Strange problem with my developed film

[MattKing]

Or just use the one you have in the darkened room.
Note: I absolutely hate changing bags!

 

[logan2z]

Or just use the one you have in the darkened room.
Note: I absolutely hate changing bags!

I guess I could do that. That's what I did today and it worked out ok.

 

[koraks]

Well, if that really turns out to have been the problem, I stand corrected! I'm still skeptical given the fog pattern and location, isolated to just the start of the roll.
Having said that, the sleeves are indeed a problem with changing bags (as are sweaty hands etc.) and on occasion I've been bitten with that before. However, on my changing bag, there are at least two sets of elastic band sleeves on each arm - ensuring they're some distance apart helps to cut down on light leaks. And as said, I'm still skeptical given the fog pattern, since light leaks along the arms would typically be unfocused and I don't see how that would result in such a (relatively) sharply defined fogging pattern that's localized on just a few inches of the film to boot.

 

[madNbad]

Around the time I decided to start developing my own film, I bought a Photoflex Dark Tent from a member on another site. It’s one of the best photography related purchases I ever made. It folds flat plus it pops up and folds easily. I store a cassette opener and a safety scissors in it. It has plenty of room and your hands never get sweaty.

 

[logan2z]

Well, if that really turns out to have been the problem, I stand corrected! I'm still skeptical given the fog pattern and location, isolated to just the start of the roll.
Having said that, the sleeves are indeed a problem with changing bags (as are sweaty hands etc.) and on occasion I've been bitten with that before. However, on my changing bag, there are at least two sets of elastic band sleeves on each arm - ensuring they're some distance apart helps to cut down on light leaks. And as said, I'm still skeptical given the fog pattern, since light leaks along the arms would typically be unfocused and I don't see how that would result in such a (relatively) sharply defined fogging pattern that's localized on just a few inches of the film to boot.

The other possibility is that I did have some faulty cassettes that caused the fogging on the last few rolls but the roll I just developed was not faulty. It just seems a bit coincidental that I loaded the reel using the changing bag in the dark this last time and no fog occurred.

FWIW, I did hear back from Ilford and they said that it looks like the problem was likely caused by a defect in the felt light trap of the film cassettes, something that occurs very rarely but has been known to occur. They offered to replace the cassettes that resulted in fog, but I told them I wasn't sure that was necessary given my changing bag experiment, and I'd let them know if I notice fogging on any of the rolls that are still awaiting development. They responded again asking me to get back in touch if I notice any additional fogging and they'd proceed with replacing the cassettes. Once again, I'm very impressed with Ilford's response time (next business day) and customer service.

 

[Tel]

Around the time I decided to start developing my own film, I bought a Photoflex Dark Tent from a member on another site. It’s one of the best photography related purchases I ever made. It folds flat plus it pops up and folds easily. I store a cassette opener and a safety scissors in it. It has plenty of room and your hands never get sweaty.

+1: got one of those too--I can load anything up to 5x7 in it.

 

[Sharktooth]

Well, if that really turns out to have been the problem, I stand corrected! I'm still skeptical given the fog pattern and location, isolated to just the start of the roll.
Having said that, the sleeves are indeed a problem with changing bags (as are sweaty hands etc.) and on occasion I've been bitten with that before. However, on my changing bag, there are at least two sets of elastic band sleeves on each arm - ensuring they're some distance apart helps to cut down on light leaks. And as said, I'm still skeptical given the fog pattern, since light leaks along the arms would typically be unfocused and I don't see how that would result in such a (relatively) sharply defined fogging pattern that's localized on just a few inches of the film to boot.

You must have missed the post where the original poster checked for leaks with a flashlight. "Did that earlier today. I can see light shining through the bag all over the place! This bag is barely a year old, I'm surprised it would go bad so quickly. I'll look for another of better quality".

These bags could be made anywhere, with poor materials, and suspect workmanship. Even the best ones will eventually degrade and fail over time. This should be no surprise. What is surprising is that people get all worked up about foam camera seals failing, but never consider the possibility that a changing bag is also subject to deterioration of the light proofing material.

Anyone that's using a changing bag should do the simple test with a flashlight to ensure that the bag is light tight. If you get in the habit of doing that on a regular basis, a lot of this grief will be avoided.

 

[koraks]

You must have missed

Yes, absolutely; I missed that!
Let's see what the better bag might bring!

 

[Tim Stapp]

Glad that you may have found a solution to your frustrating issue. Also glad to hear about Ilford's response. Highly respectful of you for your sesponse to Ilford. Some may have taken advantage of their offer, whether it was their cause or not. Good for you!

Dumb question though, (I'm full of those, and only have dumb answers) but I have to ask: Why use a changing back in a dark room? I've always loaded film reels or tray developed large format negatives in my dark room. Of course, I'm assuming that you optically print and don't scan.

But! If the room is dark, why a darkbag?

 

[Sharktooth]

Dumb question though, (I'm full of those, and only have dumb answers) but I have to ask: Why use a changing back in a dark room? I've always loaded film reels or tray developed large format negatives in my dark room. Of course, I'm assuming that you optically print and don't scan.

But! If the room is dark, why a darkbag?

If you have a proper darkroom then there's no need for a darkbag. A darkbag is used when there is no convenient darkroom available.

If you want to play it safe with a darkbag, you can use it in a normal room with the lights off at night. This isn't a proper darkroom, since there may still be outside light coming in through windows, and/or lights from electronic devices. The low light level combined with the dark bag is just added insurance.

In order to test a darkbag for light tightness you need to be in a darkened room to see if any light is coming out of the darkbag when the flashlight is inside. That's only for testing purposes, however, since it's impractical to put your head in the darkbag to see if any external light is leaking in.

 

[logan2z]

Dumb question though, (I'm full of those, and only have dumb answers) but I have to ask: Why use a changing back in a dark room? I've always loaded film reels or tray developed large format negatives in my dark room. Of course, I'm assuming that you optically print and don't scan.

But! If the room is dark, why a darkbag?

Not a dumb question at all.

The dry space for my darkroom is shared with my home office. To darken it for printing, I need to install panels in the windows which block about 95% of the light, and then I hang thick black plastic over the panels to block any remaining light that leaks past the panels. It's not a huge deal, but it takes some time. So when I just want to spend 5 minutes to load some film onto a reel for developing, it's more convenient to just whip out the changing bag. I could leave the windows in my office permanently darkened but that would mean sitting in my office all day with no natural light coming in - pretty depressing.

 

[koraks]

If you want to play it safe with a darkbag, you can use it in a normal room with the lights off at night.

Certainly so. Good advice in cases of suspect darkbags. In fact, I wouldn't trust any darkbag in a very brighlty lit room (e.g. south facing windows at noon)!

 

[logan2z]

Another quick follow-up:

Ilford reached out to me early this morning after having a look at this image I sent them the other day:

They said this looks exactly like the pattern they see when there is an issue with the velvet light trap on the cassette, and they strongly suspect this has nothing to do with a changing bag problem, but is the result of a finishing problem at Ilford. Their finishing department is currently investigating based on the batch number(s) of my rolls. They also reiterated their offer to send replacements for all affected rolls.

I'm frankly blown away by Ilford's proactive customer service and their willingness to admit that the problem is on their end. I'm going to develop another couple of rolls this week using the changing bag in a mostly dark room and see what happens.

Will post an update again soon...

 

[Don_ih]

They said this looks exactly like the pattern they see when there is an issue with the velvet light trap on the cassette

It's possible it's both, since the start of the film is so strongly fogged.

However, farther in, it doesn't look like it. From your other picture:

the offset and diffuse "shadows" of sprocket holes suggest a leak in your changing bag. Those shadows would not be offset if it was what Ilford is suggesting.

So .... both?

 

[logan2z]

It's possible it's both, since the start of the film is so strongly fogged.

However, farther in, it doesn't look like it. From your other picture:

View attachment 347178

the offset and diffuse "shadows" of sprocket holes suggest a leak in your changing bag. Those shadows would not be offset if it was what Ilford is suggesting.

So .... both?

It could be both, but that would be one heck of a coincidence.

 

[Don_ih]

It could be both, but that would be one heck of a coincidence.

You could examine other negatives, from other film that did not have that leader fogging, to see if those "shadows" are there. You may not have noticed. But it really doesn't matter, since you've determined your changing bag does leak.

And I can't see the intensity present in the fogging of the leader (well, after the leader) not being present in the rest of the film if it was caused by the bag.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I just developed another roll that was loaded onto the reel in the changing bag in tbe dark (while I was wearing long sleeves ) and ...

No leak! The start of the roll is completely clear.

I would have never guessed it was something to do with the changing bag given the localized nature of the leak, but I was obviously wrong.

Thanks to @Sharktooth and @Arvee for pointing me in the right direction, and everyone else (@koraks etc ) who offered help. Much appreciated!

