Are my negatives degrading or it is something else?

[zehner21]

Hi all,
I need some advice.
I'm currently importing all the negatives I have around in my computer, as I need to build a useful catalog since I often forget what I shot during these years.
The case:
I have 6 years old Portra 400 negatives, developed by a laboratory.
On the ouside they are perfect, at least they seem ok. Maybe some speck or dust particle embedded in the emulsion but it's not something unbearable. If I look closely the frame has somewhat of a pointillism pattern but I don't know what to think.
Importing these negatives, even with the aide of dust removing technique, gives me a terrible picture. Entire frames are populated with white circles and the entire image seems mottled.
I've reviewed the same pictures I printed and digitized years ago, maybe two or three, and they show no sign of these "things". The question is: what it this? Is it mold? I don't know if I ever rewashed these negatives, I doubt it since I was well aware even at the time of the importance of the stabilizer bath and the fact that negatives should not be washed afterwards.
I'm attaching a picture detailing what these white specks are: https://ibb.co/D42twbp

This is an analog workflow question, because it is aimed to determine what in the world is happening. Thanks

 

[AgX]

Show all affected negatives the same artefact as on the one sample you linked to?

 

[zehner21]

Show all affected negatives the same artefact as on the one sample you linked to?

No! Almost every frame with some exception, but we are talking about 108 frames.

 

[AgX]

Well, with just a scan it is very hard to make a diagnosis on distance. Very different causes are imaginable.

But for instance with bacteria one would expect an inhomogeneous destruction layerwise, which not only would result in density-, but also colour-changes.

 

[zehner21]

Well, with just a scan it is very hard to make a diagnosis on distance. Very different causes are imaginable.

But for instance with bacteria one would expect an inhomogeneous destruction layerwise, which not only would result in density-, but also colour-changes.

I can't comment on colour balance as I'm working with a computer and this can be tweaked at one's will. I can say that for the little competence I have, colour balance is not affected.
At this point I just consider these negatives as lost. Thank you!

 

[AgX]

With colour changes I meant changes at the specks compared to their surroundings. Furthermore, with bacteria a decrease of densitiy at the negative is to be expected, you though got increased density at the negative.

You should not just reconsile with these negatives being useless, but finding out the cause, as that likely would mean avoiding such to happen again.

As indicated a scan is of limited use. other means as microscopic view and view under different lighting angles is needed.

Most important would be to differ between something being on top of the emulsion or inside of it.

 

[DWThomas]

Not sure, there is a phenomenon called "grain aliasing" where the scan resolution is close to the grain size and the sampling appears to magnify the grain. I think sometimes in an area of the same tone, like a sky or gray concrete, etc., aliasing produces similar effects. Maybe try scanning at a different resolution? Or if whatever you are using supports it, a multi-pass scan?

Just my barely 2 cents worth.

 

[Robert Stone]

You should post some photos of the actual film and the specs you are seeing visually on the film strip. Use your cell phone or something that can take a closer photo and show the surface of the film to us.

 

[grain elevator]

I do not know what it is, but I do know it's not grain aliasing. That would be more homogeneous and smaller, no or very little detail smaller than the "grain" would be discernible.

 

[zehner21]

Well, with just a scan it is very hard to make a diagnosis on distance. Very different causes are imaginable.

As indicated a scan is of limited use. other means as microscopic view and view under different lighting angles is needed.

Most important would be to differ between something being on top of the emulsion or inside of it.

Maybe try scanning at a different resolution? Or if whatever you are using supports it, a multi-pass scan?

Just my barely 2 cents worth.

You should post some photos of the actual film and the specs you are seeing visually on the film strip. Use your cell phone or something that can take a closer photo and show the surface of the film to us.

I do not know what it is, but I do know it's not grain aliasing. That would be more homogeneous and smaller, no or very little detail smaller than the "grain" would be discernible.

Dear All,
here are more photos taken directly with my phone. Please note that in the first two photos the negative strip was on top of a white piece of paper. There is something between the frames and all around the sprocket holes...

https://imgur.com/a/3WNpHc1

 

[Robert Stone]

Dear All,
here are more photos taken directly with my phone. Please note that in the first two photos the negative strip was on top of a white piece of paper. There is something between the frames and all around the sprocket holes...

https://imgur.com/a/3WNpHc1

Sorry to make you do more work. But putting white specs on a white background makes it hard to see the surface. I was talking about the surface of the film.

Still, does kind of look like a problem that happens on Polaroid film that doesn’t dry entirely and the couplers and silver separate. Very odd. Was this processed by a lab or at home? Good luck!

