HUGE Mistake, no damage to film!

[RattyMouse]

I almost had my very first film catastrophe, and I am not quite sure why it did not turn out that way. Let me explain.

I load my film (always 120 size) onto the reels in my closet with the lights turned out. I pull the shades in my bedroom, making that room as dark as I can get it. Then I (normally) close the bedroom door and the bathroom door. With that done, I then step into the closet and close the closet door and turn out the lights to load the film.

Last time, I did not close my bedroom door.

Because of this, my wife was not aware that I was loading film onto the reels. I was in the closet, with one reel loaded (but not in the tank) and working on the second reel when my wife came into the bed room and flipped the lights on.

My closet has a frosted window in the door, maybe 6 inches wide, by 3 feet tall. Also, the door by itself does not block light at the hinges or the jam.

Once my wife turned on the lights, the bedroom lights shone through this frosted window and I could clearly see the contents of the closet. I yelled at her to turn off the lights and she did immediately. I figured that the damage was done, my two rolls of film were ruined.

I ALMOST chucked them into the garbage by opening up the closet door, but I finished loading them into the Paterson tank.

Pissed off, I still developed them and when the time came to pull the film off the reels I was stunned to see NO DAMAGE of any kind to the film at all. Nothing. The negatives looked great.

I am stunned that there was not any light damage to the film. Both strips of film were fully outside the tank when the lights were flipped on. I guess I was helped that the film was low speed, Acros 100. I am guessing that the film was clearly in my shadow and not hit directly by the light. But even given that, I would have bet anything that the film would collect light and damage the images that were exposed.

But it didnt happen, and a serious lesson was learned.

I must have developed 50-60 rolls so far, without any noticeable errors. This was almost the end of my long winning streak!

But why didnt the film get ruined by this blast of light??

 

[Tom1956]

You were just lucky. Reminds me of the old saying "there is no brighter light source than the crack under the darkroom door".

 

[ziyanglai]

I have a somewhat similar experience as well.. Few months ago, I was developing some 4x5 film using an open tank at a local high school(they have nice equipment there and I knew the teacher). All the time during unloading the film holders and loading it on the metal hangers and in the developer, there was a blinking light right above where I was developing from the fire/smoke detector. It was pretty bright and blinked about every 20 seconds. How bright? Every time it blinked(maybe 1/10 sec) , I can see my surroundings clearly. When I was developing my first few sheets in there, I thought the film would be ruined, but the film turned out perfectly fine. (I'm still developing in there today because of all the nice equipment ). Another time, I had to run out of the darkroom to grab something real quick when the film was only 10-20 sec into the fix. I thought the film was ruined as well, but once again, it turned out fine.. I could not explain this as well.. Maybe some else will.. Or maybe film has some sort of magical power that it wouldn't be sensitive to light anymore once it has been exposed the first time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

Light is directional. And film on a reel tends to block light on the outside from reaching the inside.

But luck is important too!

There also may have been a low level of fog, that isn't easily apparent to the eye, but still affects contrast.

I've learned with my bathroom darkroom that even if I can detect where the door edges are, as long as the light isn't streaming in, the room is usable.

 

[MattKing]

I Another time, I had to run out of the darkroom to grab something real quick when the film was only 10-20 sec into the fix. I thought the film was ruined as well, but once again, it turned out fine.. I could not explain this as well.. Maybe some else will.. Or maybe film has some sort of magical power that it wouldn't be sensitive to light anymore once it has been exposed the first time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you rinse well or use a stop bath after developer? If so, there is essentially no reducing agent left in and on the emulsion, so even if the film is exposed to light at that stage, the exposed silver halides have no way of developing, so the fixer transforms them anyway into something that will wash away in the wash.

Research the BTZS approach - many turn the lights on when the film is in stop bath.

 

[ziyanglai]

Did you rinse well or use a stop bath after developer? If so, there is essentially no reducing agent left in and on the emulsion, so even if the film is exposed to light at that stage, the exposed silver halides have no way of developing, so the fixer transforms them anyway into something that will wash away in the wash.

Research the BTZS approach - many turn the lights on when the film is in stop bath.

I use water as a stop bath. The film was in water for 1-2 minutes and then into the fixer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dorff]

Or maybe film has some sort of magical power that it wouldn't be sensitive to light anymore once it has been exposed the first time

Acidic stop bath and/or fixer will arrest development immediately, within milliseconds. Developer is not active at low pH, and even though some of it might still be in the emulsion, the pH drop will prevent it from doing any further development.

A water wash instead of stop bath is not quite the same, and especially low density areas will show light damage if the film is exposed during the initial washing cycle. I routinely take off the tank cover once the fixer has been added, but not before, as I use water wash instead of stop bath.

 

[Arctic amateur]

I have experienced a couple of times that when I load my 35mm camera indoors in a fairly dim but not darkened room, when I take a couple of dummy snaps to advance the film I can get a faint but visible image on the leader that was exposed to light.

Once I brain-farted and took the lid off a developing tank loaded with unprocessed film (and slapped it back on) while the room lights were on. The film was badly fogged in bands, but the images were still clearly visible.

A dim room is much much dimmer than sunlight (more so than it seems to our eyes) so it takes longer to destroy the film completely, but if you search carefully there'll probably be some fogging.

 

[Rudeofus]

The answers to RattyMouse's question appear to be "reciprocity failure" and "huge dynamic range of our eyes". You were in a dark room when the light went on. Your eyes were adjusted to darkness when that happened, which means the light appeared much much brighter than it would have appeared to a light meter.

You can actually do that measurement for ease of mind: take your exposure meter, or a camera with a builtin one, and measure which exposures you would get with the light you had in there. Chances are you would need many minutes to properly expose the film you had in there. And once that exposure meter reads minutes, you are deep in the area of reciprocity failure, which means even half an hour won't really do much damage.

I remember how much I worried about light leaks in my dark room. Now I know I can even leave my laptop open and running during enlargements.

 

[RattyMouse]

I have experienced a couple of times that when I load my 35mm camera indoors in a fairly dim but not darkened room, when I take a couple of dummy snaps to advance the film I can get a faint but visible image on the leader that was exposed to light.

Once I brain-farted and took the lid off a developing tank loaded with unprocessed film (and slapped it back on) while the room lights were on. The film was badly fogged in bands, but the images were still clearly visible.

A dim room is much much dimmer than sunlight (more so than it seems to our eyes) so it takes longer to destroy the film completely, but if you search carefully there'll probably be some fogging.

Good point. I have to wait until the scans come back. My story might change!

 

[RattyMouse]

The answers to RattyMouse's question appear to be "reciprocity failure" and "huge dynamic range of our eyes". You were in a dark room when the light went on. Your eyes were adjusted to darkness when that happened, which means the light appeared much much brighter than it would have appeared to a light meter.

You can actually do that measurement for ease of mind: take your exposure meter, or a camera with a builtin one, and measure which exposures you would get with the light you had in there. Chances are you would need many minutes to properly expose the film you had in there. And once that exposure meter reads minutes, you are deep in the area of reciprocity failure, which means even half an hour won't really do much damage.

I remember how much I worried about light leaks in my dark room. Now I know I can even leave my laptop open and running during enlargements.

Interesting answer! I like this and hope that means everything is OK.

Funny how all the rolls of film say "Load in subdued light". Who does that? I load my film outdoors in the brighest sunlight if that is what it takes to get more film into the camera.

 

[Xmas]

Scans are not as critical as rebates they should be clear.

When you have film in a camera you are using a burning glass to expose a few seconds of dim light should fog but might only be detectable with careful comparison.

You need to alter procedure eg remove light bulbs or duct tape switches or tie up lady.

I've got duct tape both sides on an interior window to get a second ie double door trap.

A curtin rail above door with a blanket hung from and tucked in can make a single door light tight.

 

[Rudeofus]

Funny how all the rolls of film say "Load in subdued light". Who does that? I load my film outdoors in the brighest sunlight if that is what it takes to get more film into the camera.

It's a question of risk. I have seen parts of film fogged by neighbor frames, so strong light can travel along the film strip. If I have to put in a new roll of film in strong sunlight, I try to do it in the shade of my body. But I do agree with your stance that I rather risk a fresh roll of film than a good shot.

 

[sly]

Using a basement room in a rental house, many, many moons ago, the space heater kicked in while I was loading film. Lovely red glow. It took me a few seconds to come off auto pilot - that red glow had been fine when I was printing, but was not safe for film! The film was badly fogged. It was probably TMax 3200, which I used a lot back then.

Rudeofus, have you tried printing the same image with and without the laptop glow in the room? I remember a demonstration in a printing class which showed a loss of delicate highlight detail in a print when there was a light leak in the school darkroom. The print made with the light leak looked perfectly acceptable, until you compared it to the one made with the leak blocked. The small lily that was central to the image was the only thing that looked different, but the subtle delineation of the petals was much better, without those stray photons bouncing around the room.

 

[Trask]

Flashing film with light is an interesting technique to handle high-contrast subjects -- it builds a bit of density in the areas of the negative that are thin (because they are of dark objects/areas). Of course, flashing is usually done to the entire piece or roll of film when it's not on a reel, and in conditions where you can control the quality of the light and length of exposure. So maybe all you've done is a little no-harm flashing to your film.

 

[KanFotog]

I was recently on a trip to Himalayas (Uttarakhand state).

Having just finished a roll, I got in the car and opened the camera only to see film stretched across the shutter and a second or two later realized I forgot to REWIND!!! A real brain fart moment for me.

It was around 4 PM on a cloudy day so there was plenty of diffused light.

I wish I could explain just how terrible a feeling it was. Going all the way to Himalayas, witnessing snow-fall, shooting a few pics and doing something this stupid.

Anyway, I did a quick rewind, loaded new film and got on with it for the rest of the trip.

