First LF Photos, What is Wrong?

RedSun · May 25, 2014

I just made two test shots with my old (expired 1983) Tri-X Ortho 4163 4x5 film.
See (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here they are:

The set up is Sinar F2, Sirona-N 150mm/F5.6, F22, exposure 1/60 and 1/30. Developed with regular D-76 at 5.5 min @70C, in Jobo 2509 reel within CPE2.

The first photo was metered with ASA 200. I forgot to reset my Gossen meter. The 2nd photo was metered with ASA 50.

The 2nd photo looks fine. But something is wrong with the first photo. Is this film fogged? Again, this is more than 30-year old film. The film stays inside a soft pouch inside a triple layer box.

Other than fogged film, could this be any developing problem? I loaded each film on each side. As far I can tell, I loaded the film in the film loader correctly and I loaded the film inside the reel correctly.

cliveh · May 25, 2014

The emulsion may have got slightly damp prior to processing or during storage.

Mike Crawford · May 25, 2014

There is a reason why film has an expiry date!!

RedSun · May 25, 2014

cliveh said:
The emulsion may have got slightly damp prior to processing or during storage.

I just took the film out of box yesterday. It is hard to say about its storage since it is more than 30 year old. If the film is fogged, then it is out of my control, But I do not want to have anything wrong with my processing.

cliveh · May 25, 2014

RedSun said:
I just took the film out of box yesterday. It is hard to say about its storage since it is more than 30 year old. If the film is fogged, then it is out of my control, But I do not want to have anything wrong with my processing.

Then don't use out of date film and you can take that factor out of the equation.

pentaxuser · May 25, 2014

Don't reach for the cyanide pills just yet If the two sheets are from the same batch then it seems questionable if it is simply age. I'd look for some thing wrong with the first sheet which is peculiar to that sheet alone. Given how well the second sheet has turned out I'd rule out any processing fault on your part.

I have no idea of the original speed 1983 Tri-X but I'd imagine 320 so I'd say that while it may have lost a little speed your rating of EI 50 may be pessimistic. Don't get me wrong EI 50 has produced a good negative but you could probably risk at least EI 100 without losing significant shadow detail.

A good attempt, I'd say

pentaxuser

RedSun · May 25, 2014

cliveh said:
Then don't use out of date film and you can take that factor out of the equation.

Thank for your help If this is true, then we'll be in film shortage....

It is fun to use expired materials. Most of them are still good.

RedSun · May 25, 2014

pentaxuser said:
Don't reach for the cyanide pills just yet If the two sheets are from the same batch then it seems questionable if it is simply age. I'd look for some thing wrong with the first sheet which is peculiar to that sheet alone. Given how well the second sheet has turned out I'd rule out any processing fault on your part.

I have no idea of the original speed 1983 Tri-X but I'd imagine 320 so I'd say that while it may have lost a little speed your rating of EI 50 may be pessimistic. Don't get me wrong EI 50 has produced a good negative but you could probably risk at least EI 100 without losing significant shadow detail.

A good attempt, I'd say

pentaxuser

You are correct that the film was rated at 320 daylight. I had some concerns before since I heard this film has extreme contrast. Some recommended to use diluted developer, even Dektol developer. But the regular D-76 is just fine. This is also my first time to use D-76. I normally use regular T-max, but it is not good with sheet film.

The first photo does not show the regular fogging. The sky is still bright. The defects look more like lens flare or developing problem. Just wonder what would happen if the film was loaded with emulsion side facing outside (should facing inside).

summicron1 · May 25, 2014

the mottling has a rather structured look not unlike the leaves on the bush -- you sure you didn't double expose it somehow?

Other than that, I'd say try new film and start anew. Sometimes shit happeneth...

RedSun · May 25, 2014

summicron1 said:
the mottling has a rather structured look not unlike the leaves on the bush -- you sure you didn't double expose it somehow?

Other than that, I'd say try new film and start anew. Sometimes shit happeneth...

That is my first exposure, no double....

I loaded 4 films total in a Harrison change tent. That film may have been from the either end of the pile. There are hard cardboards at each end of the pile. It is possible that the films at the ends have bad emulsions.

summicron1 · May 26, 2014

RedSun said:
That is my first exposure, no double....

I loaded 4 films total in a Harrison change tent. That film may have been from the either end of the pile. There are hard cardboards at each end of the pile. It is possible that the films at the ends have bad emulsions.

hard to say -- chemical reaction from the cardboard onto the film? I would think it would be archival grade paper, but you never know, and silver in the film may react with sulphur in the paper.

Or, there's always the possibility of ghosts. Evil spirits sometimes leak into cameras. They have the least trouble penetrating through pinhole cameras -- lens glass filters them, to a certain extent.

So wear some garlic and a crucifix on your next shoot.

grahamp · May 26, 2014

I would be interested to know if you can see the pattern on the negative using oblique light. It looks like a mildew pattern to me - and that might come from the packing card. If you can see the pattern on the film or emulsion surface then that is a line of investigation. Acidity on the emulsion would inhibit development.

I don't think it is developing marks - bubbles would not stay on a Jobo unless you left traces of wetting agent in the tank, and then it would affect all sheets. Equally it does not seem sharp enough for physical damage.

