Is this "clumpy grain," "reticulation," or .... ???

[Dusty Negative]

Mannaggia!

I was doing some tests with Rollei Retro 80s (120 format) and ended up with what I can best describe as "clumpy grain" in the mids and shadows, rendering a rather unpleasant image.

I developed in HC-110 (B) at a constant 74 degrees from start to finish thanks to a sous vide (yes, I know, a bit warm, but it's actually difficult to get water in my basement colder than 74 right now is Virginia, and I did reduce development time to compensate). Fresh Ilford Rapid X fixer, not so fresh HC-110 (new formula - probably coming up on nine months old); water stop bath (I've never used a chemical stop bath).

In Googling (or Photrio-ing) "reticulation" and "clumpy grain" I'm not entirely convinced either apply, but I'm not sure what else is at play here. My best guess is that it must be the development time - perhaps I under compensated for the high temperature, and the warm water over-developed those regions??? I utilized Ilford's Temperature Compensation Chart to do the math...

Any thoughts?

 

[runswithsizzers]

As displayed on my screen at this resolution, the image looks smooth to me. I don't see much grain, 'clumpy' or otherwise, nor anything I would call reticulation.

Can you describe what you are seeing that is 'unpleasant' in more detail? Or maybe we need to see what the image looks like zoomed in to a higher resolution?

 

[bnxvs]

I think TS meant this:

 

[MattKing]

That looks like digital artifacts to me.

 

[NB23]

Yes looks digital artefacts. And hc-110 is not a sharp grain / accutance developer, so it scans that way.

 

[Mick Fagan]

As a person who has inadvertently reticulated a few B&W films around 40 years ago when during winter I used an instant HWS to supply warm water to wash the film. Unfortunately the HWS (gas powered Junkers unit) would switch off, the temperature dropped, then it started up and supplied water around 70ºC for a minute or so, then things dropped back to around 22ºC for a bit, then the heater stopped and the cycle started all over again.

Reticulation is fantastic, but it is really hit and miss, the other thing is, the whole negative is effected, not parts here and there. At least in the few times I managed to reticulate my films, that is.

That processing temperature you used, 23.3ºC is not even warm, just about right and is pretty much what many industrial B&W film developers use; 24ºC actually. Once you get above 30ºC you are getting up there a bit. Even then, current B&W films can take those higher temperatures and more; film is pretty tough stuff these days.

Mick.

 

[Nige]

Hi Mick! fancy 'seeing' you here

The following is a post with a example of reticulation (assuming the link works)

I have a great example of reticulation here somewhere.. I'll do a quick search.. Konica IR750...

 

[Ian Grant]

When I',m in Turkey I process regularly at 27ºC, there's no way I could get down to 20ºC (68ºF) and I have no issues. It is important to keep all stages of processing including washing to +/- 1ºC of the chosen temperature.

You can get Micro/Incipient reticulation with slight temperature chages, Kodak call it surface artefacts. This causes excessive graininess in prints and scans but only really happens witha few films and developer choice can play a part as well, Rodinal and Acros is the worst combination unless used very carefully.

This looks more like the effects of backing paper that others have reported.

Ian

 

[guangong]

Do some photographers really look at their prints with a grain magnifier. I find the resulting print to be very attractive. The only time I scrutinize grain is when setting enlarger focus.

 

[ic-racer]

I have some film damaged like that. In my case the damage was from repeated freezing and thawing. It was a 600ft roll 35mm film. Eventually threw it out.

 

[Dusty Negative]

As displayed on my screen at this resolution, the image looks smooth to me. I don't see much grain, 'clumpy' or otherwise, nor anything I would call reticulation.

Can you describe what you are seeing that is 'unpleasant' in more detail? Or maybe we need to see what the image looks like zoomed in to a higher resolution?

Here's a link with a higher-resolution file: https://halistry.smugmug.com/Black-and-White-Film/i-rhwbnR6/A however, @bnxvs 's screenshot captured the problem well...it's particularly noticeable in the curtains.

 

[Dusty Negative]

That looks like digital artifacts to me.

Matt - I'm open, but I would have to really scratch my head if that's the problem. I scanned it the way I scan all of my B&W -- with my camera. Same process every time, and never had this happen before.

 

[Dusty Negative]

As a person who has inadvertently reticulated a few B&W films around 40 years ago when during winter I used an instant HWS to supply warm water to wash the film. Unfortunately the HWS (gas powered Junkers unit) would switch off, the temperature dropped, then it started up and supplied water around 70ºC for a minute or so, then things dropped back to around 22ºC for a bit, then the heater stopped and the cycle started all over again.

