Odd issue with TriX

[Paul Howell]

I shoot Tmax 400 and Forma 400, my local camera store was out of Tmax 400, I bought a couple of rolls of Trix. I have not shot Trix in years, I shot the one roll with a Chinon AF point and shoot 35F, the other in a Minolta 700. Both rolls first 8 frames are good, then next 8 with just a hint of an image, then remainder roll are fine. Anyone else have any issues with Trix.

 

[pentaxuser]

Paul, I cannot offer any reasons that fit your description of what happened but it's an intriguing problem. Two different cameras with the exact same fault in the exact same number of frames? Difficult to believe that 2 rolls of the same type of film would have the same manufacturing defect in exactly the same place. If the films are both OK then it's almost equally difficult to believe that there is the same defect in 2 different cameras that is triggered at the same point in a film

A real "head scratcher" of a problem. I look forward to others' potential problem(s) identification(s) that reconcile the above facts

pentaxuser

 

[K-G]

Do the frame numbers show the same patern ?

Karl-Gustaf

 

[albada]

Perhaps this was caused by a problem in a developing machine. Were these two rolls developed in some kind of machine?

 

[Paul Howell]

The cameras did not start on the same frame, I must have wound the Minolta an extra frame, first frame is 2, the Chinon has auto adavnce, it started at frame 1. As the negative are now dry it looks like I have issues with 8 frames on the Chinon and 10 with the Minolta, I can see that the frames on each have a bit of image on the edge. The Minolta has a focal plane shutter which could account for the fade if the curtains were sticking, but the Chinon has a leaf shutter.

I used Paterson tank and reels. I a have a roll of Tmax 400 and 2 rolls of Finess 400 to develop, all three were shot with a different camera, a Pentax SF1N, Sigma SA7, and Minolta 9.

 

[MattKing]

Were they developed at the same time in the same tank?

 

[Paul Howell]

Yep, Clayton F76+ 1:19 11 minutes at 68F.

 

[gone]

This is only a guess, but w/o further facts, it sounds like you got a bad batch of film. I know, practically unheard of w/ Tri-X, but what else could it be from 2 different cameras?

 

[MattKing]

May we see the negatives themselves, including the rebates, with a bit of the good frames at the end, for comparison?

 

[Paul Howell]

It will take a couple of days, I don't have a working negative scanner, but I will print a contact sheet that I can scan and post as positives .

 

[bdial]

Do the two rolls have the same emulsion number?

 

[MattKing]

I just hold the negatives up in front of a window or blank computer screen and take a cel phone or digital camera shot. That may or may not be an option for you.
A negative image is probably better. But if you can only provide a contact sheet...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do the two rolls have the same emulsion number?

I would not expect Tmax 400 and Forma 400 to have the same emulsion number.

 

[MattKing]

I would not expect Tmax 400 and Forma 400 to have the same emulsion number.

The rolls in question are both Tri-X.

 

[reddesert]

Possibly the film jumped a turn while loading onto the reel and you had several frames' worth of overlap that didn't touch developer, except where some leaked in at the edges? This seems a bit unlikely as that also often results in incomplete fixation. But more possible than a manufacturing issue that only affects part of a roll of film and still allows frame numbers and a trace of the image to show up.

 

[koraks]

it sounds like you got a bad batch of film

Nah...that's right at the bottom of the list of possibilities. This is some kind of operator error, but the question is what exactly. Let's wait for the examples of the problem, those will give some clues I'm sure.

 

[Tel]

The probability that two cameras exhibited the same problem more or less in sync with each other is almost nil. And the likelihood that two separate rolls would be damaged in sync with each other at the Kodak factory is also slim. As the OP seems to be saying that both rolls were developed in one tank at the same time, that's where the problem most likely was. It'll be interesting to see the negs and especially the rebates

 

[Don_ih]

If it is due to lack of developer on those parts of the film, you would expect, between two rolls, that the impact would be on up to 4 partial frames - the same if there is a defect with the film itself. If the defect is exclusive to full frames, the problem is likely with exposure - either the camera or the photographer.

 

[GregY]

Agreed..... likely a developing problem...... I've never had QC issues from Kodak film.....

 

[pentaxuser]

Agreed..... likely a developing problem...... I've never had QC issues from Kodak film.....

What kind of developing problem can you get with first X frames OK then Y frames just a hint of an image and then Z frames at the end OK? Not a challenge to your statement but a genuine desire to find out what kind of a problem in development can cause this?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

What kind of developing problem can you get with first X frames OK then Y frames just a hint of an image and then Z frames at the end OK? Not a challenge to your statement but a genuine desire to find out what kind of a problem in development can cause this?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Film sticking to itself during the development stage, and then releasing thereafter, resulting in the undeveloped portion being fixed to blank.
It is hard to make this happen, but not impossible.

 

[Tel]

Uneven distribution (agitation problem) exhaustion, contamination in the developing process are all possible. Far more likely than a manufacturing fault. As users, we tend to think of a roll of film as a stand-alone product, which it isn't. A roll is just a tiny slice off a huge sheet of film; any defect would likely affect hundreds of rolls rather than one or two. If you take another look at the recent youtube video of Ilford's factory, they say that they can detect defects in the coating of less than a millimeter. I'm sure Kodak meets or exceeds those standards.

 

[pentaxuser]

Film sticking to itself during the development stage, and then releasing thereafter, resulting in the undeveloped portion being fixed to blank.
It is hard to make this happen, but not impossible.

Thanks Matt but presumably for it to happen twice makes the odds against this being the case even higher? We haven't seen the negs yet but the way Paul describes it I had assumed that the faintness affected all the thin negs equally so it indicates for this to be correct the sticking was the same for all the affected negs on both films?

It would look likely that Paul has a lot of experience in developing as well so on a ranked list of likely causes film sticking would be low on the list


pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

We haven't seen the negs yet

Indeed. I don't know about you guys, but I'd need to see those in order to say anything remotely more useful than I already did.

 

[GregY]

By the same thought process, Kodak has a lot of experience making film...... you'd think we would have heard about these kind of failures from others? Do we have a year of manufacture? Batch #?...... or any other details to tie the 2 rolls of film together?