Cloudy Negatives - Thoughts?

[écureuil_roux]

I've had something odd happen that I can't quite explain. The reason/solution may be something quite simple that I've overlooked, so please do be kind in helping me figure this out.

What happened: Two rolls of Tri-X 400 (35mm) were developed in a steel tank. One comes out proper, one comes out with a very even fog over the entire negative (all the way to the edge). They were developed in HC-110 (solution B) for 8 minutes with normal stop, fix, and wash times.

Conditions:
-The roles were shot on different cameras using available light at daytime.
-The roles were loaded into the tank by an instructor (I would normally do it myself, but allowed these rolls to be used for demonstration).
-The "fogged" negatives (almost looking underexposed) were shot on an OM-1n with a 1.5v battery which will make the light meter read high.

My thinking:
-Not a light leak in the OM-1. Too even a fog to be caused by a leak.
-Possible error in loading - Film looked fine on the spool after development, but instructor noted difficulty in loading one of the rolls: did she turn on a safelight with the other roll safely in the tank?
-Possible underexposure due to light meter, however the meter was only reading about 1 stop off of normal (basically, I was shooting at 800). Also, Tri-X has very similar times for 400 and push processing at 800, so the film should have come out OK.

Thoughts much appreciated!

 

[railwayman3]

If the fogging is even all over the film, and particularly over the full width including rebates, it suggests it was fogged while out of the cassette, and therefore probably during loading onto the spool.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
I would agree with railwayman3.
Is it possible to show us a backlighted photo of the negatives, showing the edge printing/rebates?
Both front and back please.
By the way, unless modified, an OM-1n meter circuit is not linear if you use a 1.5V battery. That means that the error will vary with light levels, and it isn't enough to just dial in any particular single correction.

 

[écureuil_roux]

Thanks for the replies.

Good tidbit on the light meter, Matt. I've gone ahead and replaced the 1.5v with the 1.35v weincell since that roll, so hopefully I'm getting more accurate read-outs.

I will post some images of the negatives later this evening.

 

[abruzzi]

If the film was bulk rolled, rather than factory rolled, the fogging could have happened during the bulk loading as well. I’d think that kind of problem would be highly unlikely with factory rolls though.

 

[glbeas]

If the rolls were not from the same batch I would say the fogged one was seriously outdated or stored in overly hot conditions for a prolonged period before it was put in the camera.

 

[koraks]

If the rolls were not from the same batch I would say the fogged one was seriously outdated or stored in overly hot conditions for a prolonged period before it was put in the camera.

That would be my guess as well. A very even fog more or less eliminates any chance of a light leak anywhere in the process, as light-induced fog will never be perfectly even, unless the fog is right up to dmax.

It would help to see some images of the affected film compared to the one that did come out okay.

 

[canuhead]

describe this fog. is it pinkish in tone or grayish ? one is inadequate fixing, other is either old film or slight exposure to light. or exposed to high heat during storage

 

[écureuil_roux]

Finally getting around to posting the pictures. Here they are!

 

[MattKing]

Incomplete fixing?

 

[koraks]

Incomplete fixing?

The film would be milky.

Either gross fog from exposure to light (but it's odd that it's apparently very even), or hopelessly expired/old/badly stored film.