What caused these lines through my entire 35mm negative strip?

removed account4 · Jan 31, 2020

smiba said:
I directly noticed the issue when finished developing the film and let it dry. This was way before it ever hit the scanner.
Keep in mind there are no indents or scratches where the blue light is at, check the microscope pictures.

I've also scanned 20 rolls with this scanner and no problems like this has ever happened.

does it happen with more than one camera and one film, maybe there is dust or a micro-abrasive in your camera ( or if you are bulk loading your cinestill on the re-usable film canister or light dam felt of the bulk loader )? did it only happen with this roll / rolls of film? i'd take 2 strips of film out of your film stash of this particular film, one develop it unexposed and another just dimly expose to roomlight don't put it in your camera .. and develop them to see if it is actually in the film stock. or it happened when you developed+dried your film otherwise not sure what to say but if it only happens with this film don't use this film unless you want it to look like this? its kind of a nice effect to have in your back pocket !

grain elevator · Jan 31, 2020

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster.
Cinestill is MP film with the remjet layer removed, right? I think this might be remnants of remjet.
I think I've read it can be removed after soaking in washing soda solution.

Huss · Jan 31, 2020

This is why I've stopped using Cinestill. Loved it, then kept on getting rolls that came with light leaks. Done.
Poor QC.

AgX · Jan 31, 2020

Rests of the REM-jet layer would be visible in reflected light. And in transmissive lighting as black lines, thus added neutral density. Here we got coloured lesser density.

grain elevator · Jan 31, 2020

Yup, and they are dark lines in the non-inverted images the OP provided. It's a negative material. Yes, OP, can you see something on the back side of the film?

AgX · Jan 31, 2020

Yes, of course the other way round. (I really have a bad day today...) But still the remnants should provide a neutral image.

smiba · Jan 31, 2020

grain elevator said:
Yes, OP, can you see something on the back side of the film?

Just double checked but nothing, it really looks to be the emulsion.

Rem-jet should be on the outside layer right? Its not a internal layer correctly? Even checked with my nail and then rubbed my finger over a frame without success. (Frame had motion blur and was ruined even without light leak so nothing is lost)

AgX · Jan 31, 2020

REM-jet is a carbon pigmented gelatin layer on the backside of the film.

AgX · Jan 31, 2020

In the first image you see a crossing of lines. I do not see how such could be explained from ineffectively brushing off a backside coating.

smiba · Jan 31, 2020

Unless they managed to leave a very small rubbed down layer of REM-jet that I just can't see, its not on there.

Even in sharp light or underneath the microscope I don't see any layer left. Its inside the film, or so incredibly thin it might as well just be part of the base. However since rubbing it doesn't change anything I still think its just the emulsion that has been hit by light

grain elevator · Jan 31, 2020

Maybe incompletely removed remjet has somehow migrated to the emulsion side, most likely from another film that was laying on top of it while they removed it?
To me the pattern does look a lot like something that resulted from a wiping motion, but I cannot imagine how a light source/leak would have moved along the film like that. That coupled with the fact I've never seen such from a film that doesn't originally have remjet makes me want to hang on to the hypothesis a bit longer.

AgX · Jan 31, 2020

Well, adding a substance may explain that crossing of lines. As in brushing something on. (Though above I exluded a chemical being added, but then I was thinking of something low viscous.)

But what about the colour? That does not indicate carbon.

MattKing · Jan 31, 2020

If the remjet wasn't completely removed by Cinestill, and lines of it were left on the film, then in the places where it remained there would be less halation and you might end up with more density there (and a blue tint).

grain elevator · Jan 31, 2020

AgX said:
Well, adding a substance may explain that crossing of lines.
But what about the colour?

Wouldn't everything be shifted toward blue to neutralize the orange mask?

koraks · Feb 1, 2020

smiba said:
I did use a squeegee

99% sure that's your problem. Dont squeegee.

