Help understanding strange scans

[GGfpc]

Hello! I recently bought a Bronica SQ-B and shot a roll of Fomapan 200 to test it.
I got the scans back from the lab, and they are a bit strange to me. I scanned the negatives myself and see the same issues, so I'd like to ask for some insight on what could cause this.



In the picture above you can see a kind of mottled look on the wall, like it has a texture. The wall is white in real life so I don't understand what would cause this, looks almost like humidity. There's also that circle in the center. This is the first shot of the roll, not sure if that's related to the circle.



The same mottled look is evident in this darker shot, I would expect the background to be uniform and not blotchy.



In this shot you can still see blotchiness, and also some vertical lines on the top. The vertical lines appear in other shots that I can't share here, but they're all in the same place


My hypothesis is that the mottled look was caused either by development or some issue with the film itself. I don't see how that would be caused by the camera.
As for the vertical lines, the person in the lab told me that he had seen some artifacts like this before and they're usually an issue with the camera back. I'm not sure if I loaded it incorrectly, but the camera back seems fine upon a not so knowledgeable inspection.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

All I see are solid gray, no image

 

[GGfpc]

All I see are solid gray, no image

That's strange. I've tried multiple devices and incognito mode. I see imgur embeds with the pictures

 

[Thwyllo]

The first shot looks like a flash shadow, from a protruding lens.

The other two I don't know...they seem to be pretty low res but I think i can see some of the mottling you refer to...

How old was the film stock and have you used this lab before? What resolution did they scan at? Can you see evidence of the mottling on the negatives with a magnifier and light box?

 

[GGfpc]

The first shot looks like a flash shadow, from a protruding lens.

The other two I don't know...they seem to be pretty low res but I think i can see some of the mottling you refer to...

How old was the film stock and have you used this lab before? What resolution did they scan at? Can you see evidence of the mottling on the negatives with a magnifier and light box?

I can see the mottling in my own scans. I have used the lab before with good results for 35mm but not 120. They scanned at 3000x3000px.

I find it a bit surprising that you're struggling to see it. Essentially I would expect the wall to be perfectly white, but in the shoys it looks textured.

Can you see the vertical lines in the last picture?

 

[GGfpc]

Also if there's a better way to upload let me know. This websit limits files at 2mb so I used imgur

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

That's strange. I've tried multiple devices and incognito mode. I see imgur embeds with the pictures

Now they're working! Weird

 

[Thwyllo]

I can see the mottling in my own scans. I have used the lab before with good results for 35mm but not 120. They scanned at 3000x3000px.

I find it a bit surprising that you're struggling to see it. Essentially I would expect the wall to be perfectly white, but in the shoys it looks textured.

Can you see the vertical lines in the last picture?

Now you mention it I see two lines right through your head. If they only appear on that one shot I can't imagine what the cause is. If it was a scanner issue (which it could be) or film scoring from the camera back it would be visible on every shot? Strange.

 

[GGfpc]

Something that I forgot to answer, the lines are in a lot of the shoots but not all of them. It might just be that the highlights hide the lines I guess.

The film was fomapan 200 and still within its expiration date. I bought some Kodak Gold and Ilford FP4, so I hope its not camera related. I'll try a different lab too

 

[Thwyllo]

Looking at your OP again I see you rescanned the negs with same results, which tells me that the mottling could be a developer issue (hard to see in a commercial lab but if their chemicals were overdue a change...?), and that the lines are on the negs so unlikely to be a scanner issue so more likely scoring from camera pressure plate or possibly from lab machinery, but both cases would surely result in scoring across all frames?

 

[Thwyllo]

Something that I forgot to answer, the lines are in a lot of the shoots but not all of them. It might just be that the highlights hide the lines I guess.

The film was fomapan 200 and still within its expiration date. I bought some Kodak Gold and Ilford FP4, so I hope its not camera related. I'll try a different lab too

Well just check your camera pressure plate and back in the region the scoring appears. Could well have been a tiny piece of dirt that got dragged through and stuck for a few frames before continuing it's merry way?

 

[Anon Ymous]

The lines are probably scratches. They're very common with Fomapan 200 and likely a factory defect.

