Negatives screwed up in a way I've never seen

[NB23]

YMMV. I don't see how fingers would leave tiny perfect circles this way. They do look exactly like the bubbles I've seen many times when making carbon transfer tissue. Regularly sized and bunched together in small clusters.

similar happened to me, on film and paper. Just need to know if the OP did manipulate fixer before loading the film

 

[Sirius Glass]

I see. But that can easily be explained by a finger touching it a few times by simple manipulation.

YMMV. I don't see how fingers would leave tiny perfect circles this way. They do look exactly like the bubbles I've seen many times when making carbon transfer tissue. Regularly sized and bunched together in small clusters.

Air bells, air bells, air bells

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

After looking closer at you scanned image I am curious about the regular pattern of the dots in the dark splotches. They are very regular, but have no apparent correlation to the splotches. I am wondering if they are caused by a pattern on the top of your scanner, or from a computer algorithm? If so the dark spots are just clear areas on the film and the cause is likely residual fixer.

 

[koraks]

Not sure what you mean Jay, but it seems to me that the areas of reduced density all have clusters of circles in them. As I said above, the way they show up is very typical of bubbles clustering together. Once they agglomerate like this on the film, it's harder for fresh developer to reach those areas especially if agitation was too gentle. The net result is reduced density with a distinct bubble/circle pattern with the walls/edges of the bubbles being almost normally developed since they consist of developer, while the centers of the bubbles aren't since that's where there's only a minimal film of developer (or none at all) in contact with the emulsion.

The only thing that's slightly puzzling is that the bubbles are so nicely uniform in size. I do get this with carbon glop if air seeps into the emulsion from the corners (I use magnetic strips); those bubbles tend to be very uniform as well. This is pretty much the only reason why I'd keep open the possibility of a manufacturing defect; all the rest just screams contamination of the tank or reel resulting in foaming, combined with gentle/insufficient agitation.

 

[250swb]

Marks like that are a new one on me (nearly fifty years a film veteran). I rule out air bubbles, just think what extreme event could have aerated them to be so small. I wonder if you've got something growing either in your water pipes or something got into your wash water off the end of a tap. There are plenty of benign moulds that grow in damp warm conditions, nothing that is going to kill you but they can be here one day and gone another.

 

[Don_ih]

Really the only thing to do is cut another strip off the bulk roll. Either expose it to light or take some quick pictures. Develop it and see if this happens again. Making sure the tank is clean before you start, if it happens again, it's a problem with the film.

 

[foc]

I am not a betting person but if I was I would wager it is not air bubbles.

I will wait to see the rewashed negs.

In the meantime, I took the liberty to enlarge part of the image.
The regularity of the circles reminded me of this other photo, it's from a Noritsu C41 processor (which I know has no bearing on this) but it does make you think.

 

[NB23]

Three touches with a fixer dirty finger will imprint the same pattern thrice. This is simple.

 

[jnamia]

Three touches with a fixer dirty finger will imprint the same pattern thrice. This is simple.

pretty much ... cross chemical contamination one way or another ..

good luck OP.

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

Not sure what you mean Jay, but it seems to me that the areas of reduced density all have clusters of circles in them. As I said above, the way they show up is very typical of bubbles clustering together. Once they agglomerate like this on the film, it's harder for fresh developer to reach those areas especially if agitation was too gentle. The net result is reduced density with a distinct bubble/circle pattern with the walls/edges of the bubbles being almost normally developed since they consist of developer, while the centers of the bubbles aren't since that's where there's only a minimal film of developer (or none at all) in contact with the emulsion.

The only thing that's slightly puzzling is that the bubbles are so nicely uniform in size. I do get this with carbon glop if air seeps into the emulsion from the corners (I use magnetic strips); those bubbles tend to be very uniform as well. This is pretty much the only reason why I'd keep open the possibility of a manufacturing defect; all the rest just screams contamination of the tank or reel resulting in foaming, combined with gentle/insufficient agitation.

When I say residual fixer I meant on the equipment or hands before developing. I think in this situation the uniform looking dots are a bit of a red herring, unless the are also visible on the negative of course.

 

[koraks]

Examination of the negatives is indeed in order.
As to the hypothesis that this would somehow be a digital artifact - theoretically possible, but in the real world a far fetched argument. Very, very unlikely.

 

[mohmad khatab]

Hi,

I recently acquired a Kindermann stainless steel developing tank, for one 135 reel, with a 10 oz (~295 ml) volume. I tried it out today, developing a roll of Fomapan 100 that I've spooled myself from a 30.5 meter bulk-roll.
I always develop Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1:50 and never had problems. The other negatives I've developed from this bulk-roll has been totally fine.

Info about this development:

• Just under 6 mL of Rodinal
• Close to 290 mL of water
• 9 mins
• 20 degrees celsius
  
  Stuff that was a first time for me:
  
  
• Getting 135 film onto a metal reel - had no issue as far as I can tell. If this problem is due to film sticking together it obviously was an issue
  
• Using the new tank, pouring, agitating, etc (I regularly use about 3-4 different tanks with plastic reels, and I've developed I guess about 100 rolls of 135 and 120 in both color and bw with a myriad of developers)

I saw the marks on the negatives when I took the negs down after drying, and I thought that the culprit may be either air bobbles, sticking together or mold. After scanning and seeing the weird spots I'm just totally unsure of what this is. Appreciate any help!

I can't feel anything on either sides of the negatives, and with the naked eye it just looks like spots of lower density/transparent.

