Is this an example of latent image fading, Fuji Acros II?

[runswithsizzers]

Looking at the top two stips of film, they seem to show less contrast /density than the bottom two strips. Yes? No?

This roll of Fuji Acros II was just past it's expiration date of 03-2023 when I put it in the camera on 4/24/23. The top two strips were exposed in April and May. The last two strips were exposed in July and August. I processed the film on August 11, 2023 -- so, about 3-1/2 months after the top strip was exposed. I have read that Ilford Pan-F can start to loose the latent image in that amount of time, but what I don't know is if other films can be similarly affected?

Also, I notice the edge markings on this roll seem very faint compared to other films I have processed. I have shot only two rolls of Acros II, and the first roll also had very faint edge markings -- but in that roll everything was faint, probably due to a bad batch of Kodak Xtol.

If it makes any difference, I exposed this roll at EI 64 and processed it in Ilfosol 3 diluted to 1+14 for 6:00 minutes at 75*F.

 

[pentaxuser]

So if we consider the strips as rows across then rows 1 and 2 and the last two strips as rows 5 and 6, it's these that we should be comparing? Can I ask where in the chronology of the exposure do rows 3 and 4 fit? My problem is that several identical scene frames on the bottom 2 strips have negatives that would seem to indicate different exposures, especially that of the lion statue. Is this the case because if they are not then other factors may be at play here

Can you be sure that the light conditions were the same? This sounds unlikely given what happens to light from mid to late Spring compared to mid to late Summer

I don't think I can pass any worthwhile opinion on how much if any loss of latent image is a factor. I have never heard of this being a problem with Acros II or I over what was only 4 months max

Expiration as recently as April 2023 doesn't suggest that given this was only a month before the first exposures and only 4 months before the last exposures that this should have affected the film either

I am stuck for an explanation. Sorry

pentaxuser

 

[otto.f]

I agree with pentaxuser. One cannot derive this latent image thing from just a few strips of negatives alone without even a contactsheet and it certainly doesn’t work in months but rather in decades. The upper two strips can easily be shot in dull weather and the lower vice versa.

 

[runswithsizzers]

So if we consider the strips as rows across then rows 1 and 2 and the last two strips as rows 5 and 6, it's these that we should be comparing? Can I ask where in the chronology of the exposure do rows 3 and 4 fit? My problem is that several identical scene frames on the bottom 2 strips have negatives that would seem to indicate different exposures, especially that of the lion statue. Is this the case because if they are not then other factors may be at play here

Yes, if you could see the edge markings better you would notice the top strip (row 1) is frames 1-6, the second row is frames 7-12, ane so on, down to the last row being frames 31-36.

Can you be sure that the light conditions were the same? This sounds unlikely given what happens to light from mid to late Spring compared to mid to late Summer

I don't think I can pass any worthwhile opinion on how much if any loss of latent image is a factor. I have never heard of this being a problem with Acros II or I over what was only 4 months max

Lighting conditions were similar: blue sky with some haze at mid-day, but different due to the angle of the sun in April vs. July-August. In both the first row and the fifth row, the subject brightness range was high, though not necessarily the same.

The more I think about it, there is probably a better explanation for the difference in appearance of between the first rows and the last than fading of the latent image.

 

[pentaxuser]

The more I think about it, there is probably a better explanation for the difference in appearance of between the first rows and the last than fading of the latent image.

Yes if someone held a gun to my head and said I had to venture an opinion or else... then that would be my opinion

pentaxuser

 

[Brad Deputy]

How about agitation technique? Outside of roll (later exposures) get more chemistry than the inner ones (tighter with less room for flow)

 

[mshchem]

The closest thing to a test strip here is the edge markings. I would guess inadequate development time. I still am shooting up cold stored Acros (original) I notice that the times for XTOL are adequate but not overly so.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I've been using past date acros and there are no markings

 

[mshchem]

My Acros (I), Japan made 120 rolls have edge markings, I've never used Acros in anything other than 120.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I use the new and there's hardly any markings on that film either. On the other hand who cares!
I'm just glad they make it
Hope the op solves his issues

 

[DREW WILEY]

I wouldn't worry about anything unexposed Acros less than 20 yrs old unless the storage conditions were especially bad. Acros II is such a new product that even the possibility of the suspected problem is unrealistic.

Besides, latent image refers to how long between that image was taken and actually processed. The only film I have ever encountered that was fussy in that respect was Pan F, which I try to develop within 3 months or so, never more than 6 months after I actually expose it. I've found a few sheets of medium speed films like Acros and FP4 in accidentally neglected film holders
or paper safes which were exposed four or five years earlier, and even they came out normal when finally processed.

Your presumed issue is more likely developer exhaustion related, or something like that. Or perhaps temperature drift.

 

[koraks]

Your presumed issue is more likely developer exhaustion related, or something like that. Or perhaps temperature drift.

Or just plain old inconsistency in exposure / metering errors. Given the significant variation across the single roll of film, I lean in this direction rather than something of a chemical nature.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would chalk it up to different season, different lighting and different metering technique.

 

[relistan]

Quite apart from what happened above—which I think was just exposure/lighting—I have never seen latent image fading over a time period of less than 7-8 years. I have had quite a backlog at times, of quite a lot of different films, and almost never seen any effect from that. I hear that Pan-F is far worse, but that is hearsay as I have never tested it.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I think there is quite a bit of agreement that Ilford Pan F Plus is the worst for having the latent image fade, but what film is the second worse? That is, Is Pan F the only film that can fade enough to notice in a few months -- or do some other exposed films also fade, just not quite as rapidly?

The datasheet for <Ilford FP4 Plus>, for example, says, "Once exposed, process FP4 Plus as soon as practical" -- although the FP4 datasheet does not recommend processing in less-than-3-months as does the <Pan F datasheet>. The Kodak datasheet for <Tri-X 400/320> also says "For best results, process film as soon as possible after exposure."

 

[MattKing]

Quite apart from what happened above—which I think was just exposure/lighting—I have never seen latent image fading over a time period of less than 7-8 years. I have had quite a backlog at times, of quite a lot of different films, and almost never seen any effect from that. I hear that Pan-F is far worse, but that is hearsay as I have never tested it.

Generally I would agree, but would point out that the edge printing on the film is exposed at the time of confectioning/finishing, so if film is just a few years past its "Develop Before" date, there has already been several years since the time of exposure.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F seems to be an outlier. Otherwise, "process as soon as possible after exposure" is just ubiquitous advice, and is probably true in a nitpicky scientific sense regarding all films in general. High speed films are more susceptible to shift from background radiation like cosmic rays than slow speed films. And storage conditions factor, like excessive heat and humidity, or the ability of atmospheric organic vapors to get to the film. But most of this is common sense and nothing to excessively worry about. Color films can sometimes be more finicky because color shifts might occur under duress.

 

[Rudeofus]

Pan F seems to be an outlier. Otherwise, "process as soon as possible after exposure" is just ubiquitous advice, and is probably true in a nitpicky scientific sense regarding all films in general. High speed films are more susceptible to shift from background radiation like cosmic rays than slow speed films. And storage conditions factor, like excessive heat and humidity, or the ability of atmospheric organic vapors to get to the film. But most of this is common sense and nothing to excessively worry about. Color films can sometimes be more finicky because color shifts might occur under duress.

PanF is also a really old emulsion technology wise compared to all the other products out there. Acros seems to sit in the other end of this scale - see its lack of Schwarzschild effect - and I would expect all but spectacular performance with respect to latent image stability.