My fault or the lab's ?

rhiannatruex · Mar 16, 2022

This looks just like what had happened to me with my roll of Delta. I'll be emailing Ilford now that I've seen this thread as well. Sorry about your film, thank you for sharing!

Yaeli · Mar 21, 2022

Thank you all for your answers and inputs ! I'm sorry I didn't answer before, but I wanted to have something interesting to say first

So, I followed your advice and sent a customer feedback to Ilford. As mentioned by @Nicholas Lindan, their customer service was fast and efficient. Here is a summary of what they said (I'm quoting parts of the email) :

1) the defect isn’t a defect type I’m currently recognising as being typical of any of the array of different manufacturing effects we can generate. Nor do I have any other complaints against your 4914/98ASK1C01-1 batch.
2) but it doesn’t look typical of processing errors either.
3) I’m more recognising it as some form of stressing. Initially, I thought it could be a problem with your camera with its initial wind-on or re-wind mechanisms. But I can see you’ve eliminated that. My only other current thought is that if the cassette was too tight around the mouth-piece (where the film exits), it could be stressing/scratching the film as its exits the metal cassette to wind on and re-wind in the camera (...) if too tight, it ‘could’ be scuffing it.
4) I can’t 100% eliminate it as being manufacturing generated

So, I still don't have a definitive answer, but they're kindly sending me 2 rolls, so...

I still don't know what I'll do with the lab and the coming rolls I'm going to finish. I'm not really looking forward to sending them to this lab, but I don't know. Now that I have all I need to develop at home, I might just do that for B&W from now on. I'll definitely ask them to send me my negs back though, following your advice.

@rhiannatruex : thank you for sharing your story too, and I also am sorry about your film. Please share with us what Ilford answers you !

Thank you all again !
Have a nice day !

foc · Mar 22, 2022

Yaeli said:
Thank you all for your answers and inputs ! I'm sorry I didn't answer before, but I wanted to have something interesting to say first

So, I followed your advice and sent a customer feedback to Ilford. As mentioned by @Nicholas Lindan, their customer service was fast and efficient. Here is a summary of what they said (I'm quoting parts of the email) :

1) the defect isn’t a defect type I’m currently recognising as being typical of any of the array of different manufacturing effects we can generate. Nor do I have any other complaints against your 4914/98ASK1C01-1 batch.
2) but it doesn’t look typical of processing errors either.
3) I’m more recognising it as some form of stressing. Initially, I thought it could be a problem with your camera with its initial wind-on or re-wind mechanisms. But I can see you’ve eliminated that. My only other current thought is that if the cassette was too tight around the mouth-piece (where the film exits), it could be stressing/scratching the film as its exits the metal cassette to wind on and re-wind in the camera (...) if too tight, it ‘could’ be scuffing it.
4) I can’t 100% eliminate it as being manufacturing generated

So, I still don't have a definitive answer, but they're kindly sending me 2 rolls, so...

I still don't know what I'll do with the lab and the coming rolls I'm going to finish. I'm not really looking forward to sending them to this lab, but I don't know. Now that I have all I need to develop at home, I might just do that for B&W from now on. I'll definitely ask them to send me my negs back though, following your advice.

@rhiannatruex : thank you for sharing your story too, and I also am sorry about your film. Please share with us what Ilford answers you !

Thank you all again !
Have a nice day !

The lab developed three C41 and one other B&W and they were all OK?

It is the Delta 3200 that is the problem. I had a look at your images and neg strips on Flickr and to me, it appears that the Delta 3200 is very underexposed (the edge marking look ok so the development appears correct).

The marks could be from scanning and since the negs are so thin and digital ICE (digital dust removal) can't be used on traditional B&W films, I believe this to be true.

I would try the lab again with one B&W film (say 100 or 400 speed) and see how they get on. BTW get the negs back each time.

