So what happened to this roll?

[winger]

Actually, it was about 4 rolls that this happened to, in varying amounts. The other 5 rolls that went through the same camera on the same trip were perfectly fine. I didn't develop them - they were done by a local Ritz last fall.

It only occurs near the start of the roll and tapers off along it. On 2 rolls, it tapers off quickly and only ruined one frame. On this roll, it takes awhile and is still visible at the sprocket holes a few frames along. It sorta looks like the film could have been rolled up and exposed while rolled, but I'm not positive about this.
All of the film was exposed to one X-ray zap as this was on my Costa Rica trip. Again, only 4 of the rolls were affected - all were together in the same bag (though probably aligned differently).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I suspect that the rolls of film were zapped by the X-ray. If they were not in the camera that would explain why the damage was at the beginning of each roll. The fact that the other rolls were not damaged leans towards the conclusion that the problem has nothing to do with the camera.

Steve

 

[Nathan Potter]

Were the 4 rolls developed as a single batch? The other 5 rolls developed at a different time? I'm guessing that the bath chemistry didn't reach the top of the film roll consistently. I'd blame Ritz.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's quite unlikely to be x-ray damage, there's a Kodak web-page somewhere that shows typical X-ray fogging and its not like any of those examples. Modern airport machines are safe for multiple scans of film up to 800EI in hand baggage and it's extremely rare anyone has a problem.

The problem is far more likely to have occurred at the Ritz.

Ian

 

[nickandre]

It's not X-ray. X-ray causes banding. It's not stopped by the anti-halation layer and penetrates giving even banding throughout the entire roll of film, not just the beginning. That is the blatant look of fogged film from camera back being opened up before film was rewound. I've seen it many times (only once by me )

If you're sure you didn't do it I'm not sure where it came from. Actually it may have been exposed on the reel itself once it was removed from the canister. Bottom line, if it's not you it's them.

 

[Monophoto]

Definitely NOT X-ray damage.

Looks to me like a processing problem - a dip/dunk line that didn't dip far enough with the result that the first few exposures at the end of the strip were incompletely processed.

 

[Ira Rush]

Definitely NOT X-ray damage.

Looks to me like a processing problem - a dip/dunk line that didn't dip far enough with the result that the first few exposures at the end of the strip were incompletely processed.

I would agree... had a similiar problem when I took a roll of 220 film to be processed (not at Ritz). Even though I had told them it's 220 and the film is twice as long, the operator did not adjust the machinary for the extra length.

My problem was at the end of the roll, about 14 frames were fine, the rest were not

 

[winger]

I really didn't think it was the X-rays. I added that because it did happen to the film (and because some labs are quick to say that's what something is). Actually, Ritz already tried to say there's something wrong with my camera. Every other roll on this trip and ones I've done since have been fine. The camera is a Pentax PZ1p, so I don't think it even has any type of internal thing that could expose film (and I've shot HIE with no problem).
The 5 rolls that were fine were processed the same day as the 4 screwed up ones.
I don't know enough about the film path in automated processors, but how could film not go all the way into the chemistry? I'd figure them to be pretty much idiot-proof.
Since I handled these the same as all other rolls of film (I've shot quite a few in my life ), I doubt I did it. Anything's possible.

Thanks for the help, crew!

 

[nickandre]

No it was pre loading, as in attendant opened canister in light. The light shone through and would have fogged the edges of the film and shone through sprocket holes in addition to the tail. If you opened the back of the camera it would have the appearance of fogging a length of film and tapering off in the other direction to increasingly less fogged banding more obvious beneath sprocket holes.

 

[Ian Grant]

You've nailed it, take your films to a Hotel like the Ritz and they stick it in Mulligatawny soup

More seriously it does sound suspiciously like processor problems at Ritz, particularly as the camera has worked fine since, and they'll pass the buck rather than admit it was their fault.

Ian

 

[winger]

No it was pre loading, as in attendant opened canister in light. The light shone through and would have fogged the edges of the film and shone through sprocket holes in addition to the tail. If you opened the back of the camera it would have the appearance of fogging a length of film and tapering off in the other direction to increasingly less fogged banding more obvious beneath sprocket holes.

That's what I thought, which of course, they soundly denied. Oh well, that one's probably closing anyway. There is reportedly one good Ritz near here - it's just not that close to me (about an hour). There are certainly drawbacks to living in the country.

