Strange worms on my negatives

[Edmond3]

Hello, this is my first day on this forum, I am most excited about becoming familiar with it. I am relatively new to large format photography, though I have been shooting, processing and printing my own work for 33 years. I have a constant problem with my 4x5 negatives and would like to hear if anybody has any ideas. What I can only describe as worm trails are in all of my negs across the board. I have tried 3 developers, and I use dedicated trays and beakers for my chems, and I have shot 4 different boxes of HP5 across the span of 4 months on 2 different cameras and many different holders, and still they appear. They seem to be part of the image as one can read grain within the "tracks" the vary in length from 5mm to 3 centimeters (roughly) and are smack in the middle of the greys. I have shown them to many people here in NYC to little reward, though one person thought that it might be static electricity. I shot 8 exposures today very carefully and yes, they ares till there.... Ideas? Thank you very much
~Edmond3

[E. von Hoegh]

Any chance you could show us a scan?

[Edmond3]

I am heading out of town for the week, I will scan this weekend and post, and also research how to post images, thanks for your interest

[polyglot]

Does it look like this (http://brodie-tyrrell.org/wiki/index.php?DevWatermark)? That's a 6x7 frame, so dribbles will look smaller on your 4x5s of course.

[Edmond3]

No, unfortunately they do not resemble your example. They are more like dozens of small noodles randomely splattered around the neg. I can see now that I will have to post some scans, will do so this weekend hopefully. Thanks for the reply however, it is really very frustrating!

[Michael_4514]

Dust

[Edmond3]

HMMM... dust where? Is it common for dust to be exposed in to the neg? Because the noodles have exposed grain and width, can you clarify? I have been rather methodical about cleaning.

[SergeiR]

Short haired dog or cat in house? :)

[ROL]

Shrooming, by any chance? :rolleyes:

[Edmond3]

No animals, and I haven't walked through wonderland in years! As I said I will post scans. It isn't hair, as the squiggles don't resemble anything close to hair. The most likely explanation I have heard is static discharge as it resembles sparks, and the film really does appear to be exposed within these trails when observed through a loop, but I've never heard of this phenomenon. Sergei, I like your portraits in the September portrait thread!

[SergeiR]

No animals, and I haven't walked through wonderland in years! As I said I will post scans. It isn't hair, as the squiggles don't resemble anything close to hair. The most likely explanation I have heard is static discharge as it resembles sparks, and the film really does appear to be exposed within these trails when observed through a loop, but I've never heard of this phenomenon. Sergei, I like your portraits in the September portrait thread!

Thanks. I am just trying to picture what can it be.. Only other suspicion i have is - how do you insert film in holders and handle film when loading?
I do get weird scratches (visible in scan) along edges every now and then, when i am offloading film in the field (have to empty holders to keep shooting, so exposed film goes into light tight pack, and new film goes in holder) - sheets scratching each other or something like that. But oddly it is nearly always around edges. Also i seen my film being scratched by old wooden holders a bit, when i buy them used and they undergo process of "training".. (i keep few ruined sheets around now, just to do that very thing, even though i am not buying holders all that often anymore).

[lenser]

Static discharge can look very much like random miniature lightning bolts, often complete with branching and curving trails and little spikes. I imagine you can find at least a few examples by googling for it.

[Dennis]

IF the spots look like sparks my guess would be undissolved chemicals in the developer.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

Was your film subjected to X-rays/airport scanners? I realize you may not know -it could have occurred before you owned the film..

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

IF the spots look like sparks my guess would be undissolved chemicals in the developer.

3-5 cm long?

[Jody_S]

Aliens?

Seriously, I'm dying to see a scan. I've never heard of anything like this.

[E. von Hoegh]

No animals, and I haven't walked through wonderland in years! As I said I will post scans. It isn't hair, as the squiggles don't resemble anything close to hair. The most likely explanation I have heard is static discharge as it resembles sparks, and the film really does appear to be exposed within these trails when observed through a loop, but I've never heard of this phenomenon. Sergei, I like your portraits in the September portrait thread!

Oh dear. It looks like you have rods in your darkroom. http://www.roswellrods.com/

[Cletus]

Ever thought maybe you just have a bunch of "strange worms" crawling around in your camera? Seems likely that those could be causing your problems. Heck, you even have PICTURES of them!

Occam's Razor basically states: With all other things being equal, the most likely theory tends to be the simplest and most obvious one. To me, if it looks like strange worms, it's probably strange worms.

