Condensation streaks on Portra 800

[Moose22]

I got some scans back from a local lab last night and one roll, Portra 800, had these weird streaks on it.

I looked at the negatives on the light table and, yup, the negs have streaks. I asked, wondering if it was something I'd done or something that was wonky in the developing and a couple of the people in there said it has been happening more and more with Kodak, and specifically Portra 800 mostly in 35mm.

I've shot this in 120 before and not had any issues like this. This was 135, and the first time I'd tried it in 35mm.

Anyone else seeing this issue?

 

[AgX]

We miss a photo of "these" streaks:

 

[Auer]

People load up straight from the Freezer?

I hope it's just a fluke, Portra 800 is a fantastic film in both 120 and 135.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Sounds like interlayer drying marks (drier fault) - or something machine related in terms of handling the new polyester base Portra 800 in 135.

 

[Moose22]

One of the guys at the lab claimed it was most common with one layer (I don't recall which).

For handling, I bought it a month ago. It has been in the freezer since, I took it out and tossed it in my bag that morning. Drove to town, walked for about 45 minutes burning the roll in the camera before I went inside the venue, then put it in. So it was probably at least 6 hours, refrigerator to camera, and at least an hour at the ambient temperature before I installed it in the camera.

Here's a sample. It looks similar, and appears on most of the roll.

 

[Mr Bill]

I looked at the negatives on the light table and, yup, the negs have streaks. I asked, wondering if it was something I'd done or something that was wonky in the developing and a couple of the people in there said it has been happening more and more with Kodak, and specifically Portra 800 mostly in 35mm.

Hi, taking a completely shot-in-the-dark guess, my first suspect would be something related to the bleach. (I'm assuming that you see a "streak" where the film density shows a streak, and it's not just a drying mark.)

Given that they say they are seeing it more and more, and especially in the higher speed film, this suggests a possible bleach deficiency that is gradually getting worse and worse. Maybe, for example, the bleach replenishment rate is too low, or the in-tank circulation pump is failing, or a squeegee between developer and bleach is defective. These things kinda depend on the type of processor, etc. But I wouldn't really feel comfortable with their processing at this point, given that they don't seem to be doing anything about it.

If it were me I'd ask them, do you have any idea what might be wrong? And, what are they doing to troubleshoot? If they didn't have any hard answers about this I'd be inclined to wait a week or two before giving them anymore film. The time delay is, in the event of a worsening problem, to give it enough time to "blow up," so to speak, but not with my film. Again, this is a complete shot-in-the-dark guess on my part.

As a note, I usually tell people that in the event of a bleach problem they can simply rebleach the film (also fix and wash, etc), and this will take care of things. But... if the problem is a failure to halt development right away, then these streaks will not be fixed.

Fwiw, Kodak doesn't make color neg films that are "hard to process." Everything they do, at least historically, has been carefully tested, etc. So a problem that starts showing up intermittently is more than likely some sort of lab issue.

 

[Moose22]

Thanks Mr Bill.

They process a LOT of film there. It's North Coast Photo Services, they're my local, and usually very good. They did seem to have an idea what was up, I'm just trying to understand it more.

It was only with 800 speed, mostly Portra 800. And I ran a couple of other rolls at the same time. The Portra160 that came out of the camera right before I put the 800 in, and not a hint of the issue.

From the previous roll (Note the horizontal stripes are not on the negative, they are a byproduct of a crap scan, which is a different problem, not for this forum)

 

[Mr Bill]

They process a LOT of film there. It's North Coast Photo Services, they're my local, and usually very good. They did seem to have an idea what was up, I'm just trying to understand it more.

Whoops! When I said that Kodak doesn't make film that's hard to process, I didn't figure on a "dip-and-dunk processor, which is what North Coast Photo uses, per their website.

I should start out by saying that I have no direct experience with such machines. That said, and I appreciate that many people seem to think they are the "gold standard," I most definitely do not. Certainly they are adaptable, and can easily handle different film sizes, but... I don't see how you can get strong agitation (it would blow the film around in the tank), you can't use squeegees (to strip excess liquid off the film), and you can't get an instant, well-controlled immersion into the bleach (without agitation or a squeegee the film may carry in a laminar layer of developer). Offhand my guess is that at least one of these explain where your streaking is coming from. And presumably the 800 film is worse cuz of the heavier silver loading.

So it may well be that North Coast really doesn't have any control over the streaking. But it also MIGHT be that their bleach is deficient, as a contributing factor. Easiest way for them to do this is to measure pH and specific gravity, assuming they have the capability. (I assume that anyone operating several dip-and-dunk machines is savvy enough to do this.) Aim values in Kodak CIS-61 (whoops, web site says they use Fuji chems, so get specs from Fuji). It's also possible that their bleach is also not aerated enough, but this seems unlikely to cause streaking. At any rate, inadequately aerated bleach would almost certainly show up on their "process control strips."