This situation happened to me once, and I did five negatives in fricyanide bleach for 30 seconds while stirring at a very fast speed, and then I washed and re-fixer it for a much longer period as I remember it extended to about 10 minutes with constant stirring. And then I put the Stabilizer solution for 10 minutes as well, with constant stirring.
The ending was very happy and exhilarating and the problem was completely gone.
Happy Easter Holiday ,
Congratulations Ramadan ,
Welcome Eid Al-Fitr

 

[newtonrings]

I'm away for the weekend, but I've got a picture of the negatives (sleeved) from just after drying. As I'm not home until tomorrow evening, I've not yet gotten around to do a rewash. The picture of the negatives show the first images of the roll on the top, and the last image at the bottom left. The last picture is partial because I mistakenly opened the camera before the roll was finished (24 frames self spooled, and a Canon EOS 3000N that rewinds film back into the spool for each shot). Naturally the left tip of the negative strip on the bottom was at the center of the stainless steel reel.

After further consideration I'm not entirely sure that the spots actually show loss of density, they may just be light in color and I'm not able to check until I get home again.

I'm pretty sure my hands were not contaminated by fixer at the point of spooling the film onto the stainless steel reel for developing. I simply hadn't used chemicals for a while (days, weeks) prior. Could I have touched the bottle of mixed fixer just before taking the film onto the developing reel? I guess it's possible...
At the point of loading it onto the canister I'm pretty sure I hadn't been using chemicals immediately prior to that either.

The picture from the Noritsu processor is interesting. I used a Epson V550 for scanning - could it be an artifact from scanning? Mold has been mentioned, but I struggle to find any image of mold that corresponds to the pattern seen in the spots on these negatives. You can imagine drawing perfectly parallel lines through the centers of these smaller dots. I know nature (both biology and chemistry) tends towards patterns like spirals or hexagons, but the pattern and uniformity of the size together makes me think it isn't mold. I'm faar from an expert though.

The tank was bought second hand though, and I guess it's likely that it had been stored and not used for years as is often the case with equipment like this.

I've loaded 12 frames fresh from the bulk roll that I will shoot and develop early next week.

Adding the last frame from the roll just for fun, as I was able to save it and thought it looked kinda cool with the burned left side.

 

[Don_ih]

Looking at the photo of your negatives, the spots seem to be recurring regularly, like they originated from the same spot of a bulk roll. I mentioned mold earlier - I had a bulk loader that someone had kept in a fridge (I got it used) and it had had water condense inside and make a recurring splotch of the film moldy.

 

[Bill Burk]

@newtonrings If you don’t have anything in your possession that has this honeycomb pattern, like a cutting board that you laid the film on after you sneezed, I don’t see anyway this could be your fault. I think the manufacturing process line has a roller like that Noritsu but with much smaller dimples, that the film passes over and maybe an operator sneezed, or a splash of contaminant happened when they were making your film. But if dimples aren’t really there when you look real close, I am wrong.

 

[MattKing]

I see a pattern of some sort of residue in the rebates as well.

 

[snusmumriken]

I see a pattern of some sort of residue in the rebates as well.

I don't see that, Matt? Whereabouts are you looking?

I am struck by the regularity: the defects are on frames 4 and 6 of each 6-frame strip. How could that come about if they were already present when the film was hanging up to dry?

 

[MattKing]

I don't see that, Matt? Whereabouts are you looking?

I am struck by the regularity: the defects are on frames 4 and 6 of each 6-frame strip. How could that come about if they were already present when the film was hanging up to dry?

Actually, it looks even weirder than residue:

 

[newtonrings]

Keep in mind the negs are sleeved laying on a computer screen for lighting.

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

I think we are seeing an awful lot of digital artifacts. This is why it is so much easier to diagnosis problems in person. On the other hand, if these latest artifacts are on the film I might want to shoot with it just because

 

[Bill Burk]

Keep in mind the negs are sleeved laying on a computer screen for lighting.

That’s for the “contact sheet” post. The scanner probably didn’t add honeycomb- that’s looking like manufacturer defect. A close look at the negatives will tell.

 

[newtonrings]

That’s for the “contact sheet” post. The scanner probably didn’t add honeycomb- that’s looking like manufacturer defect. A close look at the negatives will tell.

Yes, that reply was directed at MattKings latest post.

 

[Bill Burk]

Yes, that reply was directed at MattKings latest post.

Haaa yes. Keeping fingers crossed to find our what the deal is

 

[newtonrings]

Same thing happened again... Loaded 12 frames onto a different canister than last time, and shot it in a different camera. Development was 100% identical, only the tank and reel were thoroughly washed beforehand. Attached is 3 pictures, one where it is barely noticeable, one with weak spots, and one shot that is severely affected by these spots. Same pattern - even in the very feint larger spots in the landscape shot, the same pattern of smaller spots is visible.

This time as well there are frames of the film that is more severely affected, and frames with little to no spots. It could be corresponding to a certain part of the developing reel, a certain part of the bulk roll, or a certain part of some hypothetical roller akin to the Noritsu one posted earlier.

?

Next step I guess is to do the same again, but develop in one of the tanks I use normally.

 

[Don_ih]

@newtonrings -- I think at this point you can say it is the film itself. And you can also say that it's not fungus because that pattern looks too mechanical (not the placement of the "spots" but the array of tiny, perfectly-circular dots that you see when you zoom in). You should contact Foma with these scans and, if you can find the can your film came in, the batch number that's printed on it somewhere. They may replace the product. You obviously can't use this film for anything, at this point.