Another Photrio success story!

 

[Sharktooth]

I’ve been putting some thought into why the first part of the roll is being exposed in the dark bag, but the rest of the roll is left relatively unscathed.

Here is a theory I’ve come up with.

1) A short section of film is pulled from the canister in the dark bag in order to make it easier to get the start of the roll onto the reel. One hand is grasping the film leader, and the other hand is holding the film canister. At that time, the film is unshielded by your hands, and could be affected from the light leaking through the dark bag. It would be even more affected if the emulsion side of the film is facing up.

2) Once the film is started on the reel, the emulsion side is facing down and towards the center of the reel. This means that the anti-halation layer and dyes in the film provide some light barrier between the light leak and the sensitive emulsion.

3) When you’re winding the film on the reel, your hands are cupped over both sides of the reel, and your thumbs are providing some shielding over the top of the film. The winding also happens fairly quickly once it gets started. This reduces the potential for fogging on the rest of the roll.

 

[Tim Stapp]

Not a dumb question at all.

The dry space for my darkroom is shared with my home office. To darken it for printing, I need to install panels in the windows which block about 95% of the light, and then I hang thick black plastic over the panels to block any remaining light that leaks past the panels. It's not a huge deal, but it takes some time. So when I just want to spend 5 minutes to load some film onto a reel for developing, it's more convenient to just whip out the changing bag. I could leave the windows in my office permanently darkened but that would mean sitting in my office all day with no natural light coming in - pretty depressing.

I understand completely! My soon to be darkroom will be in the lower level bedroom of a tri-level home. It butts up to the laundry plumbing. One window and one door. Window screen (on the exterior) will be replaced with opaque masonite sealed to the weather. The door on the otherhand is going to be an issue. It's a western saloon type louvered door. I have darkroom curtains that I intend to put on both inside and outside.

The things that we do to support our hobby. I actually loaded a developing reel laying on my belly in the crawlspace because it was the only dark space at the time.

You have to respect Ilford for how they react and take care of their customers. Not many like them anymore. Adox maybe a close second.

 

[mshchem]

Another quick follow-up:

Ilford reached out to me early this morning after having a look at this image I sent them the other day:

They said this looks exactly like the pattern they see when there is an issue with the velvet light trap on the cassette, and they strongly suspect this has nothing to do with a changing bag problem, but is the result of a finishing problem at Ilford. Their finishing department is currently investigating based on the batch number(s) of my rolls. They also reiterated their offer to send replacements for all affected rolls.

I'm frankly blown away by Ilford's proactive customer service and their willingness to admit that the problem is on their end. I'm going to develop another couple of rolls this week using the changing bag in a mostly dark room and see what happens.

Will post an update again soon...

Could be that Ilford is aware of issues with the velvet. Trying to source stuff like cassettes must be very tricky. Probably just a couple companies left in any one region. Polite feedback from customers helps everyone, manufacturers and customers. Good job letting Ilford know and all of us too.

 

[MattKing]

Harman actually make their own 135 cassettes. That doesn't mean that they are immune from difficulties sourcing reliable components.

 

[Don_ih]

I actually loaded a developing reel laying on my belly in the crawlspace because it was the only dark space at the time.

That's dedication.

 

[logan2z]

Another quick update: I developed another roll of HP5 after having loaded it inside my changing bag in a (nearly) completely dark room. The beginning of this roll is fogged with a similar fogging pattern to the others, and the first image on the roll is affected.

I've been keeping the leaders from the affected rolls and I see that the numbers in the rebate for three of the five affected rolls have the same number: 5514-11. The other two rolls have different numbers. I'm wondering if Ilford is correct that this is likely due to an issue with the light traps on one or more batches of HP5.

 

[koraks]

The plot thickens, as they say. I'm of course hesitant by now to say anything about my suspicions, except that my earlier skepticism still stands...

 

[logan2z]

The plot thickens, as they say. I'm of course hesitant by now to say anything about my suspicions, except that my earlier skepticism still stands...

This thread on the Leica User's Forum just caught my attention too:

M6 Weird Flares / Rolling Effects?

Hey Guys, Fairly new M6 shooter here, I got the Camera about a month ago and have put about 8 rolls of film thru it thus far and super happy. This morning I got back scans from my lab on 2 rolls of HP5 shot at ISO 800, and from the total batch of 72 pictures, all of them were fine in the sense of...

www.l-camera-forum.com

Maybe completely unrelated, but it looks similar to what I've been seeing, and the poster is shooting HP5 as well.