A Bad Roll of Film?

[FilmOnly]

Is there a such thing as a bad roll of film? I was looking over some prints that I shot last year, and noticed that one roll had a particularly grainy look (especially identifiable in the sky). I believe it was 160-speed film, and so it should have looked sharp. Did I get a bad roll--one that had some separation in the grain? Previously, I had thought my filter had gathered some sea spray on the day I shot the roll. This could be the case, but I just thought I would pose the question to fellow enthusiasts.

 

[flatulent1]

Well, there's film that's been mistreated, such as expired film left out in the car for a year or three and processed in the wrong chems. And there's film that's used for the wrong purposes, such as using a high-contrast film on a high-contrast kind of day, or attempting to use Plus-X to photograph fall colors (cough)...

 

[FilmOnly]

What and interesting coincidence: I am familiar with Plus-X for fall colors scenario (cough).

 

[flatulent1]

Yes, no doubt more than a few of us can relate to that one. :rolleyes:

 

[BetterSense]

Plus-X should be fine for photographing fall colors. The datasheet shows that it is sensitive from UV all the way up to red. This is much better than color films, which only record red, green and blue, and have big sensitivity notches between them. That's why I don't think they are ever going to catch on.

 

[Pumal]

I've had the experience

 

[Alan W]

Who made the film? You can read horror stories about Eastern European,Chinese etc quality control(or the lack thereof).Was it colour or B&W?

 

[Galah]

This film should be just the thing for the Lomography buffs.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It doesn't seem as common from where I am, but maybe that's due to the take-up of digi-!
Watch for warning signs before buying film: non-refrigerated pro-film sitting on a shelf, discolouration or tampering of film box, expired film (deep frozen, no problem, but left lying around it will cast) and dirty processing facilities. In 30 years of photography I've had only 2 bad rolls of film, and both were Ektachromes (more than 20 years ago).

 

[FilmOnly]

I believe the film I had used was Fuji Pro 160C. I will think about it some more, but I believe this is correct.

 

[tim elder]

It could be operator used improper settings on the machine that made the prints, or the machine was acting improperly and made poor prints that the operator passed on without redoing them. Many labs will only redo prints if the customer insists.

Have you checked the negatives thoroughly? Improper processing could be the culprit as well.

Tim

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks, Tim...I have checked the negs as best as I could without a magnifier (I do not have one). I have been meaning to get a magnifier (and/or lightbox)...any advice on one?

 

[BrianShaw]

It could be operator used improper settings on the...

... camera. Not that I have ever done this, but I read on the internet that if someone tries shooting film but sets the meter incorrectly then the film might be underexposed and have a particularly grainy look.

 

[Chazzy]

I believe the film I had used was Fuji Pro 160C. I will think about it some more, but I believe this is correct.

What format were you shooting and how big were the prints? Obviously if you are shooting 35mm, you are more likely to see grain in even, gray areas of the print.

 

[FilmOnly]

It had nothing to do with exposure. I use 35mm film and 4x6 prints. I have never seen any grain in lower speed films in 4x6 prints--that is, grain that is detectable with the naked eye. I made mention of this because I have never seen anything like this in my other prints (and I have hundreds of them). In fact, the only time I have ever noticed grain in a print was when using the "classic" Kodak print films, Plus-X and Tri-X. I have since moved away from these films, as I prefer the sharpness of BW400CN. I may try Ilford Delta 400. I know that many have had good results with XP2, but it is rather expensive. I can buy BW400CN for $1.75 less per roll.

 

[AgX]

This is much better than color films, which only record red, green and blue, and have big sensitivity notches between them.

Colour camera films do not have signifcant notches in their spectral sensitivity. You have to add up their sensitivities, which will yield a residual curve without notches at the overlapping zones.

 

[lns]

It had nothing to do with exposure. I use 35mm film and 4x6 prints. I have never seen any grain in lower speed films in 4x6 prints--that is, grain that is detectable with the naked eye. I made mention of this because I have never seen anything like this in my other prints (and I have hundreds of them). In fact, the only time I have ever noticed grain in a print was when using the "classic" Kodak print films, Plus-X and Tri-X. I have since moved away from these films, as I prefer the sharpness of BW400CN. I may try Ilford Delta 400. I know that many have had good results with XP2, but it is rather expensive. I can buy BW400CN for $1.75 less per roll.

Well, I have on occasion overexposed or underexposed frames of C-41 color film, by forgetting to adjust the shutter or aperture. I have definitely seen grain on the resulting 4x6 prints. In fact, when I read your post, I thought, overexposure. Just a thought.

-Laura

 

[Pumal]

+1 Most likely culprit