 

[Sirius Glass]

You should post some photos of the actual film and the specs you are seeing visually on the film strip. Use your cell phone or something that can take a closer photo and show the surface of the film to us.

+1

You may be looking at digital artifact and their decay on the paper. Show us the film.

 

[AgX]

Furthermore, with bacteria a decrease of densitiy at the negative is to be expected, you though got increased density at the negative.

There are though cases with added density.

 

[foc]

The negs were developed 6 years ago?
You have noticed this effect on the negatives recently?
How were the negatives sleeved?
How were the negatives stored?

Rewashing negatives will have no adverse effect on them. Stabilizer hasn't been used in commercial processing of C41 for many years, modern film doesn't need it.
If you wish to test wash one strip of negative, then just put it into a tray of tepid water with a drop or two of a wetting agent like Ilfotol or Photo Flo. Gently rub the negs between your fingers and then hang to dry. Then see if you still have the marks.

 

[koraks]

I'm attaching a picture detailing what these white specks are: https://ibb.co/D42twbp

This looks like moisture related damage at first glance. The additional images of the film strips are kind of hard to judge and I cannot verify the problem in those images.

How were the negatives sleeved?
How were the negatives stored?

I'd like to know as well; this could be part of the problem.

 

[AgX]

Stabilizer hasn't been used in commercial processing of C41 for many years, modern film doesn't need it.

The term stabilizer is used ambiguously. It may mean, as above, a chemical to stabilize a residual coupler. But also it may also mean a chemical to preserve the gelatin from microrganism. Third it may mean a chemical to keep residual processing chemicals from interacting after a washless process.

 

[foc]

The term stabilizer is used ambiguously.

In commercial C41 processing, the use of the name stabilizer is not ambiguous. It meant the processing bath that was the last tank before the film entered the dryer in the older version of the C41 process.

As the OP stated

the importance of the stabilizer bath and the fact that negatives should not be washed afterwards.

They were afraid to wash the negative in case they did damage to the already stabilized negative.

As I stated this is not the case with modern film and the modern C41 process where the Stabilizer bath is no longer used.
I am sorry you found it ambiguous as I thought I was clear in my explanation.

 

[MattKing]

Is there not a Final Rinse bath used in all non-waterless modern C41 processes, and does that not include a bactericide?

 

[foc]

A conditioning tablet is added to the wash water in C41 process. The tables contains,(according to the Fuji info) sodium sulfate 70-90%, sodium salt 10-20%, boric acid 1-5%.
On a leadercard processor the 4 wash tanks are replenished from the last/final tank and the water in a counter flow cascade, meaning it flows the opposite way to the movement of the film (tank 4 to 3 to 2 to 1) It is a very simple and effective way to wash the film.

 

[MattKing]

The boric acid, at least, has anti-bacterial qualities.

 

[railwayman3]

I'm convinced that (if kept in normal dry domestic conditions) a lot of the deterioration of negatives can be blamed on poor commercial processing. I've recently come across some old family negs, taken on 120 Kodacolor film (presumably the "original" Kodacolor, which I believe was 32ASA) in 1960 and in a wallet "processed by Kodak, UK". Surprisingly these scanned very well with pleasing pastel colours. With them were some 35mm Agfacolor negatives dated 1963 on the clear film (pre-the orange masking), in that case "processed by Agfa lab" (not sure if that was Agfa themselves or an authorised lab)., And again still perfectly usable.

 

[foc]

I have made scans and prints from a customer 's 126 negatives of both the Agfa CN17 (no mask) and the CNS (with mask) from the late 1960's and early 1970's and they came out very good. The negs had been in the original packet and glassine pouch.

(if kept in normal dry domestic conditions)

Very true. I think the older paper packets and glassine pouches allowed the negs "to breathe" where as the more modern plastic sleeving, while good in normal conditions, will trap any moisture if exposed to it.

I wonder did the OP have any luck with the negatives?

 

[railwayman3]

I have made scans and prints from a customer 's 126 negatives of both the Agfa CN17 (no mask) and the CNS (with mask) from the late 1960's and early 1970's and they came out very good. The negs had been in the original packet and glassine pouch.



Very true. I think the older paper packets and glassine pouches allowed the negs "to breathe" where as the more modern plastic sleeving, while good in normal conditions, will trap any moisture if exposed to it.

Paper and glassine are definitely best. The ancient negs which I found were in glassine sleeves (in the original "Kodak" and "Agfa" processing lab wallets), but in a small "tin" biscuit box, rather than a cardboard box which could have attracted moisture.