 

[Kino]

I have learned the hard way that if you really want to test a camera, you need to purchase fresh, upper-tier film to avoid guessing if it is the old film or the new camera that is causing problems.

As Anon Ymous says, Fomapan is known to have less hardened emulsion and some defects when new. Don't get me wrong, I like and shoot Fomapan but only with cameras I am sure are operating properly.

Yes, Kodak, Adox, Ilford, are more expensive but it's worth the money to avoid a second variable while testing a new camera.

 

[dokko]

I first thought you're asking about a scanning issue because of the thread title, but from your first post it seems to me that the problem persists even if you scan on a different machine, so it's pretty clear it's on the film.

as others have mentioned, foma sometimes has some quality issues. in your case I could imagine the mottling could be from interactions with the backing paper since it's 120 film.

he scratches could be either from manufacturing, camera transport or processing. unless you have a controlled test to rule out two of the three, it's hard to tell.

I do like Foma for its price and find Foma100 in 120 and a sharp developer like FX-39II produces nice results, but I never use it for anything critical (and I usually buy big pack so chances are good that if the first roll is good the others are too).

 

[MattKing]

Are you able to see the defects in the negatives when you view them with a magnifier and a backlight?
Scanning adds a whole bunch of variables that make it difficult to solve issues over the internet.
Also, can you share a digital photo of the negatives themselves, backlit, showing at least a couple of frames as well as the edges of the film, the edge printing (if any) and the space between the frames?
Digital images upload well if they are resized down to 1000 pixels on the long dimension and uploaded from a jpeg with quality 80.

 

[GGfpc]

These are two unedited shot of the negative I used, they have a bit of the border between frames. Unfortunately my scanning setup for 120 is still a bit barebones so I don't have pics of the edge markings, but Fomapan also doesn't have many. I find it very hard to discern detail using a negative and a magnifier, it's like my brain just sees white.

 

[MattKing]

Are you using a scanner to scan, or are you using a digital camera to digitize by photographing the negatives?
I definitely see the scratches in the negative of the person, but I'm thinking the blotchiness may be a scanning or digitization artifact, because playing with the contrast makes the blotches look very digital.

 

[GGfpc]

I used a DSLM camera (Canon M50II, Pentax FA 100mm f2.8) and the lab used a Fuji Frontier SP3000.
Wouldn't that make it difficult for the blotches to be a digital artifact since they appear in two different scanning methods.

As for the blotches looking digital, I kinda see what you mean but I feel like that could be exacerbated by jpg compression

 

[grain elevator]

This probably is the mottling issue that pops up here very often, with different 120 films, and appears to be caused by some sort of interaction between emulsion and backing paper and perhaps moisture. Search the forum for "mottling" and you'll have reading material for a day or two. I think it's more or less consensus that there's no certain preventing it but fresh film and dry storage at constant temperature might increase your chances.

 

[MattKing]

I used a DSLM camera (Canon M50II, Pentax FA 100mm f2.8) and the lab used a Fuji Frontier SP3000.
Wouldn't that make it difficult for the blotches to be a digital artifact since they appear in two different scanning methods.

As for the blotches looking digital, I kinda see what you mean but I feel like that could be exacerbated by jpg compression

A combination between the film mottling issues, and how both of the digitization approaches tend to exacerbate the problem.
Try a more diffused light source with your cameras, and see if it minimizes the appearance at least.

 

[GGfpc]

Thanks all! Should I avoid keeping 120 film loaded in the camera? I think I left fhe film in there for like a month, it's probably more susceptible to humidity there than inside the little plastic wrap

 

[koraks]

Should I avoid keeping 120 film loaded in the camera?

Yes. It's best to expose and process as soon as reasonable. However, in general, leaving film in a Bronica SQ for a month or so doesn't hurt as long as the camera is stored under conditions of normal humidity (i.e. not excessively humid). Keeping the camera in a high-humidity environment is of course primarily a concern for the camera itself.

The scratches on your negative look like they might be caused by either processing in a RT/continuous processing machine, or in the camera back itself. Inspect the pressure plate in particular, although frankly, the damage looks to be on the emulsion layer and that points to a problem with the development machine, not the camera. The kind of scratches you're seeing are NOT the infamous Fomapan 200 roll film defects.