My fault or the lab's ?

[Yaeli]

Hi all !

TL;DR : what happened to this roll ? Exposition to humidity or even liquid before shooting or development mistake ?

So, I sent 5 rolls to a lab that appears to have a very good reputation. Everything went great with the 3 C41 rolls, and with one B&W roll (they develop all B&W manually), but there was a problem with the roll of Delta 3200 that I sent, as you can see here : https://flic.kr/ps/3WfT8i

After initially admitting to a mistake made during the development process, the lab quickly changed its tale and argued that it was some sort of damage that must have occured prior to shooting or just after, but before development. They suggest that the roll either has been in contact with some liquid, or that it has been exposed to a sudden change in temperature and humidity.

Not that I want to be distrutful of that lab (again, it has a great reputation, even with some known youtubers), but the change in explanation struck me as odd, and even if I have no way of knowing how the roll was produced or stored in the store where I bought it, I know that it was stored in my (dry) room for a few months and didn't encounter any liquid or change in temperature prior or after shooting or during the mailing process (it was in its plastic box, inside a sealed plastic bag and inside another box).

So, could you please shed light on what probably happened please ? I've looked for similarly damaged rolls online and couldn't find anything that looked like it...

Thanks beforehand !
Yaeli

 

[bdial]

It’s hard to tell from the positive images. Could you post up a picture of the negatives? Ideally, show the uncut strip, if possible.

 

[foc]

As @bdial suggested, please post an image of the negative strip (the ones in your link), something like this:

Also, have a look at this thread, it might be of interest to you.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-went-wrong-with-developing.190450/

 

[markbau]

Hard to tell without seeing the negs. To my eye they look like they were put in sleeves before they had completely dried.

 

[Yaeli]

Thank you for your answers !
Here is the only picture of the negative strip that I have (sent by the lab) because I don't have the negatives at home yet. Note that I shot those pictures at a concert where the light was super dim and changing (spots) so negatives are (if I'm not mistaken) super thin.
https://flic.kr/p/2n7VpjT

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Funny, this looks a lot like the problem shown in rhiannatruex's post https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-went-wrong-with-developing.190450/

It doesn't look like any developing problem I've ever encountered - and if there is a mistake to be made I've made it with the passing of the years.

As it stands, I'd say the problem is at Ilford.

 

[Craig75]

Yes that's good observation by Nicholas. It looks quite similar to @rhiannatruex and god knows what had happened to her negatives.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

The film may have kissed at some point. There is a look like when glass is placed on top of liquid. Maybe the film touched while drying.

 

[Ces1um]

Hard to tell without seeing the negs. To my eye they look like they were put in sleeves before they had completely dried.

this is my vote as well.

 

[Moose22]

Yes that's good observation by Nicholas. It looks quite similar to @rhiannatruex and god knows what had happened to her negatives.

I had a weridness with Portra800 last fall: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/condensation-streaks-on-portra-800.186593/

Never resolved it, and I've shot 3 rolls of Portra 800 from the same box since that did not exhibit that problem. The lab has seen it and blamed the film, said they saw it other times with that stock, though it was rare elsewhere, and thought it was a Kodak thing. But we tried to figure it out (they do NOT want this happening regularly, of course) and came up with nothing.

Not sure if this is the same thing or not, but it seems vaguely related at least,

 

[gone]

The film may have kissed at some point.

I wonder if my films have been kissed? I don't know where they've been before they went into the boxes, so may be.

 

[Craig75]

Hard to tell without seeing the negs. To my eye they look like they were put in sleeves before they had completely dried.

If the op looks at the negative sleeves they should have drying marks / stains on them too then I'd imagine

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder if my films have been kissed? I don't know where they've been before they went into the boxes, so may be.

So how many times might they have been allowed to stay out late. That's the key question

On a more serious note and in response Nicholas Lindan I cannot rule out the fault being at IlfordPhoto ( by definition no-one can) but as the OP hasn't seen the actual negs yet, we may need to wait before we turn our attention towards Ilford being the likely culprit

pentaxuser

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Looks to me like the film wasn't completely fixed because it was up against something else, probably another roll of film. If they still have the negs, ask them to refix. If you have them refix the negs yourself.

