wrist watch, for instance, has the face digits and hands luminous... so it`s covered during the critical loading period. The dial thermometer is also luminous. So it`s covered. The brightest lights in my darkroom are the warning ones on the UNO Heater/Control. Four thicknesses of a towel curb their intensity! The doorway is rendered completely light-proof with a plastic curtain made from two bin liners joined together and hung so that it covers the door-frame completely. Remember a faint emission of light is not immediately apparent to human eyes... but the sensitive emulsion has no such "lazy" delaying period. It does, in fact, react instantly to light which may be virtually invisible to the eye. Mind you I`m not suggesting that fogging is the sole cause of red shadows, not by any means, in fact Ron Croad points out in his Inter-News number 8, that stale, under-strength or over-worked solutions - especially the reversal bath, and the Colour developer. Contamination between baths can be a trouble. If a Ferricyanite Bleach is used - and this has now been brought back into favour in some quarters - it is vital that a stop bath is used following the Colour Developer in order to avoid contamination. If this is omitted the film will be.... well red!
But fogging is probably the most frustrating and can be difficult to discover. So Beware of those LED`s and luminous dials!!C O M M E N T S
It is nice to read about Rita & Major solving this problem and, Ron`s advice to check every possible source for trouble in the darkroom is spot on. However I felt a reply to the way I solved/omitted that my "tobacco Effect" could have been due to any darkroom trouble is, that for many years now I have always loaded my films into the Developing tank inside a changing bag so none of these suggestions apply. I did suspect my changing bag at one stage and used another one, but with no difference.
Certainly. Fogging is the main suspect, but Ron Croad has since, done numerous tests and seems to think the problem may be `weak` chemicals, possibly due to the fact that when W&M 300 & 600ml sized brews, errors could be introduced as against W&M 1Litre sizes. It could be that the measurements for 1Litres are so fine that enough error can be had when making smaller sizes, that the chemicals don`t last the course, either by becoming weak after the first use, or being left for second or third use over a period. I always use my brew all in one session, not starting until I have enough films exposed for the job. Only the Bleach & Fixer being kept for maximum use. The problem doesn`t ocurr during the first film or test run. I am inclined to go along with our Secretary`s views. He has produced a formula that he thinks should solve the problem, but I just havn`t had the time to do any processing so far. Once I have and it proves positive it will be published for others to try. (if you would like to try it before hand, please write or phone and I will send you a copy).
Ron Croad suggests that contrast may be a bit higher, though I didn`t notice any difference in his sample slides. This is because the E6 formula as published was tweeked for the minimum contrast possible.Bill Reid. (Ed.).