The scans will tell the tale. ;)

[E. von Hoegh]

Ever thought maybe you just have a bunch of "strange worms" crawling around in your camera? Seems likely that those could be causing your problems. Heck, you even have PICTURES of them!

Occam's Razor basically states: With all other things being equal, the most likely theory tends to be the simplest and most obvious one. To me, if it looks like strange worms, it's probably strange worms.

The scans will tell the tale. ;)

I bet the OP has lots of books and the bookworms evolved into camera worms. That, or bigfoot left his baitbox in the darkroom.

Edit - Occam's Razor, "Non multiplicandur entitas praeter neccesitatem"/"Do not multiply entities beyond neccesity" say nothing about whether it's obvious or not.

[E. von Hoegh]

3-5 cm long?

There are some very large molecules in photo chemicals.

[E. von Hoegh]

I am heading out of town for the week, I will scan this weekend and post, and also research how to post images, thanks for your interest

He's set us up. We're going to be wondering for days..... I bet his negatives don't have any marks at all.

[Scott Davis]

Could they be.... fingerprints? I've seen plenty of ugly things happen when finger oil gets on film, especially when the emulsion is delicate, like Kodak HIE. If these marks are not like hairs, and instead of being blank, they have grain, it could be oil or grease of some kind getting on the emulsion between loading and processing.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I once had worm-like patterns on a sheet of tmax 100. I put it down to reticulation. Have you tried developing a different film type or same film type but from a different batch? How is your water quality? You could try developing with distilled water instead of tap water.

[Edmond3]

Okay everybody, I have a cheap HP scanjet G4050, but it does do transparency so here are some scans. To answer some questions, and to shed a little more light on my problem, all of the 8 negs I shot before going out of town had the "worms" in the same part of the frame but in different configurations and sizes, which holds up the static theory. Also, of the four boxes of Ilford HP5, each shoot has them in the same spot. As I said, I have used different cameras and lenses and different boxes of film and yes always distilled water. These are not the best scans (sorry but I am used to printing on enlarger) but if you study the neg with a loupe you can see that the "worms" are in the grain. I know people who used the HP5 from the same source and at the same time as I, so I do not believe it to be manufacturer or shipping. If anybody has any ideas please let me know, it is driving me crazy and I would like to get on with my shooting. 809948099580996

[Gem Singer]

Lint deposits on the negative. They appear to be the hook threads from Velcro material.

[Edmond3]

Thank You Gem, and I would buy the velcro idea, except all the negs across the months shot in all different ways would have images of velcro embedded in the grain. Wouldn't lint create a void in the image? I would like to think it was dust, but I have been meticulous about keeping things clean. Still, I will press on. Cheers

[Peter Mounier]

They look like tong marks. Are you using tongs to agitate or turn the negs in the trays?

http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Photo_Abrasions.htm

Peter

[Joseph Dickerson]

It doesn't look like static. Kodak, you remember them (?), once marketed a batch of VPS that was extremely static prone. It was so bad that you simply couldn't use it. Of course I got to shoot two weddings on it before we discovered the static issue. Kodak got to pay a whopping retouching fee on two weddings, along with replacing a case of VPS. Believe me I know what static looks like.

I'll go with Peter's read on the marks, they sure look like some kind of abrasion. Peter might also remember the funky VPS, he worked for the lab I used at the time.

JD

[Sevo]

Assuming them to be somewhere around a finger's width in size, I suspect tong marks or crease marks as well. But should they be microscopic or huge in scale, it must be something else.

[Peter Mounier]

Joseph
I don't remember the static marks on your film although that was probably about 30 years ago (yikes!). Also, you were probably traumatized by the thought of a ruined wedding shoot. That kind of thing is hard to forget.

Peter

[E. von Hoegh]

Wow. This one has me stumped. I have no clue what they might be.

[Andrew O'Neill]

On the negative the marks are black, therefore white in the print. Now I'm wondering if it is indeed static...

[Scott Walker]

Wow. This one has me stumped. I have no clue what they might be.

+1

Does not look like static to me, but I have no idea either.

I would start eliminating the possible causes of the problem.

I think the first thing I would do is give a box of the film to another photographer to use a half dozen sheets to see if he can replicate the problem.
If he can, problem solved, toss the film. If he can't then it is something you are doing and go on to step 2.
Step 2 - have your friend that tried the film for you load a half dozen holders with film at his place not yours, give them to you to expose, give them back for him to unload and give to you in a film box for you to develop them.
At this point you will know if it is a static problem in loading/unloading or a problem with development.

If you know what it is for sure it should be easy to cure.

[Sevo]

It is not static. Static has tree-like branches and looks quite like lightning - this is too rounded and not chaotic enough. It positively looks like friction marks - but any of tongs, trays, film holders and spools, plus careless handling of the sheets themselves can create friction marks, so pinning down the cause step by step seems a smart idea.

[Edmond3]

Thank You for all the energy everybody, I appreciate it. It has me stumped as well. I will continue to try to eliminate one possible cause at a time and spend a good amount of time shooting and processing this week. Mr Walker that is a sound idea. It is still weird to me how on each batch of shoots the marks are on the same part of the negative for that batch. hmmm... I don't use tongs and my touch is oh so delicate! So, does anybody who lives in the NYC area want to shoot the rest of my box of HP5 4x5 to see how it holds up?

[George Stewart]

Do you freeze your film? If so, it could be remnants of emulsion from the edge of the film. I've had similar appearing lines on my chromes and they've been attributed to freezing the emulsion. Apparently, strands come off during processing and come into contact with the films surface which affects development. I've never had the issue with self-developed B&W only professionally developed chromes - I freeze all my film.

[Michael_4514]

Edmund, here's my suggestion. Shoot a couple of negatives but don't process them, but give them to me. Then give me a couple sheets of unexposed film. I'll process the negatives that you shot. If no marks, then it's in your processing. If marks, I'll shoot the film and process to see if it's in the film itself. If no marks, I'll shoot another sheet, but you process, to see if its in your shooting set up.

If this works for you, send me a PM and we can arrange the details.

Mike

[frotog]

I used to get similar marks on c-41 large format negs. Turned out that they were caused by dust particles sandwiched between the downloaded sheets in the lightproof download box, imparting small scratches on the negs before development. Since then I've gotten into the habit of downloading my sheet film directly into glassines before sending to the lab.

[cdholden]

Reticulating emulsion on the film base?

[lenser]

The only thing I can relate this to is a very long ago experience with too warm developer. It happened on 35mm B&W that I souped in about 85 degree D-76 to try to hurry things up for a news/sports assignment with an early deadline.

Some of the frames had very similar trails that turned out to be bits of emulsion that had (for lack of a better term) boiled off of the film and then settled in random patterns like this. The densities varied because the bits came loose from different areas of some of the frames, therefore with different background tones, and the appearance, like with yours, varied just a bit in shape from each other and looked for all the world like peeled narrow strips of skin that you might get from peeling back a ragged cuticle from the edge of your finger nail.

The odd thing is that it did not reticulate, but just lost a few of these random strips that attached themselves where ever they landed.

[Michael_4514]

Edmond and I are going to get to the bottom, or at least closer to the bottom, of the problem this weekend.

[Frank Petronio]

I bet it is Ilford quality control.

[Michael_4514]

I bet it is Ilford quality control.

I don't think so. I processed four sheets and no sign of the problem.

[veloce]

I had an issue with HP5 where there were striations that ran from side to side on the film. Kind of like the lines that water makes in a tank or glass as it evaporates.

It was on the non-emulsion side of every sheet in a 50 pack of HP5. Didn't show up in prints, so I kept using it.

[wiggywag]

Is there any one who have solved this issue? I have the same problem! It does not happen to all negs but they show up quite often! They even appear in the corners on unexposed area.. I also use HP5, developed in ABC pyro in trays.

82348

[Edmond3]

Well,it has been a while. I believe that I did solve the situation, or at least it is not happening any more. I have done several shoots in the past few weeks and processed several sheets of film, and Michael_4514 has been very kind in processing some of the film I had on hand with fine results using his method of processing. Since I tray process I paid extremely close attention to every bit of movement of my hands, and discovered ( and I attribute this to years of hand tool use ) that I had a muscle memory thing going on, where as I shuffled the film in the tray, the same finger in the same way pushed the film down to assure submersion in to the liquid. I think this explains the marks being on the same location of sheet of film in each batch. Since making the discovery I have adjusted my hands and everything is going blemish free. So yes, it was my own darn fault. So now, today I am about to embark on making 15 bromoil prints. The matrixes look good and am presently about to start inking... !!!

[wiggywag]

I was in touch with Michael and Paula Chamlee which said the marks was caused by dragging the negatives during development. I am now more careful how I shuffle the negatives, and believe that will help :) I think somehow that corresponds to you findings as well.