Odd grain pattern on efke 100 film, little white dots

[mentalcrisis00]

I developed some of my efke iso 100 film tonight and scanned it with an epson V750. I noticed immediately this weird pattern in the grain, like tiny white tin pricks. This wasn't on my Kodak Tmax 400 film. I scanned them at 1200dpi and downed them to 200dpi for web viewing. My developing procedure is below, I used trays.

2 minute prewash, 10 minutes D76 1:1, water stop for 1 minute, fixer with 30ML hardener 5 minutes, rinse for 2-5 minutes.

Could this be a problem with my development or is it dirt on the scanner? I'm trying this film because a friend recommended it. Would I get better results with Rodinal?

Example picture below, enlarged 100% from original. You can see it mostly on dark tones like the church doors.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/rpringle2003/4x5002detail.jpg

[Shadowtracker]

It looks like micro dust on the film itself; hard for me to say really.

If it were my film, I would suspect dirty film holders first, and static attraction to dust second. I have found that when loading film holders in winter, indoors, it better for me to get some humidity in the darkroom first - kind of like steaming a bathroom before hanging up film to dry. That seems to help prevent dust from being attracted to the film some. I can't really decide if that's actually happening or just a good habit to be in during winter month though.

My 2 cents.

Tim

[mentalcrisis00]

Thanks unfortunately I don't have much control over darkroom conditions because I rent from a community darkroom studio. Could the dust be getting on there pre or post development? I looked at the negatives on a light table and there seems to be tiny black dots on the film. Could the dust be on there pre development and than during development it gets burned in?

I use a dark tent to load and unload my film, when I unload I put it in a spare 50 sheet film box. I developed some kodak tmax last month and it was a lot cleaner than this.

[Gem Singer]

Enlargement of the white specks shows that they are round and appear over the entire negative.

Dust spots are usually not round and uniform.

Looks like a chemical reaction during the development process.

[ic-racer]

Are there black specs on the negatives? Why is it that people that scan can't look at a negative?

[mentalcrisis00]

I looked at the negatives on a light table and there seems to be tiny black dots on the film.

As I stated above I look at all my negs on the light table first before scanning. There are black specs on the film and they don't seem to be physical dust because when I try to brush or blow them off they don't move. Probably a chemical reaction of some sort as Gem says, these were my first attempts at using Efke 100 film so I probably did something wrong while I was developing.

[dsphotog]

Ray, Is there a rough texture when you lightly rub the emulsion side with your finger tip?

[mentalcrisis00]

Ray, Is there a rough texture when you lightly rub the emulsion side with your finger tip?

No there doesn't seem to be. When I was drying I didn't wipe the film, perhaps it got dust on it and it adhered to the film during drying. I didn't wipe my kodak film either and didn't seem to have this problem. I did have a few white specs on my Kodak film however no where near this bad.

[dsphotog]

Was the Kodak & Efke processed at the same time?
If so it's not the process.

[mentalcrisis00]

No they weren't I developed my last batch of Kodak Tmax 400 about 3 weeks ago. The Efke is stuff that I've done in the past couple weeks, just developed it tonight. I searched google and it seems like most people agree that this is caused by 1 of 3 things. 1st mineral deposits from hard tap water. 2nd Dust that gets on the emulsion as the film is drying. 3rd a chemical reaction from bad developer or fixer.

I'm not really sure at which stage in my process this stuff is coming from. Any dust that gets on the film before exposure will show up as white on the neg (black in an enlargement or scan). Any dust after/during development will show up as black spots on the neg (white in an enlargement or scan). As I understand it anyhow, however as Gem said the particles don't look quite like dust so it may be a bad chemical somewhere along the line.

Only reason I'm in kind of a panic is that I'm leaving for DV tomorrow evening and I want to make sure it's not the film that is the problem. And to pin point what exactly I'm doing wrong during my process to cause this to happen so I can prevent it. Going to vacuum out my changing tent, film holders, and camera tomorrow just to be on the safe side.

[dsphotog]

I'm thinking it's the water, I'd try using distilled water & see if that cures it.
I used to dev. b&w film at a local camera store, the owner cheaped out & wouldn't replace a water filter.... I could feel the grit embeded in the emulsion.

[Shen45]

Take a blank unexposed sheet and process as normal then see if you hav e the same black / white spots.

Do everything just as you did with the suspect film.

Steve

[mentalcrisis00]

Great idea Steve I'll do that when I get back from my trip and see what happens. I'll develop the film one sheet at a time if I have to. Always run into bugs like this when I change something so big in my process. Thousands of people have learned to make good photos from efke film, so can I.

[Shen45]

Have a great trip.

[mikebarger]

There have been a lot of threads about QA issues with 2nd tier film products.

I hope you haven't bumped into that issue just before an important trip.


Mike

[Jim Michael]

We had the same issue with some IR film. The best way we found to deal with it was the dust & scratch filter in PS, with the threshold set real high, say 32, which helps avoid unwanted changes to other parts of the image.

[jp]

I've had some bigger white spots on my efke 50 film that show up in dark clouds. I know my water isn't perfect and has some minerals that make it past my sand-trap tank thing in the basement. I do the final rinse with distilled water before hanging the negative to dry.

I don't get any with tmy2 film, and I never ever have any problems with tmy2, so that's what I've settled on. I've got a few holders left of efke, which I'll save for some scene I want to process with caffenol-c. (caffenol-c isn't ideal for tmy2)

I have found the epson scanner bed to be a dust magnet. You pretty much have to clean it every scanning session as room dust settles on the glass over time. I think lifting the scanner lid also draws nearby dust to the glass. Scanning documents also pulls dust off paper onto the glass. I get more dust from scanning than from optical printing, but of course, it's easy to clean up on the computer when it happens.

[Michael Kadillak]

It is always a good idea with any Efke/Adox purchases to immediately shoot and develop a sheet (and possibly an unexposed sheet) just to make sure that the film has no quality control issues that would require you to have the film replaced. It is my experience that pin holes, density banding, or any other emulsion defect are usually not random events that could only have an impact on a small number of sheets in a box.

I have never found the need to go down this precautionary road with Ilford or Kodak. It just is what it is. Now that Efke and Adox have significantly raised their prices, one would think that they could raise the bar in this regard. Likely not going to happen but they are good about standing behind the film.

[nolindan]

This same problems crops up with Efke films every few years and seems to originate with Efke's film manufacturing process. Try a box with a different lot number. You may want to post the lot number of your box so others can either avoid it or comment on it if they find they have a suspect box.

[jvuokko]

Unfortunately Adox/Efke films has these faults sometimes. I have seen similar white spots too.
The quality control at Efke factory is quite poor and it's not a big suprise if there's particles on the emulsion etc...
Have seen many kind of anomalies, which is pity as the Efke 25, 50 and 100 are really beautiful films without good replacement.

Adox versions has a bit tighter quality control, I believe. But still you can get a whole box with some fault or box where some sheets are good and some really bad.

Efke 50 and 100 with good quality control would be awesome!


Ps. I have tried to contact Efke several times concerning a bad batch but no lucky. Adox will respond quickly. Perhaps they are more interested about the reputation of the brand than Efke.

[jvuokko]

It is always a good idea with any Efke/Adox purchases to immediately shoot and develop a sheet (and possibly an unexposed sheet) just to make sure that the film has no quality control issues that would require you to have the film replaced. It is my experience that pin holes, density banding, or any other emulsion defect are usually not random events that could only have an impact on a small number of sheets in a box.


That is a good practice. Especially when taking sheets from top, bottom and centre of the pile.

When Adox/Efke was cheaper, I used to take always backup shot with a bit different emulsion too. Often that saved a good photograph. But it also meant that I lost the cheapness of the film.

[patrickjames]

I have been using Efke 100 too lately and so far haven't had any problems with it. I love the tonality of Fomapan 400, but I don't use it because of all the little annoying problems with it. If I scanned film instead of printing it I would use only that. Any problem though is fatal to the image if you are going to print it in the darkroom. Never had any problems with Ilford films, ever. I am probably going to go back to Ilford anyway since right now there is almost no cost savings with the second tier films. Efke 100 and FP4 are basically the same price right now.

From my experience with these things, I would avoid using that film on your trip (unless you scan film, then it is only an additional pain). When you are traveling, film is the cheapest thing. Not worth messing around with it.

[mentalcrisis00]

I'm going to go to my local hunts before i get to the bus station tonight and pick up a box of Kodak TMAX 100 because thats the film I'm familiar with. Even under the worst of conditions I seem to get good results with kodak. I'm sure I can get good results with the efke as well but I just haven't had enough time to experiment.

Hunts sells 50 sheet boxes of tmax 100 4x5 for $70, only $10 over B&H prices so it'll have to do.

[jp]

I have been using Efke 100 too lately and so far haven't had any problems with it. I love the tonality of Fomapan 400, but I don't use it because of all the little annoying problems with it. If I scanned film instead of printing it I would use only that.

I tried Fomapan 400 in 120 and observed the problems many describe for 120, but it was otherwise nice. That was apparently due to the 120 specific things like the backing paper or something. What sized film had you observed issues in? I'm curious to try it again now that it's in 4x5 as it might not have that same issue. I use fomapan 100 in 8x10 and consider that to be very high quality in that format. Of course a couple little specs in an 8x10 won't show up like a small film magnified to 8x10.

[jp]

I'm going to go to my local hunts before i get to the bus station tonight and pick up a box of Kodak TMAX 100 because thats the film I'm familiar with. Even under the worst of conditions I seem to get good results with kodak. I'm sure I can get good results with the efke as well but I just haven't had enough time to experiment.

Hunts sells 50 sheet boxes of tmax 100 4x5 for $70, only $10 over B&H prices so it'll have to do.

You mentioned in your original post you'd been using tmax 400. That is quite a bit different than tmax 100. If you are familiar with both, you'll be fine.

If you are getting one as a substitute for the other or to save a couple dollars, there's a lot more differences than two f stops if you are a fussy printer. Their curves are different and I find they render green foliage differently, especially coniferous. They will both be top quality films in terms of sharpness and overall quality.

[mentalcrisis00]

You mentioned in your original post you'd been using tmax 400. That is quite a bit different than tmax 100. If you are familiar with both, you'll be fine.


I have used both before, I liked the Tmax 100 more because it seems a bit less contrasty than 400 and it is more forgiving with exposures. Usually I just shoot it at it's given ISO just so I don't have to do anything too complicated when I develop. My negs were much more consistent with Tmax 100 as apposed to the 400 stuff I did. Figure I can get away with a lower sensitivity film because it's going to be pretty sunny in DV all week.

I've only been doing large format for 4 months now steady so I haven't had a lot of time to experiment. So I just shoot what the meter gives me and use the Dev chart from digital truth to tell me the development times or see what people on the forum are doing.

[Lungeh]

That interesting--I printed some Arista EDU (4x5) this week that showed some similar "texturing" in about half the batch--which was all developed together...