What's wrong with this film?

[newtorf]

Recently I bought several rolls of Fomapan 400 film. One roll shows some patterns like tree branches. Did any happen to have similar problems? Is it mold or fungus?

BTW this is rebranded Arista Edu Ultra 400.

 

[DWThomas]

To my aging eyes it looks like a double exposure.

 

[hoshisato]

Never seen it before but that does look like fungus to me; the only alternative I can think of is a static discharge when advancing the film, but the images I have seen of that do look different.

 

[summicron1]

double exposure of some sort -- the clear pattern in the middle, not to mention the tree-branch-like pattern on the top, can be nothing else. what sort of camera?

 

[newtorf]

Sorry but I meant the tree branch like patterns in the picture.

To my aging eyes it looks like a double exposure.

 

[veke]

perhaps too big temperature variation during developing, developer much cooler than the rinse for example. I have no idea how big difference there is allowed. THe emulsion has suffered. Reticulation. My guess only. The odds are 1:19.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Definitely a double-exposure to me. Looks like grass. If you are using an SLR, check your advance mechanism. If not, then you likely just forgot to advance or inadvertently tripped the shutter (although the superimposed picture looks well in focus).

Best,

Doremus

 

[Ghostman]

Clearly a double exposure of a grassy knoll.

 

[railwayman3]

I'd go with the accidental double exposure theory.....but, reading your original query carefully, are you saying the fault in on one frame or on the whole roll ?

 

[micwag2]

Recently I bought several rolls of Fomapan 400 film. One roll shows some patterns like tree branches. Did any happen to have similar problems? Is it mold or fungus?

BTW this is rebranded Arista Edu Ultra 400.

We know what film you used, but what camera were you using? Did you buy the film from a dealer or an acquaintance that had it sitting around? If you had not double exposed in your camera, is it possible that the film was already exposed and the reloaded in the camera and exposed again?

 

[Rick A]

The pic does smack of a double exposure. I dont see where it could be anything else.

 

[MartinP]

If it's a double exposure then the effect will be seen only inside frame - the edges and perforations will be clear. If the pattern continues outside of the frame, on the negatives, then a picture of the negs (made by holding the strip up to the light and photographing it with a digi cam of some sort) would be helpful in further diagnosis.

 

[martinhughesireland]

If it's a double exposure then the effect will be seen only inside frame - the edges and perforations will be clear. If the pattern continues outside of the frame, on the negatives, then a picture of the negs (made by holding the strip up to the light and photographing it with a digi cam of some sort) would be helpful in further diagnosis.

+1, makes sense

 

[newtorf]

Hi thanks for all replies. The camera is a Leica M4 and I only exposed the picture once. Actually what I meant is the tree branch patterns on the picture. Please see the new picture for another example. The whole roll has this problem. But the other three rolls of the same film in the same tank do not have this issue.

I bought the films from ebay. Based on the packaging of the cassette, I think they were loaded by freestyle but not the ebay seller.

 

[railwayman3]

Hi thanks for all replies. The camera is a Leica M4 and I only exposed the picture once. Actually what I meant is the tree branch patterns on the picture. Please see the new picture for another example. The whole roll has this problem. But the other three rolls in the tank do not have this issue.

Were the films processed at the same time (i.e. in a multiple reel tank) ? If that's the case and the whole of only one of the film is affected, it looks like a film fault or damage, maybe bad storage or dampness. Can you identify if the films were all from the same batch number or emulsion number?

 

[newtorf]

Yes all four rolls were processed in the same tank. I threw away the cassettes already but it is very likely that they are from the same batch.

My further question is, if it is caused by fungus or mold, should I store this roll of films separately from other films in case the other got contaminated?

Were the films processed at the same time (i.e. in a multiple reel tank) ? If that's the case and the whole of only one of the film is affected, it looks like a film fault or damage, maybe bad storage or dampness. Can you identify if the films were all from the same batch number or emulsion number?

 

[Ian Grant]

Hi thanks for all replies. The camera is a Leica M4 and I only exposed the picture once. Actually what I meant is the tree branch patterns on the picture. Please see the new picture for another example. The whole roll has this problem. But the other three rolls of the same film in the same tank do not have this issue.

I bought the films from ebay. Based on the packaging of the cassette, I think they were loaded by freestyle but not the ebay seller.

This one looks even more like double exposure than the first, there's more definite shapes on the left over the people. I'd guess the film was wound back but not fully into the cassette after exposure.

Ian

 

[MartinP]

Newtorf, please look at the area outside the frame as I suggested above. In this way you can decide with 100% certainty if it is an exposure problem or a film problem.

What does this mean?
"Based on the packaging of the cassette, I think they were loaded by freestyle but not the ebay seller."
Are you suggesting that the film was not in Foma factory cassettes, inside Foma plastic canisters, inside Foma carton-packaging?

 

[newtorf]

OK I will take a look when I get home tonight and report back.

The films came without canisters, only the cassettes. On the cassettes, there is a printed label of Arista Edu 400. The cassettes are not reusable, and the films inside are not taped to a short lead at the end. So I think this means the films were loaded by freestyle. They were not bulk loaded by the ebay seller who would either used a reusable cassette or a non-reusable cassette with a short lead.

Newtorf, please look at the area outside the frame as I suggested above. In this way you can decide with 100% certainty if it is an exposure problem or a film problem.

What does this mean?
"Based on the packaging of the cassette, I think they were loaded by freestyle but not the ebay seller."
Are you suggesting that the film was not in Foma factory cassettes, inside Foma plastic canisters, inside Foma carton-packaging?

 

[railwayman3]

OK I will take a look when I get home tonight and report back.

The films came without canisters, only the cassettes. On the cassettes, there is a printed label of Arista Edu 400. The cassettes are not reusable, and the films inside are not taped to a short lead at the end. So I think this means the films were loaded by freestyle. They were not bulk loaded by the ebay seller who would either used a reusable cassette or a non-reusable cassette with a short lead.

I'm becoming convinced that the film has been badly handled, maybe partly exposed, or affected by damp before it reached you. Particularly as it was not in a proper canister and could have been stored anywhere (old film from unknown sellers on Ebay is always a gamble).

Do Freestyle actually load their films themselves...I would have assumed that rebranding was done in the factory and the films packed to the same standards as the manufacturers own products. When own-brand films were more usually available it was quite easy to spot the original manufacturer from the style of cassette, canister and batch number printing, and, while the film was not always the latest version, the QC seemed always as good as the main products. For example, you can see the family likeness between Ilford and Kentmere and also between the current Agfa Precisa and Fuji products.

 

[lhalcong]

it looks like grass to me. like if the camera was pointing down at the ground on first exposure. I'd say double exposure.

 

[cliveh]

I have never used an M4, but is it that easy to double expose?

 

[pentaxuser]

Seems strange that preceding the alleged double exposure and the OP has shown us two frames with the same looking grass that in both cases he has shot grass or tree branches preceding each affected frame.

Wouldn't he have had to do this for this grass/tree branches to show up each time or is there another way he could have double exposed to get this effect?

This hasn't happened on every film either. Wouldn't this point to the odds lengthening on it being double exposure?

pentaxuser

 

[MartinP]

I can't think of a simple way to double-expose on a correctly functioning Leica M, unless the whole roll was put through the camera twice. It looks as though it could be dampness, or some sort of 'abuse' to do with freezing/thawing etc, and in that case the damage would extend outside frame.

The labelling of the cassettes sounds a bit like this is film d-i-y spoolled from bulk, as I have seen the Arista film having been packaged in factory-cassettes with 'proper' labels on, by Foma. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will be unusable, but it adds questions. The film is so low-priced when new that buying a few rolls on Ebay seems counter intuitive, though the location of the OP might have a bearing on that.

 

[Rick A]

If not double expose, then possibly ther film was frozen and improperly thawed, as in removed from the freezer and immediatly opened or frozen without canister or other protection, causing moisture to form on the film.