If pinholes are the defect you're talking about, that is more likely due to over active fixer, or a move into the fixer without a rinse.
Peter
If pinholes are the defect you're talking about, that is more likely due to over active fixer, or a move into the fixer without a rinse.
Peter
Maybe I'm lucky. Never a emulsion issue - ever.
The OP might wish to review his processing. Any chance he is using developers with a lot of carbonate followed by a strong acetic acid stop?
That combination is said by Anchell and others to tend to produce carbonic gas bubble pinholes in emulsions. Anchell's answer is to use a weaker acetic stop, or a water bath as a stop.
C
I can't say that I have seen anything wrong with Tri-x 320 in 4x5 or 8x10 in the past year or so, since I have moved up to large format.
Daniel Buck - 3d VFX artist
3d work: DanielBuck.net
photography: 404Photography.net - BuckshotsBlog.com
I cannot recall a problem with HP5+ or FP4+, or their Arista Professional versions that I used to use in the olden days.
Hi all : I do develope the film myself, after much trial and many,many,many errors,and many hours of reading through the threads here, I believe my developing practices are not the problem.
I use a Unicolor type drum to develope my film, D76 1:1 or xtol 1:1 to 1:3. All chemicals are one shot, and every thing mixed with distilled water and distilled water final rinse.
I am posative some of the pin prick marks are dust, I use all the tricks with my film holders and camera ( To keep them clean) that I have learned from posts here, but here in the dry desert they are pretty much dust magnets.
The HP-5 problem looks like a wrinkle in the coating.
The Delta-100, one sheet had two spots where the emulsion was gone. The other sheet has a spot that looks a small finger print full of pin pricks.
The Arista film-- Pin pricks,scratches on both sides, dark spots, spots that look like drying marks from using tap water.
I really am the most dissapointed with the Ilford, I really didn't expect the Arista to be top of the line film. I bought 100 sheets of FP-4 that I havn't tried yet, but I have faith it's going to be a good batch. I've never had a problem with Ilford FP-4 film in 35mm.
I have no idea how to post a picture, I have been visiting this site for over four years and yesterday I finally found the nerve to make a post.
Thanks, Mike Hansen
Are you filtering your water? I know this is obvious. But a water heater that is going bad will release metal particles through the pipes. Experience.
It sounds like you are doing all the normal smart processing things. So you've already eliminated the majority of the things that a user can inflict on the film. I don't use the word "inflict" lightly either -- after the things I've done to film over the years I'm surprised they still sell me the stuff! ;-)
These two film problems above should perhaps be brought to Ilford's attention. They should make good on your film purchase for one thing. And they need the feedback if they are going to improve. And we all want them to improve. Even if I'm not using their films now, I might in the future and I want them to be as good as they can be.
Simon Galley of Ilford is a frequent poster at APUG. Might be worth chasing him down about these problems. He apparently has been very good at Ilford customer relations. Worth a try maybe.
Bruce Watson
I have been using sheet film (b/w & color) for about 40 years. I have used many, many brands of film. I have not seen any problems that couldn't be attributed to processing on my part.
Transparency color sheet film, doesn't show "dust" as much, as it images as tiny black specks, rather than white "pinhole" like specks. These are usually harder to see.
Sheet film has many more chances to get scratched, or dusty, as each individual holder has to be loaded (and unloaded), and LF bellows-type cameras are more dust magnets than medium-format cameras are. In addition, the processing of sheet film requires more human contact with the sheets than roll film usually does.
When it comes to film, you get what you pay for. Buy the best and you won't have the problems. Defective film is way too expensive. Quality Control is not cheap!
On a recent trip to Maine (2,635 miles @ 16mpg), 9 nights in motels, and 10 days of meals on the road, I shot 120 8x10 negatives, 20 5x7 negatives, 20 7x17 negatives and 1 roll of 35mm. Compared to the fuel, rooms and meals the film was the least expensive item.....and the film was all Kodak TMY except the 35mm which was Tri-X. Imagine how mad I would be if after taking all that time and spending all that $$, I returned home to find my film was defective????? Now THAT's expensive!
I must have been extremely lucky. In ten years of photographing excusively with HP5+ and TMax 100 4x5 and 8x10 I never found a defect in a single sheet.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Bookmarks