what happened to my film?

[winger]

I shot a roll of Ilford XP2 super. Since I don't do my own C41, I took it my (usually reliable) place. They can't print 120, but can develop it. However, there are spots along a line of most of the roll. I'm attaching 2 scans - one as a positive (though the color is a bit off) and one as if it were a print. When blown up / zoomed, the spots are each made up of smaller dots and each spot has pretty much the same pattern of smaller dots. (not sure if that made sense)
Anyone have an idea what happened? Was it the film or the processor?

 

[glennfromwy]

My first guess would be something on the roller transport in the processing machine. However, Ilford did have a problem with the coating on this film at one time. It's been quite a long while ago and has been corrected. How old is the film?

 

[winger]

The film isn't too old - the exp date is July 06, but I've shot about 18 other rolls that I bought with this one and only the 2 I had processed today had problems. Clue #1 that it was the lab. Another rinse and dry had no effect, either. It doesn't look like something on the surface.

 

[ozphoto]

I worked for 13 years in a photo lab, and with the equal distance between the marks, I'd have to agree with Glenn's assessment.

We called these "scunge" marks and they most often appear when the film processing racks haven't been cleaned in quite a while. Often it's a build-up of algae or chemical deposits on the rollers and this sticks to the film surface.

You may be able to remove the spots by using film cleaner and gently rubbing over the affected area with very soft cloth soaked in it. We used soft cotton gloves at our lab and soaked a finger in the rather toxic (at that time) cleaner and rehydrated the deposits as much as we could, before rubbing the film gently.

Unfortunately, the dryer at the end of the process often bakes the "scunge" into the film surface, and removing it may be next to impossible.

HTH
Cheers from Down Under
Nanette

 

[winger]

I still think it was the processing, but I found out more when I stopped in at the lab this morning. I had 2 rolls done yesterday and both had spots at roughly the same locations. One roll had fewer spots (but the frames are busier, so it just might be tougher to see them). The lab said that both rolls went through the machine at the same time, side-by-side. They think it's something in the film. I'm thinking Nanette is probably right, but how can I prove it?

I just checked and the spots line up with sprocket holes of 35mm - every 7th hole.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

As someone else who also has done time inside the fume-box of a C-41 minilab, that is definitely "Lab schmutz" to use a technical term. It looks very much like something that got stuck on the roller-transport roller, and got globbed on to your film. One clue that it is lab-based and not a defect in the film- the regularity of the occurrence. If it were an emulsion defect, it would not be so consistent in the spacing and the shape of it. I remember back in the mid-90s shooting some of the early Ilford XP2 that had the emulsion flaws - it was random pinholes throughout the emulsion, which manifested as black dots in the image. The example you posted is a buildup of density on the film, which could not have occurred elsewhere. If the lab manager at your local lab is good, he'll take ownership and at least give you some free film and processing, or some other kind of compensation. That's what keeps customers coming back.

If they won't own the error, don't go back. It means two things - one, they don't care about customer service, and two, they don't care about doing proper maintenance on their machines, and the problem will only get worse.

 

[ozphoto]

If they won't own the error, don't go back. It means two things - one, they don't care about customer service, and two, they don't care about doing proper maintenance on their machines, and the problem will only get worse.

Spot on.
Lab maintenance was *the* most important (and messy!) job I had to do out of hours. Film processor one week, print processor the next.

You only get one shot at processing the film. Dust marks are easy to remove from prints, but 9 times out of 10, "scunge marks" will be there to stay. As the old adage goes: "Prevention is better than cure."

Hopefully after you've spoken with the lab manager, they'll ensure maintenance is done on a regular basis. If not, change labs.

 

[winger]

Well, I used to really like this lab 'cause they seemed to try pretty hard to do a good job. But they are still trying to say that this was either the film's fault or a light leak. There's no way a light leak would look like that and I used 2 different cameras to shoot the 2 rolls affected. The big part of the problem is that they hardly ever do 120. They do mostly 35mm and predominantly printing from digital cameras. Both rolls are also sorta greasy looking, which says something, too. They say they clean the machine, but I don't know if I believe them 'cause there have been spots before along the edges of rolls. At the end of the processing, there's a thing with litlle bumps on it that the film goes over (touching it with the non-emulsion side) and that has put small dirt smudges on my 120 before because the middle gets cleaned, but not the edges. Those washed off with no problem, though.
Thanks for all your help!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I was lucky in some ways working at the lab I did... they were willing to take one of the minilab machines down even in the middle of the workday and dump and flush the chems (not that they LIKED doing it), if we detected a problem. We were fortunate that we had a second location where we could send the film in the queue so we didn't fall too far behind. THAT's the kind of place you want to take your film.

 

[winger]

Now this should probably be transferred to the ethics section for this part, but...
I run an account with the lab that did this film and just got the bill. They're still charging me for these 2 rolls. I've told them several times that the processing is the only place this could have happened, but they maintain that "nothing touches the film until the end and it had to have to have been the film or the camera that's bad" - which I know is cr@p. So do I pay the $5 each roll that I can't print? Or do I cross those 2 off the bill and pay the rest? I'm already looking for a different lab, but I'm not too hopeful because 120 isn't normal around here.

 

[jstraw]

Whether they were to blame or not (and I believe you that they are), I'd not feel good about doing business with a firm that wouldn't eat the price of processing two rolls of film to keep a steady customer happy. If I were them, I wouldn't have billed you and having billed you, I wouldn't give it a second thought if you said to me "was the inclusion of those mis-processed rolls an error?" My response would be "oops, sorry about that mistake, just disregard that portion of your bill."

 

[fotch]

Pay the bill & use someone else. Unless You have absolute proof you don't really know, although you may be right. Why waste more time & heatburn, do it yourself or use a mail order lab.

 

[fhovie]

A very good friend of mine owned a minilab - They are use to being blamed for everything - I believe this time it is a dirty transport roller - They just don't want to face the fact that they are in for 4 hours or more of maintenance that is generally unpleasant. - They should have been doing it regularly anyway. It is a struggle these days to run a minilab. I wouldn't want to own one.