Elaborate scratches on negative

[Tom Kershaw]

I processed three rolls of FP4 at the end of last week, and all three had filaments coming from the edge of the rolls.

I've gotten into a habit now if running my wet thumb and forefinger down each edge, one edge at a time as the roll comes out of the photo-flo.

Mike

This is what I've started to do as well. Very frustrating. The Kodak black & white film I've processed recently doesn't exhibit the 'filament' issue.

Tom

 

[mpirie]

Like-wise Tom, i processed some Tri-X without a problem recently too.

Have you seen a repeat of the filaments since you started running your HP5/FP4 film through your fingers?

Mike

 

[GLS]

I have never seen this issue with Ilford films (or any other for that matter). I also would suspect you may be shaving off filaments of film from the wet roll when you pull it out of the reel. I always twist apart the two halves of the reel (Paterson type) rather than pull the film back out, and as I said I have never seen this problem.

 

[AgX]

I also never pulled off film from a closed reel.
But I know quite some people do, and we did not learn of these filaments before. And how could produce pulling film from the reel produce filaments. more so of that tinyness and regular dimension?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've used the 2500 series reels for many years and not had this filament issue until recently, and I cannot really see how to open these reels while there is film loaded. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I also saw the 'filament' on a roll of HP5 Plus processed in a stainless steel reel / tank combination, so a completely different set of circumstances, and one cannot open a welded stainless steel reel...

Have you seen a repeat of the filaments since you started running your HP5/FP4 film through your fingers?

- this does seem to work however I missed one on the HP5 films mentioned as being processed most recently. 4 rolls of slightly older Delta 100 - dated July 2021 - do not seem to show the filament from initial assessment.

 

[MattKing]

It may be something as simple as a problem with the cutter that trims the substrate stock to the correct width.
Has anyone checked to see if the blade needs sharpening?

 

[mpirie]

It may be something as simple as a problem with the cutter that trims the substrate stock to the correct width.
Has anyone checked to see if the blade needs sharpening?

I've asked Harman/Ilford to check....no response yet.

Mike

 

[GLS]

And how could produce pulling film from the reel produce filaments. more so of that tinyness and regular dimension?

A plastic burr somewhere in the reel perhaps (i.e. from the moulding process)? I could maybe see a sharp piece of plastic like that gouging tiny strips out of the wet/soft film base.

 

[mpirie]

I've seen it on both Paterson and Jobo reels......and it looked like i saw the same on some FP4 sheet film earlier today.

The only common denominator (for me) is the film stock.

Mike

 

[pentaxuser]

I also never pulled off film from a closed reel.
But I know quite some people do, and we did not learn of these filaments before. And how could produce pulling film from the reel produce filaments. more so of that tinyness and regular dimension?

I have always pulled film from a closed reel and have done so for 15 years since I started to do my own developing. In fact to be honest until I read the posts about pulling from a closed reel I had never given it any thought as a potential problem. While Jobo reels can be opened there are reels that cannot be opened such as Durst where you have no choice but to pull the film from these closed reels. Never had a problem with Durst reels either

pentaxuser

 

[Jim Goodin]

Hello I'm recently signed up after finding this post that relates to an artifact I've had a couple of times on my negatives. I recently returned to film after several years away and this time out am pursing large format, something I always wanted to do.

Attached is a recent image flawed in several ways but am most puzzled by a bunch of thin white filament lines in the trees on the left mid-way down and a few elsewhere. Along the read of this thread does anyone know or have a thought what I'm doing wrong or what might be the culprit? I have heard of scratches on the film (camera) holder causing light refractions. Originally as my holders are used one had scratches but I painted over and I have forgotten if I had painted before or after this exposure was made. I'm guessing this is drying crap though but also wonder if could be light leaks but have not seen this repeated on other images unless it's one holder I've been rotating through(?) but I just have the two.

Anyhow my equipment and process as follows...

I have a second hand Calumet CC400, 150mm lens. I'm using CatLABs iso 80 (though rate anywhere from 100 to 400) 4x5 bw film.

I've used the Stearman SP-445 and taco method in the Petersen. This particular neg was in the Stearman but in that I have processed several now in the Stearman I don't believe anything is at fault there. One caveat to that, one of the sheets slipped out of the film holder in process and was loose from it's holder when I opened the tank. I suppose that gives cause to scratches but marks don't seem that.

So I do @1 min pre-wash in distilled
I'm using Cinestill df96 combination developer/fix and including adding 15 sec per sheet for developer life cycle. For this developer unless pushing, I'm running @78f. I did this sheet with another and the times would have been 5.25 min total. 4 inversions per 30 seconds for agitation with a bubble tap after each 4.
5+ min inversion water wash, meaning 10 and dump, 20 and dump, etc.
1 min in distilled with a couple drops of Dawn dishwashing liquid.

I have of late improvised a drying 'tent' with a vinyl garment bag that has width so the film is not touching sides in hopes to minimize the drying crap.

