Diagnosis, anyone ?

[srtiwari]

I've been trying to work on my film developing and have recently developed several rolls, including some that have been lying around for a few months in a closet.
Here's one that I wasn't too careful with, but am intrigued by this "sprinkled salt" look on this one.
I already know this is done poorly. I'm just trying to find out what this is from, as a way of gaining a better understanding.

Spot (pun intended) Diagnosis, anyone ?


Tri-x, shot at 1000 ISO, developed semi-stand, HC110 1:100 40 minutes at 68F

 

[nikon_sam]

I've never seen that nor have I developed a roll that turned out like this...
The first thing that comes to mind would be humidity...is the whole roll like this including the sprocket holes and space between frames...???
Is this on the emulsion side only or can you see something on the non-emulsion side...

 

[GaryLH]

How hot does it get in that closet of yours?

Gary

 

[Bill Clark]

What was the temp of the other solutions including the water as compared to the developer?

Looks like it could possibly be reticulation.

 

[srtiwari]

I've never seen that nor have I developed a roll that turned out like this...
The first thing that comes to mind would be humidity...is the whole roll like this including the sprocket holes and space between frames...???
Is this on the emulsion side only or can you see something on the non-emulsion side...

Yes the whole film is like that.
Can't see anything unusual on the shiny (base) side.

 

[srtiwari]

What was the temp of the other solutions including the water as compared to the developer?

Looks like it could possibly be reticulation.

The developer was 68F, the tap water closer to 75F, for the presoak and wash.
Doesn't look like what I would think of as reticulation- this is more like sprinkled salt, and less like "cracked" film...

 

[srtiwari]

How hot does it get in that closet of yours?

Gary

80F in the apartment. Wasn't actually in a closet, but rather in a desk drawer.

 

[newsgrunt]

is there a link to a larger file ? want to see the details/ artifacting better.

 

[GaryLH]

I was wondering if it could heat damage. But I have had film sit around for about a month in an area of the house that usually does not get hotter then mid 80s w/out seeing issues like this.

Gary

 

[srtiwari]

is there a link to a larger file ? want to see the details/ artifacting better.

Try this...https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22416612/Graintest (2 of 1).jpg

 

[srtiwari]

I was wondering if it could heat damage. But I have had film sit around for about a month in an area of the house that usually does not get hotter then mid 80s w/out seeing issues like this.

Gary

Never really gets that hot, I don't believe.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Is this a scan? Looks like what I get when i have underexposed film and the scanner tries to make an image. Is the film underexposed, thin?

EDIT: Well, duh.... EI 1000, I see.

35mm film? 1:100 HC-110 is at about the limit of active developer in the water. With 120, I use it all the time but have noticed that increasing development time doesn't make much difference, so I assume that the developer is near exhaustion by the time I am done 10-15 minutes w/agitation).

 

[dogbunny]

It is funny you mention heat

It is funny you mention heat

I was wondering if it could heat damage. But I have had film sit around for about a month in an area of the house that usually does not get hotter then mid 80s w/out seeing issues like this.

Gary

I've gotten a very similar effect because of heat. I moved into a new apartment and had a couple of rolls sitting on a shelf, but the shelf was actually covering up a heating unit. I developed the rolls after they had been sitting there a month or so. They looked very similar to the example above.

db

 

[srtiwari]

Is this a scan? Looks like what I get when i have underexposed film and the scanner tries to make an image. Is the film underexposed, thin?

EDIT: Well, duh.... EI 1000, I see.

35mm film? 1:100 HC-110 is at about the limit of active developer in the water. With 120, I use it all the time but have noticed that increasing development time doesn't make much difference, so I assume that the developer is near exhaustion by the time I am done 10-15 minutes w/agitation).

Well....maybe, not quite so fast, Mr. duh...🙄
I had a Tri-x roll, already exposed at 1000ISO, but had run out of Diafine. So I used the method employed by others- diluting the HC110 B x3, and extending the 13 min. time similarly. They too had used this on Tri-x at 1000 to 1200 ISO.
Their results were nice, and showed LESS grain/noise/whatever than Diafine.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Well....maybe, not quite so fast, Mr. duh...🙄
I had a Tri-x roll, already exposed at 1000ISO, but had run out of Diafine. So I used the method employed by others- diluting the HC110 B x3, and extending the 13 min. time similarly. They too had used this on Tri-x at 1000 to 1200 ISO.
Their results were nice, and showed LESS grain/noise/whatever than Diafine.

Whatever the numbers, it is the density of the negative that counts. All I was wondering is if the negative is pretty thin. And if you scanned it. If yes to both, you might, might! be seeing the result of this.

By the way, going to your linked image, and looking at the same car that you originally posted (left side car), I can see an expanse of gray on the lower panels of the doors that looks just like a scanner trying to deal with a dark area and trying to pull it up. Sort of like the band in the sky you'll get with poor jpg conversions as a section gets turned all one shade, no gradations possible. Hmmm... maybe it IS a jpg artifact!! Oh well, good luck. All in all, I'm reminded of that old joke of the guy going to the doctor and telling him that every time he lifts his arm above his head, it hurts. The doctor says, 'then don't lift your arm above your head.' Looks like whatever you did here, best to not do it again.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Like I said in the other thread I'd need to see the negative to really evaluate.
Here's the best advice I can come up with the info you've supplied.
What it looks like to me is underdevelopment or possibly a thin negative that you've pushed in you scan software, that will give the appearance of more grain.

When you scan try to move the Black point to the first part part of the histogram (on the left) and the white point move to the first point on the right.
Here is a nice safe step by step beginers workflow for Epson scan.

http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/scanning-with-epson-v500.html

So the reason you're seeing noise is that you have an underdeveloped or thin negative that you are pushing in software, resulting in electronic noise.
I know some will disagree that you will get increased noise with under development or a thin neg when scanned but that's what you're seeing here scan noise.

(NB this is just my opinion and in no way is supposed to de a personal attack on the ability of the OP in his workflow)

 

[mfogiel]

This simply looks like a 2-3 stop underexposure, plus too much agitation, plus some dirt.

 

[shadowfox]

Subhash, take a picture of the negative (even with your smartphone, it's better than nothing) and post it here.
It's hard for us to help you if we can't see the negative.