What is causing this artifact?

[Konalog]

Prints are from 120 ortho+ on ilford multigrade FB. There is a (perhaps) "granular" artifact most evident in the upper, lighter areas (see enhanced, cropped images). Repeating the print yields an identical artifact pattern. The negatives are from different rolls. Both rolls shot w/ same system: Hasselblad 500c, Zeiss 30mm fisheye, w/ yellow filter.

Im concerned this could be coming from the camera lens. (Although I suppose I should try rotating the enlarger lens to see if the pattern shifts. If not I can rule that out). But the camera lens is still returnable, so if that's the problem, it's going right back to Japan. Of note, the artifact wasn't present on an RA4 print from portra taken w/ the same lens.

1) Can you ID this artifact by name, and cause? Can this be corrected?

2) What might be the best way of interrogating this lens for any defects? What kinds of things should I look for?

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

 

[snusmumriken]

I can’t imagine it’s either camera or enlarger lens, because the spots are soft but almost in focus.

I believe there have been mottling issues caused by the backing paper on several brands of 120 film lately. Try a search here on Photrio.

 

[koraks]

I believe there have been mottling issues caused by the backing paper on several brands of 120 film lately.

That would be my first guess as well.
And indeed, many of those mottling issues are being reported, and have been for years. In fact, it's a systematic problem of 120 film - it's just that some production batches are more prone to it than others due to the ink used on the backing paper (recent Ilford situations were due to this, I believe) and/or storage conditions during distribution (the infamous Kodak TMAX situation of a few years ago).

Can this be corrected?

If it's backing paper mottling: no.
You might try rewashing the negatives, but frankly, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference. Minus density spots don't wash away as a rule.

2) What might be the best way of interrogating this lens for any defects?

I don't see the lens as a likely cause of this. I'd look in other places first.

The fact that you got fine RA4 prints on color film exposed with the same lens already tells a story.

Give it a try with other B&W film, preferably from a different manufacturer. On a parallel track you could (should) contact Ilford and make sure you have the production batch imprint on your film at hand so they can check for known issues with this film. Generally, Ilford are really forthcoming in troubleshooting.

 

[250swb]

I think this is very much like mottling. If it was dust in the camera lens or on the enlarger lens you wouldn't see it because it would be so far out of focus. Try a different brand or batch of film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

How old is the film and how was it stored before use. Your example sure looks to be mottling to me. I'm starting to wonder about accusing the backing paper/storage conditions all the time for mottling problems. I had some in some Fuji Acros II that was stored fine and pretty fresh. Same for some HP5+ that was just over the date stamp. I'm starting to question the gelatin in the emulsion. Maybe there was a change somewhere in the raw materials that make up the emulsion. All I know is that I never had this issue years back, so something or some things have certainly changed in the last few years. No matter what it is it doesn't make a person very happy to see a nice, well-thought-out picture turn out like crap.

 

[Konalog]

I can’t imagine it’s either camera or enlarger lens, because the spots are soft but almost in focus.

I believe there have been mottling issues caused by the backing paper on several brands of 120 film lately. Try a search here on Photrio.

Very helpful thank you. I hope you're right since I otherwise love this lens and would hate to send it back. I'll try another B/W stock and go from there.

 

[Konalog]

That would be my first guess as well.
And indeed, many of those mottling issues are being reported, and have been for years. In fact, it's a systematic problem of 120 film - it's just that some production batches are more prone to it than others due to the ink used on the backing paper (recent Ilford situations were due to this, I believe) and/or storage conditions during distribution (the infamous Kodak TMAX situation of a few years ago).



If it's backing paper mottling: no.
You might try rewashing the negatives, but frankly, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference. Minus density spots don't wash away as a rule.



I don't see the lens as a likely cause of this. I'd look in other places first.

The fact that you got fine RA4 prints on color film exposed with the same lens already tells a story.

Give it a try with other B&W film, preferably from a different manufacturer. On a parallel track you could (should) contact Ilford and make sure you have the production batch imprint on your film at hand so they can check for known issues with this film. Generally, Ilford are really forthcoming in troubleshooting.