Fwiw my experience includes being the QC manager in the main lab of a large studio chain. We ran around 5 or 6 thousand gallons of replenishers every day. Primarily for paper processing; in the case of C-41 film we ran "only" several miles of film daily. My department oversaw all the chem mix results (mix operators were from a different department). But we did the chemical analyses and made mix sheets for bleach and blix regeneration, and cleared the completed mixes. (Note that my personal experience was on earlier versions of C-41 bleach, but the principles are still the same.) We oversaw the process control on all of the processors, running around 40 to 50 control strips every day, plus pH and specific gravity screening of processor chems every day. Anyway, anything went wrong, chemical or processor related, we made sure it got solved. So I'm just saying that I'm not a rookie at dealing with process problems.

Anyway, my wild guess is that, unless there is a bleach deficiency, your issue is likely an artifact of the high speed film being used in a dip-and-dunk type machine. You might, just for fun, ask the lab if Kodak condones the use of dip-and-dunk machines (I don't see any such specific reference in Kodak's Z-131). They're most likely gonna know more about it than I do - remember, I'm just making guesses.

Best of luck in your endeavors.

 

[AgX]

Sounds like interlayer drying marks (drier fault) - or something machine related in terms of handling the new polyester base Portra 800 in 135.

Such very likely would have showed up in Kodak's quality control.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Such very likely would have showed up in Kodak's quality control.

Should have made it clearer - it's a processing machine/ operator fault by the looks of it, not a coating/ manufacturing one.

In my experience, Portra 800 is ruthless at showing up processing/ replenishment deficiencies.

 

[AgX]

But you had it about "interlayer drying marks (drier fault)" which to my understanding referred to a double run film coating.

What do you refer to by "interlayer" in the context of processing?

 

[gone]

Have the film developed by another lab to see if the problem persists. That would be my first step in trying to figure out what's wrong.

 

[Moose22]

Have the film developed by another lab to see if the problem persists. That would be my first step in trying to figure out what's wrong.

I appreciate this, but I'm not too sure about specific troubleshooting. A lot of this is to learn whether this is a Portra800 issue in general, and just to learn. My next step in shooting film will be developing my own, so I am curious.

That said, you have me thinking. I have never shot Portra800 in 35mm before. I bought a couple of rolls of a few film stocks I hadn't tried including the 800. So I have only one other roll -- I assume it was from the same lot, I bought them at the same time. I just wonder if one more roll at a different lab is a valid test, or one more roll at NCPS.

I'll have to ruminate on this. It is fun film, and I love it in 120, so I'll have to think about whether I test it with that last roll, or maybe get more and test. I guess it's an excuse to burn a couple rolls at least!

In my experience, Portra 800 is ruthless at showing up processing/ replenishment deficiencies.

So you're thinking the Portra800 is the canary here, the 160 is more forgiving of the processing issue? If that's the case, that could make sense.

NCPS is great, really. But they are human and not perfect. Their scans are absolute crap, for example, their prints are wonderful, but I did get a black and white roll back with issues a few months ago. Another lab also porked a roll of Portra400 for me... all these labs are only high volume in terms of film these days, not in terms of high volume 15-20 years ago, so I'm sure an occasional issue pops up.

 

[cramej]

NCPS is great, really. But they are human and not perfect. Their scans are absolute crap, for example, their prints are wonderful, but I did get a black and white roll back with issues a few months ago. Another lab also porked a roll of Portra400 for me... all these labs are only high volume in terms of film these days, not in terms of high volume 15-20 years ago, so I'm sure an occasional issue pops up.

Since when are NCPS scans crap? I guess if you are comparing against a drum scan.

 

[Moose22]

Since when are NCPS scans crap? I guess if you are comparing against a drum scan.

This is off topic, but I have repeated issues. The scans often have horizontal lines in them, banding, especially in skies. I've shown them, we've talked about it a LOT. At some point they just said "We can't do anything about it" as that's what the noritsu's do. Bad enough I've invested to set up a DSLR rig to scan anything worth making look nice at home. Some rolls come back beautiful, some come back with banding so bad it's unusable. Happened so much I've just stopped complaining, but even the B&W roll the ran for me from the weekend has the banding in some pics. If we want to talk maybe PM or a different thread and I can show you what I mean so we can stay in the analog realm here.

I need scanning anyway, I guess. I intend to develop my own, at the very least black and white, eventually. And I am hybrid, I don't have a darkroom to print in.

