Problem caused in film developing?

[Pieter12]

Always a relief when it's not a camera problem but a fault elsewhere in the chain.

I would disagree there. If it is an equipment problem, the equipment can be repaired or replaced. If it is the lab, you are at their mercy.

 

[Craig75]

I wouldn't fancy getting a contax 645 repaired. Finding someone to work on it and then the inevitable huge bill is a lot more painful than a simple easily fixed problem at the lab

 

[Pieter12]

I wouldn't fancy getting a contax 645 repaired. Finding someone to work on it and then the inevitable huge bill is a lot more painful than a simple easily fixed problem at the lab

Not all labs are as cooperative as the one cited by the OP. Not knowing whether a roll will come out with issues makes the whole process unpredictable and nerve-racking. Yes, getting an exotic camera repaired can be expensive or close to impossible. Having an investment in an orphan camera system is always going to be a gamble, something is likely to go south on it at some point.

 

[calico]

Always a relief when it's not a camera problem but a fault elsewhere in the chain.

That's for sure! I was not in the mood to deal with repairs, especially as it is so hard to get Hasselblad equipment repaired these days. I still have to get my 110/2 lens sent to someone. I do have someone who will look at it, I just haven't had time to deal with it yet.

 

[Pieter12]

That's for sure! I was not in the mood to deal with repairs, especially as it is so hard to get Hasselblad equipment repaired these days. I still have to get my 110/2 lens sent to someone. I do have someone who will look at it, I just haven't had time to deal with it yet.

It seems to be a pain to get any equipment repaired theses days.

 

[foc]

UPDATE:

Turns out the fogging was caused at lab (as I had suspected originally). After the first three rolls had the fogging I showed in this post, I did flashlight light leak tests on b&w film with my Hasselblads. Sent to lab with a roll of Portra from my Contax 645 which also needed to be developed (regular photos, not tests). There was fogging on the Contax 645 film that exactly matched the fogging on the test b&w rolls -- a length at beginning of roll. When a b&w roll and the Portra roll on a light table together, you could see how the length of the fogging matched exactly. I hadn't had any problems with the Contax previously, and here the fogging had appeared in 645 roll just as in 6x6 rolls -- exact same length, not related to frames.

The lab owner figured out there was a light leak in area where they put film just before it is put in processing machines. Apparently, it had only happened to my film the first time because my film happened to be waiting the longest to be put in the machines. It did happen to someone else's film later.

Relieved not problem with camera. I had contacted Hasselblad USA the other day who said their technician who worked on 200 series cameras has retired, and if I needed a 201F repaired, it would have to be shipped to Sweden. Not a big deal but would probably add to the cost.

The owner of my lab was great through the whole process of figuring out what was going on. If you need a good film lab, I recommend Panopticon (in Boston area).

I have been watching this thread from the side.

Can I just check the details please?
3 rolls of B&W film were sent to the lab and they were fogged as shown in post #1.
1 roll of C41 was sent at a different time to the same lab and it was fogged the same, as described in post #24.

• Does the lab use the same area to load C41 and B&W films for processing? (I would think this a dangerous practice as it could lead to mistakes)
• The lab said your 3 B&W films had to wait to be processed. So did your C41 film also have to wait in the same area?
• Why did your film have to wait on both occasions?
• If films, in general, have to wait in this area, surely there would be more customer's films fogged.

Maybe I am missing something but a lab to have a non-light tight darkroom/ darkbox sounds very bad practice, sloppy workflow, and unprofessional. ( I hope I am wrong ).

 

[Pieter12]

I have been watching this thread from the side.

Can I just check the details please?
3 rolls of B&W film were sent to the lab and they were fogged as shown in post #1.
1 roll of C41 was sent at a different time to the same lab and it was fogged the same, as described in post #24.

• Does the lab use the same area to load C41 and B&W films for processing? (I would think this a dangerous practice as it could lead to mistakes)
• The lab said your 3 B&W films had to wait to be processed. So did your C41 film also have to wait in the same area?
• Why did your film have to wait on both occasions?
• If films, in general, have to wait in this area, surely there would be more customer's films fogged.

Maybe I am missing something but a lab to have a non-light tight darkroom/ darkbox sounds very bad practice, sloppy workflow, and unprofessional. ( I hope I am wrong ).

It also brings up the question: Does this lab have any quality control? You would think they would have noticed a pattern of fogged film at the lab, and started investigating on their own. Are you their only customer, or the only one that has complained? Although they have been cooperative, you lost images through no fault of your own, maybe some that cannot be replicated. I hope they weren't for paying customers. I really don't think you should use them any more, and certainly not recommend them to anyone else. I may be time to start processing your own film. It's not difficult and you don't even need a darkroom.

 

[calico]

I would disagree there. If it is an equipment problem, the equipment can be repaired or replaced. If it is the lab, you are at their mercy.

That is true. Fortunately the owner of this lab is a decent person, looked for problems on his end, and communicated with me all along the way. I've been in similar situations where there was a lab issue, and the lab just did a lot of finger-pointing (long story).

 

[calico]

I have been watching this thread from the side.

Can I just check the details please?
3 rolls of B&W film were sent to the lab and they were fogged as shown in post #1.
1 roll of C41 was sent at a different time to the same lab and it was fogged the same, as described in post #24.

• Does the lab use the same area to load C41 and B&W films for processing? (I would think this a dangerous practice as it could lead to mistakes)
• The lab said your 3 B&W films had to wait to be processed. So did your C41 film also have to wait in the same area?
• Why did your film have to wait on both occasions?
• If films, in general, have to wait in this area, surely there would be more customer's films fogged.

Maybe I am missing something but a lab to have a non-light tight darkroom/ darkbox sounds very bad practice, sloppy workflow, and unprofessional. ( I hope I am wrong ).

There was more film sent to them than you list above......

After the initial three b&w rolls, about which I posted here, I sent three more rolls of b&w. One was just light leak tests, one had a few images plus light leak tests, one just images. I also sent the Contax color roll (just images). I actually don't have the film back yet (due here Tuesday), but the lab owner sent photo of the beginning of one of the b&w rolls lying next to the beginning of the Contax color roll on a light table, and the fogging was exactly same length. So it was pretty clear it wasn't problem on my end. Totally different film backs and cameras causing fogging in exactly same way? And one is 6x6 and one is 645, so frames not even same size.

After I contacted him about the first three rolls being fogged, he said he didn't see the problem on anyone else's film, and he develops 50 rolls of b&w a day. So he had thought it was my problem. That's why I did the light leak tests.

After he developed the next three b&w rolls and the color roll, he said he did see the problem on someone else's film (didn't say how many rolls had a problem).

Your question about why only my film (original three rolls) was fogged is valid. It does seem at least some of the other 47 rolls developed that day would have fogging. As for your question of why my rolls had to wait on both occasions is interesting question, too.

As for b&w and color being loaded in same area, it does seem it could lead to mistakes. Maybe they have safeguards.

He said he uses dip and dunk for b&w and Jobo for color (in case that's helpful).

The lab owner did take responsibility for the problem and apologized, which I appreciate.

 

[calico]

It also brings up the question: Does this lab have any quality control? You would think they would have noticed a pattern of fogged film at the lab, and started investigating on their own. Are you their only customer, or the only one that has complained? Although they have been cooperative, you lost images through no fault of your own, maybe some that cannot be replicated. I hope they weren't for paying customers. I really don't think you should use them any more, and certainly not recommend them to anyone else. I may be time to start processing your own film. It's not difficult and you don't even need a darkroom.

Fortunately, the ruined images were not for paying customers.

I really should start developing my own b&w. Dealing with labs has been such a headache in recent years.

I'm really busy with other things right now, but doing my own developing should be a goal.

 

[foc]

He said he uses dip and dunk for b&w and Jobo for color (in case that's helpful).

The lab owner did take responsibility for the problem and apologized, which I appreciate.

That was good to hear that the lab owner took responsibility.

Regarding a dip and dunk for B&W and Jobo for colour, I would have thought it should be the other way around.

 

[calico]

Regarding a dip and dunk for B&W and Jobo for colour, I would have thought it should be the other way around.

Why is that? Just curious, I've only seen photos or videos of both methods, don't know that much about them. He mentioned he processes about 50 rolls of color in Jobo a day, didn't say how many rolls of b&w he processes a day.

 

[foc]

Why is that? Just curious, I've only seen photos or videos of both methods, don't know that much about them. He mentioned he processes about 50 rolls of color in Jobo a day, didn't say how many rolls of b&w he processes a day.

A dip & dunk processing machine is fairly large, with a large footprint. They are designed for a high volume throughput. So if the lab is processing 50 rolls of C41 a day then it would be more efficient to do so with a dip & dunk machine rather than a Jobo.
Commercial C41 used 3 chemical bath and on a dip & dunk the usual configuration is, dev, bleach, wash, fix, wash, final rinse, dryer. A dip & dunk also need a nitrogen burst to agitate the developer, air for bleach and fix.
A Jobo is low volume and versatile (compared to dip & dunk) so I would imagine B&W is better suited to it.
Maybe the guy at the lab could explain it better.

 

[calico]

A dip & dunk processing machine is fairly large, with a large footprint. They are designed for a high volume throughput. So if the lab is processing 50 rolls of C41 a day then it would be more efficient to do so with a dip & dunk machine rather than a Jobo.
Commercial C41 used 3 chemical bath and on a dip & dunk the usual configuration is, dev, bleach, wash, fix, wash, final rinse, dryer. A dip & dunk also need a nitrogen burst to agitate the developer, air for bleach and fix.
A Jobo is low volume and versatile (compared to dip & dunk) so I would imagine B&W is better suited to it.
Maybe the guy at the lab could explain it better.

That's actually what I was thinking when I asked this question. Based on video and photos I've seen of film being developed via dip and dunk vs photos I've seen of Jobo machines, it did seem dip and dunk would be better for higher throughput. And it does seem lab is processing more C41 than b&w.

Thanks for your input.

BTW, I see you are from Ireland. I visited the western and southwestern part of the country many years ago and loved it. My father's grandparents emigrated from Ireland. I met so many people who looked like my father and were storytellers like he was.