Dealing with reticulated Tri-X negatives

[iancawood]

I went out to Himalayas last summer and shot a roll of Tri-X. I got it developed at a different lab to normal and they ruined the film by severely reticulating the emulsion on the negatives. My understanding is that this is totally permanent, but I thought I should double check to see if anyone had any suggestions on how to deal with it. Is it possible to loosen and remove the cracked emulsion layer from the film surface without damaging the actual image? I understand this is possible pre-shooting and developing (with hot water or chemical solutions) but I don't know if it's at all possible afterwards. If it is possible would I need to re-coat the film afterwards?

Any suggestions at all I am willing to test, no matter how wacky or weird they sound, even if there is a chance of further damaging the images.

Many thanks in advance!!!

 

[koraks]

The image layer is embedded in the emulsion. You remove the emulsion, you remove the image.

 

[Ian Grant]

It depends on the severity. It's usually difficult to reticulate most modern films. It's possible that wet mounting and scanning may help if it's only surface reticulation, known also as micro reticulation or incipient reticulation (and surface artefacts bt EK), but this just affects the gelatin super-coat and causes excessive graininess when printing/scanning.

Wet mounting goes back to the 1920's when 35mm still photography was just in its infancy, much later Ctein wet mounted his negatives for enlarging.

If the emulsion has svere reticulation there's nothing you can do.

Ian

 

[iancawood]

It depends on the severity. It's usually difficult to reticulate most modern films. It's possible that wet mounting and scanning may help if it's only surface reticulation, known also as micro reticulation or incipient reticulation (and surface artefacts bt EK), but this just affects the gelatin super-coat and causes excessive graininess when printing/scanning.

Wet mounting goes back to the 1920's when 35mm still photography was just in its infancy, much later Ctein wet mounted his negatives for enlarging.

If the emulsion has svere reticulation there's nothing you can do.

Ian

Interesting, I didn't know that was a possible idea. I've uploaded examples of two images from the roll to imugr (link below). Do you think the reticulation is too severe to try this? Or is it worth a shot?

https://imgur.com/a/YO6NNQF

 

[bernard_L]

I've uploaded examples of two images from the roll to imugr (link below).

Quite interesting effect; Looks like a 19th century engraving.

 

[removed account4]

I went out to Himalayas last summer and shot a roll of Tri-X. I got it developed at a different lab to normal and they ruined the film by severely reticulating the emulsion on the negatives. My understanding is that this is totally permanent, but I thought I should double check to see if anyone had any suggestions on how to deal with it. Is it possible to loosen and remove the cracked emulsion layer from the film surface without damaging the actual image? I understand this is possible pre-shooting and developing (with hot water or chemical solutions) but I don't know if it's at all possible afterwards. If it is possible would I need to re-coat the film afterwards?

Any suggestions at all I am willing to test, no matter how wacky or weird they sound, even if there is a chance of further damaging the images.

Many thanks in advance!!!

Sorry for your troubles !
There really isn't much that can be done except grab it by the horns and ride it, and make note of your lab and either find a different lab for the next time, or do it yourself. Are you scanning all your films or enlarging them ? The images you uploaded have that beautiful texture. If you read "the forums" you'll quickly see texture like that, is the sort of thing that people wish they could do on their own, or by enhancing their grain by using developers like Rodinal, or Lith Printing.

Have fun !
John

ps. You might be able to diffuse the reticulation when enlarging it ( like wet mounting as Ian suggested ) by getting the cellophane that boxes of tea are wrapped in, and passing it in the enlarger light when you are projecting your images onto photo paper... speed and frequency change the look of the image. You might also experiment with an enlarging filter that is "smoke stained" ( have someone you know blow cigar or cigarette or pipe tobacco smoke on it ) and make a smudge in the middle with your finger to "clear" a spot. Some may suggest pantyhose with a hole in the middle too ... these things might be helpful if you enlarge yourself... you'll have to work with layer masks and processing effects in photoshop if you are using a computer and laser ( or ink ) to make your final images...

