Red Dot Pattern on Ektar 100

[d2photographic]

Hi all, got a problem and would appreciate any insight!

Can anyone explain this pattern of red dots on my 120 Ektar 100? It shows up only in smooth areas of midtones, like flowing water or mist, and seems to be worst on long exposures. It's a fairly fresh roll (expires 11/19), and in fact an older roll is completely fine, and both were processed at North Coast Photo in CA. What would cause this and how can it be prevented? It's very dispiriting.

 

[Lachlan Young]

There's a long list of possibilities - and it's very difficult to tell what it is from a scan like that. A picture of the actual negative might help, but without that, there are a couple of things it might be - it could be digital noise from the minilab scanner, & subsequent interactions with the grain reduction & sharpening software features, it might be microscopic dust embedded in the negative that the Digital ICE system failed to catch, it could be a result of excessive humidity causing the backing paper to stick to the film - or quite a few others.

It would be useful to get an idea of what sort of storage conditions the film was kept in & what it was scanned on.

Also, if you can look at the negative under a high power loupe, that is probably the most useful way of starting the process of finding out what the culprit might be.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have to agree with Lachlan. Without any other information, I would have said dust. I do see what looks like a small fibre in the magnified image.

PE

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have to agree with Lachlan. Without any other information, I would have said dust. I do see what looks like a small fibre in the magnified image.

PE

That's increasingly what it looks like to me - almost as if the ICE system was turned down or off. I've seen similar dried in dust patterns on Hasselblad/ Imacon scans (no ICE) and they're a time consuming pain to clean up.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yep. BTDT.

It is a real pain on easel. It just cannot be done once it is there.

PE

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Absent more info it looks like a moisture distribution. Each "droplet" area has a brighter center appears darker, even a different colored, as it radiates towards the edges. Looks more organically strewn. Reticulation, contamination of chem, or scanning, might have a more regular distributions. I bet my dollar on that.

 

[d2photographic]

There's a long list of possibilities - and it's very difficult to tell what it is from a scan like that. A picture of the actual negative might help, but without that, there are a couple of things it might be - it could be digital noise from the minilab scanner, & subsequent interactions with the grain reduction & sharpening software features, it might be microscopic dust embedded in the negative that the Digital ICE system failed to catch, it could be a result of excessive humidity causing the backing paper to stick to the film - or quite a few others.

It would be useful to get an idea of what sort of storage conditions the film was kept in & what it was scanned on.

Also, if you can look at the negative under a high power loupe, that is probably the most useful way of starting the process of finding out what the culprit might be.

According my EXIF, North Coast uses a Noritsu QSS-32.
The film was kept in the fridge from when it came in the mail until it was in my camera bag for just a couple days. No extreme conditions as far as I remember. My loupe is only 10X, but with that I was able to confirm that the pattern is in fact part of the image, not scanner dust.

I do see what looks like a small fibre in the magnified image.

PE

I think what you're referring to is just sparkles in the water over the long exposure.

 

[d2photographic]

Absent more info it looks like a moisture distribution. Each "droplet" area has a brighter center appears darker, even a different colored, as it radiates towards the edges. Looks more organically strewn. Reticulation, contamination of chem, or scanning, might have a more regular distributions. I bet my dollar on that.

OK, so at what point in the process would this happen do you think? Loading, while in the camera, unloading? Is it preventable?

 

[Lachlan Young]

OK, so at what point in the process would this happen do you think? Loading, while in the camera, unloading? Is it preventable?

Usually it happens if the film is not given enough time to warm up from refrigerated conditions before use, or if it is poorly stored in the fridge - especially a domestic one.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

OK, so at what point in the process would this happen do you think? Loading, while in the camera, unloading? Is it preventable?

Lachlan seems to describe a process that aligns with what I mean.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think we have to wait for more information.

PE