Defects in Ilford HP5+ 8x10 film

[Andrew P]

I have recently encountered some strange defects after developing some 8x10 Ilford HP5+ film. I have exposed and developed around 2000 sheets of Ilford 8x10 film over the past 10+ years and have never seen this problem until now. I have attached a couple images with the negative with the most pronounced defect. I purchased a box of the film from B&H in New York and around 8 out of the 25 sheets had these artifacts. They look almost like a drip spot. They were immediately apparent after development, when the film was still wet, so they're not due to drying. They were never in the same place in the negative, but tended to be in consecutive sheets as packaged in the box. The areas of extra density are not visible when the film is held at an angle, so they are embedded within the emulsion. The film was developed in freshly mixed Kodak D-76 developer and put through Ilford stop and rapid fixer. They were tray developed on at a time, using brush development, in complete darkness, the same way I've developed all of my sheet film. My camera (Deardorff) and film holders have been thorough checked for light leaks and are fine.

The dark ring in the upper right corner is due to a fence in the field of view.

Any thoughts on what this could be? I sent a message to Ilford, but they don't have an option for uploading images.
Thanks.

 

[mshchem]

Looks like static electricity (or alien lifeforms) Contact Harman immediately.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Could be static. If it is, it's the creepiest static I've ever seen! I would definitely email Ilford photo Harman Technology, explaining the issue, as well as the batch number. They will probably ask you to send a photo. There is a contact form you can fill out and send on their website.

 

[JPD]

Those are the strangest and most unsettling defects/marks/artefacts I've ever seen. Static discharge that happened just above the film, so it exposed the film in an oval, plus the "branches"?

 

[MattKing]

@Harman Tech Service check in from time to time here, and this may help bring this to their attention.
But yes, use the contact form on their website.

 

[250swb]

What's the expiry date on the film? It looks like fungus eating the gelatine.

 

[koraks]

Welcome aboard @Andrew P and sorry to hear about your problems with the sheet film.

It looks like fungus eating the gelatine.

Negative.

It's indeed static discharge. This may have occurred during manufacturing of the film, but it's also possible that the exposure occurred as the film was taken from the box into the dark slides, or out of the dark slides prior to development. This is especially likely in conditions of low relative humidity. Exacerbating factors can include synthetic or woolen clothes.

These marks are rare, but they do pop up from time to time. Foma sometimes has problems on their confectioning lines with this. But as said, this is not necessarily due to a problem at the manufacturer. Still, I'd recommend getting in touch with Ilford/Harman.

 

[Don_ih]

It looks like fungus eating the gelatine.

To elaborate on "negative", when fungus eats gelatine, there will be no density on the negative. So those would be black on the positive. It is remarkable that fungus and electricity can make the same patterns.

 

[BobUK]

The snow on the ground makes me think about possible condensation in the sheet film holder.
Icy cold film holders taken into a warm motor car. Then condensation forming on the dark slide/ film holder.
Just like when you walk into a nice warm house on a frosty day, and your glasses steam up.

I wonder if other shots taken indoors using film from the same box have the similar blemishes.

 

[JPD]

I'm relieved that the alien lifeform hypothesis has been discarded, and that I kept the "giant virus" hypothesis to myself.

 

[Andrew P]

Yes, the exact pattern appeared as you see in the picture. The expiration date is 7/2026. Yes, the film was exposed in cold conditions and brought back into the car. But I’ve done the same thing numerous times before with no issue. I already filled out the Ilford contact form.

 

[cowanw]

The patterns are identical and so not occurring during a unique event such as loading or handling one sheet. Static electricity would not duplicate itself perfectly sheet after sheet.

 

[xkaes]

Amoebas

 

[koraks]

The patterns are identical

The image on the left appears to be a crop from the entire image shown on the right. So yes, they're identical. That doesn't mean they appear identically on different sheets of film.

The lightning rod pattern is indicative of static discharge:

Compare with this:

(source: https://www.dagcamera.com/store/p12...rly_M3_Camera_with_glass_pressure_plate..html)

 

[cowanw]

Ah, quite right one is a crop. I take it back.

 

[koraks]

I had to look twice (thrice even) to notice it, too. I thought initially we were looking at two different photos, but he had already remarked that the marks appear differently on individual sheets, so your comment surprised me and made me take a closer look.

 

[Jojje]

Had an exactly same kind of an ameba (15x25mm) on a 9x12 Fomapan 400 sheet film the other day, which left me puzzled. Never seen like that before, so this is a coincidence. Being winter air is very dry in my darkroom. I do use antistatic brush before loading sheet in film holders to minimize dust occurrence.

 

[JPD]

Quoting our late expert Photo Engineer: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/proper-moisture-in-a-darkroom.30734/

40 - 60% humidity is proper. Dave is correct.

Kodak maintains a solid 50% humidity everywhere in the plant.

PE

Combined room thermometers and hygrometers are cheap. Air humidity lower than 40% increases the risk of static discharges, or to use a more scientific term, Amoebas. Higher than 60% increases the risk of their fungal counterpart.

For often used darkrooms, what would be a proper air humidifier? It needs a setting to shut off at a certain point and should not spread fungal spores, and be kept not too close to film, paper and dry chemicals.