Film from lab - what happened?

[Peter_S]

I just got back scans from a roll of FP4+ I had developed at a lab with a rather good reputation.
It does not look pretty - white spots all over the place. Any idea what happened? First guess: fixer residue, but unlikely. Any other guesses?

 

[Bill Blackwell]

It looks like uneven development from poor (not enough) agitation. This is something I've only heard about.

Just for the heck of it, try rinsing the film in cold water (squeegee with your fingers) in case it's excess chemical crystallization.

 

[pixelated]

Can you post up a picture of a strip of 3 or 4 of the affected frames unreversed?
What does this stuff look like on the negs?

 

[oldwino]

Sort of looks like a chemical contamination…like residual fixer maybe on the reels?

 

[Einstein]

I stopped using FP4 because of similar results. After years of using the stuff in England and then coming over to the United States back in 1990 I started to see a change in the sky area when developing the stuff, blotches just like yours but not as bad. I used the same methods as I had been for fifteen years. It was worse on older film, like three or four years old stuff. I attributed it to the backing paper and the higher humidity. I know it does not touch the emulsion but I am adamant that it was the problem, I have never sent a roll of Black and White to a lab in my entire life.
If that paper is the still the same stuff, I recon it’s the culprit. Since I stopped using that film I have never had a problem since. The issue ruined a load of rolls from a vacation, they were developed in batches of three and around a dozen rolls were worthless.
And I add that it never happened to my 35 mm stuff, just the 120 rolls.

 

[Darthfeeble]

Have you asked the lab for their opinion? It might be something they did or it might be in the film, they probably have seen it before.

 

[KeithH]

Kodak had a serious problem with 120 backing paper just a few years ago where the frame numbers and other markings were showing on the negatives. I understand that a major change to backing paper was made due to the main manufacturer ceasing to make it - I think it was due to a chemical becoming unavailable. Either way, backing paper has changed in recent years and does seem to be sensitive to heat and humidity aka storage issues. Ilford has had a problem with some instances of blotching on their 120 negatives. I had the problem and contacted Ilford via their website and they replaced the films. All they ask for is the details on the film box and/or the 4 digit code from the film edge. Having used Ilford for many decades this is the only problem I have ever had.

Read this statement and then contact them. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film/

 

[raydm6]

Peter_S I visited your web site. I really enjoyed looking at your imagery. Well done!

 

[leicapixie]

I had white spots from over used fixer. Chemical laying on bottom of container, even filtering didn't help. Boiled reels and tanks, stainless steel. New containers and fresh fixer.. Commercial lab should give an answer. Film is expensive plus travel and hours in exposing. Good reason for digital. I love Film but.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

The pattern of the spots doesn't suggest a developing/fixing issue to me. I'm leaning towards condensation/moisture getting to the emulsion or backing paper over a prolonged period of time.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The unsharpness of the spots give me the suspicion that there must be an exposure, for example a screen in which tiny holes have arisen through which light has reached the sensitive layer.

Erik.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

The unsharpness of the spots give me the suspicion that there must be an exposure, for example a screen in which tiny holes have arisen through which light has reached the sensitive layer.

Erik.

Disintegrating shutter curtains

 

[Erik van Straten]

Disintegrating shutter curtains

Yes, also the reciprocal structure of the spots suggests that.

Erik.

 

[Malcolm M]

Dirt on a window in front of the camera?

If it's a disintegrating shutter curtain, it's the worst case I've ever seen. It could only get that bad if the camera hadn't been used in decades, and all the negs would show an identical pattern. What was the camera?

The spots are nearly, but not quite, parallel to the length of the film. That would seem to be an argument against faults during film transport either in manufacture, camera or developing.

 

[KoNickon]

I think if it were a shutter curtain problem, the light coming through the perforations would overwhelm the image -- there wouldn't be much if any actual image on the film. I think it's a development issue.

 

[steveyork]

I's seen something like that on MF with backing paper issues. Ilford film no less (Pan F). If I recall, the direction of the abnormalities was lengthwise. Ruined some shots but gave others a real vintage look.

 

[Dogman]

It looks to me like dried chemical residue. Rewash and see if that removes it.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I still think the light points are created by microscopic small holes in the shutter curtain and that the camera has been in an illuminated room for a long time without a lens cap.

Erik.

 

[Pál_K]

Critical information is missing.

1. What camera is this, or more to the point, what kind of shutter does it have?

2. Are these spots just on one frame or more than one? Are they only in the image area or do they extend beyond the frame?

3. Is any residue visible on the film itself?

4. Were any other rolls of film from this camera also processed by the lab at the same time and, if so, do they have the problem as well?

…
The spots are nearly, but not quite, parallel to the length of the film. …

That’s the first thing I noticed. To me, shutter curtain holes would be more random. I think it is something that happened when the film was moving during processing.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Pál, very good questions. Without the answers a serious conclusion can not be drawn.

Erik.