Is it the lab or me?

[hankchinaski]

The other day I brought a few rolls to my lab, and the result were very mixed. I woud really like to understand where the problem is!
This is one of two Portra 400 rolls, 120 format - one roll is perfect, the other one has two spoiled photos, and the b/w one is Ilford XP2, with three spoiled photos.

The camera is a Rolleiflex 6008, which has otherwise never given me these problems and has no rubber foam for insulation from light to become not light tight. I am attributing the first three light bandings to the lab loading the film on the cylinder that goes into the developing machine and the scratches on the film and the red spots to rough handling of the film also while loading it on the cylinder.
Or...was it me? It's strange - why nothing on the other rolls? They were loaded and shot in the exact same conditions. I don't remember handling the film roughly in any way.

This is a roll of Foma classic 120:

This roll is really puzzling: the first two photos have what I think are bending marks, and all the remaining photos have got the "dirt" in the background. But why not the first two?
Again, i would really like to understand if it's me or the lab so to avoid losing dear memoirs again.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The other day I brought a few rolls to my lab, and the result were very mixed. I woud really like to understand where the problem is!
This is one of two Portra 400 rolls, 120 format - one roll is perfect, the other one has two spoiled photos, and the b/w one is Ilford XP2, with three spoiled photos.

View attachment 325842

View attachment 325844
View attachment 325845
View attachment 325846

View attachment 325843
The camera is a Rolleiflex 6008, which has otherwise never given me these problems and has no rubber foam for insulation from light to become not light tight. I am attributing the first three light bandings to the lab loading the film on the cylinder that goes into the developing machine and the scratches on the film and the red spots to rough handling of the film also while loading it on the cylinder.
Or...was it me? It's strange - why nothing on the other rolls? They were loaded and shot in the exact same conditions. I don't remember handling the film roughly in any way.

This is a roll of Foma classic 120:

View attachment 325849

View attachment 325854

View attachment 325850

This roll is really puzzling: the first two photos have what I think are bending marks, and all the remaining photos have got the "dirt" in the background. But why not the first two?
Again, i would really like to understand if it's me or the lab so to avoid losing dear memoirs again.

The cup marks are definitely kinks in the film caused by the photofinisher. Take all of it back to the manager, sit down and have a very calm discussion.

 

[cramej]

Those look like poo. The only one that doesn't look like bad handling is the sunset. That's moisture damage.

 

[mcfitz]

the roll of Foma looks like it is affected by the dreaded backing paper defect, in the last image posted.

in that case it is a problem with the film itself, just to add to the other problems you report, which I do not know what they are due to.

 

[koraks]

That's a light leak problem. Could be a camera problem (but unlikely given the construction of the 6008) or a processing problem.
There are additional light leak issues in your examples (images #2 and #3).

This might be related to the light leaks above, but it looks more like an accidental double exposure. Usually this is related to a transport problem - it's an in-camera defect and unrelated to the lab. Btw, the additional lighter band across the bottom of the image looks unrelated and seems more in line with the light leak issues above.

The crescent-shaped kink marks are a sign of poor handling technique when spooling the film onto development reels; apparently the lab you're using are doing B&W at least in reels. Perhaps color too. Shouldn't matter, but apparently they've been messing up at least part of your stuff.

This looks mostly like abrasion marks (lower right corner). Most logical explanation is once again poor handling technique.
There also appears to be some kind of unevenness that I can't explain from a light leak issue.

That's a backing paper offset problem. Neither you nor the lab can help this. Watch out for expired film that's been stored under adverse conditions. But even some fresh film suffers from such problems. 120 can be tricky in this sense; there's a lot of threads on this.

It's a litany of issues, some of which point quite strongly towards the lab, but not all.

 

[glbeas]

Have you had any problems with the film not rolling up tightly on the takeup spool? Some of those problems on the first few picture look like fogging that would cause.

 

[btaylor]

Yes, I have had similar light leak problems with 120 rolls not rolled tightly enough. And the last Foma pic is typical. Very frustrating, I only use it for for tests now, ‘cuz I can’t get a decent neg out of it.

 

[gone]

The third photo definitely looks like a development problem w/ that sharp cutoff, at least to me.

 

[hankchinaski]

the roll of Foma looks like it is affected by the dreaded backing paper defect, in the last image posted.

in that case it is a problem with the film itself, just to add to the other problems you report, which I do not know what they are due to.

is it something known about foma or it's a general 120 film problem?

 

[hankchinaski]

Yes, I have had similar light leak problems with 120 rolls not rolled tightly enough. And the last Foma pic is typical. Very frustrating, I only use it for for tests now, ‘cuz I can’t get a decent neg out of it.

wow! typical! I used to get such good results in 135 format...

 

[hankchinaski]

Have you had any problems with the film not rolling up tightly on the takeup spool? Some of those problems on the first few picture look like fogging that would cause.

I wouldn't say so...if you look at a rolleiflex film insert, it keeps the film tight when you turn the takeup spool, and after that, it's all automatic.

 

[koraks]

is it something known about foma or it's a general 120 film problem?

Backing paper offset problems have occurred with all brands, except perhaps Fuji, of which I've seen no reports. I never got them myself with Foma films, but storage conditions are crucial here. If you search around a bit you'll find notorious instances involving Kodak TMAX films a couple of years ago and intermittent problems with Ilford films as well. So it's not brand-specific.

 

[foc]

Any chance you could supply images of the negatives affected, something like this.