What they are saying is possible but not probable. The simplest explanation almost always being the best, refix.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Looks to me like the film wasn't completely fixed because it was up against something else, probably another roll of film. If they still have the negs, ask them to refix. If you have them refix the negs yourself.

What they are saying is possible but not probable. The simplest explanation almost always being the best, refix.

I agree. Besides at this point, actually you need to get the film back first, you have nothing more to loose.

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if there is a chance that the lab scanned the negatives through the (Printfile?) negative pages.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder if there is a chance that the lab scanned the negatives through the (Printfile?) negative pages.

Good point Matt. Could it be as simple as that? I feel it might be. We'll know when the negatives return to the OP

pentaxuser

 

[Yaeli]

Thank you all very much for your answers and imput !
Most of your suggestions seem to point either to a faulty roll or to an error at the lab during development or scanning. The latter was my first hunch (I hadn't thought about the fixer, my money was more on a lack of agitation leading to uneven development, but I'm a noob, and maybe this is not at all an uneven development), confirmed by the first mail from the lab.
I should add (maybe this will help) that : 1) the frames that are the most affected are the ones from the beginning and end of the roll, the first 15 frames being the worst. The frames from the "center" of the roll (13 to 32) are completely clean, and only 2 from the end of the roll are affected. 2) Some marks are different and look less "liquid" and more like "heavy scratches", as seen here : Samuel Herenschmidt-9 by Mister Ash, sur Flickr
As for getting the negatives back, it will happen, eventually, but this lab offers to keep them and send them back in bunch once or twice a year, which I had at first intended on doing, since I had planned on giving them all my rolls. Now, I'm not so sure anymore...
P.S : they were scanned on a Noritsu scanner. Maybe this will help you know if they might have been scanned inside the negative page - I'm not sure what a negative page is (sorry, French guy here), is it the plastic thing into which you insert the developped negatives, or is that the sleeves mentioned by some ??

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

That looks to me like a coating problem. It could also be a problem with the celluloid backing getting scratched. I can't think of a processing error that would cause that sort of banding in the affected areas. I'd send an email off to Ilford and ask their opinion - their customer service is pretty good.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That looks to me like a coating problem. It could also be a problem with the celluloid backing getting scratched. I can't think of a processing error that would cause that sort of banding in the affected areas. I'd send an email off to Ilford and ask their opinion - their customer service is pretty good.

+1

 

[Moose22]

P.S : they were scanned on a Noritsu scanner. Maybe this will help you know if they might have been scanned inside the negative page - I'm not sure what a negative page is (sorry, French guy here), is it the plastic thing into which you insert the developped negatives, or is that the sleeves mentioned by some ??

Yes, the "negative page" they are talking about is the plastic holder or sleeve they put film in to return to you. This is exactly what the mean.

You cannot scan with a Noritsu while in the plastic, though. At least not the ones I've seen. They take the roll of film and pull it through automatically and scan it line by line as it goes through. So it has to be just the film to fit into the machine.

I agree with Nicholas above. Ask Ilford their opinion. If they respond, please let us know what they say.

 

[logan2z]

As for getting the negatives back, it will happen, eventually, but this lab offers to keep them and send them back in bunch once or twice a year

I'd decline that offer and get your negatives back as they're developed. If the lab burns down, goes out of business or misplaces your negatives over the course of 6 months to a year, you're out of luck.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...
As for getting the negatives back, it will happen, eventually, but this lab offers to keep them and send them back in bunch once or twice a year, which I had at first intended on doing, since I had planned on giving them all my rolls. Now, I'm not so sure anymore...

1. They are fumbling around and want more time to figure it out.
2. They are too cheap to pay for the postage.
3. They know that they screwed up and either hope you forget about the roll or need time to burn the place down.

I would go with number 3.

 

[logan2z]

...or need time to burn the place down.

See my post above

 

[Sirius Glass]

See my post above

I had seen your post. I inspired me.