Faulty Kentmere 400 120 ?

Elmarc · Sep 26, 2023

Hello all,
I just developed my first roll of Kentmere 400 120 and as you will see from the examples there are some diagonal patches or blocks of extra density. They appear roughly in the same position on the bracketed frames but also appear in an earlier frame albeit in a different position. Any idea what could be the cause?
I have never experienced this anomaly before. I doubt it is the camera (Rolleiflex TLR) or development error on my part.
Thank you for your opinions in advance.

relistan · Sep 26, 2023

Elmarc said:
Hello all,
I just developed my first roll of Kentmere 400 120 and as you will see from the examples there are some diagonal patches or blocks of extra density. They appear roughly in the same position on the bracketed frames but also appear in an earlier frame albeit in a different position. Any idea what could be the cause?
I have never experienced this anomaly before. I doubt it is the camera (Rolleiflex TLR) or development error on my part.
Thank you for your opinions in advance.

I'm pretty confident saying it's nothing to do with the manufacturing of the film. The fact that it appears in more or less the same position on at least two of the frames indicates to me that it was something that happened in camera. The hard line would be very difficult to achieve in the development stage, but easy enough in the camera. Hazarding a guess, it seems that something almost transparent was inside the camera. A snip of film leader? Maybe someone has an idea more specific to this camera, but I'm pretty sure this is an in camera issue.

Elmarc · Sep 26, 2023

Its unlikely that it would be a film leader as this is 120 film and there is no leader as such.
Is it plausible that one of the blades of the leaf shutter was a little slow? I don't know enough about leaf shutter mechanisms to know if one blade could react slower than the others at the point of exposure.
Just thinking aloud here...

koraks · Sep 26, 2023

relistan said:
I'm pretty confident saying it's nothing to do with the manufacturing of the film.

Indeed; it is absolutely certain to NOT be a coating or manufacturing defect. The diagonal nature of the anomaly combined with the perfect alignment with individual frames proves this beyond any doubt.

Elmarc said:
diagonal patches or blocks of extra density.

I see minus density, not excess density. However, it's very possible that the patches in the corners are actually as they should be, and the rest of the film is fogged due to an in-camera light leak of some sort.
I doubt it's the shutter blades since these are pretty far from the film surface and would therefore not cast such a sharp shadow. It's more likely something close to the film. It can be on either side; the fogging may have taken place from behind the film just as well. I'd inspect the camera closely for any light leaks.

grain elevator · Sep 26, 2023

koraks said:
I'd inspect the camera closely for any light leaks.

Or sources of internal reflections!

Elmarc · Sep 26, 2023

koraks said:
Indeed; it is absolutely certain to NOT be a coating or manufacturing defect. The diagonal nature of the anomaly combined with the perfect alignment with individual frames proves this beyond any doubt.

I see minus density, not excess density. However, it's very possible that the patches in the corners are actually as they should be, and the rest of the film is fogged due to an in-camera light leak of some sort.
I doubt it's the shutter blades since these are pretty far from the film surface and would therefore not cast such a sharp shadow. It's more likely something close to the film. It can be on either side; the fogging may have taken place from behind the film just as well. I'd inspect the camera closely for any light leaks.

I was looking at the contact sheet when I wrote 'extra density'. But you are correct.
Re the blades, yes they are too far from the film plane to create such a defined edge. Thank you for clearing that up.
As for light leaks, I will check, but if one does exist it would have been between rolls as this is the first roll from the same camera to exhibit such an anomaly.

Elmarc · Sep 26, 2023

grain elevator said:
Or sources of internal reflections!

Rolleiflex TLRs can produce reflections from the one of the chrome rollers when the frame is overexposed but this looks like something entirely different.

koraks · Sep 26, 2023

Elmarc said:
As for light leaks, I will check, but if one does exist it would have been between rolls as this is the first roll from the same camera to exhibit such an anomaly.

Well, a problem manifests itself at some point. Moreover, with light leaks (or reflections), it matters a lot how the camera was handled. Did it spend much time in bright light, or not? How as it held in relation to bright light sources (particularly the sun)? This makes it sometimes puzzling why a light leak or reflection occurs intermittently.

FotoD · Sep 26, 2023

To me the line in the two first images looks like a part of the building.

But that doesn't explain the image of the mysterious two-legged creature. Perhaps something in front of the lens?

Dali · Sep 26, 2023

Were the pictures taken outside or through a window?

relistan · Sep 26, 2023

koraks said:
Indeed; it is absolutely certain to NOT be a coating or manufacturing defect. The diagonal nature of the anomaly combined with the perfect alignment with individual frames proves this beyond any doubt.

Hard agree, but whenever _I_ make strong statements like that I end up with someone splitting hairs about the percentage of certainty

Elmarc · Sep 26, 2023

koraks said:
Well, a problem manifests itself at some point. Moreover, with light leaks (or reflections), it matters a lot how the camera was handled. Did it spend much time in bright light, or not? How as it held in relation to bright light sources (particularly the sun)? This makes it sometimes puzzling why a light leak or reflection occurs intermittently.

