Damaged MF Negative (kink from jamming)

[Svenedin]

I have a roll of 120 roll film (FP4) that jammed whilst loading onto a Paterson reel. One negative, that is an interesting shot, has been damaged from kinking. It has that "crescent" shaped kink that appears darker than the rest of the negative. Unfortunately, I can't crop it out. I haven't tried to print it yet.

I'm assuming the negative is wrecked but out of interest, is there anything I could do to reduce the appearance of this mark when I print? It is a 6x7 negative and the damage is in the sky.

 

[winger]

Of course the damage ended up in the sky - Murphy strikes again. If it prints white, you can use spot-tone and make it less obvious. Don't spot the whole thing, but put enough small spots to visually break it up. Or print from two negatives and use the sky from another shot. Might be a good one for experimenting with different things.

 

[Svenedin]

I projected the image with the enlarger and the damage projects black so it will make a white mark as you suggest. I have a similar, but not identical frame, that I have printed and I am pleased enough with that so I will experiment with the damaged frame.

This does happen to me from time to time. I have taken all my Paterson reels and I am soaking them in a bucket of hot water and bleach. I know everyone seems to think reels jam from residual wetting agent (e.g ilfotol) but I am convinced it is actually gelatin residue and the stuff floating in the bucket seems to confirm that! I think a hot cycle in the dishwasher would be good too. The dishwasher tablets break down protein effectively.

 

[AgX]

The effect is due to pressure-caused (kink) triggering of the emulsion.

 

[MattKing]

Can you print the sky from one negative with the foreground from the other?

 

[Svenedin]

Can you print the sky from one negative with the foreground from the other?

Maybe but I don't know how to do that!

 

[howardpan]

Maybe but I don't know how to do that!

Neither do I, but I have seen some wonderful work based on combining multiple negatives in one image. I would love to learn how and would be most grateful if someone can point me to a useful resource.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=124

 

[sly]

I've had these kink marks occasionally, but have always assumed they were caused when I tore the backing paper away from the roll - as they have always been in the frame next to the tape. I now separate the film and the backing paper very carefully.

 

[hoffy]

All I'm going to say is "What a glorious age we live in" and leave it there.....

 

[Matt Fattori]

I used to to get the kinks quite often too. I started snipping off the corners of the leading edge of my rolls before spooling and the problem disappeared. I'm also careful to wash my reels after use and never re-spool until they are bone dry.

 

[Svenedin]

Yes, I also trim the corners of the leading edge. Looking at the frame there is a kink right on the edge. I must have tried to force it past the jam and that damaged the actual picture area.

 

[naeroscatu]

I had the very same problem with a MF negative that I was printing last night. As mentioned above (Murphy's law), the kink was in the sky - particularly in the white clouds but it is obvious. Luckily I shot two frames for the same subject so it's not a big loss. I will print the second frame.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

All I'm going to say is "What a glorious age we live in" and leave it there.....

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Don't thow away the baby with the bathwater. You might be able to salvage a treasure. If it's a negative, you can spot the print.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I shall not mention the fix. I'm sure others would stop me. But one could develop a method to resolve this issue if one is willing to scan the web for 'pixilated' opinions.

 

[Svenedin]

Ah yes, that would be one way but I was hoping to print it traditionally. The negative is not so important that I am averse to trying some probably crazy and destructive options but I might put it on one of those pixel things first. I wonder what would happen if I tried to iron it with a cool iron for instance!

 

[jeffreyg]

As mentioned if the area on the print is "lighter" you can spot it. Use a good artist's brush 00000 or 0000, put some drops of the spotting inks on a white porcelain dish (it's okay if they dry) wet the brush in distilled water, on another non keeper print with a white border work out the tone to match the area around that you wish to correct. It's better to be too light and build up. If the spot on the print is too "dark" you can spot the negative, reprint and re-spot the print because the spotting of the negative will probably be too much.
I will usually make two exposures of something I consider to be important ... just in case (Murphy's Law).

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Svenedin]

Ok. Spotting is a technique I have never really been good at but I will have a go. This is something for a cold, wet, Winter evening!

PS: The negative in question is from the same film as my recent posts to the gallery "Süd Tyrol Hiking"

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

With spotting, matching texture and density is easy enough (with practice). Matching hue is quite another thing. For tiny areas it doesn't matter as the eye masks those. Filling in large areas... not so much. And don't forget differential fading over time.

 

[hoffy]

I shall not mention the fix. I'm sure others would stop me. But one could develop a method to resolve this issue if one is willing to scan the web for 'pixilated' opinions.

OK, screw it - I am going to say it, simply because I see it as a tool. Digital negatives and contact printing.

I am in the same situation, as one of my most prized shots was badly scratched by the rollers in my Camera. I to would dearly love to print this one optically, but thus far I have had to resort to other means to get it on paper.

But, its time to face another fact - digital reproduction does not have a patch on B&W analogue prints. The other issue I have found with these techniques and topics is an inkjet printed negative still seems to be lacking from the research I have done (Never attempted it myself)

 

[Truzi]

This is probably a stupid idea, but if the position and size are just right you might be able to pass it off as the moon. Maybe you can dodge/burn the print to make it as unobtrusive as possible and hope people think it's just the moon in the sky.