White Lines on Pan F+, Humidity Damage?

[noahsmith]

Hi everyone,

I just developed some Ilford Pan F+ and noticed black marks on all of my negatives and as you can see, they show up as white after scanning. I used Kodak HC-110 (1:63) to develop so I mixed together 8ml of HC-110 into 492ML of water = 500ml of working solution as this is 120 film.

Does this look like humidity damage? I was in an area that was pretty hot and also humid so I wonder if this is the issue.

Thanks for the help.

 

[bvy]

What's your camera? And presumably the lines run parallel to the long edge of the film, correct?

 

[noahsmith]

What's your camera? And presumably the lines run parallel to the long edge of the film, correct?

Took these photos with a Bronica ETRSi and yes they do run parallel to the long edge of the film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Hi everyone,



Does this look like humidity damage? I was in an area that was pretty hot and also humid so I wonder if this is the issue.

Thanks for the help.

I can't say at this stage what it might be. I don't believe we have enough information. I note that the lines are very parallel but are not "fine" lines so scratches on the film looks unlikely. Under a loupe and on a light table or with background light are these indentations in the film or surface marks. In fact are you sure these marks are there and are not a scanning artefact. I know this can sound like I am treating you as stupid but we need to be sure that we can rule the scanner out as the culprit However there are also some other questions that may be relevant. Have you ever used film in such an area before when it was humid and if so was there similar damage? Did you use other film while there and if so are there any marks on that? If you have used other film was this in the same camera?

Is this camera new to you or have you used it elsewhere that wasn't humid with complete success? This may sound "picky" but we need to narrow things down. It tends to lead to a quicker solution than a one Q and a one A at a time.

pentaxuser

 

[noahsmith]

I can't say at this stage what it might be. I don't believe we have enough information. I note that the lines are very parallel but are not "fine" lines so scratches on the film looks unlikely. Under a loupe and on a light table or with background light are these indentations in the film or surface marks. In fact are you sure these marks are there and are not a scanning artefact. I know this can sound like I am treating you as stupid but we need to be sure that we can rule the scanner out as the culprit However there are also some other questions that may be relevant. Have you ever used film in such an area before when it was humid and if so was there similar damage? Did you use other film while there and if so are there any marks on that? If you have used other film was this in the same camera?

Is this camera new to you or have you used it elsewhere that wasn't humid with complete success? This may sound "picky" but we need to narrow things down. It tends to lead to a quicker solution than a one Q and a one A at a time.

pentaxuser

Those are all excellent questions, thank you for taking the time to ask them! These are just surface marks and I don't believe they are scratches. They are definitely on the negative, I can see them even without using my loupe. I actually haven't used Pan F in a humid environment before so I can't compare it but, I did use some color film on the same trip in the same location and it turned out perfect although it was in a different camera.

I've used this Bronica ETRSi many times and it has worked flawlessly. My guess is it could be a combination of me storing the film in my closet (which gets a little above 68 degrees) and also the humid climate I was shooting in. I think Pan F is just a sensitive film in general.

 

[bvy]

Your closet can be a 100 degrees, and it won't do that. And unless you were shooting in a sauna...

Clip the leader or trailer (if the lines are there also) and drop the film in wetting agent (e.g. PhotoFlo) or 91% isopropyl alcohol. See if the marks respond to wiping.

 

[noahsmith]

Your closet can be a 100 degrees, and it won't do that. And unless you were shooting in a sauna...

Clip the leader or trailer (if the lines are there also) and drop the film in wetting agent (e.g. PhotoFlo) or 91% isopropyl alcohol. See if the marks respond to wiping.

Just tried wiping the leader with PhotoFlo and then also tried Isoporpyl Alcohol and it didn't remove the lines. Seems like its actually embedded into the emulsion.

 

[jeffreyg]

I live in a humid climate and keep my film in a closet albeit our house is air conditioned but I have used very many rolls of film outdoors here without such lines. I assume you did not develop the color film and I would think that if it were the camera it would more likely be scratches that would show up as black lines in the positive. All that IMOP is a processing problem ie something in the chemistry or possibly on a squeegee if one was used.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[bvy]

Just tried wiping the leader with PhotoFlo and then also tried Isoporpyl Alcohol and it didn't remove the lines. Seems like its actually embedded into the emulsion.

Do the lines extend all the way to the cut edge (short edge) of the film without receding? What about the other end?

 

[noahsmith]

I live in a humid climate and keep my film in a closet albeit our house is air conditioned but I have used very many rolls of film outdoors here without such lines. I assume you did not develop the color film and I would think that if it were the camera it would more likely be scratches that would show up as black lines in the positive. All that IMOP is a processing problem ie something in the chemistry or possibly on a squeegee if one was used.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

I actually did develop the color film, it could be related to the chemistry but it's hard to say. I didn't use a squeegee so that can be ruled out.

 

[noahsmith]

Do the lines extend all the way to the cut edge (short edge) of the film without receding? What about the other end?

For reference, this is what the negatives look like. Disregard all of the dust (that's just on the outside of the plastic sleeves).

 

[jeffreyg]

Do you have another roll from the same batch? If so, and the same happens with it as a test contact Ilford. While the lines aren't sharp they appear pretty evenly spaced so if it wasn't a processing incident and not likely from the camera I would have to guess it was a manufacturing flaw.

 

[noahsmith]

Do you have another roll from the same batch? If so, and the same happens with it as a test contact Ilford. While the lines aren't sharp they appear pretty evenly spaced so if it wasn't a processing incident and not likely from the camera I would have to guess it was a manufacturing flaw.

I don't unfortunately and yeah it seems odd how they are pretty evenly spaced and I know it can't be from the camera since I use it all the time and never have issues with it. With processing, the only thing I can think of is somehow the developer was not hitting the film in those areas or maybe the 1:63 dilution with HC-110 is not the best for Pan F.

 

[jeffreyg]

If your tank was a 500ml tank I can't imagine chemistry not covering the film so uniformly especially when the tank is inverted or shaken every 30 seconds or minute which ever system you use. If a 1liter tank and one roll I would include an empty reel and use 1 liter chemistry.

 

[bvy]

If your tank was a 500ml tank I can't imagine chemistry not covering the film so uniformly especially when the tank is inverted or shaken every 30 seconds or minute which ever system you use. If a 1liter tank and one roll I would include an empty reel and use 1 liter chemistry.

Insufficient coverage wouldn't look like that anyway. The pictures of the negatives suggest drying marks.

 

[noahsmith]

Insufficient coverage wouldn't look like that anyway. The pictures of the negatives suggest drying marks.

Literally right when I pulled the negatives off of the reel and they were still wet, I noticed all of the lines on on them so I don't think it has anything to do with drying since they were there before drying.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Looks like water marks to me. Do you have hard water where you live?

 

[noahsmith]

Looks like water marks to me. Do you have hard water where you live?

I was using distilled water throughout the whole process

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I was using distilled water throughout the whole process

Quite perplexing. I hope you didn't use a rubber squeegee to dry your negs.

 

[pentaxuser]

Stating the obvious, this is a real puzzle. I note that no squeegee was used either. The negs have black lines but if they were drying marks wouldn't they be white? On the few occasions I have had drying marks these showed up on the negative's surface as white-ish and even setting that aside I would wonder what can cause drying marks to be that uniform?

pentaxuser

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Stating the obvious, this is a real puzzle. I note that no squeegee was used either. The negs have black lines but if they were drying marks wouldn't they be white?r

The show up as white when it's positive because whatever is making those marks adds density to your negatives. That why I was thinking that it might be minerals with your water. If it was a scratch that completely removed the emulsion from the base, it would be black on a positive. If it is a drying mark, you can try to rinse it again with distilled water and PhotoFlo to see if it will wash off. Then you can wipe the negs dry with a lint-free wipe like a Kimwipe. Sometimes if I allow my negs to dry without removing excess PhotoFlo, I would get spots on my negs.

 

[georgegrosu]

The defect I see only on the portion of the exposed photo (negative).
Is there no malfunction between the photograms?
Between photograms there are mechanical traces of pressing on the emulsion?
Mechanical pressures may be small and only on can be see on neutral densities .

George

 

[pentaxuser]

The show up as white when it's positive because whatever is making those marks adds density to your negatives. That why I was thinking that it might be minerals with your water.

Thanks.I have no knowledge of scanning unfortunately. I had thought, wrongly it would appear, that maybe the scanner was able to show the negative as it would appear to the naked eye in which case the drying marks would show up as white or light grey on the negative, being dried water residue.

pentaxuser

 

[DWThomas]

Random thoughts having read through this thread:
1) Was the film frozen or refrigerated at any time? Just guessing that such temperature transitions could provoke some condensation issues beyong those normally seen.
2) Is the backing paper still around so the surface could be examined under oblique lighting to see if there are any similar patterns in its surface texture? That would be on the outer surface which is what would contact the emulsion on the wrap above.
3) Know the emulsion number? You might contact Ilford to see if that batch shows any reports from elsewhere. They might suggest sending a negative or two in for examination.

Definitely a head scratcher! I hope you come up with some explanation that makes sense. (At first look I thought electrical noise getting in the scanner, but if it's on the negatives, that's not relevant.)

 

[noahsmith]

The show up as white when it's positive because whatever is making those marks adds density to your negatives. That why I was thinking that it might be minerals with your water. If it was a scratch that completely removed the emulsion from the base, it would be black on a positive. If it is a drying mark, you can try to rinse it again with distilled water and PhotoFlo to see if it will wash off. Then you can wipe the negs dry with a lint-free wipe like a Kimwipe. Sometimes if I allow my negs to dry without removing excess PhotoFlo, I would get spots on my negs.

Yeah, I was hoping it would be something I could get rid of my re-washing but it seems like its permanently on the negative unfortunately but good idea.