Problem caused by lab?

[al olson]

For physical reasons I have not been doing any darkroom work since last spring. In the meantime I accumulated rolls of film (35mm and 120) as well as sheets of film in E-6, C-41, and B&W. Realizing that I would not be able to develop these films for a few more months, I sent them to a Denver lab. Although the lab claims to do all three processes, they told me that they farm out the B&W to another lab.

When the developed films were returned, all was well, except for all 14 of the B&W sheets that were exposed over the course of the year. All were blank! No indication of any image but two sheets had a slight semblance of rebate. It is also fair to say that the blank sheets appear to be slightly fogged.

The first thing I did was to check the shutters on the two 4x5 cameras that I used for these films. Both shutters opened and closed in acceptable intervals, at least to cause some image to form.

The 14 sheets were a mix of TMY, HP5+, and Delta 100. The fact that no image had been formed on any of these sheets indicates to me that either the developer was extremely weak or that they had never been through the developer at all. First question:
If the film had not been through the developer at all, would I get a result like this if they had only been fixed?

I am beginning to look at this as a lab error rather than a user error. All of the sheets have clip marks which indicate to me that the process was likely a dip 'n' dunk. I know that this process is highly automated. Now for anyone who might be familiar with dip 'n' dunk processing, my question is:
Is it possible for the dip 'n' dunk process to skip the developer stage and go right to the fix step?

I hope I get some knowledgeable responses because I intend to have a few words with the lab. This is about a $70 loss considering the cost of film and cost of processing.

[darr]

Sorry Al, I cannot offer any insights just a sympathetic heart.
I process all my film (now days just B&W) in an ATL 1000 and hardly ever experience a problem, but when I do, it is usually in the loading of the canisters.

Kind regards,
Darr

[Scott Walker]

I grabbed the wrong bottle one day and developed some film in fresh fixer mixed 1:4 for 9 minutes then stop bath and another 5 minutes in fixer.

The results were clear film

[tgtaylor]

My sympathy as well Al.

If nothing appears on negative or only a faint partial rebate then that may be an indication of a defective sheet but it is highly unlikely that so many sheets in a row would be defective. I had one blank sheet of Fuji Acros that I processed in a Jobo with 9 other sheets. The latter came out fine and I assumed that I forgot to take the lens cap off or something. But if that would have happened the rebate sould have been there wouldn't it?

[false_Aesthetic]

I only shoot 5x7 so it might be different for 4x5 but is there text "printed" on the film like in 120/35mm rolls?

I know there isn't for 5x7.

If text *should* be there and it isn't... bad/no developing.

[Brian C. Miller]

Al, of course you have my sympathies as well.

False, there's no factory printing on LF B&W sheets.

It really sounds like the B&W lab botched the process. Since you see a slight rebate and some fogging, then the fault is with the developer stage, not necessarily with the developer chemical. Perhaps the film went into the chemicals, then someone turned on the lights, and then just hit a button to abort the development stage and continue with the rest of the process.

If the developer was skipped completely, the film would be clear. I sometimes put a snip of film through the fixer to measure clearing time, and that's the result. So the film did hit the developer, and then something happened.

[Kirk Gittings]

In another life I worked at a couple of labs. At one of them the worker accidentally exposed all of someones film to the light. To cover their asses they just processed some blank film and gave it to the guy and told him it was some problem with his camera. I didn't work there long.

[tgtaylor]

False, there's no factory printing on LF B&W sheets.


Brian,

There is factory exposure on the rebate of Kodak and Fuji films but not Ilford.

[al olson]

I only shoot 5x7 so it might be different for 4x5 but is there text "printed" on the film like in 120/35mm rolls?

I know there isn't for 5x7.

If text *should* be there and it isn't... bad/no developing.

Good point. The text is visible on the TMY, the other sheets are without. But I do not believe that Ilford puts text on any of their sheet films. Hmmm ... then it looks like some development occurred on the TMY.

Brian -- These sheets are lightly fogged, if that. It is hard to tell, but they seem darker than normal. However, there should still be some images that would be darker.

Kirk -- Interesting theory. They would have had to process three different film types, but I guess it could happen.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Maris Rusis]

Black and white film put inadvertently through colour processing is blank.