 

[glbeas]

That looks more like jpeg artifacts than it does reticulation. Way too much compression.

 

[Ian Grant]

That looks more like jpeg artifacts than it does reticulation. Way too much compression.

It does look like reticulation but JPEG compression might not help.

Interesting, I didn't know that was a possible idea. I've uploaded examples of two images from the roll to imugr (link below). Do you think the reticulation is too severe to try this? Or is it worth a shot?

https://imgur.com/a/YO6NNQF

It may help but really is a last ditch attempt.

Ian

 

[jeffreyg]

You could try the--- " if you got lemons, make lemonade" approach. Diffuse slightly and print a little soft on warm tone paper giving the images a pictorialist look. One way I have diffused on a couple of occasions was to take two 1/4 inch pieces of glass with a little baby oil between them, focus sharply and then hold the glass under the enlarging lens. You can move the pieces of glass over each other and up/down under the lens to get the desired effect.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[pentaxuser]

I take it that you have darkroom silver gelatin prints that replicate the scans you have shown us? The problem here is that it can be difficult to eliminate scanning as the issue. Unless the lab had a major failure in what controls the temperatures of the dev, fix and wash routines, modern film as others have said are incredibly robust and lab machinery tends to keep all temps within a very narrow range thus preventing even micro-reticulation.

Again asking the obvious but do all your scans of all the negs show the same effect?

pentaxuser

 

[iancawood]

Many thanks to everyone for all their suggestions and comments!

Sorry for your troubles !
There really isn't much that can be done except grab it by the horns and ride it, and make note of your lab and either find a different lab for the next time, or do it yourself. Are you scanning all your films or enlarging them ? The images you uploaded have that beautiful texture. If you read "the forums" you'll quickly see texture like that, is the sort of thing that people wish they could do on their own, or by enhancing their grain by using developers like Rodinal, or Lith Printing.

Have fun !
John

ps. You might be able to diffuse the reticulation when enlarging it ( like wet mounting as Ian suggested ) by getting the cellophane that boxes of tea are wrapped in, and passing it in the enlarger light when you are projecting your images onto photo paper... speed and frequency change the look of the image. You might also experiment with an enlarging filter that is "smoke stained" ( have someone you know blow cigar or cigarette or pipe tobacco smoke on it ) and make a smudge in the middle with your finger to "clear" a spot. Some may suggest pantyhose with a hole in the middle too ... these things might be helpful if you enlarge yourself... you'll have to work with layer masks and processing effects in photoshop if you are using a computer and laser ( or ink ) to make your final images...

I unfortunately don't have my own scanning set up (or enlarging set up). Thank you for all your suggestions. I have a very good lab that I work with now - I will chat with these guys and see if they are able to try some of these suggestions. Even if they don't work sounds like fun!

You could try the--- " if you got lemons, make lemonade" approach. Diffuse slightly and print a little soft on warm tone paper giving the images a pictorialist look. One way I have diffused on a couple of occasions was to take two 1/4 inch pieces of glass with a little baby oil between them, focus sharply and then hold the glass under the enlarging lens. You can move the pieces of glass over each other and up/down under the lens to get the desired effect.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

The diffusing option sounds like it will probably be my best option. I will give it a shot!

I take it that you have darkroom silver gelatin prints that replicate the scans you have shown us? The problem here is that it can be difficult to eliminate scanning as the issue. Unless the lab had a major failure in what controls the temperatures of the dev, fix and wash routines, modern film as others have said are incredibly robust and lab machinery tends to keep all temps within a very narrow range thus preventing even micro-reticulation.

Again asking the obvious but do all your scans of all the negs show the same effect?

pentaxuser

Yes all my negatives show exactly the same affect :'( . It does seem weird that this even happened - seems like a total freak occurrence.