Thank you and I do hope you are correct, because I would hate to send this lens back. I'll try another stock and repost.

 

[Konalog]

How old is the film and how was it stored before use. Your example sure looks to be mottling to me. I'm starting to wonder about accusing the backing paper/storage conditions all the time for mottling problems. I had some in some Fuji Acros II that was stored fine and pretty fresh. Same for some HP5+ that was just over the date stamp. I'm starting to question the gelatin in the emulsion. Maybe there was a change somewhere in the raw materials that make up the emulsion. All I know is that I never had this issue years back, so something or some things have certainly changed in the last few years. No matter what it is it doesn't make a person very happy to see a nice, well-thought-out picture turn out like crap.

That does help thank you. I'll be trying another stock. Your last sentence certainly resonates with me!

 

[Konalog]

Something I didn't mention in OP - there is another artifact on one of the rolls: a kind of "wave front" band like pattern of reduced emulsion on one end. This effected the entire roll. I was able to partially dodge this out in the posted print, but here is an inverted cell phone image better depicting the finding. This was clearly a defective roll. I hope Ilford isn't having production problems. I'd hate to lose my ortho+!

 

[koraks]

a kind of "wave front" band like pattern of reduced emulsion on one end.

That looks more like a development issue. In example #1 I see clear bubble-marks in the darker part of the skies which I initially thought were wispy clouds, but on closer inspection, I think they're bubbles.

Can you tell us some more about your film development process and especially how much time it takes to pour in the developer, which tank you use and how much developer you're using in it? I suspect there might be a problem there.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Something I didn't mention in OP - there is another artifact on one of the rolls: a kind of "wave front" band like pattern of reduced emulsion on one end. This effected the entire roll. I was able to partially dodge this out in the posted print, but here is an inverted cell phone image better depicting the finding. This was clearly a defective roll. I hope Ilford isn't having production problems. I'd hate to lose my ortho+!

Is this from a different Hasselblad A12 film back than the other mottling roll you posted? It's possible it could be a weak light trap/seal on the dark-slide slot. I've had that happen on a few of my A12 backs. It's an easy fix, so don't be too alarmed if it is. Also, I'm nearly certain you don't have a camera problem, and that should make you very happy. Hasselblad are truly great camera systems, no matter what anyone else says.

 

[John Wiegerink]

That looks more like a development issue. In example #1 I see clear bubble-marks in the darker part of the skies which I initially thought were wispy clouds, but on closer inspection, I think they're bubbles.

Can you tell us some more about your film development process and especially how much time it takes to pour in the developer, which tank you use and how much developer you're using in it? I suspect there might be a problem there.

koraks,
I thought the same thing, but that would be an awful low volume of developer. If this is a low volume of developer, then there's only about 2/3's of a tank full. That's a pretty big error.

 

[koraks]

Apart from lack of developer volume, it might also be caused by a reel not slid all the way to the bottom of the center column in a development tank that could take more than one reel.
But yeah, it would be a significant error if it's entirely volume-related. Then again, errors are being made, sometimes big ones, and the bubble pattern in #1 combined with the multiple overlapping density bands in the second image do suggest something along these lines.
Btw, how about mistakenly filling e.g. a Paterson tank with the volume needed for 35mm while developing 120 film? It's an easy mistake to make, and would result in something like this.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Apart from lack of developer volume, it might also be caused by a reel not slid all the way to the bottom of the center column in a development tank that could take more than one reel.
But yeah, it would be a significant error if it's entirely volume-related. Then again, errors are being made, sometimes big ones, and the bubble pattern in #1 combined with the multiple overlapping density bands in the second image do suggest something along these lines.
Btw, how about mistakenly filling e.g. a Paterson tank with the volume needed for 35mm while developing 120 film? It's an easy mistake to make, and would result in something like this.

Oh, I never make mistakes! That I want to tell anyone about anyway. I have two names in my immediate family. One is Mr. Fixit, which I don't mind, and the other is Mr. Screwup. Usually Mr. Fixit has to follow closely behind Mr. Screwup. Yes, I agree, mistakes do happen.

 

[Konalog]

That looks more like a development issue. In example #1 I see clear bubble-marks in the darker part of the skies which I initially thought were wispy clouds, but on closer inspection, I think they're bubbles.

Can you tell us some more about your film development process and especially how much time it takes to pour in the developer, which tank you use and how much developer you're using in it? I suspect there might be a problem there.

A development problem would also be my first thought. But my process is consistent and ive never had this happen before. Without diving itno too much detail, I'll say that I use hc110, lab grade deionized water, standard process with strict time control. Filling the tank takes about 15 sec.

I absolutely would never partially fill the tank w/ developer, then wait a minute before filling the rest. That's the only way I can imagine an artifact like this effecting an entire roll evenly.

 

[koraks]

That's the only way I can imagine an artifact like this effecting an entire roll evenly.

Well, besides using a smaller volume by accident. It happens - a couple of weeks ago, I had exactly the same thing happening to me. I used 900ml instead of 1000ml because I misread the graduate on the beaker I used.

And how about the reel not being seated entirely at the bottom of the tank? What type of tank do you use?

Evidently something went wrong, and it's not the film itself; I can virtually guarantee this.

 

[Vaughn]

That half-moon is caused by crimping the film during loading the film onto reels.

 

[John Wiegerink]

A development problem would also be my first thought. But my process is consistent and ive never had this happen before. Without diving itno too much detail, I'll say that I use hc110, lab grade deionized water, standard process with strict time control. Filling the tank takes about 15 sec.

I absolutely would never partially fill the tank w/ developer, then wait a minute before filling the rest. That's the only way I can imagine an artifact like this effecting an entire roll evenly.

I ask before, but did you use a different film back for this particular roll?

 

[Konalog]

I ask before, but did you use a different film back for this particular roll?

No, I've been using the same back consistently without issue. Maybe it's possible the roll became partially unspooled (asymmetric to one side) either when loading or unloading.

 

[Konalog]

That half-moon is caused by crimping the film during loading the film onto reels.

Tell me about it! This is why I hate metal reels. I'm sure some flawless ppl are rapid loading experts and never have crimping issues but the rest of us live among the mortals and its just sometimes a little tricky for whatever reason. I used the metal real b/c my plastic one broke.

 

[Konalog]

Well, besides using a smaller volume by accident. It happens - a couple of weeks ago, I had exactly the same thing happening to me. I used 900ml instead of 1000ml because I misread the graduate on the beaker I used.

And how about the reel not being seated entirely at the bottom of the tank? What type of tank do you use?

Evidently something went wrong, and it's not the film itself; I can virtually guarantee this.

This time I used a metal reel and tank. I always fill it to the brim. I'm starting to suspect the roll became partially unraveled either when loading or removing it without my realizing it (when working quickly out in the field) Seems that could yield a similar result, which in my case may be the more likely cause.

 

[Konalog]

This time I used a metal reel and tank. I always fill it to the brim. I'm starting to suspect the roll became partially unraveled either when loading or removing it without my realizing it (when working quickly out in the field) Seems that could yield a similar result, which in my case may be the more likely cause.

Although it wouldn't explain the bubble like appearance..

 

[Sirius Glass]

Tell me about it! This is why I hate metal reels. I'm sure some flawless ppl are rapid loading experts and never have crimping issues but the rest of us live among the mortals and its just sometimes a little tricky for whatever reason. I used the metal real b/c my plastic one broke.

Hewes stainless steel reels are easier to load, clamping the taped end to the center for 120 or hooking the sides for 135, are easier to load and the film does not slide off.

 

[Konalog]

Hewes stainless steel reels are easier to load, clamping the taped end to the center for 120 or hooking the sides for 135, are easier to load and the film does not slide off.

That is what I have, and we all deserve better.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That is what I have, and we all deserve better.

I use Jobo reels, tanks and processors and I have not had these problems.