I am interested in your thoughts.

rhiannatruex · Mar 22, 2022

Yaeli said:
Thank you all for your answers and inputs ! I'm sorry I didn't answer before, but I wanted to have something interesting to say first

So, I followed your advice and sent a customer feedback to Ilford. As mentioned by @Nicholas Lindan, their customer service was fast and efficient. Here is a summary of what they said (I'm quoting parts of the email) :

1) the defect isn’t a defect type I’m currently recognising as being typical of any of the array of different manufacturing effects we can generate. Nor do I have any other complaints against your 4914/98ASK1C01-1 batch.
2) but it doesn’t look typical of processing errors either.
3) I’m more recognising it as some form of stressing. Initially, I thought it could be a problem with your camera with its initial wind-on or re-wind mechanisms. But I can see you’ve eliminated that. My only other current thought is that if the cassette was too tight around the mouth-piece (where the film exits), it could be stressing/scratching the film as its exits the metal cassette to wind on and re-wind in the camera (...) if too tight, it ‘could’ be scuffing it.
4) I can’t 100% eliminate it as being manufacturing generated

So, I still don't have a definitive answer, but they're kindly sending me 2 rolls, so...

!

How did you reach out to Ilford and what information did you include? I don't have anything but the negatives from my roll - I will double check if I have the box... I did fill out their contact form but I have not heard back yet - wondering if I needed to include more information. I'm also interested in seeing if both of our rolls came from the same batch? And is that something I can tell from the negatives?

snusmumriken · Mar 22, 2022

Nicholas Lindan said:
As it stands, I'd say the problem is at Ilford.

I've noticed a lot of nasturtiums being cast at Ilford on this forum lately. I don't feel that is in our best interests as film-users. Ilford (or rather Harman) are one of the few saviours of film which 20 years ago seemed doomed. Please let's bottom out these issues before jumping on a band-wagon. [NB - I say this purely out of self-interest. I have no ties to the company, except that I use their products. Since the late 1960s I have never encountered any defect that I could blame on Ilford (or Kodak). In the early days, of course, I saw quite a few that were my own fault.]

The defects illustrated here say 'liquid' resoundingly. If they occurred only at the beginning and end of the film, there is no way they can be a manufacturing error because Ilford does not coat 35mm film 1.4 metres at a time! My money would be on the film being inadequately fixed before it was hung to dry. That may not be irredeemable: get the film back and re-fix it. However, the marks across the film width within the 'liquid' boundary also suggest bad handling: possibly the film was handled or even scanned while still inadequately fixed and still damp. I don't want to point a finger at your processor either, but it might be wise to use a different one for a while?

Yaeli · Mar 22, 2022

Thank you for your answers !

@foc , I'm sorry, but I'm more with @snusmumriken on this one. The more I think about it, the more I lean towards a mistake during development or handling of the film. The fact that the marks are "liquid", that they don't affect the center of the roll, that doesn't scream stressing of the film or camera malfunction or even a manufacture issue to me. In any case, I don't think I'll keep sending my films to them.

What you are absolutely right in pointing out, @foc , is that the film was really underexposed. I used the camera meter on this one (because my tiny L-208 lightmeter is a pain to read in the dark and without my reading glasses), but that was clearly a mistake. Also a mistake was rating the Delta at 2500 ISO. I should have gone with 3200 or even 5000 with a push. Also a mistake was taking readings before the concert lights were actually tuned (they were slightly brighter during the rehearsal, and there was a bit of ambiant light too). Anyway. That was my 1st concert on film and I blew it ! But I learned something at least
And yes, the 3 C41 and the HP5 rolls turned out great.

@rhiannatruex : if you go to the Ilford web page, in the "support" section, there is a "customer feedback" link, that sends you to a form that you have to complete, and where you can answer questions and link pictures. You don't need the box, only the negs. The negs have 4 digits on the side. That's enough for them to find the batch number. Mine were 4194. Let me know what they tell you !

rhiannatruex · Mar 29, 2022

@Yaeli I'm chatting with someone there now, she is saying it looks like a processing error - but I am linking her to this thread as well. My batch was 5080-11.