Reticulation is fantastic, but it is really hit and miss, the other thing is, the whole negative is effected, not parts here and there. At least in the few times I managed to reticulate my films, that is.

That processing temperature you used, 23.3ºC is not even warm, just about right and is pretty much what many industrial B&W film developers use; 24ºC actually. Once you get above 30ºC you are getting up there a bit. Even then, current B&W films can take those higher temperatures and more; film is pretty tough stuff these days.

Mick.

That makes sense to me...if it was reticulation, it would effect the highlights as well.

 

[Dusty Negative]

When I',m in Turkey I process regularly at 27ºC, there's no way I could get down to 20ºC (68ºF) and I have no issues. It is important to keep all stages of processing including washing to +/- 1ºC of the chosen temperature.

You can get Micro/Incipient reticulation with slight temperature chages, Kodak call it surface artefacts. This causes excessive graininess in prints and scans but only really happens witha few films and developer choice can play a part as well, Rodinal and Acros is the worst combination unless used very carefully.

This looks more like the effects of backing paper that others have reported.

Ian

That is interesting. One of the frames had the imprint of a circular cut-out/notch from the backing paper...so there definitely was at least some backing-paper transfer onto the film. If so, that makes me perhaps one of the unluckiest hobbyist B&W photographers around, as I've also had backing-paper problems with Tri-X, and I don't even shoot that much film. And, as I recall, the problem I had with Tri-X also did not effect the highlights, though I need to go back and verify that.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wrapper offset will show more in shadows than in highlights, because, like a preflash, it applies a (chemical) exposure to the affected halide, and "exposure" that might well be below the film's toe, but can then push shadow exposures up off the toe.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have some film damaged like that. In my case the damage was from repeated freezing and thawing. It was a 600ft roll 35mm film. Eventually threw it out.

On a factory tour Ilford told us freezing was one of the major causes of film issues, they don't recommend it but said if it's done take the film from the freezer and put it in a refridgerator so it gradually defrosts, then place in a cool place, take a couple of days.

But I'm sure you know that now

Ian

 

[Dusty Negative]

Well, if it *is* wrapper offset then I wonder how in the world one can rely on 120. This has happened to me with five rolls of film thus far in my short history with 120, and I doubt I’ve shot more than 100 rolls (probably not even 75) which means 5-8% of rolls have transfer issues in my limited sample. That is not insignificant.

Think ye the fellow doth protest too much?

 

[MattKing]

Matt - I'm open, but I would have to really scratch my head if that's the problem. I scanned it the way I scan all of my B&W -- with my camera. Same process every time, and never had this happen before.

The way I would check for this is:
1) re-scan with the negative still the same way up, but rotated 180 degrees. If the clumpy parts move, than there is a good chance that the problem is in the scanning; and
2) examine the negatives visually under high magnification. If you don't see the clumpy parts, the problem is in the scanning.
The image I see has very low acutance, which will tend to make digital artifacts more apparent.
It may be that the combination of the developer, the film, your development conditions, your DSLR optics, your DSLR firmware, your RAW converter and your post processing software are all combining to create the artifacts.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I tried both front and back of the negative, with the same results. Haven’t tried 180 yet, though.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I looked at the high resolution file at smugmug. I see the black speckles most prominently in the dark part of the lady's collar. I am perplexed by this. If you were using a scanner, I would suggest that you were sharpening while scanning. Never do that; scan unsharpened. I second the suggestion above that you rotate the negative 180 degrees and see if the black speckles change. Another observation: the details like the eyelashes look diffused. I hate to use the term "sharp" because so many of the D crowd go ballistic over the topic, but the details in this frame look a bit fuzzy. When you rescan, be extra careful about focus of your macro lens. I hope it works out.

 

[koraks]

Rollei Retro 80s (120 format)

I have used this film once or twice in the past, but immediately decided it wasn't worthwhile using it again because it had severe problems with the backing paper interacting with the emulsion, resulting in similar issues as shown here, i.e. low density 'splotches'.

Btw, the scan looks decidedly soft/unfocused. I suspect there's some room for improvement here, although it won't solve the problem you're reporting.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I have used this film once or twice in the past, but immediately decided it wasn't worthwhile using it again because it had severe problems with the backing paper interacting with the emulsion, resulting in similar issues as shown here, i.e. low density 'splotches'.

That's a real shame. I really like the unusual response this film has to red, and its ability to get really deep blacks. Guess I'll just switch to 35mm.

 

[Dusty Negative]

More on bad backing paper for this film can be found here:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157668399574636/