The squeegee draws scratches in the emulsion, the scanner picks up plus density due to light scatter on the scratches. The disturbance of part of the orange masks results in weird colors.

Give it a try without the squeegee and see if that helps.

AgX · Feb 1, 2020

First thing already that speaks against a squegee caused artefact is the line structure. Just look at the last image, at the barcode. How could pulling a squegee over the filmstrip cause that wavy pattern?

koraks · Feb 1, 2020

Non-perfectly linear motion of the squeegeeagainst the film.
In the few times I erred in the same way and used a squeegee I got pretty much the same result.

If course other causes should not be excluded, but given the nature of this problem and evident issues inherent to using a squeegee on film I'd start with eliminating that variable.

smiba · Feb 1, 2020

Currently preparing to develop the other roll of cinestill (same batch, bought at the same time), this has 26 shots on it. I rolled the film back before I reached the end, so that part of the film has never left its shell until it is put in my tank.

I'm quite sure the lines were there before the squeegee, but I'll try not to use it this time. Maybe I'll only use it on the part of the film with frames on it (So its still comparable), I often get drying spots otherwise.

koraks · Feb 1, 2020

Give it a try; of course it could be something else causing it, mybe even beyond your control (a little mishap at cinestill).

I see you're ysing c41 developer for it. This never worked well for me; the colors would be too far off. Even when scanning I found the result dissatisfactory, let alone printing optically.

Frankly I've more or less given up on this type of film, just too many compromises and not enough benefit to justify the hassle with the dedicated developer, remjet removal and poor compatibility with ra4 paper. But to each their own; I suppose it has its creative uses for some.

smiba · Feb 1, 2020

koraks said:
I see you're ysing c41 developer for it. This never worked well for me; the colors would be too far off. Even when scanning I found the result dissatisfactory, let alone printing optically.

My colours come out near perfect, are you sure you weren't shooting in daylight without a tungsten filter? If I shoot with this film in and kind of light above >4000K I use my 85B filter. Without the filter the image will be extremely blue. If it was really white light the image might be fully unrecoverable even with white balance modifications. I rather have my images slightly too warm then too cold, the warmth is usually better recoverable then too cold.

----

Anyways, Just finished developing the other film and surprise: It looks to be ok!

There is some similar like colouring on the sides though, but I feel that might just have been my reel or over agitation? Not sure, but thankfully nothing is on the film itself
Stil kinda nervous about using Cinestill 800T again, but its the only ISO 800 film I have at the moment so I might just have to use another roll. (I shoot it at 1250 ISO and push +1 in development while the dark winter days are here)

Probably gonna be mailing Cinestill if they have any idea what it might've been...

koraks · Feb 1, 2020

smiba said:
are you sure you weren't shooting in daylight without a tungsten filter?

Most of my experience is with Vision3 50D in daylight, so not a lighting issue. The problem was mostly uncontrollable crossover and a tendency towards excessive magenta dye formation.
Did some testing with cinestill 800t as well and I wasn't impressed. Same problem as with the vision3 50D, but of course balanced for tungsten (which I obviously used for those tests, and exposed at 500 which it really is instead of the 800 it is marketed as.)

If it works for you, that's great, but I cannot put myself to using up the last few meters I have. I was gifted some rolls of 800T 120 some time ago which I'll have to put to good use but haven't been desperate enough to do it yet. Maybe in a few months.

Pentode · Feb 1, 2020

smiba said:
Probably gonna be mailing Cinestill if they have any idea what it might've been...View attachment 239208 View attachment 239209

It couldn't hurt to send them a link to this thread, while you're at it.

What caused these lines through my entire 35mm negative strip?

removed account4

grain elevator

Huss

AgX

grain elevator

AgX

smiba

AgX

AgX

smiba

grain elevator

AgX

MattKing

Moderator

grain elevator

koraks

Moderator

AgX

koraks

Moderator

smiba

koraks

Moderator

smiba

koraks

Moderator

Pentode

What caused these lines through my entire 35mm negative strip?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency