Weird Artifacts on Acros II 120 Developed in Rodinal 1+50

[paddycook]

Hi,

I'm wondering if you knowledgable folks could hazard a guess as to what went wrong here? Acros II developed in Rodinal 1+50 processed at 22.9 degrees with appropriate time compensation. JOBO rotary processor. Scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 9000 using Vuescan. No sharpening applied.

 

[pentaxuser]

Does the negative show these defects either to the naked eye or under a loupe? If so is this a 35mm or 120 film?

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm betting it was 120 roll format, and it was past it's expiration date, yes?

 

[paddycook]

Does the negative show these defects either to the naked eye or under a loupe? If so is this a 35mm or 120 film?

pentaxuser

Yes the negative shows the defects. It was 120, and yes retina_restoration it was past its expiration date by 2 years (it was freezer stored).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi,

I'm wondering if you knowledgable folks could hazard a guess as to what went wrong here? Acros II developed in Rodinal 1+50 processed at 22.9 degrees with appropriate time compensation. JOBO rotary processor. Scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 9000 using Vuescan. No sharpening applied.


View attachment 378597

Does Vuescan apply automatic sharpening?

 

[paddycook]

Does Vuescan apply automatic sharpening?

Not to my knowledge. Sharpening was off. The defects are on the negative.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the film itself being a tiny bit past date. In fact, Acros II has been around only briefly. I've shot original Acros 20 years past date, not even frozen beforehand, with complete success - (not that I recommend doing that). And I've processed older120 roll Acros thawed out after a number of years with zero issues. Perhaps there was some crud clinging to the walls of the processing drum, which broke free during processing and contaminated things. Clean your drum and reel well, try another developer, and see what happens. And use the lowest RPM your processor will allow. Does the developer get frothy, the way you do it?

The other possibility is that, being finished by Harman now, rather than Fuji, some of their own defective backing paper was involved. You'd have to inquire about that.

 

[paddycook]

I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the film itself being a tiny bit past date. In fact, Acros II has been around only briefly. I've shot original Acros 20 years past date, not even frozen beforehand, with complete success - (not that I recommend doing that). And I've processed older120 roll Acros thawed out after a number of years with zero issues. Perhaps there was some crud clinging to the walls of the processing drum, which broke free during processing and contaminated things. Clean your drum and reel well, try another developer, and see what happens. And use the lowest RPM your processor will allow. Does the developer get frothy, the way you do it?

The other possibility is that, being finished by Harman now, rather than Fuji, some of their own defective backing paper was involved. You'd have to inquire about that.

Yes that might be it re: the backing paper

 

[paddycook]

I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the film itself being a tiny bit past date. In fact, Acros II has been around only briefly. I've shot original Acros 20 years past date, not even frozen beforehand, with complete success - (not that I recommend doing that). And I've processed older120 roll Acros thawed out after a number of years with zero issues. Perhaps there was some crud clinging to the walls of the processing drum, which broke free during processing and contaminated things. Clean your drum and reel well, try another developer, and see what happens. And use the lowest RPM your processor will allow. Does the developer get frothy, the way you do it?

The other possibility is that, being finished by Harman now, rather than Fuji, some of their own defective backing paper was involved. You'd have to inquire about that.

With respect to the developer, I processed Kentmere 400 in Rodinal 1+50 straight after and it came out fine, so my guess is it’s something to do with the film rather than the processing method or tank.

 

[rcphoto]

No one will agree with this but this is caused by the formation of condensation. Likely at some point, this film was removed from a fridge or freezer and not allowed to come up to temp properly.

 

[paddycook]

No one will agree with this but this is caused by the formation of condensation. Likely at some point, this film was removed from a fridge or freezer and not allowed to come up to temp properly.

Thanks. That might be it. I gave it some 6 hours out of the fridge before development. Maybe not enough time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

6 hrs would have been plenty, provided the room itself wasn't cold, or the film packing seal itself broken earlier. Condensation probably would have produced bigger foggy spots.

 

[MattKing]

Backing paper problems - both from backing paper that is problematic and backing paper which is not known to be a particular source of problems - are relatively more common now.
Older film that has been frozen is likely to be more vulnerable to those problems.
With 120 film, cool and dry is probably wiser than frozen.

 

[paddycook]

Backing paper problems - both from backing paper that is problematic and backing paper which is not known to be a particular source of problems - are relatively more common now.
Older film that has been frozen is likely to be more vulnerable to those problems.
With 120 film, cool and dry is probably wiser than frozen.

Wow. Is that really the case? I keep all my expired 120 film frozen and all my in date film refrigerated. Should I move the frozen stuff out of the freezer?

 

[Don_ih]

I gave it some 6 hours out of the fridge before development.

How long did you let it thaw before putting it in the camera?

There is no reason to refrigerate exposed film. Refrigeration prevents loss of sensitivity - not a worry for exposed film.

 

[paddycook]

How long did you let it thaw before putting it in the camera?

There is no reason to refrigerate exposed film. Refrigeration prevents loss of sensitivity - not a worry for exposed film.

I don’t remember how long I had it thaw before using it but likely overnight.

One thing I forgot to mention about this roll is that it was a “fatty” I.e. my GA 645 did not wind it on properly tight so when I took the film out it was not wound tightly on the spool. This led to light leaks showing after I developed it and I’m wondering if this looseness also allowed moisture to enter when I put it back in the fridge awaiting development.

 

[Don_ih]

I assume you mean the fridge and not the freezer. The temperature and humidity level fluctuates greatly in your fridge as you open the door and also when it does it's auto-defrost. If air can get at the surface of the film, water will condense on it.

 

[pentaxuser]

I assume you mean the fridge and not the freezer. The temperature and humidity level fluctuates greatly in your fridge as you open the door and also when it does it's auto-defrost. If air can get at the surface of the film, water will condense on it.

So ít seems that a "fridge" may be a problem for the reason you mention and yet this seems to have a good level of consensus as being better than room temp storage. So is there anything that can be done to avoid water condensing, assuming that the temp of a fridge is better than a cool room temp and what temp range does cool cover and what range of humidity does "dry" cover

Weighing up the 3 storage methods of cool dry room; fridge and freezer what is increasing order of storage in terms of best overall storage method?

I ask because my film is in a plastic sandwich/ lunch box in the kitchen fridge but being the kitchen fridge the door is opened numerous times a day

What do you recommend I do?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[miha]

You can keep 120 film in the fridge or freezer when it is still sealed in its original packaging. After exposing the film, keep it at room temperature and develop it as soon as possible.

 

[Don_ih]

What do you recommend I do?

Sealed film won't be impacted by changes in humidity or temperature in a fridge. So, 120 in the plastic bags or 35mm in the plastic containers (which seem pretty air-tight) are going to be fine. Film not sealed but in a sealed container (your plastic box) should be safer than unsealed film not in any container.

Unless you plan on waiting decades to develop your film, or unless your room temperature is blazingly hot, there's no reason to put exposed film in a fridge or freezer.

A chest freezer is best, an upright freezer is second best, a fridge freezer is third, the fridge itself is fourth, a basement is fifth, your bedroom is sixth, your kitchen is seventh, ... your attic is second last, your car is last. Roughly.

 

[paddycook]

Just a quick update on this:

I ran another development. Same batch of Acros II, shot at the same time. Developed it again in Rodinal in my JOBO.

No issues with this one.

So I think it was likely:
1.Some issue with that individual film or

More likely:
2. Condensation from putting it back in the fridge with the roll not being tightly wound on the spool

Thank you for everyone who has provided ideas on the thread. Really appreciate the help!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, once the surrounding packaging foil is broken, you don't want to put a roll of film back in the fridge or freezer under any circumstances, or you will risk condensation. A serious freeze-dry bagging system might be an exception, but even those aren't intended for long-term storage. Even with new fully sealed rolls still in boxes, I still double poly bag them for sake of cold storage, then don't disturb those layers for several hours once removed from the cold.

Properly sealed, it makes little difference in principle whether a fridge or freezer is employed, or how often its opened or closed. I prefer a dedicated freezer apart from kitchen needs, although my wife has managed to sneak an extra frozen turkey in there at times.

 

[retina_restoration]

Think what you want, but there has been plenty of evidence to support the idea that 120 format films manufactured/finished by Harman/Ilford will show defects like the above if the film is past its "best before" date. The modern backing paper (and inks) will eventually interact with the modern film emulsion and substrate, and start to leave marks and mottling, visible once developed. Many of us - myself included - have seen this happen.

The solution is to avoid caching more film than you can reasonably expect to use before it expires. Refrigerated (in tightly sealed containers) is fine, freezing isn't necessary. 120 films stored in a warm environment (about 65F or thereabouts) will start to degrade before the expiration date - also something I have observed myself, with FP4+ and others finished by Harman (Pancro 400 and Neopan Acros).

Use it before you lose it.

 

[MattKing]

The modern backing paper (and inks) will eventually interact with the film emulsion and start to leave marks and mottling, visible once developed. Many of us - myself included - have seen this happen.

It is probably important to reword this as "The modern backing paper (and inks) will eventually interact with the modern film emulsion and substrate and start to leave marks and mottling, visible once developed. Many of us - myself included - have seen this happen."

It isn't just the backing paper that has changed, and it is the interaction between everything that creates the problem.

Wow. Is that really the case? I keep all my expired 120 film frozen and all my in date film refrigerated. Should I move the frozen stuff out of the freezer?

For 35mm, that makes some sense, but for 120 and its backing paper, cool and dry - not refrigerated or frozen - is probably better. The backing paper interaction is unpredictable.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've never encountered defective 120 backing myself, either from Ilford or Kodak. In the case of Kodak, the suspect batches were identified, and now there is a new kind of backing paper rather than the interim one. There's a difference between reasonable caution and paranoia. The film itself or its emulsion is clearly not degrading because the same emulsions in other sizes, where backing paper is not involved, store quite a long time with no such issues. The wisest course is to, yes, stockpile enough 120 film in the fridge or freezer, or even on a shelf under reasonable temp, to tide you over any unanticipated shortages, but not more than you reasonably expect to use over a couple years or so.