 

[Lachlan Young]

But you had it about "interlayer drying marks (drier fault)" which to my understanding referred to a double run film coating.

What do you refer to by "interlayer" in the context of processing?

An emulsion side drying mark (from the processing not the coating stage) that isn't necessarily apparently on the surface. Usually from too much heat in the dryer relative to RH. These marks look very like this phenomenon.

So you're thinking the Portra800 is the canary here, the 160 is more forgiving of the processing issue? If that's the case, that could make sense.

It may be that Portra 160 (in this case) is more resilient to a slightly too hot/ too low humidity drying stage - I was mainly referring to differing replenishment rates etc being much more visually apparent on Portra 800 than on the slower films.

 

[Dismayed]

Has anyone asked Kodak? Surely they have seen every problem imaginable.

 

[foc]

I hope I am not too late to this but would it be possible to show an image of the affected negative strip on the light table?

 

[Moose22]

I hope I am not too late to this but would it be possible to show an image of the affected negative strip on the light table?

Yes. But later. I have to set some stuff up, but I want to do this (for myself) so I will when I get the time. Check back tomorrow and I'll see if I can make one for you.

 

[Huss]

This is off topic, but I have repeated issues. The scans often have horizontal lines in them, banding, especially in skies. I've shown them, we've talked about it a LOT. At some point they just said "We can't do anything about it" as that's what the noritsu's do. Bad enough I've invested to set up a DSLR rig to scan anything worth making look nice at home. Some rolls come back beautiful, some come back with banding so bad it's unusable. Happened so much I've just stopped complaining, but even the B&W roll the ran for me from the weekend has the banding in some pics. If we want to talk maybe PM or a different thread and I can show you what I mean so we can stay in the analog realm here.

I need scanning anyway, I guess. I intend to develop my own, at the very least black and white, eventually. And I am hybrid, I don't have a darkroom to print in.

I haven't used NCPS for several years now since I started scanning myself (digicam) but I never had issues w their scans. It seems that part of their service has gone downhiil.

As for the film marks - that is from some kind of processing error, not an issue w the film.

 

[Moose22]

I don't mean to talk smack about NCPS. They are really good people, and I hand out their cards and send everyone to them. They've been remarkably helpful since I sent my first images to them to print a year ago, even more so as I started shooting film again. When the scans are good, everything is great, their prints are beautiful, and when they're not overwhelmed they'll answer the stupidest of questions for me. Aside from a few spots on a roll of acros, their development has been close to perfect until this roll. But.. this is weird, so I want to know more about it.

I'm really here to learn and get extra opinions more than anything. I'll get my scanning rig set up after work today and post a pic of the negative. At the very least for posterity.

 

[Moose22]

I hope I am not too late to this but would it be possible to show an image of the affected negative strip on the light table?

Sorry for the delay. The clouds cleared away and the moon looked photoworthy, so I had the digital camera out.

Here's a quick shot of the neg:

 

[foc]

Sorry for the delay. The clouds cleared away and the moon looked photoworthy, so I had the digital camera out.

Here's a quick shot of the neg:

Thank you for posting the image of the neg. I can see the lines clearly.
And they appear to continue into the frames on either side of the negative image posted.

Without seeing the negative in person, I would guess that they look like drying marks.

Can you rewash and dry the negative strip and see does it remain the same?

 

[warden]

Sorry for the delay. The clouds cleared away and the moon looked photoworthy, so I had the digital camera out.

Here's a quick shot of the neg:

Are any of the negatives on this roll disposable for reasons other than these lines? By that I mean normal problems of missed focus, bad exposure, composition, whatever. If I had these negatives and I knew one of them was unusable anyway, I'd breathe on it and wipe gently with microfiber cloth to see if the stripes come off easily. If they do, you know the problem is the processing, not the film, and will need to rewash and air dry the entire roll.

Edit: if the problem is solved by a second wash, let the processor know. This is information they need.

 

[Moose22]

Are any of the negatives on this roll disposable for reasons other than these lines? By that I mean normal problems of missed focus, bad exposure, composition, whatever. If I had these negatives and I knew one of them was unusable anyway, I'd breathe on it and wipe gently with microfiber cloth to see if the stripes come off easily. If they do, you know the problem is the processing, not the film, and will need to rewash and air dry the entire roll.

Edit: if the problem is solved by a second wash, let the processor know. This is information they need.

Now, USUALLY I get 36 or 37 absolutely perfect shots that are all great art and should be preserved for posterity.

But, luckily, half this roll is trash. I was walking around after dark taking pictures with no tripod, just for giggles. I'll give the microfiber cloth a try.