[al olson]

Black and white film put inadvertently through colour processing is blank.

Thank you for that information, Maris. That might seem like the case, ... but wouldn't that leave the text on the TMY blanked as well?

Thanks all, for the help I am getting. All ideas are appreciated.

[Greg Blank]

Because you where the one that exposed the film ? .... ;D


In another life I worked at a couple of labs. At one of them the worker accidentally exposed all of someones film to the light. To cover their asses they just processed some blank film and gave it to the guy and told him it was some problem with his camera. I didn't work there long.

[Doremus Scudder]

Sorry for your blank film. It happens to all of us sometime or other, but it's never fun.

You mention that the printing on the TMY is visible. If the text is there, then the film has been developed enough to have shown a halfway well exposed image as well. Even if the developing time were much too short, some image would show if the film had been correctly exposed.

Also, the fact that the film is "slightly fogged" leads me to think that it has been developed, and what you are seeing is the film base fog density that is present in clear, but developed negatives. A negative that had been only fixed should be completely clear of fog; fog comes from developing.

These two things make me suspect a problem with exposure, i.e., not the lab... Film loaded emulsion-side down in the holders comes to mind (If you have unshot film from the same loading, check the orientation), as do unpulled dark slides, obstructions in the light path (lens caps on viewfinder cameras, focal plane shutters closed during exposure with the inter-lens shutter...) and so on.

I have a shutter mounted in a recessed board that will not fire correctly if it there is any pressure at all on the preview lever at all. I have to check it, and sometimes adjust the mounting in the field, if it's not firing correctly. Just an example to show that unexpected and intermittent shutter problems do occur, that may not be easily identifiable later.

Best,

Doremus

[al olson]

Thank you everyone for your responses. It is now clear that all of the blank sheets have been through the developer.

To recapitulate, the 14 blank sheets were part of a processing order that included 35mm, 120, and 4x5 sheet, both b&w and color. The shutters on both 4x5 cameras open and close for a sufficient time that there must be some image registering.

Over the past 8 months when I do a photo outing I usually shoot MF, but also take a LF camera and several holders with me. Most of time I only expose a couple of sheets, primarily when I find a subject that I like for LF.

As far as loading errors go, I have been loading holders since 1954. The proper orientation of the notch is, for me, automatic. Six sheets of Delta 100 were loaded in a Grafmatic. I have one Grafmatic where I load alternate sheets of b&w and color. One of the blank sheets was from that Grafmatic. However, the color sheet from that Grafmatic developed normally. The remaining sheets were from double sided holders, not necessarily loaded at the same time.

I should also mention that the other 7 color sheets submitted with this processing order were exposed and developed to normal densities. Oftentimes I shoot a subject with one exposure in color and the other in b&w. So it is puzzling that all color exposures were normal while all b&w exposures were blank.

Now ... after rechecking my transmittal letter, it indicates that I submitted 6 sheets of TMY and 8 sheets of Delta 100. What was returned were 6 sheets of TMY, 6 sheets of Delta 100, and 2 sheets of HP5+.

Since I sorted the sheets by notch code, placed them in separate envelopes, and labeled the box, I don't think that I would have made a mistake in misidentifying HP5+ as Delta 100 because there is an offset in the placement of the middle notches which would be easy enough to catch when I run my thumbnail over the notch area on a stack of sheets. I do this as the last check when segregating the sheets for processing.

Because my shooting style results in the exposure of a couple of sheets an outing and is usually a mix of color and b&w, I do not see a reason that the color is right on and the accompanying b&w should be blank. I am beginning to lean to Kirk's suggestion as the only explanation for the problem.

Thank you all for your suggestions. I guess I will just write this one off to mystery.

[lenser]

One thing has not been mentioned.

What about the vague possibility that your color material was properly addressed and shipped to you, but that the black and white film could belong to someone else and that your batch names were mixed up at the lab (in the black and white section) so that another shooter might now have your properly exposed and developed film, while you got his badly (or not at all) exposed film back along with your color images.

You might check with the lab and see if anyone has reported getting the wrong film returned from that day's processing runs.