• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Why is it sometimes my film has weird sproket hole shadows?

MingMingPhoto

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
393
Location
New York City
Format
35mm
I use a rotational film processing machine to develop my film (filmomat - videos on youtibe)

Sometimes - especially when I only process one roll of film at a time - I'll rin intto an issue where soe parts of the roll have these shadows coming from the sprocket holes. The film I didn't shoot myself so idk if there are any other thigns that could have happend to the film. But does anyone have advice on al lthe possible reasons this owuld happen? Photo below
 

Attachments

  • 187309633_519901489041073_7005962657379750606_n.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 433
I can't see the shadows in the photo you posted.
But generally, areas of increased (or in some cases, decreased) density near the sprocket holes are referred to as surge marks, because the form of agitation and/or chemical flow used is causing developer to surge through the holes. If the movement of developer is more rapid adjacent to one part of the film when compared to another part of the film, the development will be un-even.
 
What do you mean by shadows? Increased density? If so, them that's from surge marks, usually due to excessive agitation. If it's decreased density or clear, that's bromide drag due to insufficient agitation... Which can occur with stand development.
 
Hey everyone - please keep in mind I'm using the machine I mentioned to process the film. It is always constant agitation and this only happens sometimes. I'm trying to figure out how to avoid this from happening. It usually only happens when I have one roll by itself in the tank
 
Old Gregg said:
Your results suggest that it's not a good machine.
Click to expand...
Or that is designed in a way that requires you to always have at least two reels in it.
 
As matt says

id be assuming you have one one reel in a two reel tank and the one reel is banging around loose in the tank creating surge marks. Do you put a second empty reel on top of the loaded reel in the tank?
 
Yes, if we could see these marks. I can't.
 
AgX said:
Yes, if we could see these marks. I can't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if I look very, very hard, I *think* I see something about 2/3 down that film strip on the inside of the sprocket holes that might be 'surge' marks. However, they might as well me uneven drying of the film as it's still partially wet. Important to note is if these marks are also still present when the film is completely dry. 35mm tends to dry unevenly.
 
I don't see much of it in your example. I had some of it myself. Anyway, the most lkely causes are agitation turbulences around the holes during processing and light-piping through film edges during film handling. In any case, they have no negative effect on image quality and I have, therefore always ignored them.
 
Old Gregg said:
Your results suggest that it's not a good machine.
Click to expand...
I think it's basically a very well done machine. But it has some design flaws.... the biggest one for me, 2-bath C41. My ATL can go up to six different chemicals and separate washes.

MattKing said:
Or that is designed in a way that requires you to always have at least two reels in it.
Click to expand...
+1! As Adrian Bacon once mentioned, always use the max. reels in your tanks for consistency.

For me it looks like some light leak (but it's very hard to see)? .....maybe happening during loading the tank. I had this once, where i forgot to power off some equipment (with some running status led on it) in my darkroom, where i do prepare the tanks.
 
I had a look at the posted photo and can barely see what appears to be lines from sprocket holes on one side to the other. If the OP could post another photo, maybe close up of the film, it could help.
This to me, it looks like stress marks not agitation surge.
Stress marks can be caused when a film is rewound the wrong way in the camera. (So instead of rotating the film rewind lever clockwise, it was done anti-clockwise.)
I have looked at the Filmomat processor and to me, it appears to be a good machine.
 
Well, I do not see any shadows. AlI see is a glow at the upper edges of the hole, a matter of light piping.

Could you upload a copy of the OP's image with marks you made which then would be screaming at us instead?
 
I haven't bothered with spending the money for the equipment to calibrate my monitors because I so rarely have anything printed digitally.
The problem with what I see is that surge marks are generally most visible where the film is most strongly backlit. In the posted images, nothing is visible where the backlight is strong. There may be some ghost images farther down, but I'm not confident because if I move my head, those images tend to move as well - I think it is just flare from the backlight!
 
Old Gregg said:
Urs, I am actually fascinated by Filmomat. This page says "Up to 19 custom programs with up to 10 steps can be programmed" but you're saying "2-batch" C41? I've looked for a downloadable PDF manual, but could not find one.
Click to expand...

As i said, i think it's very well done and Lukas is an incredible engineer who deserves all the credits for spending a lot of time and thoughts in research and development. The described "design flaws" may sound a bit harsh, but that's just my personal opinion. I guess if you're happy with the Tetenal Chemicals or don't mind standing next to the unit during development and refill some chemicals for 3 steps C41 or 6 steps E6, then it's a wonderful machine. But that can also be done on a Jobo, isn't it?

For me an 'Automat' has to do all the steps really automatically and i have some time to do other things 'til i hear the finishing beep. This may not be important, if you develop your own rolls. It's another perspective, if you're doin' 30 rolls for others. For such tasks my old Jobo ATL 1000 serves me perfect. Summa summarum.... if he'd spend it six tanks, i would have to think about as a successor of my dinosaur.
 
@Old Gregg ...btw, if you're interested in the functions of the 'Filmomat', drop Lukas a line at his website. I'm sure he will send you some further informations.
 
@Old Gregg ....as i understand it, the third cylinder will be filled with water for washing. But maybe i'm completely wrong. There is also a Filmomat - Group on Facebook or maybe the OP will chime in and can give you further informations.
 
Old Gregg said:
There's a streak originating from every whole on both edges going outside in, 100% exactly like on this image from this thread.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I see so much what I interpreted as artefacts in making that photograph, that still I do not see regular streak marks.
But let's assume they are there, running from the holes perpendicular to the filmstrip edges.

How then do you explain such with this comment on mind of the OP about his processor:
"continuous rotation by a filmomat machine"
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/is-this-film-reticulation.179222

In this case I expect streaks running parallel to the edges.


The site of the filmomat shows two different tank set ups.
-) tank mounted vertical, with the bath seemingly rising and falling along the tank axis, perpendicular to the filmstrip edges
-) tank mounted horizontally

The manufacturer of the Filmomat is a member here, but I do not remember that he ever described how he achieved bath agitation. Maybe someone else can shed light on this.


EDIT:

The 1st Filmomat model had an upright standing tank with air-bubble agitation.
 
Last edited:
AgX said:
Well, I do not see any shadows. AlI see is a glow at the upper edges of the hole, a matter of light piping.

Could you upload a copy of the OP's image with marks you made which then would be screaming at us instead?
Click to expand...
One can clearly see the tiny black lines but, I was searching for the announced shadows of which I saw none.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
One can clearly see the tiny black lines but, I was searching for the announced shadows of which I saw none.
Click to expand...
Well, I "analyzed" countless artefact photos uploaded to Apug, but this is a weird case where we see very different things or rather see them not.

But let us try instead to explain what is assumed to be seen. I already made a step into that direction and found this even more puzzling. Maybe you got an explanation.
 
Not only have I had shadows bleeding into the main film frame, I also get leading edges of the frames being similarly affected. It does not happen on every frame or every film, but when it does you could bet on it being in the frame you were hoping would be the best on the roll. It only happens with 35mm colour negative film. I put this down to the JOBO rotary processor but seemingly it happened more frequently this last year or so.
The bleeding between frames does not happen when I use 120. Nor does it happen with B&W and more recently with colour 35mm when I hand agitate. Or is it down to the lesser quantity of developer used when rotary processing.

As I said it was only this last year of so that it has occurred, I wonder if the formulation of the chemicals, principally the developer to make it odourless has had any effect, enough to cause this problem
 
Last edited:
I do not quite understand in which orientation your shadows are are running, but do you see a relation between the orientation of the rotation and the oprientation of the shadows in your case?
 
AgX said:
I do not quite understand in which orientation your shadows are are running, but do you see a relation between the orientation of the rotation and the oprientation of the shadows in your case?
Click to expand...

The 'bleeding' are always on the edge of the frame in which direction it is wound onto the spiral and closest to the central core
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register