PDA

View Full Version : Can anyone tell me what went wrong with this film?



williaty
9-Jun-2016, 21:14
I need your help troubleshooting a problem with a roll of film and it’s going to be a doozy because there’s no known-working parts. It's with medium format film but I am hoping you guys will forgive that since you're one of the last places on the net to ask about developing problems where you can expect to get educated answers. I’m coming back to film photography after a long absence (we never broke up, we just took a 13 year vacation). So it’s a film I’ve never used before, a camera I’ve never used before, developing in a place I’ve never worked before, and all new chemistry and equipment. Here’s what I can tell you about the process:

1) Film is Ilford FP4+ that expired around the same time as the Y2K Bug. I think it was refrigerated for most of that time.
2) Camera is a new-to-me Mamiya RZ67 kit with 3 lenses and a two backs. This problem occurred with all 3 lenses on this roll but (obviously) only one film back was used. I have shot only 3 other rolls with this camera kit but none of them had homogeneous areas where this problem would be visible (all forest scenes) so I don’t know if it afflicted them as well.
3) Developer is XTOL from the 5L dry packets mixed with tap water (city water, slightly hard). Developer was mixed as per directions for temp and volumes. Only slightly weird thing was that there was a tiny bit of very coarse precipitate on the bottom of the mixing vessel. Not fine like powder. Coarse like corn meal. There was probably a dozen grains around 1mm in diameter. These never dissolved even though I waited. Developer was then poured into individual glass bottles. This roll was run about 3 hours after the XTOL was mixed from powder.
4) Film was developed in XTOL 1:1 at 20C for 10 minutes. Inversion was standard (first minute, then 10 seconds each minute).
5) Film was given a 1 minute stop bath in citric acid mixed from powder at 10g per L with tap water.
6) Film was fixed in Photographer’s Formulary TF-5 diluted 1:4 with tap water at 20C for for 4 minutes with standard inversions.
7) Film was washed for 5 minutes in running tap water at 20C.
8) Film was scanned on Epson V850. Contrast was increased in PS with Levels to make the mottling clearer.

Example 1 shows the problem on a building which obviously should not have this texture.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7431/27296775900_de2078d688_b.jpg

Example 2 shoes a HIGHLY contrast-amplified section of sky that was high white overcast. You can see where typical cloud texture gives way to weird fibrous problem texture.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7566/27539374096_02c6aeb8ce_b.jpg


Can anyone tell me what’s going on here?

Peter Gomena
9-Jun-2016, 21:27
You are using 16-year-old film.

williaty
9-Jun-2016, 21:38
You are using 16-year-old film.
A lot of guys seem to make it work for film even older than that.

AtlantaTerry
9-Jun-2016, 21:39
...
I have shot only 3 other rolls with this camera kit but none of them had homogeneous areas where this problem would be visible (all forest scenes) so I don’t know if it afflicted them as well.
...
Can anyone tell me what’s going on here?

Actually, you do have homogeneous areas. Closely examine the blank areas between the exposed frames. You should have about 1/8" of space. If those areas are not cleanly clear then you have a problem with the 16 year old film.

Go buy some fresh film and see if your problem goes away.

Kevin Harding
9-Jun-2016, 21:53
Could it be bubbles of some sort in the developer?

williaty
9-Jun-2016, 21:55
Actually, you do have homogeneous areas. Closely examine the blank areas between the exposed frames. You should have about 1/8" of space. If those areas are not cleanly clear then you have a problem with the 16 year old film.

Go buy some fresh film and see if your problem goes away.
So yes, obviously I'm going to try a roll of current film.

However, your suggestion about the inter-frame area sent me downstairs to the light box to take a look. On the afflicted roll, I can't see the problem in the inter-frame Fb+F areas so there's no point in checking the other rolls. I can only see it in areas with density. However, looking at it critically on the light box, I noticed 2 things:

1) The problem exist only along one edge of the film, extending 20-25mm in from the edge.

2) The problem appears, when looked at with a broader view than the scanner, for all the world like the shadow of foamy bubbles.


This leads me to wonder if it actually IS foamy bubbles! I use an AP Universal (also sold as Kaiser and now Arista I guess) tank and have done for many hundreds of rolls. In all that time, I have never had a solitary 120 reel shift on the central shaft. However, when I opened the tank this time, the reel had moved up to the top of the central shaft. I assumed I had caused that to happen when I shook it somewhat roughly to get the last of the fixer out of it. If, instead, I somehow did this early in the developing cycle (and that would be weird because I've done hundreds, if not a thousand, of rolls of 120 in this tank back in the dark ages) it might explain the problem. When processing a single 120 reel, you don't fill the tank as full as you would for 2 135 reels. I bet if the reel moved up on the central shaft the top edge of the film would be setting at the foam at the top of the developer rather than fully in the fluid. This would also explain why I only see it in areas with density.

So I think fresh film and maybe playing withe the tank to see how hard it is to shake the reel out of position. Still doesn't explain why this is the first time it's happened to me, but life is full of surprises.

eberry_tapes
11-Jun-2016, 17:28
I had a similar looking problem and it was because I used to use photoflo in the tank while the film was still on the reel. I cleaned the reels thoroughly with a toothbrush and the problem went away (and stopped using photoflo with the tank and reel).

Kevin Harding
11-Jun-2016, 17:39
If you're using a standard Paterson sized tank, this is one reason why I actually use 600mL of liquid instead of the 450 the tank suggests.

williaty
11-Jun-2016, 18:08
1) Photoflo is never allowed anywhere near any of my equipment except the dedicated bread pan I dip the film in right before I hang it.

2) Using an AP tank. Yeah, I've been wondering if it's just better to fill the tank as though I were running 2x 135 rolls and then re-use the developer for a second 120 roll to offset the cost increase.

Tim Meisburger
11-Jun-2016, 18:23
Sounds like, after 16 years, you may have forgotten a bit of your previous workflow, and made a mistake loading or agitating the tank. Take extra care next time and see if the problem doesn't disappear.

Regarding the film, not all expired film is equal. True, much expired film that was properly stored is useful long after its sell by date. but that is very dependent on storage. I bought some 35mm that was just a few years out of date that was almost worthless. My guess is that it had been stored in a hot place (in Bangkok) for several years, and that the heat had seriously degraded the film.

Willie
11-Jun-2016, 19:32
Have you tried re-fixing?

howardpan
11-Jun-2016, 20:37
I noticed that you used an acidic stop bath before the fixer step. I believe you are using an alkaline fixer which should not require an acidic stop bath. I know a water bath is recommended instead. Is it possible that you ran into problems in the fixer step?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

btaskov
19-Jun-2016, 04:20
I think is weird to discuss what could be wrong with your film when even you are not sure if your equipment works properly...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Gary Beasley
19-Jun-2016, 05:31
I have seen that texture with film that was outdated and damaged from overly high humidity, seems to be some kind of reaction with the paper carrier. Was the film in its original sealed foil wrapper? Otherwise I would suspect defective fixer.

williaty
19-Jun-2016, 08:52
As noted, it was the reel. I've run several rolls since from the same era in the same batch of chemicals and they're all fine. Just turns out liquid developer works more evenly than foam!