 

[aparat]

This definitely looks like a processing problem. It happened to me once before - exactly the same kind of thing. The lab was using a Frontier processor.

 

[Anscojohn]

Actually, it was about 4 rolls that this happened to, in varying amounts. The other 5 rolls that went through the same camera on the same trip were perfectly fine. I didn't develop them - they were done by a local Ritz last fall.

It only occurs near the start of the roll and tapers off along it. On 2 rolls, it tapers off quickly and only ruined one frame. On this roll, it takes awhile and is still visible at the sprocket holes a few frames along. It sorta looks like the film could have been rolled up and exposed while rolled, but I'm not positive about this.
All of the film was exposed to one X-ray zap as this was on my Costa Rica trip. Again, only 4 of the rolls were affected - all were together in the same bag (though probably aligned differently).

*******
You may have more than one problem with these rolls. The first looks to me like the stress marks stemming from rewinding the film backwards. After a few turns, the stress disappears along with the vertical stress marks.
Others may be light leaks into the cartridge--perhaps at the point of processing. Another, the chemical fog, looks like rolls I saw which suffered fog from some kind of aromatic solvent. Was it perhaps in a camera bag where something had spilled releasing fumes? Believe it or not, I have seen it. Or just too high a temp?

 

[Ektagraphic]

Yeah, I think that Ritz let some light hit your film or something. It doesn't sound like something on your end. You may want to use a good mail order lab such as Swan Photo (http://www.swanphotolabs.com/swan08/mailers.php) or Dale Labs (www.dalelabs.com). Dale is a little more expensive, but I highly reccomend them. These places see a fair amount of E-6 and reprints of mine. They are great!.....probably better than Ritz....

 

[bob100684]

Were the 4 rolls developed as a single batch? The other 5 rolls developed at a different time? I'm guessing that the bath chemistry didn't reach the top of the film roll consistently. I'd blame Ritz.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

not how roller transport machines work.

 

[bob100684]

No it was pre loading, as in attendant opened canister in light. The light shone through and would have fogged the edges of the film and shone through sprocket holes in addition to the tail. If you opened the back of the camera it would have the appearance of fogging a length of film and tapering off in the other direction to increasingly less fogged banding more obvious beneath sprocket holes.

and no. I can tell you 100%.....The only cans i opened in the light were for make shift scratch test leaders and the whole film is promptly fogged.

 

[AgX]

Those "shadow marks" of perforation holes indicate light fogging. The red colour of the fogging makes me think that the light entered via the back side of the film

 

[Mark Antony]

I'll guess it wasn't the lab, or if it was it was done prior to development when splicing the films onto the plastic leader. If you notice the fogging seems to come from the top as if the cassette was leaking light through the part near where the felt light trap meets the film can.
Do you leave the leader poking out after re-wind? If so bending the the leader can do this and some folks do that to differentiate between a exposed/un-exposed film. The bend can allow some light into the felt trap especially if put back into canisters with the fold emulsion outwards.
Whatever the cause it was done before processing.

 

[DWThomas]

I thought it looked as though light trap leakage was a possibility also, which brings up a pet peeve. In the days of films at 10, 32 and 80, the 35mm stuff came in metal cans -- pretty light tight. As film speeds have gotten faster and faster, the opacity of the containers has gone lower and lower. It seems most stuff comes in a translucent container anymore. That makes me think an exposed roll, stuck in a translucent container, and left maybe on a table where sun is coming in a window, could be hit and produce something like this. Makes one wonder about "progress."

DaveT

 

[winger]

I don't leave the leader sticking out after rewind - I'd be too likely to double expose a whole roll.

I keep most of my film in the freezer and it usually goes straight into the camera bag to wait for use. These rolls were taken out of their plastic cans prior to the trip and put into a ziplock bag to save space, but they didn't sit in the sun during any of that time. During much of their life with me, they were in a camera bag. The worst of the rolls was put into the camera while in the hotel room, so there wasn't very much light then either.

I agree that the light exposure likely happened while most of the film was on the spool and, of course, before processing. The question is whether someone not very good at grabbing the leader could have spread the opening and exposed the film while starting it through the processor and whether that would cause this.

 

[Mark Antony]

If it was the lab then film retrievers are the most likely culprit, which is precisely why I leave out the leader and fold over just a small amount of the tongue. The less handling the film had before processing the better.

I ran/owned a lab for 16 years and have seen many horrors but generally film can be fogged in these places: in camera during loading in bright light, after exposure or during film retrieval and splicing.