Artifact: What's the cause?

[Worker 11811]

Shot these two images last Saturday & developed on Sunday. Just scanned and made digital contact/previews last night so I can get ready to print them this week. (See attached.)

I noticed the same artifact in both images. I'm just wondering if anybody has an idea what the cause was.

Both images are on the same roll of film. Probably 6 or 8 exposures apart.
Both images were shot within a half hour of each other. The locations were approximately a mile apart. They were both taken facing in the same general direction. Almost due west.
The time of day was about 1:00 in the afternoon. The sun was coming from my left front quarter. Basically at the top, left of the frame in both shots.

I think the spots are from lens flare but I've never seen lens flare look quite like this. Usually, lens flare looks lighter than the rest of the image and there is more halo around the image. Could it be that the lens flare was so bright it caused the film to reverse? I've never seen lens flares that are perfectly round, either. They are usually a little bit oblong when I've seen them in the past.

Film: Ilford Pan F+ (ASA 50 - shot at ASA 40)
Processed: XTOL (Full Strength) 6 min. 30 sec.
Camera: 35mm. Pentax ME Super 50mm ƒ/1.7. (Standard lens for that camera.)
Scanned from film: Canon 8800F flatbed 2400 dpi then downscaled to present via Photoshop.
The spots are visible on the negatives with a loupe.

Is this lens flare or is it something else?
What do you think?

T.I.A!

 

[Ian Grant]

Nothing attached

Ian

 

[Rick A]

Umm.... see attached what?

 

[Worker 11811]

Fixed.

Had to scale them down b/c they went over my limit.

To see them full-scale, check out the following:

http://gallery.me.com/randystankey#100153/RustyGate-5-2010
http://gallery.me.com/randystankey#100153/BusYard-5-2010

 

[Worker 11811]

Gosh, I hope not! That means they were following me for more than an hour!

 

[Ian Grant]

Those spots look like some kind of contamination, possibly specks of fixer in the developer. This can happen if a tank hasn't been taken fully apart for cleaning, you get minute crystals of thiosulphate.

Ian

 

[Worker 11811]

Only four frames of film on an entire roll of Pan F show this artifact. The two frames I showed you plus the two bracket frames I shot of the same subjects. No other frames had the defect.

I always use hypo clearing agent. I always rinse with running water by sticking the rubber hose from the faucet down the hole in the top of the Patterson-style plastic tank and let it run for 10 or 15 minutes. When the film is hanging up to dry, I quickly rinse out the tank and light trap in the lid and put them in the drying rack. I disassemble the reels, rinse them and hang them up on the peg board.

I'm not saying that the film can't be contaminated but I thought I had rinsed my utensils well enough. I'll still redouble my efforts. What's an extra minute to rinse out your stuff? Right?

I've seen lens flare before but not quite like this. That's what I thought it was at first.

 

[tkamiya]

Maybe they are dead pixels on your filim

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That doesn't look like flare to me. It's more like air bubbles in the developer or mold on the film from being frozen and opened in a humid environment before coming to room temperature or an emulsion defect or pinholes. It's allergy season of course. Did you sneeze when loading the film? The faint comet-like trail on either side of the defect in the schoolbus photo suggests an air bubble to me. You might not see it in the other example, because the sky is so light, though it might be visible on the print.

Maybe more vigorous agitation is needed, and rap the tank on the counter after agitating to dislodge any bubbles.

 

[Rick A]

Definitly looks like debris of some sort. Or maybe the elusive "orbs" that ghost hunters are always talking about.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I hate to say this in the face of Ilford's great record for high quality, but this looks like a DEC (Double Ended Comet) defect, caused by a bubble in a slide or curtain coater operation. I have seen nothing else like it but that or an extreme case of bromide drag on each side of an air bubble. But this is on the upper edge of that air bubble defect for size and density.

PE

 

[Leigh Youdale]

In the first photo, of the gate, there are also some light 'blobs' in the sky area if you look closely. I don't see them in the second bus shot though.
Things that come to mind are chemical contamination, residues from processing, emulsion defects. If you have a loupe can you tell if they're on or in the emulsion or film material?

 

[DanielStone]

they're called "super bubbles". The promethians drop them here to test if our air quality is good enough for them or not. So far, we're keeping our atmosphere at a high-enough particulate level that they would surely die if exposed to the atmosphere. Generally these orbs are crystal clear, with an anti-reflective coating. However, when they are nearing their service life(what we can tell is about 5-6months at a time), the cloaking devices start to sputter, allowing them to be seen. Some have been known to cause mid-air explosions when sucked into jet engines of high-flying aircraft.

they need pure air. Hence no pollution. So folks, if ya want to live another day, light up that garbage heap in the backyard, pull out that ol' smoker from the barn(aka the 70's buick "the land-boat from hell") and take her for a drive. If we want to survive their terrible probing , we'll need to keep it unsafe for them to come here.

Worker: you have got a piece of history in your hands there . an actual occurrence of extraterrestrial activity, on film!!!

wait, what did I just type?...

-Dan

 

[Worker 11811]

Daniel,

We're all in trouble now! The picture of the rusty gate is the back fence of an airport! (ERI if you must know.)
They've infiltrated protected airspace! There's nothing to do but run for the hills!

Seriously... I have come to believe that they are NOT flares of any kind. I checked out the whole roll with a loupe. I found 4 frames in total that had the defect. One of them was shot facing 180 degrees, about face, to the rusty gate where the first ones appeared. Since the sun was at my back instead of shining in the face, it is not likely that they were flares.

Here is a high rez, closeup scan of the double-spot section above the rusty gate picture:
Dead Link Removed

At this level of detail it looks pretty clear that they are defects in the film.

This film is from a 100 ft. bulk roll. The first frame number on the roll is #14.
The defect appears on frame #17 and frame #18. (Two shots of the rusty gate.)
It shows up in frame #24 then it disappears again until frame #33. (The buses in a row.)
I have looked pretty closely. I can not find the problem anywhere else on the roll.

I guess I'll have to be on the lookout for more of these defects. Won't I?

So, does this rise to the level of a quality control or a warranty claim?
I'm not out to get something for nothing but, if I was on Ilford's quality control team, I'd want to know about it. Wouldn't you?

If I don't see this again for the rest of the bulk spool of film I'm willing to just chalk it up to the old proverb, "Feces occurs."
If it happens again, I'll probably lodge a complaint just on quality control grounds, if nothing else.

BTW... Just for information:
Ilford Pan F+ 35mm bulk spool. 100 ft. (Cat No. 170 7814)
Batch Number: 49CPS7X01/03
Exp. Date: Oct 2012

 

[Shangheye]

They could be worm holes to a totally analg world....that means they could not possible be a defect

 

[mick8585]

Definitely air bubbles or chemical contamination.

 

[CBG]

Air bubbles.

 

[Worker 11811]

Agitation was done with the rotating spindle instead of inversion. Otherwise the tank leaks.

First 30 seconds = 360 rotation clockwise in 2 sec then one rotation counter-clockwise in 2 seconds repeated for the whole 30 sec. Followed by tapping on the table.

Every 30 seconds thereafter = 10 seconds of rotation 360 clockwise then 360 counter-clockwise then followed with tapping on table.

Not to say it isn't the problem but I have never had air bubble problems using this method before.
Never the less, I'll be extra sure to tap the tank next time. I'll do it 2 or 3 times just to be sure.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Randy,

The best thing you can do is send the actual negs for us to inspect here at Mobberley, please mark it for my attention. We have no QC's outstanding on this batch of PAN F + or indeed on any film product at this time. We will need to look at this under the electron microscope, everything else is just conjecture, do not use the remainder of the bulk roll, please send that to us as well and I will replace regardless of whether its a manufacturing issue or not.

Please PM me your address.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited .

 

[Wade D]

Dear Randy,

The best thing you can do is send the actual negs for us to inspect here at Mobberley, please mark it for my attention. We have no QC's outstanding on this batch of PAN F + or indeed on any film product at this time. We will need to look at this under the electron microscope, everything else is just conjecture, do not use the remainder of the bulk roll, please send that to us as well and I will replace regardless of whether its a manufacturing issue or not.

Please PM me your address.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited .

This is what I would call GREAT customer service!

 

[Simon R Galley]

PAN F + Batch 49 CPS was coated in October 2008

We will expose and process one of our retained stored samples from the actual parent roll today ( roll 7 ).

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

 

[Worker 11811]

All I can say is WOW!

Thank you, Simon!
PM on the way.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Small dust particles attache to the emulsion and with development create this effect.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Minus development where the dust touches the emulsion, and gradual development on edges of dust which creates the halo.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I can agree with the others here. The leading and trailing light spots bother me though. I also agree that Ilford has a great reputation for quality and Simon's response has been exemplary. My apologies to Ilford for even bringing up the possibility of a coating defect, but that is the first thing that came to mind when I saw this.

PE