Yaeli · Apr 11, 2022

@rhiannatruex Thank you for your answer ! I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner, I'm moving out of my appartment and I don't have much time
I find it a little weird, considering how similar the problem looks for you and me, that the explanation is different... I'm still not convinced, in my case, by the "faulty-cassette" or the "potential manufacturing issue" theory. I think that, for both of us, it's more a processing error. Anyway. Thanks for the feedback ! Have a nice day !

Wallendo · Apr 11, 2022

It looks to me like there are multiple problems, and it isn't easy to blame them all on one factor. You have the "liquid" errors, the streaking errors, the bad scratch, and one image shows shadows apparently related to the perforations (?surge marks). I am not aware of any one error that could cause all of this.

Do you know if your lab uses a minilab, dip & dunk, or hand processing.

It almost looks like there were problems unloading the film, it fell on a wet floor and got scratched, and then wasn't agitated appropriately.

Nicholas Lindan · Apr 11, 2022

Wallendo said:
It almost looks like there were problems unloading the film, it fell on a wet floor and got scratched, and then wasn't agitated appropriately.

That sounds about right. Second this opinion.

When I was 8 years old I developed a lot of film this way.

Yaeli · Apr 12, 2022

@Wallendo : thank you for your answer ! This lab does hand development for all the b&w. It could be a combination of problems, yes, but I think you're pushing it a little with your "it fell on the floor" theory This is a professional lab with a great reputation, I doubt they would make such a mistake...
@Nicholas Lindan : Am I mistaken in thinking that you find Wallendo's theory a bit too much also ? Your message sounded a bit sarcastic

Nicholas Lindan · Apr 13, 2022

Yaeli said:
@WallendoAm I mistaken in thinking that you find Wallendo's theory a bit too much also ? Your message sounded a bit sarcastic

No - no sarcasm.

The wet marks do look like the wet film's emulsion was in contact with something for a period of time. Floor, lab bench ...

The random scratches jibe with that observation.

The very uniform scratches (if scratches are what they are) are problematic with this theory.

But, by Occam's razor, hitting the floor is the simplest explanation. Everybody screws up now and then.

Did you ever get the negatives back?

Wallendo · Apr 13, 2022

My response is somewhat hyperbolic, but the point is that there seem to be multiple issues with this roll. I cannot think of a single error that could prodcue this constellation of defects.

Yaeli · Apr 16, 2022

@Nicholas Lindan : I'm sorry I misunderstood you. It's just that, maybe I'm too naive, but to me, "screwing up" is like... I don't know... using an inappropriate or old chemical, or leaving it in the tank too long, something like that. Dropping a wet roll on the floor and potentially leaving it there a bit fells more like negligence than a simple error, and I was not ready to "incriminate" the lab with such a mistake... But maybe you're right. And maybe, also, like @Wallendo says, it was a combination of factors. *
And no, I still have not gotten my negatives back. I'll ask for them sooner or later and, if there is something to be discovered from them, I'll be sure to let you know !
Thanks again for your anwers

Sirius Glass · Apr 16, 2022

Yaeli said:
@Nicholas Lindan : I'm sorry I misunderstood you. It's just that, maybe I'm too naive, but to me, "screwing up" is like... I don't know... using an inappropriate or old chemical, or leaving it in the tank too long, something like that. Dropping a wet roll on the floor and potentially leaving it there a bit fells more like negligence than a simple error, and I was not ready to "incriminate" the lab with such a mistake... But maybe you're right. And maybe, also, like @Wallendo says, it was a combination of factors. *
And no, I still have not gotten my negatives back. I'll ask for them sooner or later and, if there is something to be discovered from them, I'll be sure to let you know !
Thanks again for your anwers

This has to be frustrating for you. I tend to thing that the problem has to do with a lab problem and I would not rule out dropping on the floor. something out of the normal processing happened.

foc · Apr 17, 2022

Dropping of negatives does happen in labs, everyone can make a mistake. How it is resolved will show the lab's true mettle.

I have dropped negatives myself (not very often) but the secret is how you pick them up without damage. Most people will try and grab them by the edges and that's what causes the scratches as the negative is basically rubbed against the gritty floor.