After returning, gave the film (Fuji C41 ISO 200) to a lab, got the pics and was surprised beyond belief.
Sure I lost 2-3 frames towards the end but the rest were just fine!
One of the 'damaged' pictures got a strong orange cast, like those instagram pics and my wife happened to like it!

Beginning to think if film manufacturers have advanced the technology but are just not too keen on telling us how resilient films are nowadays

 

[summicron1]

The answers to RattyMouse's question appear to be "reciprocity failure" and "huge dynamic range of our eyes". You were in a dark room when the light went on. Your eyes were adjusted to darkness when that happened, which means the light appeared much much brighter than it would have appeared to a light meter.

You can actually do that measurement for ease of mind: take your exposure meter, or a camera with a builtin one, and measure which exposures you would get with the light you had in there. Chances are you would need many minutes to properly expose the film you had in there. And once that exposure meter reads minutes, you are deep in the area of reciprocity failure, which means even half an hour won't really do much damage.

I remember how much I worried about light leaks in my dark room. Now I know I can even leave my laptop open and running during enlargements.

it drives me nuts how much i can see in my "dark"room after my eyes have fully adjusted -- even when it's night outside and I've got the door shut, enough oozes under the door so that, after a while, i can almost see what I'm doing just from the dim glow of the radium dial on the enlarger timer.

this is somewhat unnerving when loading asa 400 film into film holders, but then I remember that the human eye is fantastically more sensitive to light than film is, plus the amount of light is so little that it would take hours to make an exposure even if a lens were focusing it, which one is not.

I asked a friend what he does when his eyes let him see while loading film.

"I shut my eyes," he said.

It works.

 

[Truzi]

After a camera shop did an inadequate repair to my 35mm, I thought I'd rewound all the film - but it turned out the replacement shaft for the rewind crank was too small. I'd opened the back to see film was still there, and closed it quickly.

Only 1/3 of two frames were lost - not even an entire frame. Although the two frames are not "useable" because they are badly fogged, I was surprized that there was an image at all. The fogged parts are completely identifiable as well. Fairly impressive.

 

[snapguy]

eyeball

As I eyeball it, your problem is how you set up to develop film. First you need to be a little paranoid. Remember, if it can go wrong it may go wrong. Also, you need to turn on a red light or post a sign outside the darkroom to let others know you are in the dark. As for the rolls of film you were developing -- did your body shade the film from the light?
It could be worse. I remember a beginner photog who developed a roll of film only to find out light had seeped into the darkroom without the photog's knowledge. I asked the photog well, didn't you see that there was light in the darkroom while loading the film? The reply was no, the photog always closed her eyes while loading film because it seemed darker in the room that way.

 

[Hatchetman]

The reply was no, the photog always closed her eyes while loading film because it seemed darker in the room that way.

That is funny. When loading reels in the dark I tend to close my eyes - seems like I can concentrate better.

 

[pentaxuser]

Glad to hear it was OK. It makes me wonder just how dark it has to be if the reel is fully shielded by the body when loading. All the books seem to say the test is to stay in the room for 10 mins and if there is even one crack of light then it isn't safe for film loading. Rattymouse's experience suggests otherwise.

Certainly suggests that those who only have an under-the-stairs cupboard with the usual cracks of light under the door need have no fear if there is no light on outside the door and even if it's daylight it might be OK if the the daylight is shaded i.e. no direct rays penetrating the room.

pentaxuser

 

[Rudeofus]

Having just finished a roll, I got in the car and opened the camera only to see film stretched across the shutter and a second or two later realized I forgot to REWIND!!! A real brain fart moment for me.

Beginning to think if film manufacturers have advanced the technology but are just not too keen on telling us how resilient films are nowadays

After a camera shop did an inadequate repair to my 35mm, I thought I'd rewound all the film - but it turned out the replacement shaft for the rewind crank was too small. I'd opened the back to see film was still there, and closed it quickly.

Let's all sing along: "We thank thee, oh anti halation layer, we thank thee, oh anti halation layer ...."

 

[yulia_s_rey]

First you need to be a little paranoid. Remember, if it can go wrong it may go wrong. Also, you need to turn on a red light or post a sign outside the darkroom to let others know you are in the dark.

I'm always 'paranoid' in ensuring there aren't any light leaks in my work area. Heck, I even double bag film cans/paper boxes with light-proof bags!
Also, living in a house with others, I have a small sign that my father bought at a garage sale made by AGFA that informs passers-by that the darkroom is currently occupied and to please knock before entering.

Truth is sometimes I'm a bit OC when it comes to "uninvited photons," but I still have a haunting memory of when I was nine-years old and opened a 100' can by accident. I didn't get any supper that night.

 

[Truzi]

Let's all sing along: "We thank thee, oh anti halation layer, we thank thee, oh anti halation layer ...."

LOL

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I was going to make some joke about your wife catching you out in the closet, but I'm not going to.

I don't know if it's a volume thing for you, but I always reel the film in a dark bag. It's very fast and convenient and light is no issue.