View Full Version : Honeycomb structures on negative?...
Can someone explain to me what exaclty happened here?
I got a few 4x5 TriX-320 back from my lab with these strange honeycomb-structures appearing in the upper corners, left and right, (up = where the notches are) and of course I wasn't happy about that.
My first suspicion was that the developer foamed and therefore left these strange markings and I but my reclamation was rebutted...they told me it was some kind of electrostatic discharge but that really doesn't look like an electrostatic discharge to me.
so what do you think?
Definitely bubbles...
Electrostatic discharge?
I can't imagine they believe that themselves...
j
Drew Wiley
2-Dec-2008, 16:09
I once had some wild honeybees attempt to build a nest in my darkroom exhaust fan.
Had to run the thing full blast for three days to discourage them. Ended up with a few
chopped-up bees in my developer. Perhaps they were plotting revenge on someone.
Otherwise, it looks like the start of reticulation from sudden changes in temperature
between one solution and another.
Looks like suds. Ask the lab if they used a pre-soak using photo-flo or something similar. Too heavy a dilution without a proper rinse might have left these and interfered with the flow of the developer.
Just in case this is a residue from a quick dry type of solution, have you tried rewashing them?
I've never seen retriculation this large and electrostatic sounds almost laughable. That would look much more like lightning bolts.
Talk to the top guy at the lab, not the desk person who is covering for whomever messed up.
ic-racer
2-Dec-2008, 17:59
Just a guess; any or all:
Nitrogen burst agitation with
Residual soap or photoflo and
Not enough developer to cover the film
It looks like bubbles to me not electrostatic discharge, what's odd is that it appears
only in a portion of the negative and it looks like it's behind the flowers and not over them
and it appears to be part of the exposure to me.
Brad Rippe
2-Dec-2008, 19:29
It looks like it could be a light leak sometime during development. Notice the double image of the bubbles, almost as if it was flashed when the development was in process.
Electrostatic discharge doesn't look at all like this.
-Brad
Clueless Winddancing
2-Dec-2008, 23:58
It would be interesting to know exactly what is their standard workflow with which chemicals. What does the emulsion surface reveal when looked at an angle? If one developed in an open tray and left an inspection light on, took a puff off a cigarette, or had a "glowing wrist watch withe the face down while the film "rested" between agitations the result might be what -if the developer also had lots of bubbles? Where is Sherlock?
Alan Davenport
3-Dec-2008, 00:14
Bubbles, no question about it. Kinda cool in its own weird way...
Thank you!
I was really stunned by the labguys explanation, I thought it was just too stupid to make it up...well, lesson learned. I guess the exposure during the development could also be the reason why all my negatives were about 2-3 stops overexposed and really low in contrast.
Another lab that I can cross off my list of reliable photo laboratories...
If it were me, unless this was a lab with which I had a good relationship, I'd be casting around for another one and/or speak to the manager/owner. Excuses like this, if from a professional lab are insulting and do not bode well unless dealt with properly. If it's a mistake, fess up, I would have accepted that as I'm sure we all would have. Things happen, I've screwed up my share of film while working in a lab but never shied away from the consequences of said f-up.
I would also guess that these negs probably had a long bath in the developer which could explain the density issue. Probably forgot about the film while doing other things.
I hope you get a better explanation for this from TPTB. Good luck.
ic-racer
3-Dec-2008, 10:04
It looks like it could be a light leak sometime during development. Notice the double image of the bubbles, almost as if it was flashed when the development was in process.
Electrostatic discharge doesn't look at all like this.
-Brad
Yes, looks like the bubbles moved. Though, if it were a light leak, the 'liquid' part of the bubble would be lighter. Whereas if the 'liquid' part of the bubble were DEVELOPER, those areas would be darker.
If it were me, unless this was a lab with which I had a good relationship, I'd be casting around for another one and/or speak to the manager/owner. Excuses like this, if from a professional lab are insulting and do not bode well unless dealt with properly. If it's a mistake, fess up, I would have accepted that as I'm sure we all would have. Things happen, I've screwed up my share of film while working in a lab but never shied away from the consequences of said f-up.
I would also guess that these negs probably had a long bath in the developer which could explain the density issue. Probably forgot about the film while doing other things.
I hope you get a better explanation for this from TPTB. Good luck.
Of course I talked to the manager oh the photo store right away, he agreed that there must have been some mistake during the development but as he doesn't develop it himself he called the lab he sent it to. The next day the owner of this lab arrived and picked up the negatives for retouching, a few days later I went to the photo store again where I got back the negatives with a written note that it must have been electrostatic discharge and the lab doesn't feel responsible for it.
I told the store manager that's impossible as it doesn't look like an ESD and I'm sure these are bubbles/foam marks.
Anyway...it seems that neither is the lab nor the store competent so then won't have to bother with yet another customer. :rolleyes:
Never saw anything like it. It would be very interesting for you to duplicate your process, shoot very similar negs and get them processed elsewhere. I'm betting the lab you went to put a ton of photo flo in the developer by mistake and somehow let bubbles impinge on the developing process. They sound like they need to work on quality control and honesty.
C
Kevin Crisp
3-Dec-2008, 14:32
I'd say the excuse offered is simply ludicrous. A static spark that went round and round and round? Sure, pretty likely. My first reaction was also "looks like photoflo bubbles" and apparently I wasn't alone in that. Any lab can make a mistake but they should own up to it. The reason they decided not to touch them up is that they saw the negative and realized how difficult and time consuming it would be to even attempt it.
I guarantee you it didn't happen in the camera.
nolindan
3-Dec-2008, 17:55
It looks to me like foam on the negative while the negative was exposed to light. It is the walls of foam bubbles that appear light/white - as experimentation with a few bottles of beer will bear out - and these image as dark on the negative.
How the lab managed to pull this stunt would be an interesting thing to know. My guess is they hit the white light switch thinking the negs were in the fix when they weren't.
Maybe for grins you could post the name of the lab ... at the least threaten them with posting if they don't back down and fess up - and maybe have them throw in a 100 sheets of TMX. Jerks like this deserve a bit of blackmail, probably expect it, too.
Funny how it isn't the deed that really lands someone in hot water but the denial.
Maybe for grins you could post the name of the lab ... at the least threaten them with posting if they don't back down and fess up - and maybe have them throw in a 100 sheets of TMX. Jerks like this deserve a bit of blackmail, probably expect it, too.
Funny how it isn't the deed that really lands someone in hot water but the denial.
That would be Color Drack (CD) from Austria.
But i don't think that posting here matters to them, nor that they would react to blackmail at all, they have by far too many stores as their clients care about one costumer (obviously).
If I screw up I accept my responsibility and the blame, therefore I expect everyone else to do the same thing, if they don't they are not only incompetent but also discourteous and unreliable.
Bees. Perhaps killer bees. Definitely bees.:)
You may want to consider investing in a home processing setup, like a Combi-Tank and chemicals. I'm assuming you already have a changing bag. You'd end up saving money over the long haul, and the improvement in quality would be immense. You could then control the processing to tailor your contrast for your printing methods; try different developers; etc.
~Joe
John Powers
7-Dec-2008, 07:28
Bees. Perhaps killer bees. Definitely bees.:)
You may want to consider investing in a home processing setup, like a Combi-Tank and chemicals.
~Joe
There are so many here and on APUG that have had trouble with the Combi tank. I am sure there are defenders and I do not mean to offend, but it may be out of the pan and into the fire. I would take the tray route or a Jobo.
Personally I have bad allergies so i didn't want to work over the trays even with good ventilation. I have been very happy with a Jobo CPP-2 for 3-4 years now doing 4x5, then 8x10 and now 7x17.
John
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.