Yet another wrapper offset question - BUT DIFFERENT!

[reddesert]

Kodak (and other) professional film used to be shipped, stored, and sold cool in order to maintain color consistency and other quantities to professional standards. Professionals would take the film out of the fridge, let it warm up, and then use it.

Amateur film was shelved and sold at room temperature, with the knowledge that amateurs would often leave film in the camera for months or more, and that absolute color consistency was not as critical as it is for pros shooting movies or catalog shots, etc.

In the present era, this has morphed into people going crazy with the refrigerator. It's okay to put film in the refrigerator for the long term. But it's not like beer, where you want to take it out immediately before use. If you take film out a day before use and let it warm up, it doesn't get stinky and stale. And it's bad to keep thermal cycling the film by moving it back and forth between the outside and the fridge.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The big issue with refrigerating film is that it must be at ambient temperature before the airtight packaging is breached. Especially in the kind of humidity we get in the American South. Given I find even Fomapan and Fuji color films are fine after fifteen years at room temperature, I don't see any reason to refrigerate film after I buy it.

Now, if I had the budget to buy film by the pallet, it would make good sense to freeze it until I'm down to one case thawed, and thaw one case at a time -- but once it's out of the freezer, it's room temperature, until I use it up.

 

[MattKing]

I expect that the SFX comes in airtight foil packaging. I don't know about the Rollie Retro 80S. But it should be noted that if the foil is compromised, all bets are off about humidity, condensation and anything related.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I'd like to see what these marks are if possible and it would appear that others may not see them either.

Pentaxuser, try this one:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/is-this-clumpy-grain-reticulation-or.176918/

And, as far as whether all other possible explanations have been ruled out, I'm sure the answer to that is, "No."

But, as others have pointed out, condensation and humidity seem to be particularly problematic for 120; I live in Northern Virginia, often referred to as a "swamp," and not just because of the nearby White House. It is exceedingly muggy here a good 1/3 of the year, and I have three teenagers that open and shut the fridge several hundred times a day (well, maybe that's just slightly exaggerated) so it's a theory that seems extremely plausible, particularly in light of the fact that I haven't been allowing the film much time to reach ambient temperature after taking it out of the fridge. Probably an average of five minutes. I grab a roll, unwrap, load, and shoot. This might be a problem.

As far as scanning...I just don't know what to say about that. I scan with my mirrorless (X-T2, X-T4), in RAW, with stable back lighting, and do post in C1. I just am not smart enough to envision why this method would lead, sometimes, to that kind of output.

 

[Pieter12]

Never read so much bogus information from internet users. All professional film used to be refrigerated from manufacturing to sale
https://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5202.shtml#SEC841

The refrigerators used for film are set for about 50ºF--not as cold as home units.

 

[pentaxuser]

The refrigerators used for film are set for about 50ºF--not as cold as home units.

So a couple of questions here if I may:1. Is there a standard and recognised temp setting for film storage of 50F?
2. Is a drop of temp from this to about 39F likely to account for what Dusty sees and anyone storing film in a domestic fridge is risking the same effect as Dusty sees?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[reddesert]

The OP has said that he takes a roll (directly out of the fridge), unwraps it, loads, and shoots. This is the most likely place to cause the problem. Not the temperature of the fridge, not the teenagers opening and closing the fridge, not the scanner, these are all distractions. Unwrapping and loading cold film is begging for condensation.

Let the film come to room temperature first.

 

[MattKing]

So a couple of questions here if I may:1. Is there a standard and recognised temp setting for film storage of 50F?
2. Is a drop of temp from this to about 39F likely to account for what Dusty sees and anyone storing film in a domestic fridge is risking the same effect as Dusty sees?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Here is what Kodak has to say about it: https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/cis_e30.pdf

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Matt The operative phrase it seems to me is at or below 50F which might explain where the figure of 50F. This is the maximum temp for the time period stated but has become to be seen at the "right" temp

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

If you order control strips for calibration of processors and printers. It's recommended to use next day or 2 day express shipping to avoid the strips not being kept cool. Kodak and the rest give warm up times for various sealed packages from freezer and refrigerator storage. I've never had condensation spots in 40 years of refrigerating film, I've never had wrapper offset. I got lucky on the Kodak situation, but I am pretty certain that dye or ink transfer from paper to film, is a hell of a lot less likely at 0°F than at 75°F.

Go to the source, ask the manufacturer.

 

[beemermark]

The refrigerators used for film are set for about 50ºF--not as cold as home units.

Quoting https://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5202.shtml#SEC841 For periods exceeding six months, store unexposed camera films at -18°C (0°F) or lower.

For 40+ years when I buy film in quantity I throw it in the freezer. The fridge is probably fine but I have more room in the freezer. Sometimes the film gets buried under steaks and won't resurface for a few years. Always fine. And it only takes an hour or two to reach room temp. To the OP question, I think it's dust.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think that there are good reasons to believe this problem is not caused by what the OP believes is likely to be the cause although I am still not clear what the OP has ruled out as causes and what his course of action will be to eliminate the remaining set of possible causes there might be.

However, generalising here, one thing has struck me more strongly in recent months or possibly the last couple of years here on Photrio is how much value, consciously and unconsciously, can be placed on the "visceral" feeling. It does play a large part in matters photographic even if not backed by facts or a general consensus.

Maybe it always did and it is just me who has come to be more aware of it than before. It is a fine thing at times to be guided by visceral feelings but we need to be aware that what we feel about the cause of the problem may not be close enough to what the evidence says in order for this to be reliable in problem solving

pentaxuser

 

[Dusty Negative]

I have let a few rolls sit out in ambient temperature now for about 48 hours. I'll shoot a roll today and see what the results are. Here's how I see this playing out:

1. If the roll shows no mottling, then I think a leading suspect is condensation from using the rolls too quickly at too cool a temperature here in swampy, humid Northern Virginia.
2. If the roll does show mottling, then I have a problem. Wrapper offset? Condensation that occurred at an earlier time in the fridge? A string a bad batches of red-sensitive film of two different brands? Something else?

I have ruled out scanning issues (I have scanned the film in different directions. Plus, more importantly, the mottling/spots can be seen by the naked eye with a loupe).
I have ruled out dust, at least sitting on the dried negative (I have used compressed air; I have used an Ilford anti-static cloth; in any event, as above, the mottling, as evidenced but nearly clear and irregularly shaped white dots, can be clearly seen with a loupe.) Now, whether dust somehow attached itself to the *un*exposed negative while sitting in place in the camera, thereby blocking light from hitting the emulsion --- that is harder for me to address. It *seems* unlikely, as I usually shoot complete rolls of 120, not letting them sit unexposed in the camera. Plus, why would this dust be only roughly circular in pattern, and never other dust shapes (as in, the more linear dust patterns)? Also, why just with the Ilford and Rollei red-sensitive films? I've never had this happen to Tri-X, Ultrafine, HP5. Are the red sensitive films more static-generating?

Thanks for helping me walk through this. I'll have those results soon!

 

[BrianShaw]

I know you really want to figure this out, and I’m all for it. The image is still stunning.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I know you really want to figure this out, and I’m all for it. The image is still stunning.

Thank you. That is very kind.

 

[reddesert]

So is the conclusion that refrigeration( not freezing) of 120 is a mistake. It confers no advantage and does confer the disadvantage of giving what Dusty Negative says he has?
...
I wonder what film shops do in Summer in the likes of Arizona where even a shady shelf which is never in direst sun might have a high temperature around it. Air conditioning?

Hopefully the question about refrigeration of 120 has already been answered - it's common practice as long as you bring the film to room temperature before opening the sealed wrapper. I didn't see the last part of your question. Any photo shop in Arizona is air conditioned in the summer (I live in Arizona). AC is much more common in hot areas of the US than in the UK or continental Europe. Even in say the 1950s when residential air conditioning would have less common, shops and homes in Arizona would often have had evaporative cooling (aka swamp coolers). These devices can actually be quite effective and energy-efficient in the SW US, but would be useless hunks of metal in the UK.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks I assumed that AC would be relatively standard in such places All I was doing was drawing a conclusion that followed what seemed to be the "line" that was emerging that both refrigeration and freezing were not required as it was this that probably leads to the problem the OP was experiencing. It seemed to me that if reasonable ambient temperature is best and all that is required for film then in really hot climates where the ambient temperature is not reasonable then AC must be used everywhere film was stored. I was hoping to stimulate more contributions to the debate in the hope that there was evidence that for long term storage a much lower than reasonable ambient temperature was beneficial per se and what was ideal for we humans is not necessarily ideal for film in the context of longer term storage. You might say that I was being provocative in postulating this question but it was done for the best of motives i.e. trying to ensure that the OP avoided the wrong conclusion

I agree that this now seems to have been put to bed thanks to various contributions and I think that the OP is looking at reasons other than refrigeration or freezing per se for his problem.

pentaxuser

 

[Dusty Negative]

Just a follow up to this thread. I have shot two rolls of **ambient** SFX and have not seen a resurgence of this problem. By ambient I mean that the rolls were sitting out of the fridge (still wrapped and in box) for at least 48 hours prior to using them.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Just a follow up to this thread. I have shot two rolls of **ambient** SFX and have not seen a resurgence of this problem. By ambient I mean that the rolls were sitting out of the fridge (still wrapped and in box) for at least 48 hours prior to using them.

Bingo!

 

[Dusty Negative]

Bingo!

I'm a bit embarrassed, to be honest. But, hey, here we are! On to my next discovery!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep, if you're not still discovering new ways to screw up with film, it's time to call the coroner.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm a bit embarrassed, to be honest. But, hey, here we are! On to my next discovery!

Don’t be embarrassed... you taught me something!