Mystery track on negative

[semi-ambivalent]

Hi. I have a negative of a beach scene on a misty/foggy day at Point Lobos, CA, nothing spectacular. I wanted a copy to give to a friend but upon enlarging it (FF on 8x10 MG IV FB) I saw this track across part of the sky, conveniently a very light gray. At first I thought it might be brush on the top of a far cliff showing through the fog, but it's too straight. This is factory loaded Tri-X, 35mm processed in HC-110 1:49. I don't recall any incident in creasing the film when I loaded it on the spiral but, sure, it might have happened. Has anyone ever seen anything like this and did you ever find out what caused it?

I've pumped up the contrast a good bit in gimp but believe me, although it's not glaring, you can see it on the print; an area of light gray sky.

Thanks,

s-a

 

[Chris Lange]

is the decreased density visible on the negative? It could be uneven development on the print if that's just a scan of the paper, but if it is indeed a scan of the neg, maybe residual development after an inadequate stop/water bath during film dev?

 

[semi-ambivalent]

is the decreased density visible on the negative? It could be uneven development on the print if that's just a scan of the paper, but if it is indeed a scan of the neg, maybe residual development after an inadequate stop/water bath during film dev?

Chris,

Thanks for the write-back. I apologize for not being clear; that is a scan of the print. I just checked the negative and with some +3 glasses on top of some +1.5s I believe I can see it. But I can't with a 10x loupe and just my eyes. However, I had another print made two days earlier that exhibited the same diffuse streak so I'm thinking it's the negative and not the print. I have three more frames of the scene so it's not the end of the world, but this one had the best breaking wave, alas.

thanks!
s-a

 

[Chris Lange]

No problem s-a,

It occurred to me that what you're seeing might, might be a very minor light leak in your cam...the hard edged delineation of the track leads me to think that is also a possibility...I know my Hasselblad film backs give thin lines (at best) when it's time to have the seals foam replaced...

 

[chip j]

Looks like a striation mark due to faulty film. I saw a lot of this w/120 Fomapan some yrs ago.

 

[Chris Lange]

I had thought the same, although it would be extremely unlikely for this to happen to a product as tightly controlled as tri-x.

The only film I've ever had issues with out of the can was the old Foma 200 in 120, black striations all over the place. I've never so much as had a speck of dust on a newly opened roll of tri-x.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

I had thought the same, although it would be extremely unlikely for this to happen to a product as tightly controlled as tri-x.

The only film I've ever had issues with out of the can was the old Foma 200 in 120, black striations all over the place. I've never so much as had a speck of dust on a newly opened roll of tri-x.

I was thinking this was some hand spooled Eastman 5222 I have been shooting (nice, btw); I had heard the QC was not as tight with that since each frame is visible for only about 1/24 second. But it was Tri-X, and factory load too.

Oh well, I've moved on unless it shows again. I'll keep an eye out for it re the poss. light leak.

thanks,
s-a

 

[clayne]

What am I supposed to be looking for, that white thing on the right?

 

[Ian Grant]

What am I supposed to be looking for, that white thing on the right?

That was my first thought, that's just dut, there's a processing streak along the lenght of the image shown.

Most likely due to agitaion, it might be that that debris on the negative has atched to the emulsion during development and caused a slight drag line during agitation.

Ian

 

[clayne]

Are we talking about that dark to light grey line that originates from the right near the dust? It's barely even perceivable.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Are we talking about that dark to light grey line that originates from the right near the dust? It's barely even perceivable.

clayne,

Hi. My example is not as distinct. On a print it is quite visible and, once noticed, thereafter draws the eye immediately. OTOH, if people are as somnambulistic as I so often accuse perhaps it would pass unseen. But it drives me crazy, especially not knowing why it's there.

Regards,
s-a

 

[chip j]

I've had some pieces felt drift into my shots from a Plus-X cassette back in the day, so Kodak is'nt perfect Neither is Leica-there are a number of fine scratches in the glass inside my bought-new USA Leica 5x loupe.

 

[rorye]

Could it be a drying mark? Did you squeegee or run your hand down the film before hanging it up?

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Could it be a drying mark? Did you squeegee or run your hand down the film before hanging it up?

Rorye,

I use the drying aid in the small white bottle (LFN?) and wipe down only the back of the film. I believe the emulsion is too soft to touch, but that's just my take.

s-a

 

[clayne]

All you need to do is put the film in the final wash solution (with distilled water), pull it out, hang it up and go onto the next roll. There is zero reason to touch any part of it.

Now that being said, I'm not sure there's a connection between the drying and this strange line, though.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

All you need to do is put the film in the final wash solution (with distilled water), pull it out, hang it up and go onto the next roll. There is zero reason to touch any part of it.

Now that being said, I'm not sure there's a connection between the drying and this strange line, though.

Correct. But there is with possible emulsion damage from a squeege.

thanks,

s-a