Negatives screwed up in a way I've never seen

[snusmumriken]

I did a bit of web searching and - although I’m hesitant to suggest this - I found enough to suggest that Foma films could be quite prone to manufacturing defects. Please let us know what they say.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I did a bit of web searching and - although I’m hesitant to suggest this - I found enough to suggest that Foma films could be quite prone to manufacturing defects. Please let us know what they say.

Try Kodak or Ilford film and see if the problems continue. We often get what we pay for.

 

[jnamia]

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.

was the film newly purchased by you or was it purchased 2nd hand? sometimes film purchased 2nd hand is sold 2nd hand because former owners had troubles and didn't tell unsuspecting buyers .. sounds like you might just need to use a wide angle lens and enlarge / crop and learn how to retouch ? lemons>lemonade

 

[Bill Burk]

Especially if you can see those spots with your own eyes, it’s defective film and if you like it keep shooting it and keep making these wild compositions with random marks.

If you hate it, go chase down a refund or replacement.

Or offer to sell it to someone here. I know some people ( @jnamia ! ) like a bit of serendipity.

 

[newtonrings]

Personally I don't consider this serendipity, hehe . I'll contact Foma, or maybe Fotoimpex where I ordered and hopefully get either a replacement or refund. I've had good results with the first few rolls, but stuff like this makes me a bit wary of shooting more of it. Going out shooting, developing, etc. takes up a lot of my free time with 2 small kids, so I don't need yet another factor that can go wrong when I invest time in this hobby. I knew about some of the issues with Foma 120 film, but thought I was rather safe with 135.

Thanks to people in this thread for the helpful advice!

 

[grat]

Try Kodak or Ilford film and see if the problems continue. We often get what we pay for.

After all, Kodak and Ilford have never had issues with film manufacture.

It is an odd variation. I'd love to hear what Foma says, because they only thing that makes sense would be bubbles (foam, really)-- and if it's in the emulsion, I don't see how that wouldn't be obvious on the film surface.

 

[newtonrings]

After all, Kodak and Ilford have never had issues with film manufacture.

It is an odd variation. I'd love to hear what Foma says, because they only thing that makes sense would be bubbles (foam, really)-- and if it's in the emulsion, I don't see how that wouldn't be obvious on the film surface.

You think this grid pattern of the smaller dots is made by bubbles from foaming?

 

[snusmumriken]

You think this grid pattern of the smaller dots is made by bubbles from foaming?

Do you wear rubber gloves when handling film?

 

[runswithsizzers]

You think this grid pattern of the smaller dots is made by bubbles from foaming?

Possibly. At first, I thought the general appearance of the splotches might be consistent with mold. But after closer examination, those dark dots which are uniform in size and even in distribution are definitely not like any mold growth I've seen (and I've worked as a microbiologist).

My only problem with the foam theory is that the dot pattern is almost too uniform in size. Search for "distribution of bubble size in foam" and you can find some research photos that show foam with all the bubbles being of a similar size, so it is possible. Examples <here>

An alternate explanation might be if some kind of textured roller was used during the manufcture of the film as discussed in post #32.

Either way, I believe the artifact was most likely introduced during manufacture of the film, and not caused by any process in your darkroom. Have you tried pulling a strip of film from your bulk loader and examining it carefully with a loupe in good light?

 

[grat]

You think this grid pattern of the smaller dots is made by bubbles from foaming?

Honestly? No idea. It's one option. Another would be a sponge surface or a plain paper towel. But those again, I would think would show up in the surface.

 

[Nige]

Have you tried pulling a strip of film from your bulk loader and examining it carefully with a loupe in good light?

How about running some unexposed film through developer & fixer, or just fixer?

 

[Bill Burk]

Ok gloves? Maybe!

 

[Bill Burk]

At this point I think we have a diagnosis…

It was the gloves, wasn’t it? If you wipe your nose and then touch the film the gloves would impress viscous snot - with the dots of the glove making better contact and more effectively preventing developer from reaching the film.

 

[Don_ih]

If you wipe your nose and then touch the film the gloves would impress viscous snot - with the dots of the glove making better contact and more effectively preventing developer from reaching the film.

I think your imagination is running a little wild, Bill. Also, aren't the dots on the film much smaller than the dots on gloves?

 

[snusmumriken]

I think your imagination is running a little wild, Bill. Also, aren't the dots on the film much smaller than the dots on gloves?

They're certainly much smaller than the (honeycomb) pattern on my gloves, but it was worth checking out given no other explanation.

 

[Saganich]

If this was from fingers/gloves there should be some smearing to the dots as fingers would be in motion to some degree,

 

[Bill Burk]

Ok, I will grant it goes back to manufacturer because they are small and would smear. But the substance has a fair chance of being snot.

 

[Don_ih]

Ok, I will grant it goes back to manufacturer because they are small and would smear. But the substance has a fair chance of being snot.

Are you suggestion Foma uses snot instead of gelatin? People do say that the emulsion is soft when wet...

 

[Sirius Glass]

This thread is just snot going well. It even drips of snot.