I scanned on an Epson v600, 2 half's, then manually stitched in GIMP/Mac. I'm using a homemade frame for scanning cut from card stock and matboard hence the rag edges.

I think that is everything. Appreciate the thoughts.

Jim

 

[koraks]

I suppose that gives cause to scratches but marks don't seem that.

Oh yes, they do look like scratches to me. You also have several on the right side of the negative. These look like handling issues; practice a little more with handling your film sheets.

Btw you also managed to scrape off some emulsion in the top right corner; seems like a handling issue when the film was wet. The white "filaments" are handling issues with dry film before development.

 

[Don_ih]

Looks like scratches that form from sliding the film around with some bit of grit under it. I filter dev and fixer through a fine mesh before pouring into the tank - I would be especially careful to do that if I was reusing developer. One thing about scratches and scanning, though - often, scratches that stick out in a scan don't show up in an enlargement (or show up less significantly). And, then, you can always rub a bit of nose grease to lessen it.

 

[Jim Goodin]

Looks like scratches that form from sliding the film around with some bit of grit under it. I filter dev and fixer through a fine mesh before pouring into the tank - I would be especially careful to do that if I was reusing developer. One thing about scratches and scanning, though - often, scratches that stick out in a scan don't show up in an enlargement (or show up less significantly). And, then, you can always rub a bit of nose grease to lessen it.

Don and Koraks thank you both. Man sounds like I'm a f'ing gorilla in my handling of the film! Embarrassed as I've been thinking I'm careful! Anyhow need to improve there. I'm loading the holders in a changing bag and perhaps I'm rushing there at least with this one. Not all I've done so far have had flaws but I was a mess on this one as from what you are both saying, it's sounding to me like at least the scratches occurred in the load stage (pre-exposure) particularly if the upper right corner marks are removed emulsion which I kind of thought same thing and that could be sweating hands or the lack. Anyhow I appreciate both your inputs. Jim

 

[Jim Goodin]

Oh yes, they do look like scratches to me. You also have several on the right side of the negative. These look like handling issues; practice a little more with handling your film sheets.

Btw you also managed to scrape off some emulsion in the top right corner; seems like a handling issue when the film was wet. The white "filaments" are handling issues with dry film before development.

Koraks many thanks for your input, see my response which I included to you in the reply to Don.

 

[Don_ih]

Don and Koraks thank you both. Man sounds like I'm a f'ing gorilla in my handling of the film! Embarrassed as I've been thinking I'm careful! Anyhow need to improve there. I'm loading the holders in a changing bag and perhaps I'm rushing there at least with this one. Not all I've done so far have had flaws but I was a mess on this one as from what you are both saying, it's sounding to me like at least the scratches occurred in the load stage (pre-exposure) particularly if the upper right corner marks are removed emulsion which I kind of thought same thing and that could be sweating hands or the lack. Anyhow I appreciate both your inputs. Jim

I think a change bag will easily enable film to be damaged. It's easy enough to damage it in a darkroom. And you're not alone in getting some scratches on film - I think it happens to everyone every now and then. All part of the fun and frustration.

 

[koraks]

I think a change bag will easily enable film to be damaged.

Very much agree! For me it made a world of difference to have a room that I could darken completely. It's so much easier that way. A changing bag was always sweaty hands and not enough space especially for sheet film.
Practicing in daylight really helped me too when I started out.

 

[Jim Goodin]

I will say with this current return to film time and limitations of being able to have reasonably light-tight room in an older building, the changing bag has been a real plus and I'm pretty comfortable with it. Mine is fairly large as these things go though not a tent. It's 27"x30" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6PV/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1. Though with 4x5 it's more to futz with but after getting the hang of feeling the tracks to slide the film in the holders as well as the Stearman tank it's been doable. I will say re these flaws I've had less than more but I can see particularly thinking about the scratches having begun in my loading of one or the other, holders or tank, a finger here/there easily happen. To compare process experiences I recently did the taco method using my Petersen tank and was pleased it went pretty well. I did 3 sheets in the System 4 and nothing seemed to touch or get upset in agitation. Though I don't want to pass the buck as I think the Stearman is fine but as mentioned, I believe this sheet may have been the one that dislarged from the tank holder during process. But me easily touching the film in loading is a pretty good bet! Anyhow thanks again for all the input. I was heavily doing photography during the 80's and then as the the world went digital and I was too getting involved with another creative muse, I did less and less film and then work brought portable first Blackberry then Palm Trio then finally iphone and that became photography sadly. I never felt I wanted to drop the cash for a DSLR plus actually one of my sons got the need as he was a film major in college and first needed a DSLR so I invested in him This all said because of a Christmas gift that led me to Lomography.com I found myself getting all excited over film again and amazed that many probably all of you here, never left. I just rejumped in all over again this winter including the 4x5 that I always wanted. It's been neat to be processing again and just 'feel' the medium again. Some moments from my lomo page which are small to large format now. https://www.lomography.com/homes/jimgoodinmusic