Reticulation of EIR in both C41 and E6

[BurntOutElectronics]

An irregularity for modern colour processes for sure, but of note is the terrible storage conditions of this roll.
This is the first time i've seen E6 reticulate.
I have processed dozens of E6 this way with the same kits and never had an issue, all chems and water washes are regulated at 38 degrees so there is no sharp temp shock beyond the pouring of the prewash.

Now because of the poor state of the film, a 4 stop over exposure and pull was needed to achieve a good Dmax in E6. So EI 12 was what was settled on.
The top row was C41, the base should be a clear blue tint.

Evident in this scanned colour corrected crop is the reticulation.
Any thoughts on cause would be valued.
Also, Ilford E6 colour kit was used for E6, Ilford C41 used for C41.
Both reticulated.

 

[loccdor]

Not sure I understand where you think the reticulation occurred if all temps were at 38C. The first pour?

In this case it doesn't really look much worse than increased presence of grain so I think I'd be happy with the results from such an old film in 35mm.

If you want high-detail color IR results it may be better to go the route of infrared trichromes at this point in time with limited film choice.

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

Not sure I understand where you think the reticulation occurred if all temps were at 38C. The first pour?

In this case it doesn't really look much worse than increased presence of grain so I think I'd be happy with the results from such an old film in 35mm.

If you want high-detail color IR results it may be better to go the route of infrared trichromes at this point in time with limited film choice.

The issue is that I don't know why the reticulation is occuring. I suggest the first pour as that is the only time a temp shock could be interpreted.
Yes it is fairly minor but is unideal especially for enlarging.
Trichromes don't allow for me to enlarge without pin registration and I don't have anything like that.

 

[Ian C]

The film pattern is obvious. Per your description. it isn’t caused by the shock of sudden and significant temperature change as the term “film reticulation” generally implies. So, what happened?

I used the search string “film reticulation not caused by temperature shock” in Google and got the following results:

film reticulation not caused by temperature shock - Google Search

I suspect that the pattern you obtained in your film, although it somewhat resembles reticulation, is something different. I looked at several examples of temperature-shock reticulation on the Internet. The pattern seen on your film looks different than the examples.

Here is a video that references a post by Ron Mowrey (PHOTOENGINEER).

Negative Flaw: Reticulation - YouTube

Here are some photos of temperature-shock reticulation:

Negative Flaw: Reticulation - YouTube

photos of film reticulation - Google Search

The Cinestill video shows a shot of a temperature-shock reticulation in film. It looks much different than that photo in post #1.

I wonder about your stop bath. Could it be too acidic? Might that cause the pattern? I’d suggest using a simple stop bath of vinegar + water at about 1 + 5 to 1 + 6. That should be sufficient to neutralize the developer but moderate enough to not induce the pattern seen in your film. But the pattern might be induced due to bad store age conditions. If so, it generates a pattern in the emulsion but is not reticulation in the generally accepted meaning.

Of note is your comment from Post #1,

“. . . of note is the terrible storage conditions of this roll.”

I think this might cause of the problem. We often see patterns resembling the pattern shown in the enlarged photo of Post #1. This is most often seen on paper-backed roll films, but I suppose it could happen with 35 mm films as well, particularly if the film was subjected to considerable humidity for a prolonged period.

 

[brbo]

Most probably not a problem with development. I just looks like a very grainy colour film (which is to be expected from EIR stored poorly for decades) with the usual digital camera scan "worming" on top of it.

I only shot one roll of EIR that I got basically for free (decided it's not worth shooting the rest so I gave it away) and observed similarly pronounced grain:

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

The film pattern is obvious. Per your description. it isn’t caused by the shock of sudden and significant temperature change as the term “film reticulation” generally implies. So, what happened?

I used the search string “film reticulation not caused by temperature shock” in Google and got the following results:

film reticulation not caused by temperature shock - Google Search

I suspect that the pattern you obtained in your film, although it somewhat resembles reticulation, is something different. I looked at several examples of temperature-shock reticulation on the Internet. The pattern seen on your film looks different than the examples.

Here is a video that references a post by Ron Mowrey (PHOTOENGINEER).

Negative Flaw: Reticulation - YouTube

Here are some photos of temperature-shock reticulation:

Negative Flaw: Reticulation - YouTube

photos of film reticulation - Google Search

The Cinestill video shows a shot of a temperature-shock reticulation in film. It looks much different than that photo in post #1.

I wonder about your stop bath. Could it be too acidic? Might that cause the pattern? I’d suggest using a simple stop bath of vinegar + water at about 1 + 5 to 1 + 6. That should be sufficient to neutralize the developer but moderate enough to not induce the pattern seen in your film. But the pattern might be induced due to bad store age conditions. If so, it generates a pattern in the emulsion but is not reticulation in the generally accepted meaning.

Of note is your comment from Post #1,

“. . . of note is the terrible storage conditions of this roll.”

I think this might cause of the problem. We often see patterns resembling the pattern shown in the enlarged photo of Post #1. This is most often seen on paper-backed roll films, but I suppose it could happen with 35 mm films as well, particularly if the film was subjected to considerable humidity for a prolonged period.

No stop bath is used in either process.
here is a scan of the film from top row, C41 processing

Reticulation is far more visible in negative processing but is evident in both

 

[loccdor]

Trichromes don't allow for me to enlarge without pin registration and I don't have anything like that.

That's true, it would require a digital hybrid approach, apologies if that reply was unhelpful.

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

That's true, it would require a digital hybrid approach, apologies if that reply was unhelpful.

No apologies necessary, everyones use case is different.
I do think in this case it's age damage related but I want to rule out possibilites

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

Most probably not a problem with development. I just looks like a very grainy colour film (which is to be expected from EIR stored poorly for decades) with the usual digital camera scan "worming" on top of it.

I only shot one roll of EIR that I got basically for free (decided it's not worth shooting the rest so I gave it away) and observed similarly pronounced grain:

Absolutely higher grain there but no reticulation. You'd be surprised what you can achieve home processing in terms of pulling an image above base fog and colour correcting

 

[koraks]

here is a scan of the film from top row, C41 processing

That's definitely reticulation or an effect that's physically very similar.
My thought would be that the subbing layer that binds the emulsion to the film base has partially failed/weakened over time, causing in the emulsion basically dislodging slightly during wet processing.
How old is this film? As I understand, subbing procedures/concepts changed in the 1990s especially, both at Kodak and Fuji. Pre-1990s film might be (far) more susceptible to this kind of damage.
It's interesting, I've never seen this on any relatively modern film. Nice example.

Maybe @FredK could add some insight on the failed-subbing hypothesis.

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

That's definitely reticulation or an effect that's physically very similar.
My thought would be that the subbing layer that binds the emulsion to the film base has partially failed/weakened over time, causing in the emulsion basically dislodging slightly during wet processing.
How old is this film? As I understand, subbing procedures/concepts changed in the 1990s especially, both at Kodak and Fuji. Pre-1990s film might be (far) more susceptible to this kind of damage.
It's interesting, I've never seen this on any relatively modern film. Nice example.

Maybe @FredK could add some insight on the failed-subbing hypothesis.

I've been able to confirm that this roll is from 2003 so what you describe should've been improved upon by then.

Reticulation due to age itself is very uncommon, and looking at unprocessed emulsion it doesn't have the cracked shimmer the processed film takes on

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

here is a scan of the film from top row, C41 processing
View attachment 418204
Reticulation is far more visible in negative processing but is evident in both

Looks cool to me. I wish we had a formula for predictably achieving this effect.

 

[brbo]

Looks cool to me. I wish we had a formula for predictably achieving this effect.

Camera "scan" a grainy film with Fuji camera

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Camera "scan" a grainy film with Fuji camera

I meant, reticulation as a physical artifact and not a digital artifact.

 

[FredK]

The high magnification certainly looks like reticulation to me.

I'm not too familiar with EIR in manufacturing other than in my very early days in 35mm slitting and perforating in the mid-80's, but those issues are not pertinent to those of reticulation. I do know though, that the film had several changes to gels and hardeners in its years, and I do not believe it ever was moved into the reformulations required and coating in Building 38. Thus, the film you have, which was not dated via expiration dating on the package, could be quite old and require 26 C (E4 process) temperatures rather than the 38.5C. If newer, like other chromes from Kodak in the 2010-ish timeframe and the other manufacturer in later years, large master rolls could have been frozen from the last coating event and slowly brought out from freezing for finishing to slice and dice up. Some of those thawing actions, if not taken in a proper method, could have damaged the film's characteristics, much like has been discussed about the finished film in thread comments above could have.

If there is more film to process, I would suggest lowering the temps and processing like E-4 to see if that gets away from the issue.

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

The high magnification certainly looks like reticulation to me.

I'm not too familiar with EIR in manufacturing other than in my very early days in 35mm slitting and perforating in the mid-80's, but those issues are not pertinent to those of reticulation. I do know though, that the film had several changes to gels and hardeners in its years, and I do not believe it ever was moved into the reformulations required and coating in Building 38. Thus, the film you have, which was not dated via expiration dating on the package, could be quite old and require 26 C (E4 process) temperatures rather than the 38.5C. If newer, like other chromes from Kodak in the 2010-ish timeframe and the other manufacturer in later years, large master rolls could have been frozen from the last coating event and slowly brought out from freezing for finishing to slice and dice up. Some of those thawing actions, if not taken in a proper method, could have damaged the film's characteristics, much like has been discussed about the finished film in thread comments above could have.

If there is more film to process, I would suggest lowering the temps and processing like E-4 to see if that gets away from the issue.

Fred, in an above comment I mention the film is from 2003. Certainly if it was E4, reticulation would've been an amazing outcome as I'm certain the entire film emulsion would've melted off at 38 degrees.
EA-5 aerochrome was discontinued in '96 or so, so I'm certain it's an AR-5/E-6 film stock.
Also being consumer EIR, I believe only aerochrome was available for E4 type processes in the 90's, not EIR film.

Interesting what you say about coating never moving to building 38 never happened for this stock. It may simply be that the film doesn't have the resilience to age and heat like other E6 emulsions.