There is a slim chance that it is a pinhole light leak, maybe while loading the tank. If this was the outside sheet and loaded emulsion out, it is vulnerable. Changing bags are a bit of a problem with this since you can't see what the film sees. A strong flashlight inside might show something, especially near the opening.

Soeren · May 26, 2014

I would not use out of date film or experiment with anything starting up LF or other new stuff. Get your routines and techniques straight first then play around, otherwise youll have to many unknowns in your equation.
Best regards

MartinP · May 26, 2014

A well-priced, fresh box of cheap-and-cheerful Foma is very useful for trying out anything new or, in this case, getting in to the rhythm needed for a consistent process. And it can give very decent results too. Shoot at half boxspeed, look up the data sheet on the Foma site to check the reciprocity characteristics and use your D76 1+1.

John Shriver · May 26, 2014

Yeah, the mottle looks like surface oxidation of the emulsion. It probably reacted with whatever it was next to in the film box. Like the cardboard on the outside of the stack. Or, just being at the outside, it was easier for air to get at it.

I shot a couple of Wratten and Wainright glass plates, and the outer inch and a half of the plate was fogged, there was just a small rectangle of functional emulsion in the middle. The air hadn't gotten to the middle, but had to the edges. (They are packed in pairs, emulsion to emulsion.)

Xmas · May 26, 2014

You need to review negatives rather than positives, especially rebates.

Old film is ok if the fog is uniform you only lose speed.

D-76 or ID11 are not ideal for fog level you need to think about low fog developer and adding KBr or BZT.

Rodinal, Xtol or Microphen for examples.

Keep doing tests.

RedSun · May 26, 2014

grahamp said:
I would be interested to know if you can see the pattern on the negative using oblique light. It looks like a mildew pattern to me - and that might come from the packing card. If you can see the pattern on the film or emulsion surface then that is a line of investigation. Acidity on the emulsion would inhibit development.

I don't think it is developing marks - bubbles would not stay on a Jobo unless you left traces of wetting agent in the tank, and then it would affect all sheets. Equally it does not seem sharp enough for physical damage.

There is a slim chance that it is a pinhole light leak, maybe while loading the tank. If this was the outside sheet and loaded emulsion out, it is vulnerable. Changing bags are a bit of a problem with this since you can't see what the film sees. A strong flashlight inside might show something, especially near the opening.

I think "mildew" is the word. Someone earlier mentioned "damp" with the film. The film was stored in basement and maybe in someone's garage too. Moisture can easily sneak into the opened bag.

I used a Harrison change tent. I do not there is any light leak with it. The Sirona-N is a high-quality lens and I do not think there is any ghost, etc. It was a simple scene with the sun at my left side.

RedSun · May 26, 2014

Xmas said:
You need to review negatives rather than positives, especially rebates.

Old film is ok if the fog is uniform you only lose speed.

D-76 or ID11 are not ideal for fog level you need to think about low fog developer and adding KBr or BZT.

Rodinal, Xtol or Microphen for examples.

Keep doing tests.

Sheet film has no rebate. I do not think the film is fogged since the sky is very bright. The emulsion is probably defective due to long storage.

pdeeh · May 26, 2014

that's funny, my sheet film has rebates ...

RedSun · May 26, 2014

Here is the complete negative with the border.

What is interesting is that, some image formed at all rebate/border areas. The border images are different from the main image, but somehow similar to the plant/grass.

If this is double exposure, then how can the image got into the rebate/border areas in the first place? My 2nd photo has a clean rebate/border area. No image.

I loaded the film in the change tent, double sided Fidelity film holder. Then I only remove the dark slide just before I pulled the shutter. This is the Sinar auto shutter. The shutter was closed before I pulled the dark slide. After exposure, I immediately put back the dark slide. The film is later loaded onto the Jobo reel in the change tent again.

My question is: how can some image formed in the rebate/border areas?

grahamp · May 26, 2014

Since you have the shadow of the film holder lips, the mottling (not the lens generated image) extends right to the edges of the film. I'd say it is due to emulsion damage from age of storage.

Axle · May 26, 2014

Yeah, all these things are related to age, trust me, I tried to shoot some old 1968 expired Kodak Portrait Panchromatic and go nowhere with it. Plus it was a bear to find development details on it. (Got lots of help here on APUG).

Buy fresh film, if you want to save a couple bucks, check out the Arista.EDU line of films from Freestyle.

RedSun · May 26, 2014

Thanks for the help. It is just good to know something, or learn something. I would never have known that some image can still creep into the areas behind the film holder lips.

I think using old film is still good to practice the LF I've been doing. Then I have a box of newer T-max to shoot. Then I'll add color and newer film. It takes some time to shoot the single sheet(s)....

removed account4 · May 26, 2014

i kind of like the mottling
too bad you can't bottle that effect and sell it !

i'd hit that film with a ton more light iso 50 is ok ... try 25
and over process it a little and see how it looks

that's what i would do, the more light, the more processing, the better!

Xmas · May 26, 2014

Moisture ingress/mould may be less further into pack.

And please scan the negatives as transparency we are interested in rabates and shadows.

The rebates need to be uniform and almost clear try 0.5 gm of KBr in one litre of stock and 50 ISO.

micro scale with 0.01 gm resolution cheap, using old film cheap.

First LF Photos, What is Wrong?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency