orange sprocket lines

[Isonmatt]

I recently got two rolls of cinestill 800t film developed at the darkroom lab and have been noticing weird orange lines where the sprocket holes would be. These splotches were on about 15 images.
I just bought a mjuii and these were my test rolls so it wasn't anything too important but I know that these lines can be caused by being to aggressive by over agitation.

If anyone could point me in the right direction it'd greatly be appreciated.

 

[Kino]

Your film might have been flashed prior to your exposing it, or even in the lab when making up a master roll to process it (if they work that way), but there is no real way to tell about this particular roll.

The problem with these cinema film reloads is, they might buy "short ends", leftover film in the motion picture camera magazine that are re-canned, saved and then sold to short ends brokers to recoup some of the cost.

They have to do this because the existing film load wouldn't be long enough for the next take and the DP doesn't want to run out of film in the middle of the best take of the day and film stock is expensive to waste!

Ethical short ends brokers will do a "clip test" on each short end to be sure it's still good, but even they cannot tell if the film has been rewound prior their purchase and a few rolls do somehow seem to get rewound before being re-canned, so that there is a section that is fogged that makes it through to the purchaser.

Look at the entire length of the developed negative. If these sprocket hole shadows run the entire length of the processed film, even in areas that should NOT have any exposure, then I would ask the lab how they develop their negatives. If they don't build-up rolls to run through a continuous processor, or use a dip and dunk, then it probably wasn't them; probably. I would then alert the seller to this issue and ask them to replace the roll of film.

 

[Isonmatt]

Thanks Kino!
I messaged the lab and they assured me that it wasn't how they developed but could possibly be a bad seal around the MJUii, which I'm really hoping its not.
I've done research on the specific light leaks these cameras are known to get and didn't see anything similar to this.
The Lab hasn't sent my negatives back yet but when I receive them I'll be sure to check them out for any sprocket hole shadows that run through out.

 

[Kino]

Good luck!

It can be very hard to determine and prove where the film was light struck if it's not your camera's fault.

I hope it can be cropped-out of your compositions.

 

[AgX]

I've done research on the specific light leaks these cameras are known to get and didn't see anything similar to this.

They have not got foam seals, that could deteriorate., but angled body and door edges. One could check for chips at the edges or a warped door.
But even with such leaks the artifacts would be hard to explain for several reasons.

To me the artifacts rather look like unsharp exposures perpendicular through the holes, due to a second, unfixed film layer on distance covering the harmed strip, thus not camera related.

 

[Kevin Harding]

Cinestill film doesn't have an anti-halation backing layer. Removing the remjet is what Cinestill does to the Cine films to "prepare" them for sale.

I think that without remjet you may get this from time to time. Maybe light reflecting inside the camera and causing this?

 

[AgX]

The rem-jet layer also serves as antihalation means.

 

[Isonmatt]

Its hard to pinpoint exactly where its coming from. The lab says its the camera and not their process. They apparently do hundreds of cinestill 800t rolls a week and have never seen anything like this before.
Also the last owner of this camera said everything was tested before sending it out and there were no leaks whats so ever.
And if everyones correct then it only leaves a possible defect in the film either when they bought the short ends from someone or when removing the remjet layer but I've used this film plenty of times and have only scene flaring in the beginning of the roll.
I just shot a roll of fuji and I'll be sending it out to see if this happens again.

Thanks for all the input!

 

[Kevin Harding]

The rem-jet layer also serves as antihalation means.

Yes, and it's removed when the Kodak 500T is converted to Cinestill 800T.