T-Max 400 - Mottling in negatives

I have not seen a single photo of such artefact being published nor read any warning of such in pre-internet days other than in resp. artefacts collections from the industry.

Well, I am not the scale to meter on, but others wonder of the incidence of these cases too. So far no argument trying to explain this incidence I found convincing.

AgX said:

I have not seen a single photo of such artefact being published nor read any warning of such in pre-internet days other than in resp. artefacts collections from the industry.

Well, I am not the scale to meter on, but others wonder of the incidence of these cases too. So far no argument trying to explain this incidence I found convincing.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I've processed probably 20,000 rolls of film in my lifetime. I've never had any problems, Kodak had a (now) well understood issue with a supplier on backing paper. Limited in scope, ancient history. Last summer I processed 8 36 exposure roll of Fujichrome, to my amazement 2 frames had a bit of, tiny bit, of a fiber. First time I have seen what is a manufacturing defect. I had a problem years ago with a box of Kodak paper, which was replaced. On reflection I think I fogged the paper with a difficult paper safe.

I'm not discounting real problems, but there's a lot of noise about defective this or that, that I find suspect.
Best Regards Mike

The x-ray theory doesn't fit for two reasons. The defective ink would have to be x-ray fluorescent (artifacts have higher developed density). And the x-ray would have to hit the spooled film after it was shot (artifacts align in post-consumer position).

Reminds me I have a theory to test. I believe it's environmental moisture absorbed into the emulsion when the film is in camera and which softens the emulsion slightly. Then when film is wound to the take-up side, the moisture escapes through the hydrophilic background paper where emulsion re-hardens while moisture is trapped by the hydrophobic ink where the emulsion remains locally soft. Then when developed, the softer emulsion takes on developer more readily developing sooner/to a greater density than the re-hardened adjacent emulsion.

To test my theory, I reeled some film onto stainless reels and put them in a stainless tank. They've been waiting to be developed since 20-DEC-2018. I bet they have reached equilibrium by now.

Bill Burk said:

To test my theory, I reeled some film onto stainless reels and put them in a stainless tank. They've been waiting to be developed since 20-DEC-2018. I bet they have reached equilibrium by now.

Click to expand...

Bill:
That is the best excuse for a film developing backlog I've heard yet.
I look forward to learning the results of your experiment.

Bill Burk said:

The x-ray theory doesn't fit for two reasons. The defective ink would have to be x-ray fluorescent (artifacts have higher developed density). And the x-ray would have to hit the spooled film after it was shot (artifacts align in post-consumer position).

Reminds me I have a theory to test. I believe it's environmental moisture absorbed into the emulsion when the film is in camera and which softens the emulsion slightly. Then when film is wound to the take-up side, the moisture escapes through the hydrophilic background paper where emulsion re-hardens while moisture is trapped by the hydrophobic ink where the emulsion remains locally soft. Then when developed, the softer emulsion takes on developer more readily developing sooner/to a greater density than the re-hardened adjacent emulsion.

To test my theory, I reeled some film onto stainless reels and put them in a stainless tank. They've been waiting to be developed since 20-DEC-2018. I bet they have reached equilibrium by now.

Click to expand...

If you really want to try to force a failure you can use a high humidity room. We ran several types of accelerated life testing. Common practice for plastics, machinery etc. Is high temperatures and humidity.
Temperature really isn't possible with film, we had a room that was simply called, "Florida" 80 F 100% humidity, the dew point was at 85F or as high as it could go. Water would condense on any cool surface. We were testing Amana, Maytag, Whirlpool, etc refrigerators. You could spot thermal short circuits in insulation, see where gaskets didn't seal etc.
Try putting your film in a Tupperware container with a damp sponge overnight, the gelatin will absorb moisture as well as the paper.

I am careful but I don't think I'm that careful. I'm sure Kodak and all the manufacturers do this kind of testing. I developed 2 batches, 4 rolls of 120 TMY2 in XTOL 1:1 the last 2 nights everything looks perfect, I keep temperature at 70°F through the entire process. I follow the manufacturer instructions to the letter. I never have had a problem.