Do thin emulsion films need more spotting/retouching?

I've been re-scanning quite a few old negatives, and re-discovered something that I had noticed when printing them: those shot on Delta 100 seem to need a lot more spotting than those shot on other emulsions (mainly FP4+, HP5+, Tri-X, Double-X - all 35mm).

The blemishes are white in the positive scan or print, and they don't blow or brush off, so they must be tiny particles stuck to the emulsion. When I first realised this, about 12 or so years ago, I improved the filtration on my water supply, and became super careful about filtering chemicals At that time I also started to use more FP4+, but I mixed it in with the Delta 100. So my Delta 100 negatives span periods before and after improving filtration procedures.

Nevertheless, I can't be sure that I'm not imagining the connection with film type. We're only talking about 200 films of all types, so it's a small sample. And I'm very keen not to denigrate Delta 100 because I love its tonality, fine grain and resolution of detail, all at mid-speed.

So I'm wondering: has anybody else noticed a similar connection? If real, could it be related to the thin emulsion being more transparent to particulate crud?



[PS - Clearly I do need to improve my filtration even more, but that's not what I'm asking about. All my negatives are stored in Secol protective sleeves as soon as dry, and rarely taken out.]

snusmumriken said:

thin emulsion

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that the emulsion (not so much halide cluster size & geometry) of e.g. Delta 100 is significantly different in thickness than of any other modern film?

Keep in mind that the 'thin emulsion' concept is often thrown around with the implicit assumption that it's meaningful - there are very solid reasons to be very cautious though.

koraks said:

Do you have any evidence that the emulsion (not so much halide cluster size & geometry) of e.g. Delta 100 is significantly different in thickness than of any other modern film?

Keep in mind that the 'thin emulsion' concept is often thrown around with the implicit assumption that it's meaningful - there are very solid reasons to be very cautious though.

Click to expand...

No, you are right to question that. However, I would say that Delta 100 negatives look 'thin' in the photographic sense, compared with FP4+ negatives that print nicely on the same paper contrast grade.

snusmumriken said:

I would say that Delta 100 negatives look 'thin' in the photographic sense

Click to expand...

Yes, I recognize that. I think that's due to the shape of the silver grains and their orientation, to cut a very long story short. I don't expect this in itself to correlate with a propensity to collecting dust or other fouling, however.

There are certainly differences between film types and in particular aspects such as the nature and degree of hardening of topcoats. I don't know to what extent Delta 100 differs in such respects from e.g. other Ilford films, and how such differences might translate into other/more issues with dust or debris.

How are the negatives stored? In sleeves? In PrintFile sheets? Loose in a cardboard box or cigar box. Do people even smoke cigar boxes any more?

Sirius Glass said:

How are the negatives stored? In sleeves? In PrintFile sheets? Loose in a cardboard box or cigar box.

Click to expand...

Please read the OP.

Sirius Glass said:

Do people even smoke cigar boxes any more?

Click to expand...

The boxes probably only in desperation. The cigars themselves were the main focus. Apparently Shackleton's men, when rescued from the Antarctic, had been so desperate for tobacco that they had chipped up some old pipe bowls and smoked those in the remaining whole pipes.