The camera is subjected to bright sunny conditions on most days but I have never encountered such a problem before with said camera. I doubt a light leak would be so uniform in shape. A reflection possibly....

pentaxuser · Sep 26, 2023

It sounds as if the quickest way now to solve the problem is to contact Ilford.

pentaxuser

warden · Sep 27, 2023

pentaxuser said:
It sounds as if the quickest way now to solve the problem is to contact Ilford.

pentaxuser

Please don’t contact them. The problem here is not the film.

Elmarc · Sep 27, 2023

pentaxuser said:
It sounds as if the quickest way now to solve the problem is to contact Ilford.

pentaxuser

I did just that. The technical dept ruled out the camera or a manufacturing fault. They came to the conclusion of x-ray damage. The film did pass a scanner once ( non CT)
I just processed a roll of FP4 from the same camera in similar lighting conditions without problems.

pentaxuser · Sep 27, 2023

Elmarc said:
I did just that. The technical dept ruled out the camera or a manufacturing fault. They came to the conclusion of x-ray damage. The film did pass a scanner once ( non CT)
I just processed a roll of FP4 from the same camera in similar lighting conditions without problems.

I am glad that the problem now seems to be fixed but I find it surprising that Ilford concluded that one pass from a non CT scanner was enough to create the problem for a 400 speed film

Just out of curiosity , how was it that it was one scan only? If you pass a scanner don't you have to pass it or a similar scanner on the return journey and that's assuming that there were no scanners at the other end?

Thanks

pentaxuser

FotoD · Sep 27, 2023

Can you show precisely where the anomaly is on frame 1 and 2? I still don't see it.

warden · Sep 27, 2023

FotoD said:
Can you show precisely where the anomaly is on frame 1 and 2? I still don't see it.

I don’t either. The two diagonal lines in the OP's highlighted area appear to be part of the image: a water stain on the wall beneath the circular window, and some geometry (possibly a corner of the building or a column) that is closer to the camera than the window and partially obstructing our view of the window. I don't see any problems with the negative but maybe I'm just missing something that others are seeing. Here's the highlighted area inverted:

Elmarc · Sep 27, 2023

pentaxuser said:
I am glad that the problem now seems to be fixed but I find it surprising that Ilford concluded that one pass from a non CT scanner was enough to create the problem for a 400 speed film

Just out of curiosity , how was it that it was one scan only? If you pass a scanner don't you have to pass it or a similar scanner on the return journey and that's assuming that there were no scanners at the other end?

Thanks

pentaxuser

This was a train journey with scanners at departure only.

pentaxuser · Sep 27, 2023

Elmarc said:
This was a train journey with scanners at departure only.

Thanks for the reply

pentaxuser

pentaxuser · Sep 27, 2023

FotoD said:
Can you show precisely where the anomaly is on frame 1 and 2? I still don't see it.

I didn't either until I looked more closely There is an area of less shadow which is easier seen in frame one but is less clear in frame 2 and if anything is more marginal still in frame 3. The problem is that if I am seeing things correctly the red triangle does not mark the problem accurately The issue is within the red triangle but that triangle also contains part of the shadow area that looks the same as the unaffected part outside of the triangle

I hope that helps

pentaxuser

monst · Sep 27, 2023

It looks like a wall on the first one as it hides the round window frame. The second shot just looks very overexposed so internal flare?

koraks · Sep 27, 2023

This failure pattern and in particular the alignment with in-camera frames makes x-ray damage exceedingly unlikely. Sorry to disagree with Harman tech support.

ooze · Sep 28, 2023

Shouldn't x-ray damage be darker lines on the neg - usually wavy - anyway? Here we have a lighter area on the neg.

https://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

Elmarc · Sep 28, 2023

pentaxuser said:
I didn't either until I looked more closely There is an area of less shadow which is easier seen in frame one but is less clear in frame 2 and if anything is more marginal still in frame 3. The problem is that if I am seeing things correctly the red triangle does not mark the problem accurately The issue is within the red triangle but that triangle also contains part of the shadow area that looks the same as the unaffected part outside of the triangle

I hope that helps

pentaxuser

Yes, that is correct. I did not want to obscure the part by having the red line too close. If one superimposes the problem area on the photo of the goat in the tree and orientates that 180 degrees then the problem area should be more evident.

Faulty Kentmere 400 120 ?

Elmarc

Attachments

relistan

Elmarc

koraks

Moderator

grain elevator

Elmarc

Elmarc

koraks

Moderator

FotoD

Dali

relistan

Elmarc

pentaxuser

warden

Elmarc

pentaxuser

FotoD

warden

Attachments

Elmarc

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

monst

koraks

Moderator

ooze

Elmarc

Faulty Kentmere 400 120 ?

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency