Paper flaw?

[Chuck_P]

I made this photograph on November 17, 2007; never printed at the time. The top image is the one that, I think, has a flaw on the paper. It's on the left side, slightly above print-middle, between the print edge and tree canopy, it looks like a round little cloud, it's not on the negative. The negative has some issues as far as cleanliness....as an aside, some of those small black specks are actually Turkey Vultures way off in the distance. The print is the 1st unmanipulated work print following a decision on the best test strip. I removed the paper from its black bag, closed the bag and put lid back on the box, made the exposure, transferred the print to the developer tray. The second print is an attempt at some sky burning and at the lower left corner (poorly done), I did the same process with it but you can see the anomoly is not on it. I've racked my brain to think what I could've done to cause it, holding the paper at an angle so the glossy surface is easily seen, shows nothing on the surface of the print at that location. It's in the emulsion imo. Yes, hands were clean and dry as well.

Opinions?

4x5 TMax 100 developed in HC-110 (B), Lee #21 orange filter, selenium 1:10, 5 min.

 

[xkaes]

My only guess would be that a thumb (etc.) might have been pressed there before development. Whatever it is/was, since it seems to have disappeared, find something else to worry about -- unless it happens again.

 

[Chuck_P]

My only guess would be that a thumb (etc.) might have been pressed there before development. Whatever it is/was, since it seems to have disappeared, find something else to worry about -- unless it happens again.

yeah, well, not possible, the sheets are pulled out at what would be the unexposed easel border. So, how about your next best guess..........

 

[MattKing]

A thumb print can be applied at any time before development or exposure, and will tend to have an effect whenever one develops the paper.
A manufacturing flaw is not impossible, but most manifest themselves in different ways.

 

[albada]

When you pull paper from the bag, do you pull it with the stack oriented emulsion-up or emulsion-down?
If emulsion-up, then this might be a fingerprint left over from the prior session. As @MattKing said, "a thumbprint can be applied at any time..."

Mark

 

[Chuck_P]

When you pull paper from the bag, do you pull it with the stack oriented emulsion-up or emulsion-down?
If emulsion-up, then this might be a fingerprint left over from the prior session. As @MattKing said, "a thumbprint can be applied at any time..."

Mark

Not possible. When first opened, the first thing I do is identify that the stack of paper is either emulsion side is up or down, relative to the front or back of the paper box. When identified, I tease up the sheets from the end of the stack that allows me to put my fingers on the paper's backside. I have no problem identifying which side of the paper is the emulsion side. Once teased up, then I pull the that sheet out by gripping what will be the unexposed easel border. At no time does a finger print land on the emulsion side that is not on the border of the print.

 

[Chuck_P]

A thumb print can be applied at any time before development or exposure, and will tend to have an effect whenever one develops the paper.
A manufacturing flaw is not impossible, but most manifest themselves in different ways.

I find it a complete mystery, but I don't discount my own possible cause of it..........I simply don't know wtf it is that I may have done.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I made this photograph on November 17, 2007; never printed at the time. The top image is the one that, I think, has a flaw on the paper. It's on the left side, slightly above print-middle, between the print edge and tree canopy, it looks like a round little cloud, it's not on the negative. The negative has some issues as far as cleanliness....as an aside, some of those small black specks are actually Turkey Vultures way off in the distance. The print is the 1st unmanipulated work print following a decision on the best test strip. I removed the paper from its black bag, closed the bag and put lid back on the box, made the exposure, transferred the print to the developer tray. The second print is an attempt at some sky burning and at the lower left corner (poorly done), I did the same process with it but you can see the anomoly is not on it. I've racked my brain to think what I could've done to cause it, holding the paper at an angle so the glossy surface is easily seen, shows nothing on the surface of the print at that location. It's in the emulsion imo. Yes, hands were clean and dry as well.

Opinions?

4x5 TMax 100 developed in HC-110 (B), Lee #21 orange filter, selenium 1:10, 5 min.


View attachment 328035

View attachment 328036

You have serious dust issues on the negative!

 

[Chuck_P]

You have serious dust issues on the negative!

Yes, I know. I alluded to that in my original post. This negative represents one of the very first 4x5 photographs that I ever exposed.

 

[faberryman]

You have the same issue in the second photo, though smaller, lighter, and closer to the edge.

 

[Chuck_P]

You have the same issue in the second photo, though smaller, lighter, and closer to the edge.

Exactly!!! I saw it too, but wanted to wait and see if someone else brought attention to it. Thank you. It's a very small horizontal anomoly on the right side of the 2nd print, but is not on the negative, and not on the other two prints I have besides the two shown here. The print I just posted to the gallery, which is not either of the two seen here, does not have it either. The negative has it's dust problems, but these issues are not dust, imo.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Lots of detail about the negative and its processing, but I can't find anything that identifies the paper. What is it?

 

[Chuck_P]

Lots of detail about the negative and its processing, but I can't find anything that identifies the paper. What is it?

Sorry...........Iford MG RC Deluxe Glossy

 

[faberryman]

Exactly!!! I saw it too, but wanted to wait and see if someone else brought attention to it. Thank you. It's a very small horizontal anomoly on the right side of the 2nd print, but is not on the negative, and not on the other two prints I have besides the two shown here. The print I just posted to the gallery, which is not either of the two seen here, does not have it either. The negative has it's dust problems, but these issues are not dust, imo.

The one I see is just to the left of where the one in the first photo is, next to the border.

 

[albada]

All I can think of now is you're using a glass carrier with a dark smudge on it, and the glass was in a slightly different position relative to the neg in the 2nd print, shifting the smudge.

 

[snusmumriken]

This may be wild, but looking at the shape of that blemish on the first photo, I’d have guessed that it was a chemical splash.

 

[Chuck_P]

The one I see is just to the left of where the one in the first photo is, next to the border.

Yeah I missed that one....

 

[Chuck_P]

All I can think of now is you're using a glass carrier with a dark smudge on it, and the glass was in a slightly different position relative to the neg in the 2nd print, shifting the smudge.

I don't have a glass carrier.

 

[Chuck_P]

This may be wild, but looking at the shape of that blemish on the first photo, I’d have guessed that it was a chemical splash.

That was my initial thought as I looks exactly like a chemical splash, but no chemicals on the dry side of my darkroom, maybe I drooled on it, lol......hell, idk.

 

[snusmumriken]

That was my initial thought as I looks exactly like a chemical splash, but no chemicals on the dry side of my darkroom, maybe I drooled on it, lol......hell idk.

Hands are the usual suspect (but sleeves might be too?). I am quite meticulous now (having made my share of mistakes), but in the grip of enthusiasm I have sometimes given my hands a cursory rinse under the tap and dried them inadequately. If they have been in contact with fixer (which I take pains to avoid), a residual diluted droplet will be enough to do that kind of damage.

But sadly you may never know the cause of this particular instance.🫤

 

[MattKing]

That was my initial thought as I looks exactly like a chemical splash, but no chemicals on the dry side of my darkroom, maybe I drooled on it, lol......hell idk.

Sometimes, when it is warm in the darkroom, I've been known to sweat........

 

[Chuck_P]

Sometimes, when it is warm in the darkroom, I've been known to sweat........

Interesting you mention that..........that is something that I may have to deal with in my darkroom when trying to print in the summer time. Because, as I stated in another thread, I discovered that my furnace blower causes vibration at my enlarger. Yesterday I turned it off for the duration of my printing session so I could print without waiting for it to cycle off, easier to do in the winter. But in summer time, I don't look forward to turning the AC off.