The best way, that I have found, is to gently slide a sheet of paper under the neg and then lift and of course rewash and dry.

Maybe the guy in the lab couldn't be bothered and just carried on.
Mistakes do happen but they should be resolved to the customer's satisfaction.

railwayman3 · Apr 17, 2022

Yaeli said:
@Wallendo : thank you for your answer ! This lab does hand development for all the b&w. It could be a combination of problems, yes, but I think you're pushing it a little with your "it fell on the floor" theory This is a professional lab with a great reputation, I doubt they would make such a mistake...
@Nicholas Lindan : Am I mistaken in thinking that you find Wallendo's theory a bit too much also ? Your message sounded a bit sarcastic

I've had plenty of bad results in the past from so-called "professional" labs, (even from Kodak with Kodachrome spots and scratching). (I've had even more bad results and mistakes from my DIY processing as well ! So I don't blame a lab without good reason ! )

OTOH, I've never heard of a pro (or other) lab which only sends the negs back one a year.....surely a "pro" photographer will need the negs for filing, customer re-orders, etc. It sounds very suspicious that this is some kind of excuse ?

Yaeli · Apr 17, 2022

Thank you for your answers !

@Sirius Glass : I admit that it was (well, still is) frustrating. I took the time (and money) to send the rolls in another country, to a lab that has a great reputation (I had heard of it on a respectable YT channel, and the reviews online are numerous and very positive), only to find the roll basically almost ruined. Now, granted, it was not publishing material (underexposed, not very well framed, etc...) but you know how it is, it was still "precious" to me.

@foc : as I have said, I had never thought that this kind of mistake could happen in a lab of this reputation (in my local lab, yeah, for sure... I had pleanty of scratched rolls there...). But you're not the only one to point out that this could very well have happened, so I suppose you are all right.

@railwayman3 : about the negs, maybe I haven't made myself clear. They only offer the option to keep them. It's not what they always do. Here is a quote from their website :
"We know archiving can be a headache, that’s why we offer to keep your negatives safely stored for up to a year! After that we will send them all together within the same shipment, saving costs and some CO2 too.
Need your negatives earlier? Sending them straight after is also an option!".
Since I had in mind to make them my go-to lab, I had decided to take them up on that offer. I can get the negs back anytime I want, it's just that I haven't done it yet. Since the roll is ruined, I'm not particularly in a hurry to get the negs back anyway...

Tom-Thomas · Apr 18, 2022

I used to work in many labs for many many years (from custom lab doing all manual processing to using dip-and-dunk processors to rotary processors to mini-lab using leader card transport machines) and I think I have seen this before.

I think the marks were caused by portions of the film being stuck together while the film was only partially dry and it was left in that state for a while. I come to this opinion based on 2 observations:

(1) In some frames there are marks that look like overlapping sprocket holes.
(2) You say that only the beginning and the end of the roll are affected while the middle is fine. In many (but not all) mini-labs, processed films are hung on a film stand/tree (awaiting for scanning or printing) by clipping the two ends together. In this manner, good portions of the two ends would be touching each other while the rest of roll in the "loop" will not. If the film isn't completely dry when the ends are clipped together, the portions would stick together and resulting in drying marks afterward.

Tel · Apr 19, 2022

Without the negs, all we can do is speculate.

Yaeli · Apr 19, 2022

@Tom-Thomas : Thank you for your answer and your insight ! I hadn't thought about the ends of the roll being clipped together. It does indeed fit with the kind of marks that appear and the fact that the center of the roll is clean.
I'll let you all know when I get the negatives back

My fault or the lab's ?

rhiannatruex

Yaeli

foc

rhiannatruex

snusmumriken

Yaeli

rhiannatruex

Yaeli

Wallendo

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

Yaeli

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

Wallendo

Yaeli

Sirius Glass

foc

railwayman3

Yaeli

Tom-Thomas

Tel

Yaeli

My fault or the lab's ?

Advertiser

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency