Kodak ektar, strange purple bleeding between frames

[znapper]

Hi

Just shot and developed some Kodak Ektar 100 (shot at 50) in the Tetenal c-41 kit.

Almost all the frames have this effect, see attached image.

It seems like the black portion between the frames has bled into the frames themselves.

Develop issue (blix? wash?), camera issue?
- I did wash the films, changing water 5-6 times, but even the last water-rinse showed some purple-tinge when i poured it out.

The second shot with the two people, shows this weird bleeding below the frame.

Shot with my Leica M6, which shows no particular issues in IE black and white.

[EDIT]
Just started scanning from another roll (see the shot of the church-spire), this roll was shot with a completely different camera (Zorki1), shows the same issues.
So I suppose it may be my developing procedure that is off, most likely my blix-time (chemicals are fresh out of the box).

Going to extend the blix-time to 6 minutes instead of 4 and see if further rolls comes out fine.

[/EDIT]

 

[bobby_novatron]

I think it's definitely due to a variable in your development -- if I remember correctly I had the same problem a couple of times with my C-41 procedure.

In my case I discovered it was a mostly a temperature control problem. The chemicals were too warm, and my timing was a little careless. When I did another batch with careful temperature monitoring + timing, the problem disappeared.

I also don't rinse my C-41 5-6 times as you stated, I don't find that necessary. Is there a reason why you do this? The only pre-rinse I do is a brief soak at the beginning with warm water, this is to get the developing tank up to the correct temperature.

 

[znapper]

Ah... Thanks for replying ^^

Well I did keep the chemicals in a water-bath and measured the temperature of the developer to be 38.3 when I started. I had also pre-heated/pre-soaked my tank with the films in the same bath for 5 minutes, so the film didn't cool the developer too much.

The Blix does have a +-5 degree room, so it should be good as far down as 33, although I think mine may have been around 37 degrees when the blix started.

I rinse once between dev and blix, to avoid filling my Blix with too much developer.

After the Blix, I rinse well (as per instructions), before the final Stab-bath. (which has +- 10 degrees temperature room, if i recall correctly).

- The water did have some tinge after the final rinse here, but I've really haven't had any issues with that before so I thought what the heck. 🙂

No more rinses after Stab.

I am going to take on a 120-film later, going to prolong the Blix phase and rinse until any color-tinge is gone, before stab and see if it get better.

 

[FujiLove]

Try dry warming the tank rather than filling it with water. I.e. just stand it in the water bath for 5 minutes.

Also, try using a 2% acetic acid stop bath between dev and bleach/blix. That will bring the development to a quick stop and improve your timing.

Bleach/fix/blix should be run to completion, so I always extend the stated times. Try adding 25% to start with and see how that goes.

Good luck and let us know how you got on.

 

[brbo]

Are you sure this is not a scanning issue?

Most CCD scanners bleed light into the frame if you scan a negative with clear part of the film exposed. This is then most noticeable in dense (bright when inversed) parts of the picture. If you are scanning with a flatbed, cover the clear part of the negative between two frames with non-transparent material and see if the bleeding disappears.

 

[znapper]

Are you sure this is not a scanning issue?

Most CCD scanners bleed light into the frame if you scan a negative with clear part of the film exposed. This is then most noticeable in dense (bright when inversed) parts of the picture. If you are scanning with a flatbed, cover the clear part of the negative between two frames with non-transparent material and see if the bleeding disappears.

100% certain.
I don't see this on other rolls.
The two rolls tested, were shot with different cameras, then developed in the same tank.

I use a Nikon Coolscan V for my 35mm and other rolls have been just fine, so I really think it's a development issue.

Not long now and I have another roll, shot with my Bessa R3M, going to do the Blix a little longer and see how it looks then 🙂

 

[BLKRCAT]

x2 on scanning issue.

The effect happens around the edges of the film where its black and the bleed is going far off the frame.

On your last sample you can see the top edge of the frame on the film and the effect happening further away from the edge of the frame.

Are you scanning emulsion side up? looks to me like some reflections coming off of the film.

 

[brbo]

100% certain.

Not trying to be stubborn in "defending my theory", but how do you explain the same purple bleed into the area that is clearly masked by film holder (white in the picture)?

On the other hand, the colours are so off in the samples you've shown that it's hard to believe that this film was processed properly and if you've scanned other C-41 film with much much better results then I guess that scanning really isn't an issue.

How does the negative look? If you compare it to other C-41 film that you've had good results with?

 

[znapper]

Not trying to be stubborn in "defending my theory", but how do you explain the same purple bleed into the area that is clearly masked by film holder (white in the picture)?

There is no holder, I scan the film in 5-frame sections, feeding it into the scanner. (The Nikon Coolscan V is not a flatbed). My only explanation, is that this is "residues" of some kind, that should have been bleached out/fixed away, since this is supposed to be a clear portion of the film.

I know it is not a scanner-issue, because I _only_ see the effect on _only_ those two rolls, never seen it anywhere before, no matter the contrast of the films.

The colors are indeed off on these, I never ticked the color-correction checkbox in the nikon-scan software for these, they are only for demonstration of the effect.

Negatives look just fine otherwise, a little thick, but that's because I shoot these rolls of Ektar at 50 🙂

When you check the correct boxes in NikonScan, you actually get shots that look perfectly fine, albeit with the bleeding into the edges from these two rolls. (color-corrected example from one of the affected rolls attached, -with the bleeding cropped out)

Zorki1d_Kodak_Ektar_10004 by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr

We'll see on the next roll 🙂

 

[sevo]

There is no holder, I scan the film in 5-frame sections, feeding it into the scanner. (The Nikon Coolscan V is not a flatbed). My only explanation, is that this is "residues" of some kind, that should have been bleached out/fixed away, since this is supposed to be a clear portion of the film.

I know it is not a scanner-issue, because I _only_ see the effect on _only_ those two rolls, never seen it anywhere before, no matter the contrast of the films.

Well, it is a issue so well known from Nikon scanners that Nikon shipped black masking material with the glass carriers for the Coolscan 9000. On glassless carriers, hard film windows on the carrier are supposed to provide the needed mask, but if you run into a misalignment, you'll get exactly the kind of bleeding you see...

 

[brbo]

I know you won't believe me but there are people scanning their film for 20 years (with better scanners) and one day realizing they are getting funny things in dense parts.

Coolscans are NOTORIOUS for ccd bleed. Ask me how I know. Add a little dust that accumulates on mirror and ccd cover glass with years and you get exactly what you are showing us.

Use a holder (if you have one). It will mask the clear parts of the negative and then see if the bleed is the same. The fact that you get nicely balanced picture from the negative actually pretty much eliminates any major issue in developing.

 

[BLKRCAT]

My only explanation, is that this is "residues" of some kind, that should have been bleached out/fixed away, since this is supposed to be a clear portion of the film.

No I don't think so. If you were having a blix issue then you would be seeing the effect all over the image. Not just around sprocket holes.

When I do leader tests I find that the increased surface area around the sprocket holes means that the image fixes faster around the sprocket holes than the inside of the film.

I scan with a Coolscan 8000 and am aware that the V is fed. I still am certain that this is a scanning issue. The color bleed is happening around the edges of your frame where there is no image.

You should try scanning with the emulsion facing the other direction.

In my experience reflections and abberations can sometimes come on randomly based off of factors like film curl, drying or scanning humidity.

For example, Ive had films get ANR with my glass holder, meanwhile another film processed exactly the same might not get it.

 

[brbo]

Take your film to a minilab for scanning and you'll know where your problem is.

 

[znapper]

Ok, so I did a re-scan of one of the original shots, this time, I scanned the shot on my Epson.

The negative is directly on the glass on the flatbed, nothing above, nothing below.

I've also kept the shot very flat, so the borders are visible.

Serious bleeding all over the place (looks like my Nkon V actually crops the top or bottom pretty hard, seeing no bleeding is visible on the top on the original scan)

What the hell? 😀

Almost looks like a stand-development gone wrong.
I did agitate continually and randomized during development. (twisting the pin, while gently leaning the tank, while twisting that too).

The only equivalent scenario I have, is underfixed black and white shots, which can show similar effects, or developed b&w shots where there was little or very uniform agitation.

'😕😕😕😕

 

[znapper]

The pattern seem different, but the bleeding is still there on all scans, so weird.

Just scanned a Ektar 100 shot, which was processed by the lab and this scan did not show any kind of bleeding, so we can rule out the scanning.
- it is indeed a processing issue, of sorts.

 

[BLKRCAT]

I see now. I took a screencap and set a black and white point. Don't get too hung up on the film base being purple/pinkish

Around the bottom sprocket holes looks like surge marks. I have never used the pin to spin my reels. Always gentle inversions with a twist.

The top is a little more mysterious. Ive seen this before in my own negatives. But am not certain exactly how it happened. It's not a processing error or a scanning error but it is one from the camera. My image, the only time ive seen this, was shot on a crappy cardboard pinhole camera exposing the entire film. I have no idea how it happened but Im certain it was someething with exposure. My film was BW400CN, machine processed.

 

[brbo]

Scan with flatbed shows different bleeding. And now you are ruling out scanning? I don't get the logic behind that.

Did you know that scanner will increase exposure if you scan a really dense negative (or did you lock ccd exposure when scanning two different rols of Ektar?)? And that increased exposure will make ccd bleeding much more visible? Put the film on flatbed's scanning bed, cover the sprocket holes of the film and do another scan. Compare with the scan with sprocket holes exposed. Check if you can lock exposure in your scanning software.

The flatbed scan also indicates that there is a possibility that you had your film on your reel with emulsion side on the outside.

 

[znapper]

Scan with flatbed shows different bleeding. And now you are ruling out scanning? I don't get the logic behind that.

Did you know that scanner will increase exposure if you scan a really dense negative (or did you lock ccd exposure when scanning two different rols of Ektar?)? And that increased exposure will make ccd bleeding much more visible? Put the film on flatbed's scanning bed, cover the sprocket holes of the film and do another scan. Compare with the scan with sprocket holes exposed. Check if you can lock exposure in your scanning software.

The flatbed scan also indicates that there is a possibility that you had your film on your reel with emulsion side on the outside.

The reason why I ruled out the scanner, was that it shows up on two different scanners (Nikon and an Epson), while another frame, from a completely different roll (lab-processed) does not possess any such artifacts.

Although I get your point regarding thin/thick negatives, the negatives aren't _that_ thick, after all, the roll was shot at EI 80, the other roll on EI 50, different cameras and show the same trait -on two different scanners.

What is equal then? The processing. 🙂

Both films were loaded on the reel directly from the canisters -both started in the light actually, as the leader can be inserted a few cm with no issues, since that part is exposed already.

I did a re-blix of the portion of the film we are looking at, to see if that makes any difference. (not sure what effect that has, after the stab - dry - store, but I did it anyway).

Will make another couple of scans when dry, to see how it looks. 🙂

 

[znapper]

I see now. I took a screencap and set a black and white point. Don't get too hung up on the film base being purple/pinkish

Around the bottom sprocket holes looks like surge marks. I have never used the pin to spin my reels. Always gentle inversions with a twist.

The top is a little more mysterious. Ive seen this before in my own negatives. But am not certain exactly how it happened. It's not a processing error or a scanning error but it is one from the camera. My image, the only time ive seen this, was shot on a crappy cardboard pinhole camera exposing the entire film. I have no idea how it happened but Im certain it was someething with exposure. My film was BW400CN, machine processed.

Yep, that looks more or less like my negative too.

I find it very strange that the sprocket-holes should play a role on my negatives, as they were not exposed at all, still they bleed.

Strange thing is that the purple tinge is so well defined though.
I normally twist while inverting the tank too, but after a Blix-burpout a few years back, I didn't take any chances on inverting the tank around. (Blix makes Co2-gas, which cause a pressure-buildup inside the tank, if you, like me, forget to "burp" the tank, it will barf Blix all over you when you least expect it) ^^

 

[brbo]

Although I get your point regarding thin/thick negatives, the negatives aren't _that_ thick, after all, the roll was shot at EI 80, the other roll on EI 50, different cameras and show the same trait -on two different scanners.

What is equal then? The processing. 🙂

The artefacts on the same frame aren't the same on scans with two different scanners. But I get the hint, you've ruled out scanning. I'm moving on... 😀